Universal background checks

[DaleA]

Manta49---"Have what?"
One of the ploys of the anti-gun folk is the 'common sense' idea that gun owners carry liability insurance for their guns, you know, like liability insurance on your car.

SIGSHR points out why not require people who drink or use drugs to carry liability insurance. (And thanks SIGSHR for pointing out the ridiculousness of the idea.)

 

[DaleA]

Some states tried ballistic fingerprinting. This is why new firearms for awhile usually had a fired case in the package. The "technology" never solved a single gun crime, but it cost the states that used it a lot of money.

Thanks for bringing this up.

How many times have we heard incredibly dramatic and emotional anti-gun speakers proclaim "AND THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING TO STOP THIS!!!" (gun violence).

Well a LOT has been done. There's LOTS of gun laws. Disregarding 1934 and 1968 ('cause they were so long ago the anti-folk don't mention them) we've had the assault weapons ban that didn't do much, and the above ballistic fingerprinting which didn't work and the Canadians tried gun registration and gave it up as a bad idea, (I think).

I wonder if there is a list of all the gun regulations that could be displayed to refute the claim that "NOTHING" ever gets done?

 

[manta49]

Manta49---"Have what?"
One of the ploys of the anti-gun folk is the 'common sense' idea that gun owners carry liability insurance for their guns, you know, like liability insurance on your car.

SIGSHR points out why not require people who drink or use drugs to carry liability insurance. (And thanks SIGSHR for pointing out the ridiculousness of the idea.)

They don't even need liability insurance for firearms here i doubt it would be needed in America, its a separate issue from background checks.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I wonder if there is a list of all the gun regulations that could be displayed to refute the claim that "NOTHING" ever gets done?

That would make for a very long list. I don't know where it came from, but the conventional wisdom for a number of years has been that there are over 20,000 firearms laws in the United States (I assume that includes state laws and regulations as well as federal). The truth is, to compile a complete list of them all is impossible. I've been working for weeks just trying to come up with a tabulation of firearms provisions in the zoning laws of every municipality in my state. That's ONLY zoning laws, I'm not even touching on the criminal code.

 

[riffraff]

To the original question - the obvious, what "Universal Background Checks" refer to is ending private sales without background checks.

The reason why it's nonsensical is any private transaction aside from resident of some state to resident of the same state is already illegal without using an FFL. Any problem that is caused by such, ie prohibited people getting guns, is pretty much isolated to the state where it's happening. States can make their own laws, so if they think it's a problem they can require sales always go through an FFL. What we do in NH though is none of their concern or business in CA - like a bumper sticker I read recently "We don't care how you do it in California" ..

Resident from state #1 sells firearm to resident of state #1. Any existing problem stays in the same state...

Resident from state #1 sells firearm to resident of state #2 - already very illegal (for both seller & receiver). Existing laws already require it goes through an FFL.

The same also maintains various state bans - ie gun stays in the same state, no introduction of prohibited firearms that didn't exist there already.

The way private & "internet" sales, and "gun shows" are made out to be by the media and non gun owners is ridiculously misleading. There are some very strong laws in place strictly regulating even private sales.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well just in off the top of my head federal laws and regulations there is 18 USC 921, 18 USC 922 and all title 27 in the CFR. That doesn’t include dozens of other laws and regulations squirreled away in more obscure sections of the CFR or USC.

 

[Lohman446]

The way private & "internet" sales, and "gun shows" are made out to be by the media and non gun owners is ridiculously misleading. There are some very strong laws in place strictly regulating even private sales.

The way internet sale are made out is largely misleading. The issue, at least around here, is gun shows are composed of FFL dealers selling firearms and private individuals selling "private collections." While I have no doubt some of these are in fact private individuals selling private collections some of them look an awfully lot like a gun dealer, have tables set up at nearly every show like a gun dealer, and are, for all intents, a dealer.

I can walk into a gun show this month and buy a gun from an FFL. Same amount of papework as I would have at a normal "brick and mortar" gun store, same background check, and same payment methods.

