By William Joyner
Former Monsanto shill and current AstroTurf organizer Shannon Watts is at it again. This time in a CNN op-ed bemoaning the ability of recent terrorist shooters to pass background checks. How does semantics come in to play? It’s all in what’s NOT said . . .
Watts has stated,
We’re still learning the facts about what happened in Chattanooga, however, recent media reports indicate the gunman took advantage of the online gun sale loophole and purchased at least one of his firearms where he knew he could buy a gun with no background check, no questions asked.
Left out of this statement: the fact that he also purchased some of his weapons after passing a background check.
Regarding the Charleston shooter,
And a month has passed since the Charleston shooting, and we’re learning a lot about the white supremacist who violently disrupted the sanctity of a Bible study and about how he got his gun. We now know the accused killer bought his gun from a federally licensed dealer with an incomplete background check.
Left out of this one: the fact that, due to a paperwork error on the part of the local law enforcement, the Charleston shooter would never have popped up on his background check. The only reason we now know about him was that the FBI and local law enforcement tracked down the error.
Regarding background checks themselves, Ms. Watts has said,
The bottom line is that — thanks to the gun lobby — the FBI only gets three days to complete this potentially life-saving process before a gun dealer has the authority — but not an obligation — to complete the sale. This arbitrary three-day rule, which the gun lobby fought for, has allowed more than 15,000 guns to be sold to dangerous people between 2010 and 2014 alone, according to Everytown for Gun Safety.
Can you imagine this kind of policy in any other industry? A loan officer would never go ahead and give out money to a bank customer after three days because a credit check was incomplete. A doctor wouldn’t tell someone she’s cancer-free because her lab results weren’t available after three days. And, as a parent, would you want your child’s day care worker to be cleared for duty with an incomplete background check?
Let’s break some of this down, shall we?
…the FBI only gets three days to complete this potentially life-saving process before a gun dealer has the authority — but not an obligation — to complete the sale
Well Ms. Watts, a different, possibly more-accurate way to put this is that the FBI has three entire days to complete this process before a citizen’s Second Amendments rights can no longer be delayed. As to the gun dealer, they have no obligation to complete the sale, but also no obligation to hold it up and lose a customer if the nation’s number one law enforcement entity can’t dig up enough dirt on a customer to say no.
Can you imagine this kind of policy in any other industry?…
No. I can’t. I can’t imagine waiting three days for my loan officer to approve my loan. If I’ve fulfilled all of my obligations to provided data to the bank and thhey can’t make a decision, I’m going to a different bank.
Perhaps, Ms. Watts, you’re confusing America with other countries. Here, we have due process and the presumption of innocence. That’s why we have the three day limit. It prevents an individual in the federal government from behaving like New Jersey and indefinitely delaying my rights because they don’t feel that Americans should be self-reliant.
The Moms are now demanding action from Cabela’s and other hunting and sporting good stores. They demand that Cabela’s submit to their will and halt or hold up gun sales on the presumption of guilt. Where they failed to force Kroger to submit, they will now turn the ire of over 10 moms to harassing a sporting goods store into obeying the demands of people who don’t shop there.
It is up to everyone — from political leaders, to gun retailers, to average citizens — to demand we close every single loophole that prevents law-abiding citizens from getting their hands on the most-effective means of self-defense. It’s common sense, it’s good sense, and it will save innocent lives.
So basically the anti gunners want to let the FBI take their sweet time as a form of gun control. We have seen how terrible the ATF can be when completing NFA requests because they have no set in stone timeline. Sometimes it is 90 days, sometimes it is over a year. Background checks, I imagine, would be the same.
The abuse potential of an arbitrary delay is the exact reason why the 3-day provision is part of the law. I’m certain she realizes this.
As it is, a few counties in NC take it upon themselves to delay processing purchase permits and CCW permit applications in an effort to circumvent the statutory time limits.
The VA was bust, though not publicized, for deliberately delaying renewal of veteran CCW application via the required mental health check. They got caught requesting BS forms that were not required by any law, and referring CLEO’s to offices that had nothing to do with the process. Senator Burr help put an end to that. Over 150 NC vets had their renewals delayed because of this.
Just what would a libtard bureaucrat controlled ATF/FBI do if they had unlimited time? They’d never let anyone pass the check. Of course, politicians and contributors would be exempt.
They would immediately create a special department for background checks, and then cut all funding for that department. Since it’s not an essential part of the operating budget, they’ll assign interns to process applications and the error levels will increase. This will lead to lengthy review processes and ultimately to multi-year waits.
They conveniently leave out the fact that the Charleston shooter waited 6 days to pick up his firearm, and then 62 more before his attack.
How does this:
…square with this:
Does Shannon have any clue what she’s even talking about? Or does she just play talking-point Bingo with anti-gun buzzwords?
If you repeat a lie enough, people start believing it, or they don’t. Before the internet it was a lot easier for these people to lie on national TV without fact checking. Now all the information is freely available here on the internet.
I loved this line:
“A loan officer would never go ahead and give out money to a bank customer after three days because a credit check was incomplete.”
Shannon, honey?
The Clinton administration did just that when they decided mortgages were unfairly denied to unqualified applicants.
Leading to the Great Sub-Prime meltdown…
How the hell does this writer know how banks make credit decisions?
In a prior incarnation I was a corporate treasurer. I wasn’t paying attention to an upcoming payment and found my treasury short a couple of million dollars. My own officer was out; so I called his boss. He graciously told be to come-on over to the bank and he would give me the certified-check I needed. In a few minutes I was walking away with a certified check signed by the bank’s Cashier.
Something dawned on me; I turned around and asked: “John, do you want me to sign a note or something?” He responded: “Naw, I don’t want to bother with the paperwork.”
Credit check? Credit check?? We don’t need no stinking credit check; nor any collateral; nor any signed note. Just because you DON’T understand how something works doesn’t make you qualified to expound on how it works.
Give Shannon Twatts $1000 and some online broker sites and let her TRY to “order a gun with no background checks”. Will NOT happen because she KNOWS the sale is regulated at both ends. What they mean but won’t delineate is the ILLEGAL Craig’s List sales.
Ray
3 days? Who has to wait 3 days? Hell, I got pissed last time I had to wait almost an hour. (It was a gun show that day, so I guess NICS was busy). I guess that’s a TN law or something?
If you put a name like “John W. Gacie” on your 4473, without an SSN, there’s a good chance they’d delay your background check while they investigate deeper, due to the similarity to “John Wayne Gacy”.
You have to admire that ineffectual hack’s persistence.
She’s very well compensated. Cranking out this kind of tripe is easy for her.
Has she taken even $0.01 in foreign money to help to overthrow [this portion of] our Constitution? There’s a name for that.
DID THE SHOOTER USE A FULL-AUTO WEAPON?
Legal purchase?
Tax Stamp paid?
no problem, just knock 10% off the purchase price for each day delayed by the Fed process. I’ll wait.
