A mere few months after Sandy Hook, President Obama attempted to exploit that atrocity to enact stricter gun control legislation. The Manchin-Toomey bill, which would have required federal background checks for private firearms sales, was thankfully defeated in the Democrat-controlled Senate, 54-46. Now, lawmakers are at it again, attempting to pass federal legislation for so-called “universal background checks.” . . .
To no one’s surprise, MSNBC is carrying gallons water for the administration:
A bipartisan group of legislators reintroduced a gun control bill Wednesday, nearly two years after the U.S. Senate failed to pass a measure that would have closed the federal loophole in the background checks system.
That “loophole”, of course, being that background checks only apply to sales of firearms through Federal Firearms License holders, and not to private sales or transfers. As one would expect, the bill’s proponents (and the complicit media) are peddling the same tripe as they were during the last attempt.
The four Republicans and four Democrats who are co-sponsoring the measure are seeking to expand background checks to prevent criminals and people with severe mental illnesses from buying guns during every commercial sale.
Never mind, that current federal law already prohibits so-called “prohibited persons” from purchasing firearms from FFLs. Just to be clear, by definition, a “commercial” sale is a sale that goes through a licensed firearm dealer (otherwise known as a FFL, or federal firearms licensee). Thus, under current law, prohibited persons are already prevented from buying guns via commercial sales. None of that has anything to do with the real intent of such legislation. To wit:
A loophole in the federal system currently allows people to buy firearms sold online and at gun shows without first passing a background check.
Since commercial sales online and at gun shows already require a background check – because all commercial sales are required to be conducted by an FFL and all sales through an FFL require a background check – all commercial sales online and at gun shows already require a background check. (Go ahead: try to purchase a gun online or at a gun show from an FFL, without completing a Form 4473 and undergoing the background check.)
The real target of such legislation, then, is not commercial sales of firearms, but rather private transfers of firearms – and yes, that’s transfers, not just sales. See also: the monstrosity that is I-594 in Washington State.
And to promote the legislation, the bill’s supporters are recycling the same tired lies:
The federal background checks system currently in place stops 170 felons, 50 domestic abusers and 20 fugitives from buying a gun each day, [Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson of California] said.
I’m not certain where those numbers are coming from. Here are the numbers currently published by FBI, for a period of approximately the past 15 years. They show, for example, and average of 120 denials per day for felons. Perhaps Rep. Thompson is working from a different data set. Regardless, the numbers are largely meaningless, for two reasons:
- By and large, criminals don’t attempt to obtain firearms through licensed dealers. In fact, fewer than 15% do so. The rest obtain firearms from friends and family, the black market (i.e. the street), or through theft. To the extent that the Brady Bill impacted the ability of so-called “prohibited persons” from obtaining firearms, it merely created a minor shift. Prior to federal background checks, around 20% of criminals obtained firearms through commercial sales; afterward, that number dropped to about 14%. According to the FBI Firearm Violence report, that number dropped to 11.3% by 2004.
- NICS denials don’t lead to prosecution when so-called “prohibited persons” violate the law by attempting to purchase a firearm. As NRA-ILA pointed out last year: “Out of 72,659 NICS denials in 2010, for example, only 62 led to federal prosecutions. Of these prosecutions, only 13 led to convictions.“
And as a bonus, thousands of NICS denials are actually false positives. According to the 2012 FBI NICS Operations Report, some 4,000 denials were overturned out of over 26,000 appeals of over 88,000 denials.
So in summary, background checks merely drive criminals to other means of obtaining firearms, do not result in prosecution of criminals who illegally attempt to purchase firearms, and create an unnecessary and undue burden on the law-abiding who are merely attempting to exercise a constitutionally protected right.
But the weak point in the legislation allows for those individuals to purchase a weapon online or at a gun show after they are denied a firearm from a licensed dealer.
Ah, yes, the gun show: a favorite bogeyman of the civilian disarmament brigade. By their reckoning, gun shows are absolutely teeming with criminals. Or not, as evidenced by the DOJ Firearms Use by Offenders study linked above. In fact, fewer than one percent of criminals obtain firearms at gun shows. (And note that this number has remained steady since prior to the enactment of the Brady Bill, to today. Criminals didn’t and still don’t purchase firearms at gun shows.)