I can walk into the same gun show, hand over cash, and walk out with a long gun (handgun sales are regulated by the state of MI) with zero background check and not even a positive ID.

I don't think we can discount the concern with the later. We can discuss IF it should be regulated or is protected but we seem to be in denial that it happens. I think it is the "gun show purchase" that is being held up by those favoring regulation as the issue

 

[zukiphile]

I can walk into the same gun show, hand over cash, and walk out with a long gun (handgun sales are regulated by the state of MI) with zero background check and not even a positive ID.

I don't think we can discount the concern with the later. We can discuss IF it should be regulated or is protected but we seem to be in denial that it happens. I think it is the "gun show purchase" that is being held up by those favoring regulation as the issue

I have never read anyone denying that private sales occur at gun shows. They also occur at ranges, gun shops, and garages. The problem in part is that "gun show loophole" is offered as a description of something that exists, so that people who hear it as part of their introduction to the topic imagine that a gun show is the firearm equivalent of a duty free shop in which normal rules don't apply.

"Private sale loophole" isn't a part of the gun control advocate's lexicon because most people with ordinary life experience don't imagine a private sale to be implicitly criminal. They've bought end tables, lawn mowers, and all sorts of other junk privately, and don't think it's odd when the state isn't a party to those transactions.

 

[Lohman446]

I don't think it does us any favors to deny that there is some "gun show loophole"

Imagine, for instance, I want to buy a particular rifle for illegitimate purposes and I am a prohibited individual. I can drive around from yard-sale to yard-sale over time. I can look through sales ads leaving some form of digital footprint. Or I can go to a gun show with cash and, presenting no identification and no other communication with some private seller, walk out with what I want.

Now as you note we can discuss if private sales in any way should be regulated. Is the local flea market for instance? It does us no favor to repeatedly deny that there is something "different" about gun shows especially when those who propose there is can readily demonstrate it.

FYI: If I was a legitimate dealer at a gun show I would be annoyed to be competing with unlicensed (and likely uninsured) "private collectors" that are operating on the same business model I was

 

[turkeestalker]

I have been asked by more than just a few individuals, “You mean that you can’t just buy anything you want at a gun show no questions asked?”.
Or something similarly worded.
THAT is the impression intended to be given by the people using the term ‘gun show loophole’ and it’s wholly dishonest.
Truth be told the percentage of private individuals setiting up tables at a gun show is small, but there is a percentage out there.
Just a very small percentage of little consequence in the bigger scheme of things.
I have purchased from them in the past and from individuals just wandering through the show with something on their shoulder.
Though I don’t think it’s wise not to verify information on the seller and myself the purchaser for their own benefit, by seeing a drivers license and recording it in written form, and then keeping it for your records.
Though in no way does my state require the purchaser or the seller to do that.

 

[Lohman446]

I have been asked by more than just a few individuals, “You mean that you can’t just buy anything you want at a gun show no questions asked?”

But the honest answer is not "no." At best its "kind of." I can walk into most gun shows in a major city in MI, find a "private collector" or two, and buy most any long gun I want. The dealers will turn me away if I insist on the "cash transaction no questions asked" but absent being obviously of ill-intent the "private collectors" will not.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I can walk into most gun shows in a major city in MI, find a "private collector" or two, and buy most any long gun I want.

Good deal for you. Around here, that would be “most any long gun you want that was sold in Sears or some now long forgotten department store between 1930 and 1965, maybe an old Arisaka or frankenAR of dubious origin if you are lucky.”

 

[zukiphile]

I don't think it does us any favors to deny that there is some "gun show loophole"

Denying falsehoods does a favor to people who might be enticed to believe them.

There is no firearms sales loophole for gun shows. Not one.

Imagine, for instance, I want to buy a particular rifle for illegitimate purposes and I am a prohibited individual. I can drive around from yard-sale to yard-sale over time. I can look through sales ads leaving some form of digital footprint. Or I can go to a gun show with cash and, presenting no identification and no other communication with some private seller, walk out with what I want.