How about 10% the fist day, 20% the second day, 30% the third day, etc.
that won’t exactly speed the process along unless the government was required to pay for it. you are just going to have FFL’s dropping like fly’s due to someone else’s delays
Pretty sure he was suggesting that the Fed gov pay that discount …. although I would suggest that if Shannon REALLY CARED FOR THE CHILDREN that her group would pay for the extra delays.
Did she have to wait three days to make that statement while a background check was run against her First Amendment right?
“This arbitrary three-day rule, which the gun lobby fought for, has allowed more than 15,000 guns to be sold to dangerous people between 2010 and 2014 alone, according to Everytown for Gun Safety”
I like that she is still trying to pretend that Everytown is a credible source for statistics. Anyone know where this figure was pulled from? I want to see how badly Everytown botched the stats for this.
One way to botch that stat is to be free in the definition of “dangerous people.”
The whole claim is too vague to have been based on anything remotely called real data.
Weasel words, broad strokes, vague baseless claims fool some of the people some of the time. That’s all she needs to call her “job” a “success.”
since 15,000 delays happened that had guns sold after 3 days, then in her mind that’s 15,000 guns in dangerous peoples hands. if 15,000 of those delays where to law abiding people it doesn’t matter.
the same place they pull all their stats from: Their a$$.
Sadly, though, anyone who actually listens to these hacks also believes mother jones, thinkprogress, and politico are credible news sources.
I also have to wonder if Twatts’ butt is jealous of all the crap that comes out of her mouth.
My answer is support your local FFL. They deserve your business more that the big chains anyway. “Buy local”
“online gun sale loophole”
What, what? Every gun I’ve ever bought online – which would be most of them in my collection – had to be shipped to an FFL and I had to get a NICS check approval before taking delivery.
The time I bought a “firearm” (aka lower receiver) at a gun show, I *also* had to pass a NICS check.
What am I missing here…?
Don’t you just love the linguistic gymnastics the anti-gun moonbats use? It was reported the Chattanooga shooter bought one of his guns through a private seller on Craigs List. He actually drove to the guys house to buy it after seeing it advertised online. Sheman Twats claims this constitutes and online sale. Apparently, she’s too dumb to know the difference, but she isn’t. We all know this is a calculated lie.
You are missing the fact that the ignorant followers actually believe this stuff.
I can place an order on Bud’s Guns right now with no background check. According to the “I buy my groceries from Amazon.com” crowd, that means that the gun comes to my door, delivered by a drone, or possibly in the near future, an unmanned aerial vehicle.
In the REAL WORLD (not the show), the gun MUST be shipped to a licensed FFL and then THEY process the background check and additional needed state paperwork. I know this, you know this, and Shannon probably knows this. However, John Q Progressive believes that guns fall from the sky like organic free-range grain-fed Arugula does from OrganicIdiots.com. She and her ilk are feeding their continued ignorance.
That’s what you are missing.
Let’s not forget that this time limit of “only” 3 days was established over 20 years ago, in the era of 50 MHz processors, 100 MB hard drives, and 56Kbps dial-up internet.
Don’t forget VCR’s
I suspect that the 3 days has little to do with the limits of technology and more to do with the manual processes involved. E.g., when you have an arrest but don’t have a disposition then the FBI needs to call some courthouse somewhere in the US and ask a municipal clerk to look-up the case. That just isn’t going to happen in machine-time. It’s going to happen in bureaucracy time (or not at all).
These kinds of processes might have – net – speeded-up, slowed-down; or, remained the same. We really need more information on the kinds of problems that need to be researched, how long it takes to get a finding on each kind of problem, and then see what – if anything – can be improved.
All in all, I suspect that there isn’t much we could do to improve things with respect to the 3-day wait. We probably can’t reduce it to 2 days. We probably won’t find enough justification to extend it to 4 days. We should, instead, look to improve NICS in whatever way would seem to make it better.
Our attention ought to be concentrated on National Reciprocity and breaking down the Won’t-Issue laws of the last 5 – 10 jurisdictions. E.g., cases such as Carol Browne in NJ will be far more sympathetic and capture the nation’s attention. Why should she – with an order of protection – have to wait 44 days and still not get a pistol purchase permit? Why should she be denied a carry permit? She died because NJ designs the RKBA. The margin between self-defense and death wasn’t 3 days; it was 44 days.
…and before the day that the NSA had info on every call you ever made or received.
Shannon’s Sugar Daddy uses his media connections and pays good money for press coverage of the Hysterical Mother’s public drivel. He wants results, a return on investment. The attack on Cabelas by the Mother of Hysteria and her cat loving minion is a measure of her desperation.
We ought to be taking the lead in this issue. We ought to DEMAND that Congress require a GAO audit of the “WAIT” NICS responses.
– What is the pattern of outcomes of the investigation process? If almost all the WAITs are false-positives then we know that the FBI’s underlying databases are flawed. I.e., for reasons that ought to be identified, the data is mistaken or incomplete and the data gathering process needs improvements.
– What is the pattern of times within which results are obtained? Clearly, if just a few more hours would produce most of the needed results it might be worth-while to extend the waiting period from 3 to 4 days; for example. Conversely, if just a few more months would produce a significant increase in the available information than it makes no sense to extend the waiting period. The data-gathering process must be fixed.
– What is the pattern of kinds-of-prohibited incidents? We know that the ATF bothers to pursue the gun buyer in only a small number of the most serious cases. One illustrative example is that the buyer had been convicted of stealing a pig in the 1940s. How well does this existing system work? If the ATF really does track-down buyers with serious violent crimes, maybe it works pretty well. If it’s nearly unheard-of that someone the ATF doesn’t bother tracking down gets arrested for a gun-crime soon after he timed-out of the 3 day period, maybe the system works pretty well. It is ONLY if buyers who time-out frequently FREQUENTLY get into gun-crime trouble soon after they complete their purchase should we consider doing anything about altering the current 3-day WAIT period.
It seems as though the PotG and the Antis are in substantial agreement: There ARE serious issues with the NICS system. We need not agree about which issues trouble the two camps. We need not agree on proposed solutions. What we SHOULD agree upon is that the precise details of the failures in NICS deserve to be better understood. Only after a neutral investigator – such as GAO – completes a serious and objective study of the systems failures (and successes) can we begin the process of evaluating the efficacy of reform proposals.
Who knows? The public might learn something that will influence their advice to their Congress-critters. Maybe we ought to extend/foreshorten the WAIT period. Maybe we ought to send the ATF to pursue more/fewer prohibited buyers. Maybe we ought to institute some different procedures for NICS inquiries about to time-out.
E.g., suppose NICS were able to send a qualified response to the FFL. I.e., you MAY proceed with the sale; however, you MUST notify the customer that there is some UN-resolved “cloud” over his eligibility. The customer may elect to continue to wait or to proceed at his own discretion. In either case, he is ADVISED to contact the ATF with reference to NICS Check # 1234567 to participate in clearing-up the issue.