Even so, as pointed out above, commercial sales at gun shows require background checks. The same is true for internet sales. Where the confusion arises (confusion that I have no doubt is intentionally abused by proponents of such legislation, by referring to non-existent “loopholes”) is that both commercial FFLs and private individuals can sell their firearms via the internet and gun shows. The need to undergo a federal background check, then, is not a matter of location (internet or gun show vs. a brick-and-mortar gun store), but rather of sale type (private vs. commercial).
To be clear, the alleged “loophole” has nothing to do with the location of a sale, but rather of the commercial-vs-private nature of that sale.
The same bill put forward by Reps. King and Thompson was introduced in the previous session of Congress. It had earned 188 co-sponsors and 90% of support from the American public. But Republican leadership blocked the bill. Its bipartisan companion bill in the Senate, co-authored by Sens. Pat Toomey, a Republican from Pennsylvania, and Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, failed with 54 votes in April 2013. Just four months earlier, 26 people – 20 of them first graders – were killed inside Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
When civilian disarmament advocates dance on the graves of children by invoking a mass murder, they fail to point out that the legislation they are pushing would have had zero impact on the tragedy they’re attempting to exploit. Adam Lanza, at only 20 years old, already would not have been able to purchase a firearm through an FFL because state law requires a minimum age of 21 to purchase/possess a firearm. Furthermore, Lanza stole his firearms from his mother – something that no background check would have prevented.
This time, the lawmakers are facing a wider margin of Republican control in the House, and a GOP majority in the Senate.
“If this bill violated the Second Amendment, my name wouldn’t be on it,” Thompson, who chairs the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, said Wednesday during a press conference to introduce the legislation. Background checks, he added, “are our first line of defense against dangerous people.”
No, actually. Prisons are our first line of defense against dangerous people. Laws do not constrain criminals, and gun control laws – including background checks – do not constrain violent criminals from obtaining or using firearms. Expanding background checks to private transfers will not prevent criminals from stealing firearms, will not compel street dealers to conduct background checks for black-market gun purchases, and will not compel family or friends of criminals to conduct background checks for private transfers.
The measure was crafted to provide appropriate exceptions, including the transfer of guns between family members, friends and hunting partners, said Rep. Bob Dold, a Republican from Illinois and co-sponsor of the bill.
Those exceptions, which arguably differentiate this bill from I-594, would further render the legislation ineffective. Some 40% of criminals obtain their firearms from friends and family. Some 10-15% of criminals obtain their firearms through commercial sales that already incur background checks. That leaves the 40% of criminals who obtain their firearms through theft, fences, and street sales – none of which would be compelled by this or any other law, to conduct background checks.
Former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot by a gunman outside of a Tucson supermarket in 2011, briefly addressed reporters on Wednesday. “I’ve seen great courage when my life was on the line. Now is the time to come together, be responsible Democrats, Republicans, everyone,” she said. “We must never stop fighting. Fight, fight, fight.”
As has been pointed out, to much cry of foul-play by civilian disarmament advocates, the person who put Gabby Giffords’s life on the line passed the background check they are advocating be expanded beyond commercial sales to private sales.
Where Congress has failed to address gun legislation, however, state and local leaders have taken matters into their own hands. Seventeen states and Washington, D.C. have extended the background checks requirement beyond federal law to at least some private sales.
And here the mask slips somewhat; the target of this legislation is not internet or gun-show sales, but rather private sales.
For more of the same, and a taste of the talking points that will be used to promote the legislation, see Rep. Thompson’s press release.
There is only one answer to these gun-grabbing liberals. Vote them out of a job!!!!
The problem with voting them out is their constituencies are pro disarmament. No one ever said you have to be smart to vote I suppose.
Most of their constituencies are pro free stuff and they don’t care a lot about guns one way or the other. Gun grabbing is just an extra that comes with electing nanny-state socialists.
An important point rarely mentioned is that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate the intrastate sale of firearms. Congress only has the authority to regulate international and interstate commerce.
Of course that does not matter to our lawless President, national Legislature and federal Judiciary. Congress and the President regularly enact unconstitutional laws, and the federal courts back them up. All three branches have lost their credibility.
It is way past time that the States of the Union remember that they have the right and sometimes the duty to nullify illegal federal acts. One of the simplest ways for a state to do this is to say that no state or local law enforcement agencies are permitted to assist the ATF etc. in any way related to the enforcement of the laws. State nullification works. It is working right now on the issue of marijuana. The Feds. cannot enforce their laws without the assistance and participation of state and local authorities.