The purpose for which you want a rifle isn't pertinent to your story. I can also buy a rifle for cash without ID for legitimate purposes. I've done it. It isn't sinister.

Now as you note we can discuss if private sales in any way should be regulated. Is the local flea market for instance? It does us no favor to repeatedly deny that there is something "different" about gun shows especially when those who propose there is can readily demonstrate it.

Private sales are already regulated. Knowingly dealing in stolen items and selling to a prohibited person is already a crime.

The issue raised by UBCs isn't whether the private transaction is regulated; it's whether the state is directly involved is every single transfer, everywhere, every time. It effectively turns all of us into federal licensees and ends private sales.

FYI: If I was a legitimate dealer at a gun show I would be annoyed to be competing with unlicensed (and likely uninsured) "private collectors" that are operating on the same business model I was

Insurance isn't a pre-requisite to operating as an FFL and private parties are entitled to carry insurance. Insurance isn't a measure of legitimacy.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I can walk into the same gun show, hand over cash, and walk out with a long gun (handgun sales are regulated by the state of MI) with zero background check and not even a positive ID.

I don't think we can discount the concern with the later. We can discuss IF it should be regulated or is protected but we seem to be in denial that it happens. I think it is the "gun show purchase" that is being held up by those favoring regulation as the issue

I don't think anyone is in denial that it happens. The question is, as you have postulated, whether or not such sales should be regulated and subject to background checks. I understand the arguments in favor of "closing the loophole," I don't think it should be changed for the simple reason that it won't accomplish much.

First, despite isolated incidents of mass shootings, they don't happen every day, or even every week. On the other hand, crooks commit robberies with guns multiple times every day, somewhere in the country. In general, those crooks don't buy their guns at gun shops or at gun shows. They buy them from other crooks on street corners in the ghetto, late at night. And they're not going to call in for a background check, so what's the point of further burdening law-abiding people?

Then -- look at recent "mass shooting" incidents? The guns were all sold with successful background checks. Cruz passed a background check. The Sutherland Springs church shooter passed a background check. (I know -- don't start.) The Las Vegas shooter passed multiple background checks. The Pulse Club shooter passed background checks. The San Bernardino shooter passed background checks. The guns used at Sandy Hook were bought legally, subject to background checks -- but the shooter murdered his own mother to take them.

In short -- looking at all the infamous mass shootings for the last however many years -- how many of them could/would have been prevented by a law requiring background checks for private sales?

 

[stonewall50]

Why not?

Several reasons. But I can go down a list of issues.

1) Not enforceable.
2) If private sales are legal...then how does a private individual run one?
3) What proof do you have if so?
4) How much will it cost/will the government increase the price to “keep up with demand” so that they price private sale out of existence?
5) Can you run one and get someone’s criminal record without their knowledge?
6) Fails to address the actual issues that we have. Straw purchasers don’t purchasers don’t care about background checks. The same way of looping the system will be in place regardless of what happens.

It is a fundamental waste of time meant to put more restrictions on sales, rather than on put pressure on the failures of governments to handle out of control crime rates in the 5% of counties that make up the overwhelming majority of murder in the country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lohman446]

Aguila has hit on my point.

When pressed to close the "gun hole loophole" we should discuss if requiring background checks would actually matter. As is pointed out in recent mass shootings it would not have. We could also discuss if the transfer of private property between private individuals should be subject to such regulation especially when said property is specifically discussed in the Constitution.

Personally I think the later is ultimately a failed argument. I'm sure that is not the popular opinion. The former is a solid argument.

 

[stonewall50]

First, because they most certainly lead to registration, either of guns or of gun owners. You decide which is worse.



Second, because they're unenforceable against prohibited persons under either Haynes v. U.S. (SCOTUS, 1968), the A5 or the A8, depending on circumstances. Unless and until we can enforce them, at the very least, against those already convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in jail, there is no good reason to place additional restrictions on lawful gun owners.