In some such cases, the buyer may be of great aid in clearing the issue. In others, the buyer may be unaware of the cloud over his background and would prefer not to exacerbate his legal problems by proceeding. Obviously, there will be some common-sense solutions to NICS problems; but these won’t be apparent unless and until we air NICS dirty laundry in a constructive approach.
(My intuition is that the findings of the GAO will suggest solutions OTHER than extending the WAIT period.)
Here’s my reform proposal: do away with NICS, and FFL BGCs altogether. They serve no purpose.
Chip, that’s fine. Now that you have decided the correct end result, then we can all just hold our breath until we turn Blue or Congress acts. Is that the way it needs to work?
Or, do we make rational arguments to our Congress-critters as to “common sense” steps they ought to take to inform the public and themselves as to what might be a correct course of action?
What I’m arguing for here is that we make the Moms eat their own dog-food here. If the Moms want a discussion it ought to be based on illuminating information. Once an independent objective investigator gathers pertinent information it will show – we both suspect – that what the Moms are proposing makes little sense. Other courses of action will make more sense.
Perhaps the information published from such an audit would be sufficient to support a Congressional movement toward eliminating the NICS BC system. I doubt it. I’m pretty confident that the information would undermine confidence in the NICS system and lead to reforms that would improve the situation.
If we aren’t making arguments that NICS (or some other gun-control law) must be investigated then we are NOT making the case that NICS should be eliminated. We have to smarten-up on our politics here.
The effectiveness of NICS/BGCs has been investigated. They have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. They do not change the behavior of “prohibited persons”. They do not keep firearms out of the hands of “prohibited persons”. And they do not lead to the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of “prohibited persons” attempting to purchase firearms.
Yup. The whole NICS check for buying guns is a waste of effort if the objective is to keep guns out of the hands of prohibited person.
The best value of this system that I can identify is that it allows FFLs and their salesmen “feel good” that they have “done something” to avoid selling a gun to a prohibited person.
Suppose some 21-year-old minority working-guy comes into your store. Could be that he’s a hard working young guy who needs to protect himself in the dangerous neighborhood in which he lives. The sales guy doesn’t feel altogether good about this prospective customer; but, yet, on the other hand, there is nothing that is clearly a red flag. Yes, he has a few tattoos, but not enough to look like an MS-13 guy. No, he’s not a Fudd; nor a guy who lives on the right side of the tracks.
What would we have this sales guy do? Should he refuse to sell this guy a gun? Or, should he go ahead? If the guy comes clean on the NICS check (I think) this sales guy can sleep with a clear conscious. He has done what he could using the tools his society has made available to him.
What does NICS really cost the taxpayers? That’s a complicated question to answer. You have to have a clear idea of what costs to count. The cost of complying the various FBI databases is the lion’s share. The cost of processing a query is probably pretty cheap. I don’t think it’s correct to count the costs of building the databases that would be built for processing LEO inquiries via NCIC. Those costs would be incurred eve if NICS were eliminated.
Maybe the NCIC queries don’t call for maintaining some of the mental illness database records; e.g., those from the VA. The problem there is – arguably – with the prohibiting criteria. If summary prohibition because a vet has a fiduciary is a cost not attributable to NCIC then the problem is with the interpretation of the mental illness prohibiting criteria; it’s not really with the NICS BC system.
At this juncture in the great debate on the 2A I think that the NICS system largely makes a net positive contribution to our position in the debate. It gives the general public a sense of security. It’s a false sense of security – to be sure – but whatever gives them a sense of comfort is better for us. I would NOT argue to the public that the NICS check is effective; I’d argue the opposite. Yet, if the public feels a little less bad about guns in the hands of the public who have had a BC I’m not going to spend any effort trying to make them feel differently.
Our message should be that there is absolutely nothing that can be done via BCs or CWPs or training or fingerprints or rabbits’ feet that will have any worthwhile impact on criminals or crazies getting guns. Smuggling, clandestine manufacture, theft, straw-buying, and things we haven’t imagined will provide all the guns they need to commit their crimes. If we have $1 million, $10 million, $100 million or $1 billion to spend on reducing criminal use of guns we ought to be spending that money on something that is much more likely to have a significant positive effect. NICS has no promise of a benefit exceeding its cost no matter how modest it might be calculated to be.
I suspect that a really big leak in the NICS system is represented by straw-buying. What could be done about this problem? The answer is – I suspect – pretty clear. Aggressively investigate, prosecute, convict and imprison the straw-buyers. Who are these straw-buyers? I suspect the answer is: young minority mothers of young children. Great! All you (Progressives) have to do to put a stop to straw-buying is put non-violent young minority mothers in prison for 5 years each. When America is ready to do this then I’ll take NICS a little more seriously. Don’t expect me to hold my breath.
My problem with this is: why should hundreds of millions of law-abiding people be subjected to a system that delays their lawful purchase/possession of a lawful item and creates a de facto registration of an item used to exercise a right that is constitutionally protected against government infringement, just so someone (the State, FFLs, antis) get a warm fuzzy?
FFLs are no more responsible for what a customer does with the firearm sold to that customer than is a bartender (or car salesman) responsible for the actions of a drunk driver, or than is a hardware store owner responsible for what a customer does with a hammer or blowtorch, or than is a drug store owner responsible for what a customer does with OTC (or prescription) drugs.
Absolutely, this. The only real solution is a) define “prohibited person” properly, and b) keep such “prohibited persons” off the street.
“The only real solution is a) define “prohibited person” properly, and b) keep such “prohibited persons” off the street.”
I follow your reasoning; and, philosophically, it has a lot of appeal.
Yet, we criticize pointy-headed intellectuals who philosiphize from their ivory towers. Why should we do the same?
We live in a real world populated by real people most of whom are pretty damned irrational. Unless we are each prepared to move to a mountain top and live as hermits, we have to deal with our reality – and that reality is infused with political considerations.
The US has – already – the highest rate of incarceration of any industrialized country. I’d like to push it farther; even, a lot farther. And yet, I’m realistic enough to recognize that the majority of Americans won’t push it much farther. There is the cost in increased taxes (a bargain in my opinion) and the sense of injustice that those incarcerated are significantly out-of-line with the nation’s racial demographics. The most we can hope for is that we incarcerate incrementally a larger fraction of dangerous criminals each year – or each decade.
Similar arguments could be made for the dangerously mentally ill. Americans have almost no political appetite to lock-up the mentally ill even if voters could be convinced that those locked-up would be safer, more comfortable and in better health.
Still, just as a thought experiment, let’s pretend that we could accomplish this. Suppose we actually succeeded in locking up 99% of the violent criminals and 99% of the dangerously mentally ill. At an even greater flight of fancy, suppose we could even get really good at monitoring escalating signs of violent behavior such that we would incarcerate strong-armed robbers and abusive husbands before they killed or maimed their victims. Whereupon, violent crime would drop to such low levels that it would be difficult to find comparable societies at any time in history anywhere in the world.
