“6 years ago, a convicted felon bought a Glock 19 at a gun show. He then used it to rob people, until he robbed his last person, my 25 year old cousin. She’d just gotten married a three months before. He shot her to death for no good reason. She choked to death on her own blood, according to the officer who found her in the parking lot . . .
I own a Glock 19, and I shoot it regularly at the range. I believe in the right to bear arms. But I cannot fathom why we don’t just close the gun-show and private seller loophole. Its too goddamn easy for criminal assholes to take advantage of greedy assholes who’ll willingly sell them guns. Yeah, he could’ve bought it on the black market if there wasn’t a gun show… but maybe it’d have taken him longer to find someone who’d sell it to him at risk of being arrested…
I’m sorry if most of you guys disagree with me on this, but I read this blog regularly and this is the first comment I’ve ever posted. The NRA thinks if we close the loophole, then it’ll be a “slippery slope” and the black helicopters will come and take away all our guns. Isn’t there some kind of middle ground here?
Can’t we get someone else to represent us, who doesn’t regularly promote completely nutso paranoia… Jesus… apologies if I seem off balance, but most of you don’t know what its like to go to a wedding and then that same person’s funeral within 12 weeks of each other….”
What’s the point of this post? Why do we give credence to people who don’t have a basic understanding of the US Constitution?
To allow commentators to set Josh straight. To see what motivates those on the other side of the issue. To foster genuine debate. The usual suspects.
I’ll leave that to folks like you who are far more eloquent and patient than I.
The point is there’s a hell of a lot of people out there who feel the same way. We have to realize that and go beyond simply repeating bumper sticker phrases in response.
Josh – my sympathies for your cousin and your family. And I’m glad you realize that criminals can get guns, even if we close the various “loopholes”. However to prevent private party sales – at gunshows and elsewhere – to truly close down that “loophole” – would mean the licensing and registration of all existing guns out there in legal hands. How would you implement that? Or enforce it? There’s no easy answer. Sorry. Even without the perceived (and to us, real) intrusion on a Constitutional Right, I don’t see how this loophole can be closed.
It’s easy to throw around phrases like “gun show loophole”. But I suspect that many have not really put a concrete definition to it.
Josh: You’re now magically writing a new federal law. What provisions would you put in it to close the “gun show loophole”?
You make a good point. I have no idea what federal or state provisions would prevent a criminal from buying a gun at a legit event from a person who has no responsibility to verify the buyer’s history. I don’t know how it would be enforced. I don’t know if it is constitutional.
I just know that the felon in my case purchased his firearm at a public event from a seller who for whatever reason didn’t need to verify whether or not he was a criminal.
I can’t pretend to be educated on this issue. I just know that I own guns, grew up with guns, and think that every law-abiding person in this country should be able to carry a gun with them at all times (concealed or open).
I wish I could be 100% on your side and say that anybody should be able to legally sell their gun to whoever without doing any kind of due diligence. I know that the sentence I just typed is not fair to the vast majority of people who sell guns.
Just please understand where I’m coming from. I don’t think the constitution has enough detail to really figure out where it stands on felons buying firearms. I mean, I don’t see where in the constitution it says that a felon loses the right to vote, let alone own firearms… Clearly some form of common sense is responsible for those rules. My point is, everybody has their own version of common sense on this stuff, and my version was dramatically altered when I found out that the person who sold a gun to a convicted felon wouldn’t even get investigated, let alone prosecuted. If he’d been a gun shop owner and done the same thing, he’d have been prosecuted. This is a murky issue, and again, I apologize for my ignorance, but please understand this is how alot of folks without heavy exposure to gun experts feel.
So you’re not educated on the issue, you don’t know how it would work, and you’re acting on emotion.
And you want to pass legislation that could potentially turn me into a federal felon.
What could possibly go wrong?
Josh:My point is that you’re calling for a closing of the “Gun Show Loophole.” What is that? What is it we need to do to close that “loophole”?
If you can’t answer that question, there really isn’t anything to debate.
I can’t even agree that we’re on different sides of the issue — since I don’t even know what it is that you’re calling for.
@ Josh
I’m sorry for your loss. In my state you can’t find a gun show and of late anything gun related (publications, gun ranges and gun shops) have become increasingly difficult to find. New Jersey (just incase you were wondering) has some of the most restrictive laws out there but the guns still show up at crime scenes. IMHO it’s the criminal justice system that fails us all.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/death-row-inmate-writes-taunting-letter-life-leisure/story?id=15438651
If criminals, once convicted, never saw the light of day they probably wouldn’t commit further crimes. The swinging door at the prisons needs to stop swinging.
Here in Texas, I don’t think there’s a loophole. You still have to do the background check. Do other states still have waiting periods, or something? Where’s the “loophole”.
I don’t know about specific laws in other states. However, in Nevada, whether at a gun show or at someone’s home or where ever, when purchasing a firearm from a private party there is no background check and no waiting period – it’s a cash and carry transaction. That’s the “loophole.”
IIRC, no background check is needed on private party sales in Texas. A lot of private sellers prefer only selling to CHL holders. Closing the “gun show loophole” is locking the barn after 200 million horses are already out the gates. The issue is truly keeping felons off the streets, not infringing on the rights of citizens.
Owning guns is a freedom. Freedom has no middle ground. Period. Regulations,laws and permits is not freedom. Discussion over. So so sorry for your loss.
Josh, I too am sorry about you loss, but I think that you are misplacing the blame. The guy who pulled the trigger is the only one at fault, not the “loophole” You admit that in all reality, even a complete gun registration will not solve senseless crime.
A convicted felon wouldnt pass a background check, so either there was no background check done because one didnt have to be or because the seller didnt bother with one. If that latter is the case, punishing the seller for not doing a background check could help prevent some cases of this happening.
The slippery slope here is that you’re creating a new form of liability. This level of liability may exist in some states already but it’s pretty scary to think about. What if you sold your car to an alcoholic and he killed someone in a DUI? Are you now liable for that? What if you sell a bike to a dad that wants to teach his kid to ride. He tells you that his son doesn’t know how to ride it yet… Now the boy hurts himself, is that your fault? We can’t possibly know the intentions of someone trying to buy an item from us and creating a necessity to check with the state prior to selling anything is a dangerous precedent, especially with a constitutionally protected right such as this.
I, for one, would be extremely concerned if there were legislation passed that made it unlawful for me to sell my own private property to a third party without asking the state for permission. I’m empathetic to your loss but lets put the blame where it belongs which is on the shooter, not the seller. While we’re on the subject, lets talk about the weapons enhancements that are built in to many codes now… what sense does it make to enhance a murder conviction just because someone used a gun? If I kill you with a stapler, I will serve less time than had I done so with a gun… but you’re still just as dead… where is the justice in that?
It’s terrible whenever something like this happens, but just like the posters above said; the issue is with our legal system. This is not a failure of freedom and its associated free enterprise, but the law not locking up idiots like the one you speak of. We are so busy locking up college kids smoking dope “as a lesson and example” while violent and career offenders walk the jails and prisons like a revolving door.
The question is not “when do we close the gun show loophole,” but “when do we start enforcing laws already on the books?”