Third, given the evidence of horrible reporting problems that we've seen in the current system, the problem isn't that there aren't enough background checks. It's that gov't agencies are ignoring the flags that are being waved.



Fourth, not one more inch. We've given enough. The antigunners have been openly telling us for decades that they want to take all of our guns. Their claims that "nobody wants to take your guns" ring hollow in light of what I'm seeing on the national landscape. Their use of the word "compromise" is wholly inappropriate. If I let you keep half of your cash so that I don't beat the snot out of you and take all of it, it's not a compromise. That's how a protection racket works.

I wonder if Democrats learned the strategy from their union days?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ATN082268]

I don't think anyone is in denial that it happens. The question is, as you have postulated, whether or not such sales should be regulated and subject to background checks. I understand the arguments in favor of "closing the loophole," I don't think it should be changed for the simple reason that it won't accomplish much.

First, despite isolated incidents of mass shootings, they don't happen every day, or even every week. On the other hand, crooks commit robberies with guns multiple times every day, somewhere in the country. In general, those crooks don't buy their guns at gun shops or at gun shows. They buy them from other crooks on street corners in the ghetto, late at night. And they're not going to call in for a background check, so what's the point of further burdening law-abiding people?

Then -- look at recent "mass shooting" incidents? The guns were all sold with successful background checks. Cruz passed a background check. The Sutherland Springs church shooter passed a background check. (I know -- don't start.) The Las Vegas shooter passed multiple background checks. The Pulse Club shooter passed background checks. The San Bernardino shooter passed background checks. The guns used at Sandy Hook were bought legally, subject to background checks -- but the shooter murdered his own mother to take them.

In short -- looking at all the infamous mass shootings for the last however many years -- how many of them could/would have been prevented by a law requiring background checks for private sales?

Good point. Regardless of the laws on the books, there will always be a certain level of crime. The background checks are just one aspect of gun control to make private gun ownership more difficult. Even if draconian gun control measures were inflicted on U.S. citizens where private ownership of guns was prohibited, generally criminals would still keep their guns and the law abiding would be disarmed. Undoubtedly, cutting out private ownership of guns would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns but they still would (like anything else that is illegal) and I don't think completely obliterating parts of the U.S. Constitution is the right answer to any problem.

 

[Al Norris]

I don't think it does us any favors to deny that there is some "gun show loophole"

Actually, it does harm us when we accept that the anti-gunners are setting the language of the debate: There is no "Loophole". There are laws that make certain acts or things restricted (unlawful). That's what criminal law does - it restrict acts or things that would otherwise be lawful. Any act or thing not restricted is not a "Loophole", it is merely lawful.

If, in conversation, you can get your opponenant to admit the above, then we can move on to admit that there are some people that seem to be at every (or most) gunshows that setup a table to sell their "collection".

This is the point where the BATF&E falls down on, as I'm sure that these people are reported by some or even many of the licensed dealers (FFL's) that are at that show. Do all FFL's report such people? Don't know. What I do know is that when a report is made, the BATF&E, in most cases, does nothing.

Enforce the existing law, and this abuse of private sales goes away. Problem solved.

However, as long as we buy into this "Loophole" terminology, the debate is already lost.

 

[44 AMP]

FYI: If I was a legitimate dealer at a gun show I would be annoyed to be competing with unlicensed (and likely uninsured) "private collectors" that are operating on the same business model I was

IF they are "operating on a business model" without an FFL, they are breaking the law, already.

DO make the distinction between enthusiasts who set up a table at a show, (and may do it on a regular basis) to sell or trade items from their collections (which is entirely legal) with the guy who sells his "private collection" of 15 Lorcin .380s, and the next show has another private collection of 15 different Lorcin .380s...

One is ethical and obeying the laws, the other isn't.

There is no gunshow loophole. ALL gun laws apply at guns shows exactly the same way they apply at every other location in the state. Period. The only thing about a gun show is that you have a concentration of like minded people together in the same place at the same time.