What then? The gun-grabbers would claim that the problem of self-defense had been solved. There was no remaining justification for maintaining a heavily armed society. We might very well set-ourselves-up for the conditions that permitted gun confiscations elsewhere (e.g., in Germany). Just about the time when we need a militia to maintain order against a break-out of Jihadi terrorism.
It’s all a fantasy anyway. America is in no political position to lock-up the overwhelming majority of truly dangerous persons.
We are much better off calling out the facts of our reality to our friends and neighbors. Progressive-ism has made for us the society in which we find ourselves living. Violent fatherless children. Violent mentally ill persons. Violent Jihadis. Violent illegal immigrants. We PotG recognize that we are living in a real world full of risks; including the risks exacerbated by Progressive policies. Can you to – my friend and neighbor – count the bodies? What is the best that you think that we should do?
Shouldn’t we all seriously consider preparing all men and women of good will to resist the forces of evil whenever they may suddenly manifest themselves? Can you see that your neighbors are mostly non-violent people; and that those of them who are armed do no unprovoked violence? Are you open to reading the accounts of ordinary citizens – much like yourselves – protecting them selves, their families and others when violence does erupt?
Sorting-out those who will use their guns safely and for the protection of innocents from others who would do otherwise is a difficult problem. Historically, gun control has been conducted along racial and class divides. If you were Indian or Black or Mexican or a commoner they you would be dis-armed; white or noblemen were free to be armed. Is this the sort of justice we want for society today?
Over the centuries of American society we have come to believe that we should be judged by our behavior. Violent people may be bared from the use of arms; non-violent people should not be bared. Until the development of technology, it had been entirely impractical to distribute a rap-sheet of bad behavior throughout our nation. It has only been since the 1990s that enough technology has become available to do so.
Imperfect as the FBI’s databases are, they do serve law enforcement officers to arrest fugitives and felons-in-posession. It’s hard to imagine that we would abandon these LE databases such as they are. For the same reasons, the FBI’s databases are imperfect in screening applicants for FOIDs, Carry permits, and buyers of guns in licensed gun shops.
The question facing our society is what to do about these imperfections. We have a number of choices:
– induce radical changes to society to make it less violent (e.g., reduce unwed motherhood)?
– lock-up violent people for life?
– resume using race, religion, class membership as the discriminating criteria for gun ownership and possession?
– strive to improve the FBI’s databases?
– perhaps others?
What, friends and neighbors, would you prefer?
Have no delusions. The NICS system does virtually nothing to limit criminals and crazies from access to guns. Little harm would come from eliminating NICS; yet, all the problems in the FBI’s databases would remain to frustrate enforcement of the felon-in-posession laws.
If you take some comfort that money spent on the NICS BC in FFLs, I’ll not insist that you are deluded. You may take some comfort in constructing monuments to war dead, protection of endangered species, the promotion of the arts or exploration of space. As a democracy (or, rather, a republic) we will always disagree on such things.
Where we ought to agree is that each non-violent citizen has a right to self-defense; and the means to an effective self-defense. Whenever futile measures to try to limit criminal and crazies access to guns demonstrably threaten the lives and limbs of peaceable citizens – such as victims like Carol Browne – then such measures violate morality and the guarantees of the 2A.
Such an argument as this seems – to me – to be much more likely to win the battle for gun rights than appeal to theoretical principles that are not politically viable in the nation we live in today.
Be very careful what you ask for from the GOA. Another big media myth is that GAO is some “nonpartisan” fed gov’t activity. The is no such critter. One more federal bureaucracy full of the same mentality as every other.
Your counterpoint is well taken.
My expectation is that our demands will fall on deaf ears. And, that’s OK. We need to be on-record as being proactive in the debate, demanding Congress to take obviously reasonable steps. Either the gun-grabbers will 2’nd our motion; or, they will remain silent. Then, we respond.
See, Congress, the Anti’s and the gun-rights communities are calling for the same course of action: investigate and publish findings.
Or, See, MSM, the Antis are insincere. They jump to a conclusion whereas we PotG are calling for commonsense courses of action: investigate and publish findings.
If Congress sits on its hands that might be the BEST outcome we could achieve. The worst outcome is for Congress to summarily pass legislation defining “common sense” as doing whatever the Moms Demand.
Why would we prefer to remain silent in such a debate? That’s just nuts.
Could the GAO or any other presumably independent government agency cook the books on the study? Well, yes, of course they could. And yet, this is hard to do.
The outcome depends a lot on the degree of independence and transparency of the agency doing the investigating and reporting. Obviously, the NSA or CIA can say anything about an internal investigation. They couldn’t be disproven for 100 years.
The GAO is responsive to Congress where both chambers are now in Republican hands. If the investigation is handled by the right committee(s) vs. the wrong committee(s) it would produce less or more distorted information. The employees working on the investigation need to be conscious of personal risk to their own careers. Are they willing to take a risk to appease a political appointee of the current occupant of the White House? How much benefit would they glean from that risk in the next 18 months? What’s the downside to getting caught in a following administration?
No matter how tight you think your conspiracy might be, there is some risk of a leak eventually. F&F was leaked; the IRS scandal on the Tea Party applications was leaked.
The up-side in demanding an investigation and results published is far greater than the down-side.
Yield nothing, not a single step in retreat.
How about I just tell Shannon to KMA and FOAD.
I have been wondering where my Internet obsession, I mean my soul mate, has been hiding. 🙂 I missed you, Boo.
All of the handguns I have bought, save 1, whether online or in person, have been thru an FFL with a background check. I bought one gun in a Chuck E. Cheese parking lot (FOR THE CHILDREN!!), but even there, the seller wanted to see my CCW. Go figure.
Shannon, the tide is turning, the people are waking up, and your pimp, I mean sugar daddy, will lose interest in you. Call me when he drops you.
Was that a Photoshopped pic of your Boo?
She kinda looks like she’s drunk or stoned.
Or maybe she got the anonymous ‘special’ pic you sent her?
🙂
Only from the waist down. . . . .:-)
I simply asked MDA once,o please explain to me how can anyone legally buy a gun online without a going thru a background check.
My post was removed and i was banned from their site..MDA re nothing more than a bunch of delusional liars,lead by the Space Cadet, “Shannon I will Lie Watts”
Um, that’s three BUSINESS days. My local gun shop is open by appointment only, on Sunday, and closed on Monday. Due to a typographical error in my name, I’ve been delayed with a release date of much longer than three days. I did clear the next day, but still, throw in a holiday, and the release date was more than five days away.
Either we have a delay of:
– 0 time;
– a short time long enough to wait in the neighborhood of the gun store (e.g., 1 or 2 hours)
– a longer time – too long to wait (e.g., 1 or 2 days)
– a long enough time that it might make a life-or-death difference (e.g., Carol Browne in NJ)
So, we are not very likely to get close to 0 time to wait. If we might be able to do so then we still probably have bigger fish to fry.
