Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
We have a right to guns and the magazines of ammo to fire them. Is a law that limits magazines to 15 rounds "infringing" on that right? There are slippery slopes everywhere you look with these sorts of questions.
And every time someone brings up that slippery slope when we're specifically discussing Background Checks, it plays right into the hands of an industry that cares about profits, not rights. Please, call your representative, ask them to support the latest bill, and help reduce gun crime in a way that doesn't punish responsible gun owners.
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
I correct myself, hopefully universal background checks will increase gun crime, by making criminals of those who willingly sell guns to criminals.
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Do you really think any GOOD gun owner sets around waiting for some criminal to contact him in a bar about a gun??? I think you must.
I'm not concerned about the "good" owners, I'm concerned about many people reselling guns, no questions asked in those 30 or 31 states where it's not a crime to sell guns privately to a total stranger, where its even legal to advertize that no background check will be needed. Don't believe me? Go to armslist.com and look yourself. You're living in la-la land if you think criminals need to bother crossing the Mexican border to get guns, when they can get them so easily already.
Must be hell for you in PA where dam near everyone has a gun or three. Hunting capitol of the right coast on all.
I grew up hunting, I was on my university target shooting team and my military reserve shooting team, guns don't bother me, people selling guns to crooks do. Here in PA, a firearms safety course is required to get a hunting permit, while none is required to get a CCW. Does that make sense?
Happy weekend.
TE
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
I don't know what you want to do. It's already illegal to sell guns to crooks. What more do you want? Make it double-secret illegal, or something?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Do you believe you can profile by appearance?
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Rational thought seems to take a convoluted path simply by mentioning firearms.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Background checks would undoubtedly prevent some prohibited persons from buying firearms through legal channels. The cost is minimal, and it could be set up in such a manner that a private party could simply call in with a driver license number and a credit cart/electronic check to cover the fee.
That's all that would need to be done. Seems pretty common sense, and relatively easy to implement. Can it be done without trying to bunch it without a lot of more emotionally-driven fluff?
I tend to balk at laws that further restrict our rights and our freedom, so am against the so-called Patriot Act, bans on phone use while driving (they already have/had laws that cover negligence behind the wheel. Cell ban is simply a revenue generator), and personally think a universal background would be more effective than all the specific firearm/magazine/black rifle bans around, many of which are easily circumvented due to the inability of closing every loophole.
Remember, no hi-cap mags in Cali. Have you been to a gunstore lately? Call one up and ask about a magazine parts kit.
But then, my rationale could be questionable this morning... didn't get to bed til near midnight and been up since 2am with a barfing two-year-old.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
So when I want to sell a gun to somebody I don't know (never happened in 36 years), then I call up a number and (he pays) the fee.
Good so far.
But then the guy on the phone tells you he is a felon. Don't sell him the gun. Thank you good by. Click.
And you are left there standing with a shlt eating grin on your face.
Seems like this system might provoke some bad feelings,..
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Firstly (well, for the hundredth time) it is NOT illegal in most states to sell guns to crooks. Under Federal law, it is only illegal to sell a gun to a crook if you know or reasonably believe the buyer to be a crook. Belief is a whole lot more than even a very strong suspicion.
This allows criminals to buy guns with minimal risk from innocent but irresponsible gun owners. More importantly, this is a loophole that allows professional straw purchasers virtual immunity from prosecution, since it would be so difficult to prove they knew a buyer was a crook.
There's no need to wonder how it would work, it already does work in about 20 states. You meet the buyer at a licensed dealer, the dealer does the background check, one of you pays the fee, you get a "receipt" to prove you sold the gun legally, and the dealer keeps a copy too.
Even the Gun Nut websites acknowledge that "only" 5% of criminals guns are bought this way, that alone could be 500 deaths, 5000 injuries and untold numbers of shootings and threats, and doesn't include those guns that are later resold on the street.
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
But then the guy on the phone tells you he is a felon. Don't sell him the gun. Thank you good by. Click.
And you are left there standing with a shlt eating grin on your face.
Seems like this system might provoke some bad feelings,..
The point is that with universal background checks, he knows he won't be sold the gun, so he won't try. Sure, maybe he'll get one some other way, but the harder it is, or the more risk in trying, the less crooks will try.
TE
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
If there's a demand for something and money waving in the wind, the supply will always find a way. Always. The spice must flow.
In a country this massive with borders so completely porous, with technical machining resources so vast internally there is simply no way to prevent the manufacturing or distribution of anything easy to grow or make.
People like me choose to obey the laws partially out of habit and partially perhaps because we are fearful of the consequences. Perhaps we are the foolish ones.
As with drugs or alcohol, if the root causes of the demand are not addressed, there is never a problem with supply, even in prisons.
With weapons, if the root causes of murder and gang violence in our large cities are not addressed, adding more laws to the thousands we already have and don't(or can't) enforce won't make a bit of difference.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
TradEddie writes:
"Firstly (well, for the hundredth time) it is NOT illegal in most states to sell guns to crooks."
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTT!!! WRONG!
Nowhere in this country is selling a firearm to a prohibited person legal in any way shape or form.
Ask Anderson. He sells guns all day long.
I don't know what you want. What you're concerned with is already illegal. Already illegal. What more can you do, besides enforcing existing laws?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/09/13/fact-checker-gun-background-check-claims-true/15153955/
And maybe I'm missing something, TE, in the new law you urged us to support, but I don't see the language I said was requisite to explicitly preclude the feds from using the universal background check to compile and maintain what amounts to a universal gun-ownership registry. What am I missing?
As the link above notes, statistics supporting universal background checks are often wildly skewed and misinterpreted (correlation =/= causality). But, you know, if it can do even some good....