Don’t forget passing laws that make it illegal to cheat on tests! I weep for the future of our children.
Hmmm, Josh, in order to enforce a restriction on private sales of firearms, you first have to know who has them, and that’s called registration. Do you know what that means? Do you? Federal registration of firearms at the individual owner level. What’s that poking it’s nose under the tent Josh, well, what is it? Tell us what other constitutionally protected right gets this kind of special and tender Federal care? FLAME DELETED
Even in countries with even near total bans on personal firearms (Great Britain), criminals still commit murders and other violent crimes. Usually they switch to knives. Criminals will always find a way to inflict injury and pain to their victims.
So, in this “post gun show loophole”world, what stops this criminal from using a knife, or a baseball bat to do the very same thing?
I am very sorry for your loss, but our society has already made murder illegal. There are so many tools that can be used to kill someone, availability of these tools is not the problem, the problem is that there is someone out there who is willing to kill for the money in your pocket.
In my State, PA, there is no gun show loophole. Legal transfers of handguns between unrelated individuals require a background check. Illegal transfers can and do occur, but this fact has nothing to do with the laws as they exist, but rather with enforcement of the laws as they exist. I don’t think that the background check requirement is a bad idea where handguns are concerned. The downside, which could easily be corrected by legislation, is that, at least in PA, the background checks can create a “back-door” registration system. I lean away from registration requirements.
You said “6 years ago, a convicted felon bought a Glock 19 at a gun show. He then used it to rob people, ” Well…..Guns arent the problem, gun shows arent the problem. Convicted felons otherwised known as maniacs walking free in the streets and never re-habilitated is the problem or “loophole”. If he was a drunk and killed people with a car, would we shut down all the buy here pay here used car lots?
Solution: make the party that sold said gun to the felon an accessory to murder. Then you can keep your private property sales. It would just make the selling party think twice or reach out for appropriate resources (that should be made available to the public).
I’ve done a private party sale, but it was to a friend, not a stranger.
That’s a bit ridiculous as well. So if I sold you a truck and you got into a DUI manslaughter incident then I should be charged as an accessory? The “appropriate resources” you state are not available to the public and LEOs can be criminally charged for using it outside the scope of their duties.
It’s already a felony to sell a gun to a felon. It’s also illegal to sell a handgun to somebody who resided in another state. How do you sell a gun to someone without taking down their information and seeing a copy of their drivers license? How do you protect yourself from the legal consequences of arming someone who uses that gun to commit a crime? You’d better do your due diligence.
Anybody can fill out a NICS background check form and have it checked. If you sell a gun to someone who is not allowed to own one, you’re liable for the actions of that person. There is no gun show loophole, arming a criminal is a crime and every gun owner should know that.
The flip side is, no matter how you try to prevent it, a criminal is going to commit crimes and citizens will get hurt. You can’t get rid of ‘bad’ guns because there is no such thing. You can only try to protect yourself from ‘bad’ people and hope that societies revenge (justice) system can keep it from happening again.
The fact that the police managed to trace that gun to a gun show means that the justice system is already trying to punish the person that sold that gun. If they find him and convict him, he’ll never be able to own a gun, vote, or enjoy any of the other civil liberties that law abiding citizens take for granted.
I understand your need to ‘do something’ to keep this from happening again. The problem is there is nothing that can be done, beyond punishing the people responsible.
Cold comfort.
“Anybody can fill out a NICS background check form and have it checked.”
Not exactly. Only an FFL can call in and perform a background check. I think it would be very beneficial to open the system up for everyone to use voluntarily, however.
And this is how rights become privileges become bans become dissidents become something other than America. The state has no say over private sales of private property and creating a special class of private property is simply wrong. Let’s try the British model, it seems to be working for them.
I agree 100 percent with your statement. The problem was the seller in question didn’t need to do a background check. He just asked (according to him) if the buyer was a convicted felon. Buyer said “no”. That was it. Purchase happened in the South (where I’m from), so that should give you an idea of the regulatory environment. Again, no judgement on my part, just explaining that the (private) seller won’t face any consequences, and was fully complying with the law.
This certainly is a tragic story. Alas, the near total lack of detail makes it hard to comment upon.
I will, however, suggest that focusing on Felon-Control will probably produce a better result than Gun-Control.
Josh,
First, my deepest sympathies for your loss. I do know what it is like to lose someone to senseless violence. I remember the pain and anguish. I remember the white-hot rage. I truly hope that you will be able to heal, if not the scar, then at least the wound this tragedy has left you with.
Second, +1 for your implicit acknowledgement that criminals do not obey the law. This is a very important point, and more people need to understand it.
Unfortunately, -1 for your belief that private citizens transferring private property in a private transaction is somehow a “loophole”. This belief carries with it the implication that the state should have knowledge of every detail of every transaction taking place everywhere, which of course is not true. You assert that “but maybe it’d have taken him longer to find someone who’d sell it to him at risk of being arrested”. Forgive me, but “maybe” isn’t enough to justify giving the state more power to violate the privacy of law-abiding people. And no, there is no “middle ground”. Either you believe the state should have more power, or you don’t.
Good luck.
+1 and bonus points for eloquence.
To identify why the ‘gun show loophole’ is a sham, we must first come to the core of the problem.The problem at hand is that criminals will always be able to get a firearm.This isn’t an assumption, but a sad fact that is backed up by research and data in places where gun laws are so restrictive gun shows don’t even happen at all.
The supply of illicit weapons is high enough that if no more guns worldwide were ever made past today, the bad guys would still find a way to get guns.The criminals have multiple avenues of getting guns.
The first method is simply stealing one,sometimes from a gun owner whose collection they know about.
This on occasion can include the police.
Barring that, they find a friend or relative with a gun who can ‘lend’ it.
Next, they hit up friends to buy or trade for a gun.
Third, they straw purchase using girlfriends and relatives with a clean record who will pass a 4473.
Fourth, they find a crooked FFL who will deal with them. Yes, such corrupt people do exist just like there are crooked realtors, crooked cops, and crooked car salesmen, and even one crooked FFL or gun store employee can put hundreds of guns out before the feds nail them.
So I understand Josh’s perspective on the matter, but the sad truth of the matter is that the crime that happened to his cousin could only have been prevented by his cousin. If the felon didn’t buy the gun at a show, he would have sent in his girlfriend or brother to do the transaction for him. Or he would have just stolen someone else’s firearm.I’m not trying to play ‘ blame the victim’ at all, but had Josh’s cousin been armed with her own Glock matters may have ended very differently.
Just responding to the last statement, referring to my cousin’s lack of a firearm.
It wouldn’t have mattered. He got the drop on her, she had her arms full of shopping bags and was unlocking her car. With respect, I think the logic of that one point in your post is off. Other than that, I do see where you are coming from.
This’ll be my last response to this thread. I’m not trying to change minds, just let people see that its a complicated, and sometimes very personal, issue.
What is a “loophole”?
A “loophole” is something that is neither required nor prohibited by law. It’s something that is left up to the individual to do or not do as they choose.
A “loophole” is Liberty. Liberty is not safe. Bad people exist, and bad people arm themselves.
Nothing will prevent that.
There are many more good people than bad, and bad people can be stopped, by good people who are armed.