It’s unlikely that we will get the wait time down to an hour or 2 where a buyer could wait near the gun store and save himself a trip. Don’t think the benefits vs. counter-indicatins make this worth pursuing.
Once you have to make a 2’nd trip the nuisance cost is a done-deal. And, this is a nuisance in most cases.
What we really ought to be concentrating on is the rare life-or-death case, as was illustrated by the Carol Browne incident in NJ. Under NJ law she was obliged to wait until her fingerprints were processed before she could obtain a pistol-purchase permit. Typically, it takes 60 – 90 days for a permit to be issued. She checked-back with her chief of police about 42 days after applying. Two days later her ex-boyfriend – against whom she had an order-of-protection – knifed her to death in her driveway.
Now, arguably, she would not have been able to defend herself (in her driveway) unless she had been armed under a CWP which she could have carried on-and-off her property. This point might be the GREATER argument in the Carol Browne case. Yet, of course, NJ is Won’t-Issue. Unless you are:
– rich
– the employee of a rich man and responsible for guarding his property
– a politician
you can’t prove need until you have already been murdered. Now, Carol Browne has proof-of-“need”.
The case we OUGHT to be making with respect to both:
– the NICS WAIT delay of 3 days; AND,
– Won’t-Issue
is that these are indisputably “infringements” on the Right to Keep and to Bear Arms. Any “de minimis” justification is obviously INVALID in any case where the buyer/bearer is under an immediate threat of life or limb. Clearly, any person who has secured an order-of-protection from a judge is under an immediate threat. Thereupon, the burden of proof ought to belong to the government. This argument can be extended; e.g., a vulnerable person might have taken notice of evidence of trespass on her property.
I am NOT, here, suggesting that a waiver of the 3-day period or an exception to Won’t-Issue laws would be “good-enough” to receive the unConstitutional infringements on the RKBA. To push this point is NOT to concede that they would restore Constitutionality. Rather, these arguments would be stalking-horces that should gain a SYMPATHETIC audience among non-gun-owning voters. Such an audience would have to confront the reasonable question as to whether a person such as Carol Browne can – under any theory – be disabled of her 2A right.
Once we get non-gun-owners to concede the case for a right to a SUMMARY pass on the 3-day wait or evaluation of “need”, we have them thinking in terms that can be extended.
With computer networks today, how is it even possible to have ANY delays if all the information is filled out on the 4473 form?
I mean, I can see a little delay if the person only fills out “John Smith” instead of “John Michael Smith” or “John Michael Smith SSN: 123-45-6789” on the form, but shouldn’t criminal history be a part of every one’s file when cross referencing against the 4473?
I don’t have any great specific knowledge of the FBI’s database, but I do work with data and I do appreciate the difficulty of matching two records that might represent one-in-the-same thing.
The major problem I can see is that the FBI has a record of some disabling event – clearly disabling or possibly disabling – but no record of the disposition of that event. The PD puts in the arrest but the court never puts in the disposition. Maybe the prosecutor didn’t prosecute. Maybe the disposition was dependent on completing probation but there was no specific trigger on completion of the probation to compel a record sent to the FBI. So, the FBI has to contact one or more offices in the State reporting the arrest.
The second major problem is when a report of a disabling event has a name that closely matches the name of the buyer. I don’t have this problem inasmuch as my full name is globally unique. Even if you consider people with last names similar to mine, there aren’t a lot of people so my first name and middle name serve to disambiguate. Other people have names that are pretty common in a given culture.
For example, most hispanics are Catholic. So, lots of boys are named Jose and lots of girls are named Maria. Usually these names are compounded with another name that turns out to be common as well. E.g., Jose Luis or Maria de Lourdes. So, you can easily get a match against a record of a criminal named Jose Luis Romero or Maria de Lourdes Romero.
Hopefully, you have multiple data points to disambiguate; e.g., birth date and place of birth. However, I don’t know how much of the 4473 form data points are sent in to NICS and I don’t know how many data points are consistently gathered in criminal records. So, e.g., it wouldn’t be hard to imagine that place-of-birth is not sent with the inquiry or that place-of-birth is not always available for an arrest warrant.
The entire system is pretty sloppy. That NICS is sloppy is not so great a concern; compared to the fact that the NCIC system is equally sloppy. Who knows how many criminals are stopped on a burned-out tail light but are not arrested when the NCIC check doesn’t make a tight enough match to motivate the cop to proceed with a (time-consuming) arrest.
Whatever might be done to speed-up the delays from 3 days to same-day, I very much doubt that we PotG would be willing to undergo the implications. (e.g., suppose we submitted fingerprints at the FFL and the prints could be quickly checked against the FBI’s records. Would we want to do that?) Whatever additional information that might be gathered in a 4th or 5’th day, I doubt that it would stop many sales that really should be stopped.
The main lesson here is that you can’t expect technology alone to solve all the problems associated with the underlying databases. What is in the databases is a huge mess depending on tens of thousands of clerks not very interested in doing their jobs.
So if the Fibs come back with a denial after the gun is in the consumer’s possession, wouldn’t the FFL contact some level of law enforcement and notify them of an unauthorized individual with a firearm? It’s the government’s incompetence that put it in this person’s hands, it should be government’s responsibility to make it right, not the FFL who was following the law.
So, my civil rights are now contingent on the efficiency of bureaucracy? Now that’s common sense gun safety. In the 2nd circle of hell.
Carol Bowne waited 3 months, until she was stabbed to death by her ex. Why does Shannon Watts hate Domestic Violence / Stalking victims?
“Three Days Good…
Thirty Days Better!”
“Three Days Good…
Thirty Days Better!”
“Three Days Good…
Thirty Days Better!”
What’s wrong with her head? Why is it so misshapen?
Because it’s filled with hubris.
ttag is getting good at choosing flattering shots. she looks like dory from finding nemo here.
Just keep spinning, just keep spinning…
Great shot, its an art, some of the politico pics are hilarious.
Does she always get her picture taken with a fisheye lens, or does her face really look like that?
This bloviating demagogue needs to actually try to purchase a firearm involving a NICS check and experience an erroneous delay. Having actually been through the ‘Delay’ process, I know for a fact that NICS gets false positives, having experienced three in the past year.
It would be informative if you – or anyone else – could elaborate on the kinds of things that trigger a delay in NICS.
E.g., one of my instructors said he got a STOP from the NJ POC because someone else with a similar name (ending in an ‘a’ vs. an ‘o’) had a DV record that didn’t have a record of adjudication. Curious thing about the DV was that it occurred 1.4 years before my instructor was a gleam in his father’s eye. (Come to think of it, I always thought that this instructor had a subtle but deep mean streak in his personality.)
If we could accumulate a representative sample of the kinds of problems that cause a WAIT or STOP then we might be able to make some constructive suggestions. E.g., check the date of the record of a prohibiting incident against the birth-date of the buyer.