It also has no constitutional authority to control or restrict interstate sales of firearms.
The oft misused commerce clause gives congress the authority to make commerce regular among the several states. At the time of adoption, and as described in the supporting documentation, that meant removing state-level barriers to trade, not creating federal barriers.
Of course, since the government has grown unchecked since the death of federalism in 1865, it now means: they can impose restrictions on hotels, because hotels cater to interstate travelers; they can impose restrictions on interacting with wildlife, because animals cross state lines; and even that they can impose restrictions on farming for personal consumption, because it eliminates the need to buy interstate produce.
By referencing that last ruling, a court can justify literally any ruling by claiming it’s interstate commerce.
That Supreme Court case you mentioned. regarding the wheat farmer, “Wickard v. Filburn (1942)” really gave the Federal Government absolute unchecked power to do anything they pleased. It was truly an abomination. I remember learning about that case in school, and realizing at the time that the Constitution meant nothing to the Federal Judiciary. They simply do as they please.
If the Federal Government can tell a wheat farmer how much wheat he can grow on his own land, to feed his own animals, then liberty no longer exists.
Nevertheless, we do not abandon hope like Denethor Steward of Gondor. Rather, we fight on against all odds like the newly awakened Théoden.
The Gov was able to tell Filburn how much wheat he could grow because he was collecting the subsidy for wheat to get the $1.16 a bushel through the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 instead of the market rate of $0.40 a bushel. He could grow all the wheat he wanted to use or sell but only at the $0.40 market rate instead of the limited 11.1 acres at $1.16 a bushel the government was offering. Once he took the government subsidy he was allowed to be regulated as to how much wheat he could grow (he agreed to it through taking the subsidy). The court basically determined that that government has the right to regulate that which it subsidizes.
Something to think about whenever you think you are getting something free from government. Gov health care, Social Security, welfare, etc. are all a form of subsidy and are all optional to receive or participate in.
I think fatigue is starting, how many times can we answer the same damm questions politely? I seem to remember a simular conversation with a 11 year old “screw your facts, logic and reason , I know how I feel” .
Mike, I hear ya, its tiresome to repeat the truth, but giving up certainly wont work, and it has been the patient principled opposition, from grassroots on up, that has worked for decades in 2A rights, just see the animated map in Ccw by state.
Note that frredomis more than just in 2A rights, and by way of speaking to priciples, and civil rights history, and 2A litigation and legislationn, we learned about how goverment serves the people, not the other way around.
So talking gun culture has educated the public, as have current events viewed from that individual civil rights perspective, and the prooff is the massive sea change, that is like a tide coming in, hard to see in the moment but unstoppable…
Proof being what used to be called “the silent majority” votes, the moderates who voted for freedom, gun owners or not, that resulted in rising and majority opposition to more gun control laws, as demonstrated so damning-ly in the Pew Research surveys, the biggest and most credible (considering Pew is slightly left in its own goals).
And validated in the wider arena for freedom, the quintissential American Exceptiinalism of citizen resistance and rejection of an overly totalitarian state, as expressed in the current generation of LeftProgressive-Dem control of all three brances:
As proven by the largest swing in political power in the 2014 elections, in 130 years, n Congress to majority GOP rule, and 110 years in state Governors.
The most cynical and aged of the progressive left, and many in their blatant propagandists network of course know this, but they are desperate, panicking, even…
for they see subscrptions, eyeballs, ad revenues faling off the cliff as knowledgeable viewers have already caught on, in the moderate middle, and are leaving in droves, in disgust. Trust, once lost takes years to regain, and the proof is CNN from its once transforming roots as hard news, is turning desperately to “entertainment”, and the Gray Lady, having gone down for The Narrative, is a shambling old homeless ladt wearin thrift store high fashion, to impress her bum friends.
MSNBC has held the loyal hard and ignorant left segment, but look what happened to Pierced Organ, Palin Bashing Bashir, Tingles, and even Radical Madcow daring to question the Narrative, probably thanks to her gun-packing NRA member partner. Even their NBC brethren view them as leprous, untouchables. Not that it matters to viewers, leaving NBC as tarred by same brush.