First off, I am sorry for your loss. I can’t even begin to understand what it feels like.
Concerning the topic at hand, however….
My question is: if it was a stabbing and not a gunshot would you be calling for tougher restrictions on knife purchases?
If someone wants to kill someone, they’re going to find a way to do it. Be it a knife, car, pointed stick or a rock, anything is a weapon if a person is properly motivated. From your description of the situation, any of those items would have been just as effective.
This “gun show” loophole is an easy scapegoat but will ultimately do nothing to solve the problemm.
The closing the gun show “loophole” is the ONLY “reasonable” gun control policy that is on the table. Why? Because we already limit private seller – to – private seller transactions for other goods. You are responsible if you sell alcohol to a minor, particularly if you don’t do a good investigation to check to see if they are of age. You can’t sell firearms / ammunition to people who are visibly intoxicated in most states. You also can’t sell vehicles without having the other person provide proof of insurance (for registration purposes).
The author’s right, crazies and criminals CAN walk into a gun show and quietly buy whatever gun they want. They then use it to commit some crime and everyone starts clamoring for other gun regulations that restrict your right to buy normal guns.
@Jeff
FLAME DELETED
Under the Gun Control Act of 1968 it’s already illegal, at the federal level for anyone to sell a gun to a criminal.
The legal specifics of how to conduct the private sale of firearms varies by state. Here in OR I can buy, sell, or trade a gun with another private citizen without involving the state. Other states do require you to either go through an FFL and/or register any firearms you have.
Regardless of the local laws governing the private sale of firearms it is a FEDERAL CRIME to give a firearm to a “prohibited person.”
Here is OR I have a choice if I want to involve an FFL in the sale of a firearm to another private citizen, again laws vary by state but at the end of the day if I sell a firearm to a “prohibited person” then I’m committing a crime. You can split hairs and talk about whether you “knowingly” selling the firearm to a criminal but most DAs won’t care, especially if the gun you sold is used in a crime and they can show that you did not practice your due-diligence in checking the person out.
The fact is that no one should be selling a gun to anyone that they do not personally know, and not even then, without involving an FFL, or otherwise getting a background check on the person who’s trying to buy the gun. It’s too much of a liability, because again it’s a FEDERAL CRIME TO SELL A GUN TO A PROHIBITED PERSON.
You don’t know what your talking about, move on. There is no loophole.
You already can’t sell a gun to someone that you have reason to believe is not legally allowed to buy a gun – how is that any different than not being legally allowed to sell alcohol to someone you have reason to believe is underage? And unless you live in a state with weird laws, only dealerships are required to verify insurance before selling a car – what the DMV does when the new owner goes to REGISTER it for legal use on the road is another issue.
actually you can. you just can’t legally. but the law is toothless if there is no record of the transaction.
“The author’s right, crazies and criminals CAN walk into a gun show and quietly buy whatever gun they want.”
Hi, let me introduce you to the Kommunist People’s Republic of Maryland and the Socialist District of Columbia. (From Feb 1977 to Mar 2007 it was ILLEGAL to own a handgun in DC. During much of this time DC was known as “the murder capital of the US.” It is still illegal to have a handgun in your home if you live in DC, and it is illegal for a non resident of DC to enter or drive through DC with a firearm without registering it with the police 1st) IF you can find an approved gun that you would like to purchase on the lists (made by combining Mass and Cali’s lists), it has the “correct” capacity and features, AND has a test fired empty shell casing available to be permenantly filed with the government, then you will have to begin looking for one of the few FFLs as ALL firearms must be FFL transferred. New, used, gun show, buying from family or friends, inhereted, even ones you have owned for years when you (mistakenly) move here must be transferred through an FFL. Also, both states are SHALL NOT issue states, with DC even restricting you to only being able to buy ammo for the caliber guns you have registered.
Here’s the interesting thing. These two cities (DC and Baltimore) while being relatively small compared to the other cities on the list seem to always make it near the top of the list for each category for number of violent crimes in a city in the US. Somehow, despite the very politicians living in this area telling you that these measure will greatly reduce crime and violence, crime and violence are unproportionally higher than other cities in the US.
“Yeah, he could’ve bought it on the black market if there wasn’t a gun show… but maybe it’d have taken him longer to find someone who’d sell it to him at risk of being arrested…”.
Not where I live. Criminals are criminals, jail is part of their life cycle, just like monthly client meetings are part of mine. We both think they suck, but we just keep our head down, say “yes sir/yes ma’am” and soon enough it will be over.
If I dropped the standard of guns I own and did not fear prosecution I have no doubt I could easily triple the size of my personal armory in a matter of hours (including Class III and suppressors) for a lot less than retail. That is despite half the people around here think I’m a fed, something about a guy in black suits, sunglasses and military-ish haircut with a German Sheppard and guns in the DC area. Heck I bet a couple of them that would deliver it right to my door for me despite thinking I’m a fed.
Come out here for the next gunshow (http://www.marylandstatefair.com/index.cfm?page=calendar&event_id=66) I’ll cover the $7 door charge. If you don’t have an FFL a gunshow here is more like going to a museum. The first one I went to when I moved up here (pre-FFL) drove me nuts. I found a 1903A4 with scope and negotiated a great price for it. Then he asks if I have an FFL because otherwise he can’t sell it me because he doesn’t have an FFL. I have yet to see an A4 that nice or at that good of a value with proper scope. (It is one of my favorites, and a hole in my collection still)
The laws are so restrictive, confusing and potentially expensive here that I know people who would other wise be law abiders just say screw it and buy them illegally or just not get one. I have also heard of a lot of straw buying, Dad buying for son or daughter, husband buying for wife, because they find it easier or less confusing. I’m talking Mr. 6 figure salary buying daddy’s girl a .380 since she goes to college or works in the city, not fellons or drug dealers.
While I greave for your lose, and similar loses, it sounds like that sick bastard would have used a plastic Taco Bell spork if that was all he could get. It was mind blowing what we saw used as weapons when I was an EMT. You want a good and effective gun law, check out gun friendly Florida’s 10-20-Life http://www.dc.state.fl.us/oth/10-20-life/ (I miss FL)
Mandates a minimum 10 year prison term for certain felonies, or attempted felonies in which the offender POSSESSES a firearm or destructive device (possess is the important phrasing in the law, it could have been hidden in your waistband and never seen, you still get an extra 10 years added on)
Mandates a minimum 20 year prison term when the firearm is discharged
Mandates a minimum 25 years to LIFE if someone is injured or killed (yes you can get life for accidentally shooting someone while you are committing a crime, they have done it)
Mandates a minimum 3 year prison term for possession of a firearm by a felon (I think that should have a 0 added to the end myself)
Mandates that the minimum prison term is to be served CONSECUTIVELY to any other term of imprisonment imposed (i.e. add in the 10 years for the B&E)
That is effective gun control legislation. I do not see requiring anyone wanting to buy a gun at a legitimate gunshow to undergo backgrounds and waiting periods, or deal with the BATFE, FBI, State and file all 10 fingerprints for an FFL to be effective. I see that as punnishing 99.9% of show attendees in the off chance of hoping to slowing down .1%’s sick rampage. Human nature is (sadly) violent. We where killing each other for no good reason long before guns, and we’ll keep doing it long after them.