The bases are apt to fall into 3 categories:
– pretty obvious false-positives that could be cleared-up
– pretty subtle false-positives that are going to be pretty hard to address;
– mis-identifications that might be reduced if we get a little more clever about it.
I have the impression that the FBI has a system for issuing law-abiding citizens an ID number they can use on subsequent occasions to disambiguate mis-identifications. E.g., there are bound to be 2 “John Smith” people who were born on the same date. To what extent does this system cure the problem? Nothing is going to prevent the 1’st occurrence; however, once the ambiguity of identification problem is recognized then the disambiguating ID number should expedite future inquiries.
While your ability to talk circles around yourself is truly amazing your entire diatribe is suspicious for many reasons but I’m only going to give a couple so as not to let you know how to completely fool the legal law abiding gun owners you so desperately are trying to.
1. Your use of the terms
“common sense” and
“reasonable sense”. These are key words used only by the
anti-gunners. On this side of the constitutionally protected fence that is your clearest tell. It’s part of the PR campaign that was planned before Sandy Hoax and you are in the army of trolls paid with the over quarter billion dollars bloomturd has put into the anti-gun effort in the last 4 years. This is not my first rodeo with you clowns and I can see you coming a mile away. It’s easy really, too easy at this point.
2. Team hate freedom has switched tactics. You are now playing the online version of good cop/bad cop. The first wave if you rotten bastards came at us hard and abrasive, trying to shut us down or shame us into silence. That worked on some but for the most part it had the opposite effect your boss bloomturd intended for a variety of reasons. Now you rats are easing up next to us in the forums like this one and trying to sway the fence sitters into leaning over on your side of the fence using tactics like appearing to agree with us but maybe we should just do this instead. Fence sitters can sway elections.You use long winded reasons why your plan is better and by the time you get to the end of it you have people mentally wore out since the average attention span is about 6 seconds these days. You think you’re sly but you’re not when it comes to someone who knows your tactics. You are firmly on team bloomturd or team twatts.
@T. White-
“You are firmly on team bloomturd or team twatts.”
I *highly* doubt that.
That’s just the way MarkPA’s mind can sometimes… Wander a bit.
More than a bit. I believe he has a law degree, and it shows itself in his verbose ways.
For some reason, TTAG seems to attract beaucoup lawyers in the comment section.
It’s kinda fun watching them go at…
Geoff, thank you for your kind, albeit qualified, remarks.
Sorry to disappoint you. I do not have a law degree. I never attended law school; nor did I ever even consider doing so. I have not even taken a single course in law (apart from one in NJ gun law and another in the law of self-defense).
Your senses that I might be a lawyer are broadly shared; many people have remarked to that effect. I’ve had the misfortune of dealing with about 100 lawyers in the course of my lifetime. Can’t say that my experience with the majority was altogether pleasant.
It’s kinda fun watching them go at it…
(damn disappearing editor)
1. Your use of the terms “common sense” and “reasonable sense”. These are key words used only by the
anti-gunners.
2. Team hate freedom has switched tactics.
Regarding #1, sorry that sense and reasonable are words that you have given-over to absolute ownership by the Antis. I’ll grant you that I should strive to avoid using words that the Antis use.
Regarding #2, I don’t hate freedom at all. I value our 2A guaranteed rights.
You delude yourself into thinking that you can read my mind. My wife thinks the same thing but she is wrong. If you imagine you are doing a better job then she, you have had too much to drink.
I’ve been a gun owner since I was 13 and carried my gun unsupervised at that age. I am fully convinced by the Founder’s vision that sovereignty is properly vested in we the People and that it is not nearly our right – it is our DUTY – to maintain the kind of militia they envisioned so as to guarantee the security of a free state.
As an example, I’m further convinced that all the restrictions of the NFA are perfectly UN-founded by the original understanding of the RKBA. However, the NFA is not the most important threat to our rights today; and, we ought to be working on those things that ARE the most important threats.
Inasmuch as your kind reply is completely devoid of any debate on the merits or demerits of any specific opinions I’ve expressed it would be futile to speculate further as to what might be on your mind.
If ever you have something substantive to contribute to the debate on how to promote the RKBA I would be most interested to read it.
Cabela’s is going to give Shannon the Kroger treatment.
Every time I see her face on here, I give to MDA…
Muscular Distrophy Association.
http://www.mda.org/
I’ve bought *A LOT* of ‘stuff’ from Cabela’s over the years. I’m staunchly pro-gun and love Cabela’s Gun Library and ammo selections in addition to their other retail items.
I’d be *extremely* disappointed to see them cave in any manner whatsoever to this Bloomberg gun confiscation shrill and her little squad of simpleton, postmenopausal, anti-gun, anti freedom degenerates.
I doubt any one of them has *ever* set foot in a Cabela’s store as a bona fide customer or made an online purchase from the company.
I trust Cabela’s is wise enough to follow Kroger’s lead on this.
Businesses make these decisions based on their customer base. Anti-gunners don’t get their gear at Cabela’s. The get it at places like EMS or REI. Even Fudds have to go through the NICS to buy their shotguns. Cabela’s isn’t going cave. They know what happened to Cheaper than Dirt.
There is an upside to this. Fudds will now see that they are every bit the target that self defense and sport shooters are.
Nice to see TTAG give some credence to articles referencing “Shills” and “astroturfers”. Big money can buy massive amounts of “grassroots” support to make its agendas appear authentic online.
+1, thank you to the writer for starting the article with “Monsanto shill…”; that should be the prefix any time this silly cow’s name is mentioned. Tells me everything I need to know about such a person.
You’re welcome.
I can’t find anything in this article that will withstand the scrutiny of Truth or Reality – which is standard operating procedure for her organization. It seems consistent that Shannon Watts believes the lies she’s been telling for so long that her hypocrisy knows no bounds of Constitutional respect.
(1) It would be illegal to sell a firearm through the mail/UPS, etc. without shipping the weapon to a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer who performs the NICS check by the FBI on the buyer – whether the seller is a licensed dealer or not.
(2) Shannon Watts recommends assaulting law-abiding gun owners if they are carrying weapons – concealed or openly.
(3) Shannon Watts is hell-bent on the unrealistic goal of disarming America – which has nothing to do with disarming criminals. Her daily diatribe blatantly calls for civilian firearms to be eliminated from the US Constitution. It has nothing to do with preventing criminals from getting guns because she already knows that nothing can be done to address criminal gun traffic.
(4) Moms Demand Action is propped up by Michael Bloomberg, who shares the same ridiculous and irrational beliefs. NYC has always had restrictions on Americans’ 2nd Amendment rights and has some of the most restrictive – and illegal – anti-firearms laws in the country – which has resulted in an equally ridiculous increase in violent crimes/murders committed with guns – proving that gun control has no effect on criminals or improving public safety.
(5) Guns sales have climbed while crime has gone down significantly. Bloomberg paid Johns Hopkins to publish a narrow-view report that said that Connecticut’s gun control legislation was responsible for that decline in that state; however, they had to cheery-pick the data to avoid showing the data that showed crime would have been reduced anyway along with the national average.