And jjust wait until the Millenials, already hip and cynical to social media marketing, as more wake up and realize just how badly they were used, by Hope and Change, Solyndra-Greengate, Carbon credits for the rich paid for by taxpayers, the corruption of Sciencd thru massive grants to the right lying researchers, all for the naked power grab that was the ClimateGate scam…
Of the rest of the ecosystem of progtard liars and propagandists who went along…they are spinning madly, or getting out while they can..HuffPo is dangling by a thread, held up only by Wall St inflated stock price, and when that bubble pops, will be sold like Newsweak fo $1.00. Adrianna got hers, but just like Tina, she is already old rotten meat, dead man walking.
Obamacare will be the straw, heck haystack that breaks the back of middle class and the Millenials will be bought off, maybe with the chump change of forgiving their student loans, and it wont be making jobs, just killing them in the 1/6 of jobs nationalized…
And those premiums are, just hitting pocket books, even as immigration exploding executive action for democrat vote buying is selling out another generation of blue collar jobs, and BayArea techies wake up to how they’ve been sold out on their high paid jobs and options, just to make a few bilionaires even richer, in exchange for H1b visas for temp workers to cut costs….never mind the shadowy foreign contributions…
And we dont even have to touch the complete and utter destruction visited on poor people in the ME, and collapse of US credibility world wide…
As others here have said, never interrupt your opponent while they are committing unknowing suicide.
Just keep Calm, and Carry On.
Tell the truth to friends and neighbors, and take them shooting, to make it fun.
Its working.
“I think fatigue is starting, how many times can we answer the same damm questions politely?”
For as long as they ask them. And in a calm, reasoned way.
They have vowed to cripple (if not actually destroy) the 2A. We *must* defend it however long it takes.
We are currently experiencing favorable legal momentum in the courts.
As the ‘Chicago Godfather’ Rahm Emanuel himself once said, we must wisely take full advantage of that opportunity and not let it go to waste.
The fate of the United States itself at stake.
How come these people buying guns online from Atlantic or K-var etc, who have them shipped to their house without a background check, who are prohibited are never arrested? I have never heard of even one arrest….ever! Huh, that’s damn strange!
I mean, we have the Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and really big fires, what the heck are they doing then?
Why are they being funded if prohibited people are buying guns and having them shipped to their front door?
I got an idea for legislation, TRUTH IN REPORTING. Make it illegal to purposely omit facts and knowingly report falsehoods or otherwise lies. Freedom of speech does not extend to media outlets and allow them to blatantly lie and mislead the American people. It’s “common sense”
Knowingly report falsehoods? Ignorance is no excuse for the law after all, so why stop there?
“How come these people buying guns online from Atlantic or K-var etc, who have them shipped to their house without a background check”
WTF??? I just ordered one about a two weeks ago and IT HAD TO BE SHIPPED TO A FFL holder. Dammit, I could have saved the fees. Man, I always find out about these “loopholes” a week late……………………………………………………….
Not prosecuted because it doesn’t happen the way you imply. The only way to legally have a gun shipped from a dealer (with a FFL) to your house is to have your own FFL of some type. Despite the BS routinely spouted by the gun-grabbers, it is already illegal to transfer a gun from a dealer to a citizen without a background check. Knowing the facts would be helpful…
It’s nothing more than a stepping stone to cross the river to their utopian promise land. Next stone is registration and safe storage laws with mandatory inspections. all of which will fail to prevent criminals and crazies from their shenanigans ultimately leading to confiscation.
Chipper,
Well written and presented. thank you.
Universal handgun reciprocity received more votes than universal background checks, so why is the latter called “bipartisan” and the former called “outrageous” and “pernicious?”
Lying leftist RINO and Democrat scvmbags, that’s why. But I repeat myself.
And I do not believe that Federal regulation of private, intrastate transfers would pass Constitutional muster based on any level of scrutiny. Period.
Anyone who doubts the recent surge in anti-gun articles floated to the Reliable Party Organs like MSNBC, the wave of new, renamed astroturf “Gun Sense” type .orgs popping up in key states, as supposedly grass roots activism like Everytown, need only look where the press wont: Follow the money, follow the people, the same hired PR hacks that rotate in and out of Dem campaigns, or feed upon own anothers non-profits, or hired for Little Czar and fake outreach jobs in Obamas admin.
Look for the network infra-structure, jmany funded or platformed by the same moveon or change.org web servers, funded by the same shell companies spun out of Center For American Progress, Joyce Foundation, Ford Foundation and others, that quietly spawned the Ayers and their offspring.