Only 48 of the 50 states in this country mandate the need for auto insurance. It’s not requisite to prove that someone has insurance to sell them a car unless they are buying the car with a loan, then it’s the bank that requires it. Other than that, only the city/state is gonna hold an individual responsible for having it, unless you live in a place that puts laws on the books with no way to enforce them, which unfortunately is becoming popular nationwide…
A lot of people here have expressed valid points why further restrictions would not work. I’m going to repeat what they’ve said with my own spin.
In a fair number of states there are already laws requiring the transfer of firearms between private citizens to be conducted at an FFL, and across this country it is illegal to knowingly transfer a firearm to a convicted felon. Also when I order a weapon out of state I have to do it using an FFL. This makes sense and I can see every state moving in this direction however it is merely window dressing designed to make people feel good. After all, I think you’re legally prevented from selling a vehicle to a person who does not have insurance and/or a Driver’s License (Please correct me if I am wrong) however we see plenty of people driving illegally (either Illegals without a license or people who’ve earned DUI’s.
How can you enforce this law to prevent the private transfer, how would the legal system know if a transfer was made without the use of an FFL? The only way to know if someone transferred a firearm illegally would be to require the registration of all weapons (as pointed out in a previous post).
I’m sorry Josh, the mugger could have just as easily used a knife or blunt object to commit his crimes. The problem isn’t the Glock it’s the criminal and the penal system.
The way it would be enforced is to also require licensing and registration. Oh, I know it was tried and found wanting in Canada, right? Well, this ain’t Canada. We’re the guys who landed a man on the moon. You think we couldn’t organize a proper licensing and registration of gun owners and guns.
We could and we should. Then the “no private sales” deal would work.
Aren’t you on the wrong side of the pond to be using the word “we”?
Are you saying that America’s bureaucracy is more efficient than Canada’s? That because a hugely bloated NASA budget put a man on the moon our government should be able to run an efficient registration scheme involving over 150m firearms? Are you serious? You do know that the ATF can’t even use the system we have now effectively, right? Busy as they were with transferring firearms from gun stores to known felons to take to Mexico.
+1
And will you push for the registration of all baseball bats, lead pipes, knives, brass knuckles, and pry bars?
If not, why register firearms and not these other items as well?
Don’t forget registration of any martial arts ability (boxing, high school wrestling, karate, etc).
They use to make you register yourself as a deadly weapon if you possessed attained a certain skill level. A friend of mine has multiple black belts and is a stage fighter and sword fighting demonstrator in CA and still has his licenses from when it was still required…
I used to box at a gym where one of the fighters was originally charged with assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder for punching a guy mugging him at knife point. The guy cracked his skull falling on the curb unconscious from one punch. Someone at the Mass DA’s office finally used logic and dropped all charges, but it still shows on his record.
Because we landed a man on the moon, we should be able to abrogate our constitutionally protected rights?
Mike, you don’t understand the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence.
The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right, inherent in the condition of being human. We have the right to self-defense, and the documents _protect_ that right, they do not _grant_ it.
No, we couldn’t organize a “proper licensing” scheme, because no such scheme, no matter how efficient would be “proper.”
If you think the government may institute a licensing system doling out our rights to those it thinks worthy, you need to go back to high school social studies class.
The gubmit issues licenses for people to drive cars and those who own cars must have insurance… by your logic, only people with licenses and insurance do any driving. However, I was hit by a person who had neither a license to drive, nor insurance for the vehicle. If the government can’t stop someone from purchasing and driving a car (you know, those 1500-4000 pound masses of metal, which everyone except the blind can see,) how exactly can the government stop the purchase and use of firearms by someone who wants one?
Since you brought it up, yes I see it working something like the DMV. Of course there’s be scofflaws with the gun licensing and registration just like there are with cars, but by and large, it could work.
Think about it this way. Almost every car on the planet has an identifying number attached to it. What could be a bigger scheme than that, and what could be more daunting a task?
Very well put. If you don’t mind I may use your statements in the future. I already use car insurance when talking about why I own a gun.
Usually something like;
Idiot: Oh, you own guns, you must be planning to shoot someone or why else would you have them.
Me: Do you have car insurance?
Idiot: Yes, why?
Me: Oh, so you plan on driving around hitting every car you see and running over pedestrians, otherwise why would you have insurance?
Idiot: In case something bad happens and I need it. I would hate to need it and not have it.
Me: Exactly
Every day some one is out there driving without a license, or insurance, or in a stolen car. Mike it’s simple and true to the point. CRIMINALS DONT follow the laws that are currently on the books! CRIMINALS DONT care about other people’s pain, position in life or their feelings! CRIMINALS DONT ……………on into infinity.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/death-row-inmate-writes-taunting-letter-life-leisure/story?id=15438651
The CRIMINAL justice system is justice for who?
The convicted felon who committed this act should not have been out on the street. The system is broken when some one is put on death row and they get to laugh about it. Or when a pedophile after being convicted of multiple rapes gets ten years these CRIMINALS should never taste freedom. But they do, and then they do the same thing again, and again, and again……..into infinity.
This is why we fight tooth, fang and claw against things like closing this mythical loophole, because folks like Mike know it would not result in less crime, it would only lead to calls for what they really want registration as a first step to confiscation…
I know no such thing. You’re the one who’s playing loose with the truth.
Gun control the way I describe it would show tremendously positive results. What you’re afraid of is either one of two things.
1. you really are law abiding and you’d be inconvenienced a little bit, or
2. you’re a hidden criminal and shouldn’t own guns in the first place and might be identified as such.
I’m already inconvenienced a little bit. A little bit less now that I have my CWFL and can bypass the 3 day waiting period, but still inconvenienced.
I’m not interested in Death By A Thousand Cuts.
Look. Until Mike figures out that criminals are criminals because they purposely ignore the law, we can have no rational debate with him. We can pass any law in addition to the 10000+ gun laws already on the books and criminals can and will ignore them. What a shock.
@Mike. I challenge you to show me one country with the same socioeconomic breakdown and population of the United States where gun control HAS WORKED. Seriously. Just one. GBR and AUS have seen an increase since their famous gun bans. CAN is more overbudget in their registration scheme than they could ever plan.
For players not in the same socioeconomic stata, RUS has stricter laws than here yet they have exponentially more violent crime. MEX has more violent crime fueled by our own BATF. Most of South America has higher violent crime despite more “common sense” gun laws.
So tell me Mike, where has this ever worked outside of someone’s imagination?
Registration of a legal activity is unconstitutional, it was already struck down by the SCOTUS in Lamont v Postmaster General. This was back during the red scare, they wanted people who were receiving “commie” mail to register at the post office if they wanted to continue receiving it, otherwise the post office would hold onto it.
“After all, I think you’re legally prevented from selling a vehicle to a person who does not have insurance and/or a Driver’s License (Please correct me if I am wrong) ”
You’re wrong. You can sell a car to anyone you want. If they want to register it and drive it on public roads, they must prove to the DMV that they have a license and insurance.
You can also sell someone a candlestick, a knife, a lead pipe, a rope, or a wrench as a private individual to another private individual, and all of these items can and have been used to kill people.