(6) Shannon Watt’s hypocrisy knows no bounds – while she preaches to melt down all civilian guns, she is protected by armed guards who are so obviously violating her own golden rule.
(7) Moms Demand Action and Bloomberg have apparently never been victimized by crime enough to appreciate the need for personal self-defense means. If everyone (except criminals of course) were disarmed, we would be totally dependent on police protection – “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away”. These anti-gun Hoplophobes are simply too afraid of guns to be able to realize their essential role in our society and are shirking their duty to protect themselves and their families and are convinced that every gun can be seized and that this will magically keep us all safe.
(8) Moms Demand Action has been effective only in creating a violent divide between law-abiding gun owners and uneducated homemakers who are deprived of the Truth.
Did you notice how high up on the Bill of Rights that the Second Amendment was placed by the founding fathers? That wasn’t an accident!
Ha! Trying to force Cabelas to arbitrarily hold up sales and potentially lose buyers who are willing to plunk down MSRP plus an additional markup on new guns because they think they are getting a good deal because it is a big box store… yeah right
By coincidence I am heading to CABELAS right now…BTW how come a cop stopping you can run your license/tag and have the freakin’ story of your life in a few minute? And it takes 3 days to discover public record crap by the feds??? Anyone? Ferris?
This question is actually much more important than a debating point.
Law enforcement relies upon an FBI system called NCIC (National Crime Information Center). The databases underlying NICS are much the same as those underlying NCIC. (There might be some differences. E.g., NCIC might not have the list of Americans who have renounced their citizenship or the list of vets who have appointed a fiduciary).
Whenever Officer Friendly pulls you over for a burned-out tail light he might identify you as having been arrested or indicted for a felony, or a drug charge, etc. That the charges were dismissed might not have been recorded by the FBI. Now what?
Will Officer Friendly decide that your reaching for your registration and insurance card is a furtive movement justifying emptying his service arm in self-defense? Will Officer Friendly decide that the arrest on drug charges together with a snuffed-out filter-less cigarette on the floor is probable cause to search your car without a warrant?
Whatever gripes we might have about errors and omissions in the FBI’s databases as respects NICS inquires, they pale in comparison to the issues at stake at roadside.
Well there ya’ go-that’s why a lot of otherwise conservative Christians are not big fans of the Po-leece. Look for civil unrest out of Texas over the “suicide” of the black woman driving normally. Good to know I post “important” questions…
Shannon always seems to have a pearl necklace. Interesting.
“Shannon always seems to have a pearl necklace.”
Do you think she got it from Dirk?
*Snicker*
my mother always told me to be a nice person and respect others feelings, but this Shannon Watts person is really a plague on society! And to be quite frank I can’t freaking stand her! If you want her attention all you have to do is power up a video camera and she’ll come out of nowhere kind of like herpes she’s like luggage you keep that s*** for life
Watts can’t tell the entire story because if this were to occur she’d have no leg to stand on. BTW, what loophole? Always a loophole, there will ALWAYS be a loophole, always. There is not such thing as a loophole.
So if the FFL refused to sell a firearm, a person determined to murder people would go home, give up, and watch cartoons. The world is safer, another criminal foiled.
The 3 days to complete an investigation is a lie. An absolute lie.
Just because the three days expires doesn’t mean they don’t continue the investigation. If on day 5 they determine you’re prohibited, police are sent out to collect the firearm. That’s the way it’s done in my state at least. In this case, the investigation was closed because they couldn’t find anything.
So she wants the ATF to be able to sit on a background check like the VA sits on applications. Did I read that right?
Never realized how thoroughly ugly this woman is on both the outside & the inside. I usually don’t pay attention to her b.s. rambling & cackling lies, and the few pics I’ve seen of her on TTAG are usually at a distance.
Heard the jokes before about how Sarah Jessica Parker is horse faced? Well, she can’t hold a candle to this (and I use the term loosely) “woman.”
Freaking eww. 😮 Pass the mind bleach!
For her to have bodyguards, she should need CLEO signoff, pass a background check, stay out of gun free zones and other prohibited areas, ensure no law violation for crossing state lines, pay a special tax, have a 10 day waiting period, etc. Personal bodyguards could assault and batter individuals so they should be strictly regulated; they’re force by proxy. There’s no Constitutional right to a bodyguard. She should lead by example and have her defense be a “No meanies permitted” sign that she carries.
Your posting brings out the absurdity of our carry laws. It inspired me to comment on the value of “incrementalism” in achieving a political goal.
The typical simpleton’s mind is able to accept a nonsensical binary division; e.g.: some people are armed; others are not:
– Class P are those employees of government who are armed under the Power of the State
– Class S are those who are not employees of government and are Subject to the decisions of the State.
If you can call attention to a 3’rd class in a 3-way division, things get too complicated for the simpleton to rationalize:
– Class P . . .
– Class A are those employees of government called the Armed Forces who are sometimes armed and sometimes not according to the whim of the State.
– Class S . . .
Now, our poor simpleton is at a loss to try to explain why the new 3’rd class “A” is treated differently from the first two, Classes P and S.
Carrying on,
– Class L are active duty and retired Law Enforcement Officers who are exempted from the concealed carry laws of the several States.
The simpleton might be able to wrap his head around the idea of an active duty Wyoming Sheriff carrying concealed in NYC; but what about a retired Wyoming Deputy carrying concealed in NYC?
Or, a guard at Rikers Island NYC (who does NOT carry a gun on-the-job) can carry in Los Angelus. Why does this make sense?
An up-state NY resident can carry anywhere in the State of NY except NYC. A NYC resident with a NYC carry permit can carry anywhere in up-state NY.
In some CA counties permits are Won’t-Issue and in other CA counties permits are Will-Issue. The Will-Issue permits are honored in the Won’t-Issue counties.
In NJ, MD, NYC, DC etc. if you are a rich man, or a rich man’s employee guarding his money, you can get a carry permit. But, if you are a vulnerable woman with an order-of-protection against your ex- you are out-of-luck. Rich men and their money are bone fide “needs” whereas the vulnerable woman’s life is worthless.
Each incremental exception we can achieve creates a fissure in the wall that can be expanded. The exceptions become incrementally harder to justify; leading to more exceptions (fissures) and more inconsistencies that are difficult to justify.
In these Won’t-Issue jurisdictions the shortest distance from where they are to where we need them to be is more likely to be a series of incremental steps. The first few steps resolve the most absurd irrational distinctions without a difference. The next few steps resolve the next-most-absurd distinctions; and so forth.
Getting a NYC resident to accept the process of evolution from police-carry under LEOSA to Shall-Issue carry with a rigorous training requirement may eventually come to accept Shall-Issue under a modest training requirement. Trying to get a NYC resident to leave his bilateral division (Power-of-the-State vs. Subjects of the State) to Constitutional-Carry is probably an insurmountable jump. A life-long NYC resident probably couldn’t understand Constitutional-Carry even if all 50 States plus DC had adopted Constitutional Carry for a century. To a NYC resident, NYC would always be “unique” and incompatible with with any such alien notion.