Remember Obama’s promise to “do something under the radar” caught off mikec to the Brady gun grabbers, the bitter clinger remark to rich uber left in San Fran, before 2008 election, that was followed by deliberate abuse of power of ATF, in F&F, including then SecState Hillary Clinton telling the already discredited 90% of assault weapons in Mexico smuggled by little gun dealers…
Read tearful AG Holders regrets he “didnt do something about gun control”,despite stonewalling Congress, still holding out on information already showing past lies and colusion at the top, his office and ? WH, with Congress stopped by claims of Executive Privilege (national security)…
Dare the independent pres speak out, they are harrassed, violenly verbally abused by WH press flacks, and management pressured into silence, o even censoring key facts before the 2012 election, that exploded the AQ on the run claim, while sending a key aide, now Nat Sec Advisor as the reward, to tell the same lie to the American public, “a youtube did it”….
Or investigate the press, like the AP scandal Holder apologi,ed for, but got away with…or Risen (NYT), or Rosen (Fox) info suppression…
Why wouldn’t Obama and his Progresive Alinskyite masters doubl down one more time in a massive disinformation campaign to justify Executive Action gross abuse and outright lies when caught?
Its not like they have anything to lose, havng lost Congress, but with the mass media totally cowed, or worse, so obviosly complicit in the lie, slowly embelished on a group level at CNN, CBS, NYT, that even if theh could come clean, they would be like Brian Williams, at best…and Walter Duranty, more likely….
No, this is only going to get more unbelievable to any American paying attention to the news, and history, while the progtard media, and string pullers, like Obama in their self-blinding narcissism and ends-justify-the-means operating principles, will “double down to push thorough the resistance” (Alinsky)…
You don’t think The Left, corrupted and infiltrated into academia, the press, and federal agencies at all levels (Lerner, IRS) is going to give up after 40 years, when the Progressive Agenda is so close to complete, in their minds…
Remember the bunker, in Berlin? Still believing, to the end…The Elite Who Know Whats Best For The Little People will not, can not give up power, for they cannot accept that they are wrong….
Stay the course. Keep telling the truth, calmly, and tell your local, state, and congressional reps you hold them responsible to The People, not The State, just as our Founders anf forefathers have, in times of great danger.
Its working.
More reasons to say .. NO Loretta Lynch. No Way. ( that now makes me racist , I know ) If the GOP is to have any relevance or following by their BOSS – We The People – Lynch is a NO GO !! We can do MUCH better.
Keep Calling and Writing Congress , Be that Pain In Their Ass , The Squeaky Wheel . Remember -Silence is acceptance .
Only closing the “Gun-Show Loophole” is weak sauce and these politicians need to step up their game and close some real loopholes like the “Kill your parents and steal their firearm” loophole, the “Break into a home and steal their firearm” loophole, and the “Commit a crime with a firearm” loophole. With so many loop holes it is a wonder we aren’t already all dead from the current pandemic of gun violence.
Here’s a novel idea….. LOCK UP THE DANGEROUS PEOPLE n a place where they can get help. I don’t know if anyone remembers but there used to be state run physicartic (spelling) hospitals.( see I was trying to be PC and not use the “N” word- Nuthouse) Where have they all gone????
Great job Chip! As usual.
“Background checks, he added, “are our first line of defense against dangerous people.”
No, actually. Prisons are our first line of defense against dangerous people.
No, actually. Well armed and trained citizens are our first line of defense against dangerous people.
Touche.
If course, if we ended the criminal catch-and-release system, we’d stymie more violent criminal activity sooner, and at an earlier age.
Imagine, if you will, how much push back people would start if the Federal (or even State) government became involved in the sales of vehicles—requiring that all private-party transactions had to go to a “licensed” dealership. Same for inherited or passed down vehicles within families. The government gets another cut for taxes, collects a fee, and makes sure that all documentation is properly filed for registration with the DMV (possibly incurring another fee, like with the CA DOJ). People would not be happy—to say the least. Most would say that the government has no business in what they do with their vehicle. Some may argue that the whole car-to-gun comparison doesn’t work. You’re right. Driving is a privilege. Bearing arms is a right. We’ve acknowledged that. However, cars seem more likely to kill people—especially when misused or used by those with little experience. I say, we need to close the Craig’s List and Auto Trader loophole! How many more interstate pile-ups do we need to have before implementing a “common sense” solution? And if it saves just one life….