The issue for me is that it must, absolutely must, do no harm! And a universal background check that amounts to a universal gun-ownership registry at the federal level is a non-starter for me.
Again, what am I missing?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
MB, what you are missing is that idiots write those laws. I've nothing against
the background check but how about some reality? I bought a piece last week.
I presented my current driver's license and then he asked me for a second
piece to prove my place of residence. I ran out to the truck and just grabbed
one of the many old registrations in there.
"Uh, can you produce the current one?"
"Uh, how does that prove what my current residence is? That thing is like
6 months old. All it proves is that the truck is registered. What if I have
a couple of houses? If a cop pulls me over does he need two pieces of ID?"
And don't get me started on the Firearm Safety Check test. All that tested
was my patience at forking over $25. It was so mind-numbingly stoopid it
wasn't funny. But as long as it makes the good legislators in Sacramento
sleep better then I'm happy.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
For convenience, I finally found a site carrying the full text of the bill (even the sponsors' sites carry only the summary), and here it is, so that we can contemplate the actual bill itself.
To protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and provide a responsible and consistent background check process.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
SHORT TITLE
—This Act may be cited as the "Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2015".
I must say that I'm pretty disappointed with this, TE. I honestly had hopes that some background check law was going to be non-odious so that I could support it. This one is indeed a non-starter.
"individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm" Nope! Too vague, literally opening the door for the feds to have grounds to unilaterally specify who "should be" prohibited, which is NOT the same thing as saying even "are prohibited," and then....
"are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System" NO, NO, NO, and.... NOOOOOOOOOO!
This just is explicitly granting the feds the "universal" power to maintain an ever-growing and increasingly accurate (over time) gun-ownership registry. Have I said NO emphatically enough?
Why can't the feds quit power-grabbing and focus on the ISSUE rather than on the need/desire to have yet more insight into every American's personal, private life???
It is not too hard to craft universal-background-check language that would satisfy me. Here's a quick stab at a working draft:
SECTION 1: Every transfer of a firearm shall be subject to the background check of the recipient of the transfer through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. If the potential recipient of the transfer is found to be prohibited from possessing a firearm by Federal law or by the laws of the State(s) in which the transfer would take place, then the transfer shall be prohibited.
SECTION 2: For the purposes of this statute, the current owner of the firearm proposed for transfer shall be herinafter referred to as "Owner," and the Owner shall be responsible to initiate the NICBCS process. If the transfer is not precluded by law, then the Owner may proceed with the transfer; however, the Owner shall retain a fully-completed Bill of Transfer and certificate of NICBCS process for a ten-year period following completion of the transfer. The Bill of Transfer shall include, at a minimum, a full and accurate description of the firearm and the manufacturer's serial number, if any.
SECTION 3: The penalty for violation of this statute shall be: Blah, blah, blah (I'm pretty open on this point).
SECTION 4: For the purposes of this statute, "transfer" shall mean every mechanism by which a firearm may be said to pass in ownership from one party to another, including but not limited to: sales, gifts, and bequests.
SECTION 5: The NICBCS shall be employed strictly to process incoming transfer verification applications in real time using point-in-time data from duly-recognized law-enforcement agencies. The NICBCS shall not store any record of the proposed transaction, the participants in the proposed transaction, or the results of the system's processing of any verification applications. Record-keeping of legally-allowed transfers shall be entirely the Owner's responsibility, and the Owner shall produce the transaction record in compliance with this statute when bound by warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction. No transactional data processed by the NICBCS shall be stored in any form by any government agency.
Blah, blah, blah as necessary to fill in the holes.
This is an off-the-cuff working draft just to show the sort of language I would favor and could get behind. Again, this is off-the-cuff... about 10 minutes of thought. So, I'm sure that our lawmakers, who have nothing better to do with their time, could produce something MUCH better (while maintaining the requisite "no federal list" language).
Is this sort of thing really so hard to come up with???
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
And don't get me started on the Firearm Safety Check test. All that tested was my patience at forking over $25. It was so mind-numbingly stoopid it wasn't funny. But as long as it makes the good legislators in Sacramento
sleep better then I'm happy.
I literally laughed out loud at that one. So true! So true!
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Nowhere in this country is selling a firearm to a prohibited person legal in any way shape or form.
Ask Anderson. He sells guns all day long.
Ron is, or works for a licensed firearms dealer, the laws for dealers are totally different from the law for private sales. Ron in a personal capacity can sell any gun he owns to anyone. Unless Ron KNOWS or BELIEVES that person is a criminal, Ron has committed no crime. Ron can suspect whatever he likes, but unless he has some solid knowledge of the buyers history, there is no crime in selling a gun to a total stranger.
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Is this sort of thing really so hard to come up with???
Why would this bill need to prohibit use of NICBCS records for a national gun registry when the original Brady Bill already does?
If receipt of a firearm would not violate section 922 (g)
or (n) or State law, the system shall—
‘‘(A) assign a unique identification number to the transfer;
‘‘(B) provide the licensee with the number; and
‘‘(C)** destroy all records of the system with respect to the
call (other than the identifying number and the date the number
was assigned) and all records of the system relating to
the person or the transfer.**
(i) PROHIBITION RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS WITH RESPECT TO FIREARMS.—No department, agency,
officer, or employee of the United States may—
(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated
by the system established under this section be recorded at
or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by
the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof;
or
(2) use the system established under this section to establish
any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners,
or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect
to persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18,
United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm.
BTW, where did you find the text, I was looking for it?
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
No offense meant Ron, Chaz claimed you couldn't legally sell a gun to a criminal and I was trying to explain that while you couldn't legally do it professionally you could legally do it in a private capacity.
TE
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
from an honest gun owner?
With that criteria you've set up the answer.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!