Former Monsanto shill …
Keep pounding this little fact away. The cognitive dissonance on the left will eventually make their heads explode.
It takes about 3-5 months here in Canada to get an application for a gun license (non-restricted, which is mostly long guns) approved, but it can often take longer for the bureaucracy to work it’s magic. If you are going for a “restricted” license, which includes all handguns, AR-type guns, or other exceptions to the “non-restricted” class, it can be even longer. Often applicants are forced to call and inquire as to their application’s status, and even get their elected officials involved to speed the process.
This review includes a review of work history, at least two references they can call, and even your last two relationships if less than a certain number of years since they ended.
She wants us to wait for the government to get competent ?! Next thing you know she will want the FBI to prevent crime.
When you read “NICS” remember that the “I” stands for “INSTANT.” Checks that take longer normally get approved the next day. The denial rate is 0.06%. Roof tried to buy a gun on Saturday. He picked up the gun on the following Thursday. You count the days.
The failure was the researcher
Checked the wrong database
Was busy
Didn’t know the database wasn’t updated.
Likely took a day or two off.
Give the antis a month instead of three days? You’d have the same fake problem
I just “love” this concept that waiting periods and background checks save lives. Real chuckles there.
A)How many firearms does the average owner have? Well, 347 million guns and about 100 million owners, call it 3.5 guns per owner. Adding a waiting period or BGC for someone who already owns firearms (and is intent on committing a crime) does nothing. They would just use a gun they already have.
I have purchase a whopping 3 firearms, I have a CPL, and I work a steady mid-level tech job. In the last five years I have been submitted to *14* background checks.
B)How many crimes of passion are only committable with a gun? Guy snaps and decides to kill his wife, he’s going to use whatever tool he already has. Is she less dead because he used a baseball bat or kitchen knife? Plus, the data shows this type of event just doesn’t happen. There is a pattern of abuse present in virtually every case before it becomes a homicide. The single-incident spouse-snaps-and-kills someone is so rare as to be statistically zero.
C)How many premeditated crimes or suicides need to happen immediately? I recall the powerful story Firearms Concierge posted about his good friend who spent 6 months contemplating the act (in secret) before doing it.
D)How many people in the criminal element have access to firearms outside of the legitimate market? I would think a lot. I’m a LAGO and I have been offered (and turned down) known-illicit guns at prices that were insane so I know there is a thriving black market for guns. What criminal is going to pay $1000 for an AR at Cabela’s and risk getting caught when they can buy a black market AK for $180?
All that said… if I were an FFL, I would WANT background checks on sales. I would not want the liability on my business for unknowingly providing firearms to prohibited persons.
All very well argued.
I’m intrigued by black-market pricing. If prices for used guns in the black market are lower than prices for the same make and model in used condition from an FFL, what does that tell you? The only explanations that I can think of are:
– diversion is occurring at the distributor level or exporter level such that the retail cost of doing business is wrung-out of the black-market price; or,
– guns are stolen.
If the black market price is about the same as retail then probably there is a lot of straw-buying occurring. A’s girlfriend buys a gun and gives it to A. A needs a fix; so he sells the gun at cost to B.
Only if the black market price is significantly above the retail price for a used gun can you conclude that some combination of regulatory and social forces is holding back guns leaking from the legitimate market to the retail market.
So, to what extent is black-market pricing available for comparison to the retail used market?
Aww… You deleted my comment. That’s OK, I expected it. I’m just glad you saw it.
I only have my own personal experience with private sales and what I have encountered offered to me.
I see private sales on Gunbroker and Armslist that tend to follow normal market pricing. Used guns offered legitimately tend to be slightly depreciated from new – unless they are something rare/desirable of course. A nice pre-64 Model 70 is going to fetch a lot more than its original sticker price, as is most any of the hard-to-find Keltecs. Used Glocks and S&W MPs, cheaper than new. There was a brief surge in pricing for used guns (with basically everything priced over retail) before the I-594 issue came to a vote and passed. I think people were cashing in on the last chance to buy a firearm privately without it being logged in a database somewhere. That’s the regulatory/social forces you describe above.
As for real data on the black market? Well if it were readily available I suppose it wouldn’t be the black market. The $180 AK is a real thing. When I decided to become a gun owner (again) I went to a knowledgeable friend and asked what he owned, what I should consider for a first gun, blah blah blah. His first answer was “Let’s go talk to my buddy. He has crates of automatic AKs for $180, no questions asked.” I got super uncomfortable and told him I “didn’t want an assault rifle” and wanted to be a bit more legal with the purchase. Eventually went with an AR-15, from Cabela’s, and spent about $1000 out the door. I don’t know exactly who the guy is with the full-auto AKs for $180 but he’s local and he’s got lots of them.
Way way back, like 10-12 years ago I was approached by a youngish Eastern European man and his father who didn’t speak English. I was working in a small machine shop at the time, and I didn’t know bupkis about guns. They wanted to hire us to do machine work on a bunch of triggers. Like 600+ triggers pulled out of existing guns and they wanted to pay cash. I don’t know what guns they were for, but I gathered from them that it was to convert them to fully-automatic fire. I consulted with the shop owner and we declined the job. Really shady stuff and had we been on our toes about who they were it would have been worth reporting to the Powers That Be. As it was, just two walk-ins that we sent on their way. Gave me the willies though (and I’m not talking the Lunchmeat kind).
So anyway based on two experiences where illicit firearms found their way to me without me looking for them, I’d say that there’s a large supply on the black market and the price is very low for the criminals who are accessing it.
How many bloomturd shills are on this forum now? Damn. Anyone who uses bs phrases like
“Common sense” and
“Reasonable sense” regarding anything with guns is a bloomturd shill and they’re lying if they say they aren’t. Those are keywords they use over and over if yiu read the comments and if my comnents get deleted again this whole website is in on it. Remember when these jerks opened up that fake gun store on the east coast to talk people out buying one? This is them right here
There is only one rule for posting on TTAG: no flaming the website, its authors or fellow commentators. If a pro- or anti-gun control commentator is abusive, please email [email protected] with a link and we will deal. Otherwise, it’s on.
Damn. Anyone who uses bs phrases like “Common sense” and “Reasonable sense” regarding anything with guns is a bloomturd shill and they’re lying if they say they aren’t.
Wait: so if I say something like, common-sense gun control means following the 4 Cardinal Rules, then by definition I’m a Bloomberg shill?
Coming from someone who used the term “Sandy Hoax“, I’m not surprised you’d see some sort of conspiracy theory. Over here in the real world, TTAG is a private website, the owners of whom reserve the right to do whatever they want with the comments posted here. If you have a comment deleted, it means nothing more than that the owners chose to delete your comment, for their own reasons.
Wait…who actually takes this headline whore seriously? Lol
Comments are closed.