Owning or driving a car is a right as well. Like all non-enumerated rights, it’s protected by the 9th and 10th amendments.
The powers the constitution explicitly grants to the federal government are few and finite. The rights of the people are vast.
The privilege is driving the car on a piece of land owned by another (in most cases the state).
Sure. I was merely commenting on that whole “right versus privilege” argument with respect to owning guns or cars. Also realized that I left out one crucial element. I forgot to add the NICS background check before the transaction is completed (or allowed). Oh well.
Get your facts straight, Chip.
1. Adam Lanza could have legally purchased a long gun at 20 (the law is 21 for handguns, 18 for long guns), but was put off by a background check and a mandatory waiting period.
2. A private seller, whether at a gun show or on line, may not sell a handgun to a nonstate resident without sending the gun to an FFL in the purchaser’s state of residence–where a background check will be performed. (If a recent federal district court decision holds up, it may be possible for that background check to be performed in the state of sale.)The only exempted transactions are gifts between specified family members and face to face private transactions (in most but not all states) between same state residents. [In California and now Washington, and probably other states on the east coast, even private transactions must include a background check.]
Mark, who the hell told you that? I have sold several handguns at gun shows, several others as private sales. NEVER have I utilized an FFL, I haven’t known the name of the purchaser in several instances, much less seen ID or ascertained what state the purchaser lived in, why do I care? I was paid cash and handed over the gun. I have also sold one car and one motorcycle the same way. Why do you think I am somehow required to involve government in such a transaction?
Peter King should just GTFO join the Democrat Party already. What a pussy.
” prohibited persons are already prevented from buying guns via commercial sales.”
This is just a complaint about the entire tone of this article. “Prohibited persons” are prevented from holding any firearm in their hand, for even a moment. They are prevented from buying a gun from anyone, anywhere, anytime. They cannot purchase firearms from anyone at a gun show, it is against the law, 5 years in prison. THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE which allows prohibited persons to buy firearms, how about we enforce the damn law, instead of ignoring it while we try to pass more laws?
Stupid question but doesn’t the Haynes vs US decision bar prosecution of a felon that obtains a firearm without filling out a 4473? As if they did, they would be incriminating themselves? I think that should have some bearing on this.
It’s not a loophole. It never was; it was intentional. Private sales had always been legal and intentional. Dealers were required for out of state commerce. Private sales were always legal and intentional between citizens of their own state. What loophole??? Legislating nanny statists assigned the term “loophole” to these activities to rewrite history for low information voters.
https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#private-record-keeping
My thoughts too. It’s not a “loophole” at all, it is merely a function of the distinction between a private transaction and a commercial sale by a dealer who makes more than, what, 6 sales? in a calendar year.
Thank you. There is no loop hole, and background checks on private party transactions, in CA have made no difference in reducing crike, because the law abiding dont break theclaw!
One thing the anti’s are very good at is lying, by way of over-simplifying to hide the truth, or deliberatelh misconstrue it. Or to deflect fro the real facts, which are that criminals dont obey the law. So we have to say it, over and over patiently in laymans language, to educate them. Startijg a circular firing squad between the POTG is exactly what the anti gunners want, so we have to be helpful to one another if we get a detail wrong rather than correct with positive correction to do it better.
Straw purchases are those made by someone legally authorized to buy with the intention to turn around and sell to someone who cannot. Straw purchases are against the law. We know its a confusing law, and we know sometimes people tread in the gray area, by mistake or on purpose, including some cops who use Leo exemptiins, on restricted models, to resell to buddies or others. We know that ATF deliberately broke this law, and implicated innocent business people, on purpose, in a false flag ooeration to justify a false and debunked statistic repeatedly cited by the WH and some Dems to justify further restrictions on ALL citizens. That was Fast and Furious.
So, why should criminals obey the law when goverment does not?
Experienced crooks now what lawyers and coos know. Most gun charges are added, even if weak, on top of other charges, like burglary, etc, prosecutors knowing they can use them as chips to a plea, to up theur conviction rate, and save time and money going to trial….so why would criminals care, for breaking gun laws?
Background checks do nothing to deter criminals. The vast majority of guns used by criminals are obtained by already illegal means, burglary, straw purchases by relatives, street guns with serial numbers filed off. These are not guns sold by people with background checks, nor would registering the guns matter, for criminals wont and dont obey those laws now. Its against the law to sell to someone you know to be ineligible.