It’s the individual that decides whether or not they are used for that purpose, and that’s where the focus should be, not on the item.
Thank you, I was unaware of this.
The last time I purchased a vehicle from a dealership (about ten years ago because the bloody truck refuses to die) I was left with the impression that if I hadn’t provided the two they wouldn’t have sold it to me. But they may have really been saying that they wouldn’t/couldn’t allow me to drive away with it.
How did you know this guy was robbing people during the 6 year period? Because of convictions? Then why wasn’t he in jail? There are about 23,000 laws pertaining to firearms in this country and you want another one, when we are not enforcing the ones we have?
If you want to place blame, how about this bad guy being out in society instead of in prison for the robberies he committed. And that is the fault of the judges/juries that allowed him to be on the streets.
I resent strongly your trying to implicate me as a partner in future crimes. I do understand grief, but don’t understand the loss of common sense or logical thinking.
It happened six years ago. Not over a 6 year period.
I amI sorry firI the loss as wellI know that in one (of the two) major gun shows that I’ve been to (WA state), that they run a background check prior to allowing purchase of actual guns. They give you a badge once your screening is complete. Those with a criminal background aren’t able to buy fiddly as far as guns go.
I like that idea, especially if they allow pre-screening for those the FBI always throws a “Hold” on for no valid reason and then switch to an OK 48 hours later.
The “Gun Show Loophole” is an urban myth. It doesn’t exist.
Law abiding citizens will always buy their guns legally.
Criminals will always buy their guns illegally, regardless of how much legislation is written.
In my corner of the country, a person has to be a member of the Gun Show Club hosting the gun shows to be able to buy/sell firearms at the gun shows. All members are issues ID badges after passing background checks.
No ID, No sale.
No “Gun Show Loophole” needs to be closed – we just need to use (un)common sense.
Is that right, RKBA? What id you want to sell one of your guns to your brother-in-law, you know the one with the secret meth habit who’s recently graduated to heroin?
Can you do it?
That’s what we’re talking about.
@mikeb302000
Read the Gun Control Act of 1968. It’s a federal crime to give, or sell a gun to a person who is:
an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled
substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
It’s not illegal enough for the gun control nuts I guess. We need to make it super illegal.
Why not just skip the middle man and make crime illegal? Then all the criminals would have to stop right?
Sure, you can sell the gun to the meth addict and win a 5 year excercise spa vacation via the Federal Government. No problem.
Five? The sign at my local gun shop says ten years.
yeah, sure, or you could just pretend to not have known. That’s what the crooked FFL guys do all the time. We call it “turning a blind eye” and it’s hard as hell to prove in a court of law.
Re: crooked FFL guys do all the time
Numbers. Show me numbers. With citations. Not the “best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night” type BS that you typically put out.
It is hard as hell to prove in a court of law, but it is you who will be trying to prove you did nothing wrong. Federal Firearm laws are guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, not the other way around.
When I gave my Dessert Eagle to a Marine I call brother before he was shipped to Afghanistan I could have legally just handed it to him. Did I? Hell no, and I didn’t write it up myself either, it went through an FFL at the range I used to shoot at. That protected all of us involved.
In other words there’s lots of gun laws, but none of them seem to halt the criminal use of guns.
Say it ain’t so.
I’m perfectly ok with “closing the gun show loophole” or in other words, making a rule that all sellers including private sellers at gun shows have to have brady checks.
Fine.
As long as the same exact legislation makes it POSSIBLE for the seller at the gunshow to do a Brady check as easily as the FFL at the next table does, and doesn’t impose some new magic $25 or $50 fee on each sale to perform the check. If the gun-show operator has to have a “Brady check table” and make the check right there, no problem.
Now, what about other private sales, or more impotantly private transfers.
Do I have have a brady check to give a gun to my brother? To my son? To my wife? If so, how do I do that and what does it cost me?
and how do you enforce it without madatory registration?
“Do I have have a brady check to give a gun to my brother? To my son? To my wife? If so, how do I do that and what does it cost me?”
In some states, yes. Even if you pass on and leave your prized Citori O/U to your son in the will, depending on the state, he may need to run to the local FFL so he is not committing a felony.
FFL transfers vary, you can charge what ever you want, or some choose not to do them at all, but usually you are looking at $45-65 per gun. Keep in mind though there may be a waiting period still.
It is not just to restrict my right to engage in private firearms transactions because someone else committed a crime. My right to acquire the means to defend myself against aggressors is a natural right upon which the government has absolutely no right to infringe. Murders happen. They aren’t caused by guns. They are caused by murderers.
Gun controllers love the term “gun show loophole” because it implies that that people are using said “loophole” to evade or skirt the law.
When they say “close the gun show loophole” what they mean is “outlaw private transfers of firearms.” Using that (more accurate) description of their intentions would rile up a lot of folks who, quite reasonably, think that they ought to be able to buy and sell private property without getting a permission slip from the state.
It’s also worth pointing out that the intention of such legislation is to (a) create a de facto registration scheme (since every firearms transfer would be recorded then eventually every firearm would have a record that could trace it to its current owner) and (b) create two classes of guns: “Legal” guns and “illegal” guns. “Illegal” guns in such a scheme would be guns that were possessed by someone who could not show a government-approved paperwork trail establishing his ownership of the weapon and would subject him/her to confiscation (at the least) or felony prosecution at the worst.
The above is the usual “grasping at straws” reasoning that is quite common after a tragedy of this sort. While I’m very sorry for your loss, and I’m certain that while dealing with bereavement of this sort, just about anything seems reasonable.
At the heart of your issue is timing, suggesting that the criminal who murdered your loved one may not have been able to do so were it harder to purchase a firearm. Well, consider this: It is much easier to purchase a firearm illegally than to visit a gun show or attempt a private transaction, that is why the vast majority of criminals visit another bad guy with a trunk full of guns, and not gun shows. There’s nothing to say he would not have been at the same place, at the same time, using another weapon procured via other means.
Any number of metrics could also have resulted in this person going after someone else. What if your cousin had parked somewhere else? What if they had been armed themselves and more aware of their surroundings? What if a more appealing target had presented itself to the bad guy? You can, and probably have run through any number of situations that would end with your loved one alive, but unfortunately that is not the case.
What you need to realize is that your emotional quest for some sort of justice (no idea what happened to the bad guy, presumably he was caught and punished) has lead you to a mindset of prevention. Nobody else should have to go through what you are going through. Unfortunately, the simple fact of the matter is that many others will, and no amount of firearms regulation will ever prevent it. Not. Ever.
As such, you should ask yourself: Is it reasonable to insist, or even suggest that others, the vast majority of law abiding citizens, should have more regulation dumped on them even though it is very unlikely to prevent a single death? A rational mind would tend to say no, it is not.
I’ll suggest another situation: What if your loved one had noticed that she was being followed for several days, the same person hanging around, the same car, or what have you. Now say she was rightly concerned about this and decided to purchase a firearm to protect herself. Now imagine the horror of being unable to do so expediently, as a law abiding citizen, and hence being helpless to defend against a criminal. That nightmare is one that plays out on a daily basis in cities that do impose strict firearms regulation. I would submit that the nightmare those who are unable to defend themselves go through is just as real, just as terrible, and just as important to consider.
While we are busy working on the gun show loophole lets close the religion loophole and freedom of speech loopholes. Too often people are getting religion, and free speech from private citizens without the government telling them if it is ok or not.
It sucks your cousin died, but it is NEVER EVER OK to remove the rights of others because someone might abuse those rights.
It is already illegal to:
1. kill people
2. mug them
3. for convicted felons to have a firearm (I don’t agree with this but that is another issue)
4. to fire your gun at people
5. fire the gun in town
6. carry the gun concealed without a permit(in all but a few states)
7. buy ammunition if you’re a felon and on and on.
At that count that guy already broke 6-7 laws, why do you feel closing the gun show loophole, another useless law, will make a difference?
Here’s a hint, it won’t make one bit of difference except to the people already not breaking the 6-7 laws listed above.
It will make a difference because it will raise the bar for access. If that criminal must got to an FFL to complete the purchase and go through the background check then he won’t get the gun. If he must go to the black market then the price will jump along with the risk. The problem with private sales are that they are easy and leave no paper trail.
“The problem with private sales are that they are easy and leave no paper trail.”
—–
And?
The easier it is for a criminal to get a gun then more criminals will have them. The easier you make anything, the more people do it/buy it. If you create an environment where illegal activity is more difficult then it will happen less often. Great example – street lights. When cities started to put up street lights their crime rates dropped. If all gun sales had to go through an FFL then criminals would need to work harder, and take greater risks, to get them. I also do not see how this hurts those of us that would easily pass a background check.
I hate to break it to you but criminals love to steal guns out of cars and residences. On occasion they get “baby mama” with a clean record to pass the NICs check for them just like they do with auto registration (since many of them are habitual offenders with suspended or revoked licenses).
Let’s move to the realm of reality and stop the what ifs.
I suppose all vehicles should go through a dealership too and get a criminal background check since we never know if the buyer might be a habitual traffic offender or future DUI case. Swimming pools should be regulated as they kill more children every year than guns. THINK OF THE CHILDREN. We should lobby to put on the books “common sense” pool laws on access gates and where you can own a swimming pool. Too close to an elementary school? Too bad.
It is clear from the postings here that the antis have no understanding of existing law or NICS checks regulations on both FFLs and LEOs. Criminals are criminals for the simple fact they ignore laws. Until someone actually accepts that as fact, this discussion can logically go no further.
“I suppose all vehicles should go through a dealership too…”
Not exactly the same thing here is it. You still have to transfer the title of the vehicle no matter who you sell it to
If this were a nun and puppy killing criminal purchasing my car for cash; he could continue to be a criminal by NOT registering the vehicle. I can’t tell you how many unregistered or improperly registered vehicles I have come across.
Aside from that, there are plenty of vehicles all over ebay, craigslist, and other local ads that are being sold for cash with no title. Or I suppose I could just steal one since that is what criminals do with guns.
No you don’t. My friend has an antique Jeep Willy’s that has never been titled. It has no insurance and no tags, and yes it drives and runs. However it never leaves his property in the mountains or goes on any public road. As such it is not required to be registered, tagged or insured. The bill of sale for it is all he needs.
“Yeah, he could’ve bought it on the black market if there wasn’t a gun show… but maybe it’d have taken him longer to find someone who’d sell it to him at risk of being arrested…”
Yeah, you are right about that. It would taken an extra 20 minutes to get a gun on the black market.
I grieve with you for your loss.
As others have stated, the “Gun Show Loophole” is a misnomer. Any gun dealer, regardless of where and when he sells a gun must conduct a background check. Any private seller, regardless of when and where is not bound by the Brady Act. So this is “face to face private sale problem” not a gun show loophole.
Personally, I wouldn’t mind a background check at all gun shows to be able to purchase but that wouldn’t have stopped the guy your’re talking about; it would have reduced the options but not eliminated them. Further, I wish that the Brady Act would allow my CCW license to be my proof of background check since I had to pass a local and national check to get it.
The only reason that wouldn’t work (the CCW license for background check thing) is that you could have committed a crime that would negate your ability to have it, and still have possession of the card. Legally if your driver license is suspended or revoked, you are supposed to surrender to the state any license in your possession. Know anyone who actually does that?
In Florida, we have a 3 day waiting period on handgun purchases, and my CWFL does get me out of that… I can walk out the same day with my purchase. But I still have to be run through NICS.
While the first sentence is true, the second is not. Some states – notably California – have outlawed private sales. All firearms transfers must go through a licensed dealer.
BTW, the anti-gunners like to use a deliberately deceptive term in describing private transfers, they call them “unlicensed dealers.” This makes them sound (to the non-gun-familiar public) like people who are doing something illegal or at least legally questionable. In fact, the only “unlicensed dealers” are criminals who make a living selling guns “off the books.” Obviously the vast majority of private gun sales are not from “dealers” of any kind, they are from ordinary Joes and Janes who simply decide to sell their legally owned private property to another adult, which is permitted in most of the US.
The anti-gunners’ use of the “unlicensed dealer” terminology to try and confuse the public and make an innocent act appear to be sinister is akin to their deliberate attempts to convince the public that so-called “semiautomatic assault weapons” are the same thing as military machine guns.
Of course, when zealots can’t convince the public with the truth, they have to resort to lies to push their agenda.
All gun sales should go through an FFL. Why is that so hard to accept?
The Bill of Rights has limits. Those limits are acceptable because they prevent the exercise of a right from impinging the rights of others. The background check system is our most effective method of preventing the sale of a firearm to an individual that should never own one.
If you want to sell a gun as a private sale, take it to an FFL holder and run the check. It is better to do that then to have the gun you sold end up as exhibit A in a murder case.
“The Bill of Rights has limits.”
—–
Quite so. “Shall not be infringed” sure sounds like a strict limit on the state’s power. Or is that not what you meant?
“The background check system is our most effective method of preventing the sale of a firearm to an individual that should never own one.”
—–
Then why are there all these criminals running around with guns?
“If you want to sell a gun as a private sale, take it to an FFL holder and run the check. It is better to do that then to have the gun you sold end up as exhibit A in a murder case.”
How does running it through an FFL make sure it does not end up as exhibit A in a murder case? In the Capano case in Delaware he was a famous attorney who bought a gun quite legally from a gun store. And then proceeded to use it illegally. Even after a background check.
Background check is the most effective..
How did that work out Gabby Giffords? Longer passed his NIC. NIC is a near worthless, expensive waste of time and effort.
In Ohio, is costs around $25 per transfer to go through an FFL. Many are rasing that fee, because the realize that what a PITA it is.
In case you missed the news flash – we are winning. That means we are finished giving into B.S. laws that do infring on our rights.
For every person that slips through now, there are many that do not. Imagine if there were no background check. The numbers of guns that would end up in the wrong hands would rise dramatically.