If the Feds and States want to get serious about reducijg gun violence, they should do one simple thing: enfotce the laws on the books, and punish the law breakers. And even more important, plus up the system for identifying the mentally ill who should already be in theNICS database, but is not for reasons of non funding and varous state laws. This is a challenge, but doable state by state, per state law, simply using the NICS which works.
Call it the National Help The Mentally Ill, and stop making it about guns, for it wont work perfectly, but it may stop future Adam Lazas, Elliot Rodgers, and Jarend Loughers.
And lets be brutally honest, for the tie has come to match the media lies, will truth, be damed to political correctness, and comity.
The real sleazebags in all this are the Democrats and fellow travelers like Bloomberg, who use the pain of bereaved parents, the damaged like Gabby Giffords, and ignore the real problem: the abject failure to talk abiut the elephant in the living room, which is thde abject failure to realy help the mentally ill, with facilities, and trained help, and the tools, for mental health pros and training for cops, to get them off the streets.
That Democrats ignore the truly needy, to push the simple “gun did it” power grab, is a form of cynicism that borders on sociopathic evil, that we will recall with horror, as modern day mirror of 1800s Bedlam,b in Londn, to lock them up thru neglect, ignore them, let them sleep on the street, and fail to give families thechelp to commit them to safe and humane care.
Punish the law breakers with severe nd spend LEO time and money going where they are, to catch them. Adding more confusing and contradictory laws only confuses the punlic, and crimializes law abiders, while enabling the crimjnals to do more crime. The net effect IS more crime, which the grabbers cynically use to pacify a frightened and ignorant public to achieve the real goal…guns and self orotection otime behind bars, and just as cocaine crime did ped, so will gun crime.
Otherwisd, all you have down is reserve self protection for the wealthy and connected, which is exactly the situatiin today, in CA, where the Democrats, the masters of corruotion and confusion, while loudly proclaiming ‘for the poor people’ who are the most at risk for crime, have run all three branches for several years.
If you want me to check whether the recipient is prohibited, give me access to NICS so I can check. Otherwise, it’s apparent that’s not what you’re trying to accomplish.
Peter King.
To call him (and his ilk like Chris Christie) a RINO would actually insult real RINOs, like the speaker of the House.
He’s some sort of a mutant, like a wanna be blue dog Democrat but not.
I honest doubt the convictions and intentions of those with a R behind the names of those who represent states like: New York, New Jersey, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia
They are unwittingly arguing precedent for national carry reciprocity.
If they can have national background checks, we can have national carry reciprocity.
All of this background check “loophole” crap and I don’t recall ever hearing the organizations and legislators pushing this stuff mention cracking down on straw purchasers. If anyone has any examples of them even suggesting this, please feel free to share them with me, I don’t mind being proven wrong when I have the information wrong. I just have not heard it so much as mentioned outside of the conversations of pro-gun people though.
I truly would like to see more action against straw purchasers, both the straw buyer, and the intended final recipient of the arm. I’m fairly sure more criminals get firearms through straw purchases than most people would believe, and it’s a difficult thing to get any real numbers on. It is also a difficult thing to fully prevent, but it’s impossible to prevent if we don’t actively go after people who do it.
I know I have seen others mention this idea too, but creating a way for private citizens to access NICS for the purpose of conducting their own background checks might be helpful if these people really want to “close the loophole”, and it would be relatively cheap and easy to implement too. I bet if they gave people the tools they would use them in most circumstances, law abiding citizens don’t want to inadvertently transfer firearms to criminals.
Also, (and It should go without saying) stricter, more consistent enforcement of existing laws might make them somewhat more effective too. In the end, those who truly want to committ criminal acts are not going to be deterred by words on a piece of paper though, and that’s all laws are. They hold even less power when they aren’t enforced though. Even if I believed these laws could truly prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, I doubt they would do any good at all the way they are currently enforced. Hell, even when they are actually enforced targeting criminals they don’t act as a very good deterrent because sentences for real criminals are often light and even then they can almost universally count on not serving the full sentence.
I am so damned sick of hearing this BS line about internet gun sales. When a person buys a gun from any legitimate dealer on the internet it is shipped to an FFL where the buyer has to fill out a 4473 to complete the transfer. How hard is that to understand? Oh, well I guess teling the truth kind of destroys their whole argument. The fact that they deliberately mislead people in that manner every chance they get is infuriating.
Comments are closed.