Have you ever been to a real gun store? I am being serious. FFLs are not required to sell to anyone, they reserve the right to sell. I would love to be there when (insert gangster nickname here) walks into my dealer with his “Thug Life” and teardrop tat and tries to buy a gun from old Gunney. Do you have any idea what percent of legal gun owners find gun stores to be too intimmidating to walk into? Do you really think some hardened felon is going to feel comfortable walking in there, let alone have any idea what the current, ever changing, gun laws are? Even if there somehow is not an off duty cop working at the store, you will most likely find one or two on duty ones hanging out there. If you where wanted would you want to be in a small secure store room with heavily armed cops, veterans and other “salt of the earth” type gun owners?
Except for that whole part where it’s not effective at all, right?
If only everyone had to lock their guns in safes with trigger locks and ammunition stored seperately my _______ would have lived.
If only guns were kept at registered gun clubs _______ would have lived.
If guns were registered we would know where the gun was stolen from and _________ would still be dead.
If only we limited people to purchasing pepper spray _______ would have lived.
The idea that the standard for laws is simply a pragmatic option of who lived or died is the path to legislative doom. I know call me Mr. Slippery Slope, but with out concrete principle every human life loss is another avenue to restriction of freedom. Even with good intention this would happen by the purposed standard. The problem with ideologies that allow the registration, background checks, etc…. is not that were terrified the black choppers (read predator drones) are overhead, its that the very idea that laws are a simple rational choices, based off individual scenarios with concrete benefit to loss ratios. Freedoms dont have an intrinsic value, we can’t attempt to weigh them with the value of a life wich also has an intrinsic value. I believe a quote about security and liberty comes to mind here.
Replace Guns with Cars and see how this looks. And don’t tell use that Cars are different for X number of reasons. In the wrong hands they are deadly weapons.
Cars aren’t mentioned in the Constitution. There is only one item that is.
Yet we have fewer restrictions on the sale and ownership of vehicles…hmmm….
I don’t see any reason why there should be no background check at gun shows. It would be silly to ban all private party transfers, but going to a show is like going to a gun store. The easy way to fix the problem is to require a background check to enter the gun show or leave, but allow private dealers to still sell there. Unchecked private transfers outside of shows can be left alone, since it would be nigh impossible to stop those from happening anyway.
The second amendment is absolute in my mind. No responsible citizen should be ever barred from owning any type of gun, even machine guns in some cases. But background checks act as a safety net that allow responsible citizens to express their second amendment rights while improving public safety at the same time.
The way I think the whole second amendment issue can be resolved is to create legislation that implements stronger background checks that contain mental health records and first time gun safety training, but also include parts that remove assault weapon bans and handgun rosters, implement concealed carry nationwide, deregulate suppressors, and repeal the Hughes amendment. To seal the deal, the bill could only be repealed as a whole, so states wanting to ban assault weapons would have to give up better background checks as a result. Maybe this is an unrealistic and stupid idea, but it might work.
I can see how the background check upon entrance would not be a bad idea per se. In this way, we can eliminate convicted felons from entering. Also as everyone would be “run,” there is no way to correlate a background check with acquisition of firearms by mere attendance at the gun show. The question is whether this data would be used one day as the premise to conduct a “reasonable” search because you were at a gun show. We already know that DHS has labeled vets and persons displaying 2A and Gadsen Flags as potential extremists. They have blown this cloud of BS up the asses of most LE Agencies in the form of Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) bulletins distributed across the country.
Also, where is this infrastructure and it’s associated funding going to come from? We are beyond broke. The current NICS check in Florida takes upwards of 30 minutes on hold during the work week. Those are only FFL dealers calling in.
“I can see how the background check upon entrance would not be a bad idea per se. In this way, we can eliminate convicted felons from entering.”
It is not illegal for a convicted fellon to go to a gun show, just like it is not illegal for a habitual drunk driver who has lost thier license to go to a car show. A convicted fellon can even go to the range and run through a 1,000 rounds of joy, even rent a gun at the range if they want. They are only breaking the law if they attempt to, or actually do, purchase a firearm.
Actually the law reads that convicted felons cannot possess firearms or ammunition. If they rent a firearm they are in violation. If you pick up a firearm or ammunition you are technically in possession. Here is one example:
http://www.marconews.com/news/2008/apr/08/convicted-felons-trip-marco-gun-range-earns-him-10/
Interesting. I always took possession to mean something more permanent. When you rent a gun at the range, you cannot leave the range, it stays under their roof and supervision. Interesting.
So you know the stories of dirty cops sprinkle crack or throwing a drop gun on someone to make it a righteous shot? Does this mean I can just throw some 9mm round in their pocket? JK
Wow.
“After sentencing Tuesday, Mead (the DA) said Doland (the con) had even asked D’Allessandro (the off duty cop working at the range) if he had any guns for sale. She added: “I don’t know what he was thinking.”
Neither do I
“The easy way to fix the problem is to require a background check to enter the gun show or leave”
What system are we going to use then? The current federal database is allowed to, and often does take, up to 72 hours to make a decision on yes or no. Do we make them wait outside for up to 3 days, if the show is even that long, waiting for an answer?
Why should it Be that you cannot own a gun until it is proven with out a reasonable doubt that you are not a violent felon? What happened to be presumed innocent? Not to mention that 99.9+% of those denied (about 0.8% of those who attempt to legally purchase a firearm) are false positive. I’m not even going to do the math on what percentage that leaves, nationally, that are actually correctly prevented by the current system. (stats stolen from http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/01/nics-checks-by-state-by-month-by-year.html)
Josh has bought the argument that buying a gun at a gun show was faster/easier/more possible than other means which contributed to the crimes committed by the bad guy. His focus is off the perpetrator and onto others who he feels contributed or abated the act that took his cousin.
It’s regrettable as hell that he feels that way since the one person responsible for her death is the guy that pulled the trigger. Attempts to widen the net of responsibility serve the purposes of those who have other agendas. They won’t think of his cousin any more than the law abiding public when their goal of disarmament is met.
I’m not kicking Josh around for having that position, it’s one shared by a lot of people and probably has merit. But I hold responsible those that do the crime, not those that either committed no crime or were not in a position to know. If the person who sold the gun did so against the law, a “gun show loophole” really isn’t needed for him to do so. All a gun show does is bring people together. They can get together on craigslist or through mutuals.
This whole gun show loop hole is BS. Gun shows attract the BATF who are looking to entrap sellers. The dealers at the show must abide by the same rules as at a gun store. Private sellers can sell face to face FTF transactions. FTF does not have to do background checks and do not have to fill out form 4473. If the FTF sells to an ineligible buyer and is caught by the BATF, that seller is looking at 5 years hard labor. If the buyer is a criminal and commits a crime, the seller probably will be doing time. Just because the FTF was not recorded, the BATF can still trace to the original seller and follow up with investigations on the trail that the gun inquestion took to settle in as a crime weapon. A lot of FTF sales are now having the buyer fill out a form similar to the 4473 to protect themselves. Go to a good gun forum and learn more about FTF sales.
I have done FTF, but only to people I knew very well.
The above concerns Indiana. FTF varies quite a bit by State.
I am sorry for the tragedy that Josh described.
But, we do NOT need to close a “loophole” that doesn’t exist. As stated above, it is already a federal crime to transfer a firearm to a “prohibited person” as defined in the statute. We do NOT need the government to register our firearms or involve itself in private transfers.
What we DO need is for citizens and legislators and judges and law enforcement to give as much respect and deference to the exercise of the Second Amendment as they do to the exercise of the freedoms of speech, press, religion, jury trial, etc.
The argument that there is no “loophole,” or that it is a misnomer is a tired diversion. We’re past that already, why do so many of you keep hammering at it?
Background checks on private sales is what we’re talking about. Lives would be saved. It’s that simple.
And liberty lost. Also simple.
Freedom isn’t as important as temporary safety to these people. I assume Ben Franklin is spinning in his grave.
And the point is, background checks on private sales are meaningless and impossible unless you know where every single gun is, and that means universal registration, and that is anathema to the majority of gun owners.
There’s a lot of things we could do in this world that would save lives, but someone has to draw the line somewhere. There is a cost/benefit or cost/hassle ratio involved. Yes, I realize that we’re talking about human life, and that I’m a jerk for trying to draw that line, but that doesn’t negate my point. Think how many lives could be saved if every motor vehicle had a breathalyzer attached to the ignition… Too much cost for the manufacturer, passed on to the consumer, too much hassle for everyone involved, so we don’t do it.
And the reason we keep “hammering at it” is that not everyone knows. When you say nice sounding phrases like “close the gun show loophole” lots of people probably agree. When you explain the details of what that means, and what it requires, some of that support goes away. We continue to hammer away because we’re giving full information, not just getting the answer we want to hear from a feel-good five word phrase.
Some idiot could still sell or loan to a known criminal, even with proposed background checks, paperwork and regisration for FTF in state sales. They just would not report it.
It would not be legal.
Of course if you sell a gun to the criminal element now, it would be illegal as well.
Any way you look at it, the BATF can trace the weapon down and is not going to be thrilled with the seller.
The Feds tend to come down rather hard on sellers who cater to criminals. ( Unless they and the cops are the ones doing it)
I will also say that there is more of a legal burden on the seller in a FTF transaction than what most people think. Some FTF sellers have really got burned at gun shows by the BATF having an ineligible straw man snitch trying to buy guns from legit sellers. The straw snitch misrepresents himself with false ID, the sale takes place, the BATF busts the seller. Snitch walks. This happened at a gun show in Texas.
I would recommend knowing the buyer well when doing FTF.
We could save roughly 40,000 lives a year if we banned private automobiles, car accidents wouldn’t be so common if only “professionals” we’re allowed to have dangerous motor vehicles.
If we banned fatty foods and mandated exercise ala 1984 we could save more than 50,000 lives a year.
The point is that we won’t because we value freedom over temporary safety. That has been a principle of this nation since it’s birth.
JP wants “as much respect and deference to the exercise of the Second Amendment as they do to the exercise of the freedoms of speech, press, religion, jury trial, etc.” But, what he really wants is adoration.
Seeing the examples of Canada, the UK, and Australia we can see how effective gun registries are at stopping “gun” crime, and in rounding up firearms of private citizens. Registering weapons is simply useless at actually stopping crime.
Like all gun sale limitations it does nothing but restrict the buying of firearms by good and decent people. Criminals know where they can go for a gun, and don’t care what the source is.
For those who say its faster at a gun show, is that after you wait for the weekend and drive there? I am pretty sure the black market is open 24/7.
To recap –
1. Registering guns? Failure at stopping crime.
2. Treating citizens like potential criminals based upon extreme examples, and adding another layer of bureacracy & cost that in the end will lead to increased burdens? Failure at stopping crime.
3. Gun Shows Sales? Not faster than the street. So restricting sales a failure in stopping crime.
The easy answer is (1) get criminals off the street, and (2) get criminals off the street. California I understand is working on this… backwards.
You can’t regulate behaviour and its the only thing that needs to change, and its the one thing that won’t change.
Gun registration is a prelude to gun confiscation.
+1
The story that led to all of these comments is not about registration. It is about making sure a gun sale is valid. I would think that passing a sale through an FFL would be something that we could all support. I’m not sure why folks believe that something we all go through every time we buy a gun at our local shop shouldn’t also be used for private sales.
What you suggest is not possible without registration of every firearm.
Let’s look at this another way … If a sale must pass through an FFL then the SELLER is also protected from facing Federal charges. This one small change could protect sellers AND help to prevent criminals from easily buying a gun. That to me is a true win-win.
Well Ladies and Gentlemen, if I don’t stop now, I’ll sit here all night discussing this. It’s time for me to go support the ATF by smoking, drinking and blowing sh!t up, have a good night everyone.
I’ve noticed every time we ask MikeB to give a factual example of how gun control has worked or cite his sources, he either quickly changes the subject or just doesn’t respond. Anyone else notice the same trend?
Your powers of perception are just incredible, not to mention convenient, in that personal attacking kinda way.
I’ve provided factual examples and I’ve cited sources but you don’t like them. So where do we go from here.
I know, “did not,” “did too,” “did not.”
“I’ve provided factual examples and I’ve cited sources”
—–
Where? When? Links? Put up or shut up time.
One of my favorites:
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/07/guns-and-women.html
In case you don’t want to go there, here’s the link I used. And, by the way, there have been hundreds since then, both “factual examples and [I’ve] cited sources.”
http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=17530
“From the book by Prof. David Hemenway, Private Guns Public Health, here are some statistics which support my very unpopular comment that “guns are bad news for women.” The following chart describes female deaths.”
If you do care to pop over to my site, there’s a nifty graph that I copied out of the book. It’s absolutely irrestible when trying to convince that “guns are bad news for women.”
Still using Hemenway’s doctored statistics? Really?!
I’ll just have you know this is the first and only time I have seen you link to a source. Granted this source is on the Youth Violence Prevention Center which has a fairly liberal agenda (similar to most educational institutions).
I’ve noticed the sources specifically pick states to fill the numbers. If this guy were serious about statistics, he could do regression analysis against more than just a few cherry-picked states. It wouldn’t really matter if the populations were the same numbers or not assuming he can do simple statistics.
Why doesn’t he run the numbers with Washington DC or just the mere city of Chicago? They in theory should have the lowest numbers of gun crimes since by that same logic they have the most draconian gun laws in the US. Note that the CDC also includes law enforcement uses of lethal force as well.
“I’ll just have you know this is the first and only time I have seen you link to a source.”
Is that an apology or an admission that you were wrong?
I believe you and Moonshine have been spreading the malignant falsity that I NEVER provide facts or links.
It’s the fact that I this is the only time I have seen you cite a source. Sadly upon looking at the source, the research seems flawed at best and fraudulent at worst. The sample populations appear to be cherry picked and the author seems to have no clue of regression analysis. Try again.
It’s not a personal attack, but you never cite any successful gun registration or legislation. Seriously, just show me one instance where this actually works in reality (not in theory) with a reputable source. I don’t read every post on this blog so if you have cited them in the past; forgive me, but I have not seen a single one.
Why should you have to ask the gov. to sell your OWN private property?
How about convicted felons have a special mark on ther ID identifying them as such? Most people wouldn’t sell to a known felon. I know it’s fairly simple to get around it, but also easy and cheap to implement and if it prevented even a few transfers it’d be worth it.
Comments are closed.