Senators seek back room deal on firearm background checks

[steveincowtown]

I am going to check out of this thread. A good discussion cannot be had about this with someone who by his own words truly thinks the best way to advance gun rights long term is to give up rights today.


If you choose not to realize the the next liberal cry after they get the gun show loophole closed will be to close the "private sale loophole" I don't think I can convince you of that.

I will however "Stand and Fight." The End.

[baldeagle]

I am going to check out of this thread. A good discussion cannot be had about this with someone who by his own words truly thinks the best way to advance gun rights long term is to give up rights today.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Please explain how having background checks at gun shows is giving up our rights? We already have background checks. Can you buy an AR 15 lower without a background check? Only from a private party. Can you buy any pistol without a background check? Only from a private party. Can you get a CHL without a background check? No!

If you pass a background check, what rights have you lost? You can still buy any weapon you want, including fully automatic weapons, silencers, and other things "banned" in the NFA. So what rights have you lost? Yes, you're being inconvenienced in the exercise of your rights, but you haven't lost them. But if you adopt a rigid stand on ALL gun related registration, you will almost certainly lose your rights or be forced to fight and possibly die for them.

So please don't throw straw men out to foreclose discussion. Background checks are already here. In the context of a gun show it would be trivial to require the gun show promoter to provide background check kiosks where transactions could take place without greatly inconveniencing the parties involved.

If you choose not to realize the the next liberal cry after they get the gun show loophole closed will be to close the "private sale loophole" I don't think I can convince you of that.

I never said that either. I would appreciate it if you would stick to the arguments I've made and attempt to refute those rather than throwing up strawmen and shooting them down.

I said, and I quote:

I'm not at all inferring that. Doing that would take the wind out of the emotional rhetoric the gun grabbers use to stir people up without costing us any of our rights. I guarantee you that most of the anti-gunners know full well that background checks won't solve any problems, but they use the "gun show loophole" as a hammer to demonize pro gun folks. By agreeing to that, you take that emotional argument away from them and place the onus on them to explain why they think private citizens should have to go through the hassle when everyone knows that criminals will simply ignore it just like they do every other law. You turn the argument around and force the anti-gunners to explain why they want to punish law abiding citizens.

Please read what I wrote. Clearly I understood that liberals would try to use that argument. What I pointed out was that the average uninformed citizen would understand what that meant and be opposed to it. You only have to look to the present difficulty in buying guns and ammo to realize that a LOT of Americans don't take kindly to having the 2nd Amendment gutted.

I don't give a hoot about liberals. They're irreducibly crazy and not amenable to rehabilitation. It's the average uninformed citizen (and I've used that term now several times - deliberately) that you are making your arguments to. You march down the street with exposed weapons like some supposed 2A advocates do and they will be alarmed and call the police. You ask them why the government should intrude on a transaction between their father and their brother and they will say, they shouldn't.

If you want your rights back, you have to begin winning some battles. You don't win them by offending the populace. In an insurgency, public opinion is everything. Win the public to your side, and the laws will follow. It's already happening. Look how many states are considering or have already passed nullification laws. Look how many states are now considering laws that make it illegal for federal agents to enforce unconstitutional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. This is what is called progress.

I will however "Stand and Fight." The End.

By doing what, exactly?

[suthdj]

All this kind of legislation is, is a way to divide and conquer. Once they divide us enough it will be easy for them to get what they want.

[Moby]

I don't think I have a problem requiering background chIecks between private individuals. Know one on this forum that didn't require I show my CHL would know if I'm a felon or not. And we can't really use the confines of this forum as a scale to measure against. How many private buyers do not request to see a CHL, are not a member of this forum, or in any other way know the buyer? Adding $50 to the purchase of a firearm or using the FBI and paying $12 and waiting for them to get to it is a safeguard I do not see as overly intrusive. The selling of firearms needs to be kept out of the hands of gang bangers, felons, etc. I'm not for more restrictions on the purchasing of firearms. But with this addition it is not any more intrusive for me.

quote="baldeagle"]

Could you provide an explanation as to why the geographical location of a background check on the private sale of anything makes it any more or less reasonable?

Forcing them to insert an FFL into the transaction increases the cost of the transaction and inconveniences the parties while having zero impact on preventing sales to felons.


Sure.

At a gun show a private seller is selling to any party that is interested without any previous interaction other than the buyer's questions regarding the weapon at the time of the sale, just the same as any other gun dealer at the show. The equipment to do a background check, if needed, is readily available and can be used easily.

In a private two party transaction, the seller normally would either know the buyer personally or would use their personal judgment regarding the person's trustworthiness. For example, guns are sold on this forum a lot, and many of the sellers and buyers "know" each other through their interactions on this forum. Many also will only sell to someone who holds a CHL. Forcing them to insert an FFL into the transaction increases the cost of the transaction and inconveniences the parties while having zero impact on preventing sales to felons, because those sellers and buyers will simply ignore the law.[/quote]

[Jeff Barriault]

In his latest interview with Piers Morgan, Ted Nugent stated he was against background checks. I'd have to agree with him.

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

I tolerate background checks for commercial sales. I don't think I should have too, but I do. I mean what ever happened to the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty? We shouldn't have to prove anything to, or seek approval from, the government for anything.

Private sales, on the other hand, are where things start to get a little too obnoxious. I'll likely draw the line there.

[baldeagle]

I don't think I have a problem requiering background chIecks between private individuals. Know one on this forum that didn't require I show my CHL would know if I'm a felon or not. And we can't really use the confines of this forum as a scale to measure against. How many private buyers do not request to see a CHL, are not a member of this forum, or in any other way know the buyer? Adding $50 to the purchase of a firearm or using the FBI and paying $12 and waiting for them to get to it is a safeguard I do not see as overly intrusive. The selling of firearms needs to be kept out of the hands of gang bangers, felons, etc. I'm not for more restrictions on the purchasing of firearms. But with this addition it is not any more intrusive for me.

But it is more intrusive. And it won't do a single thing to prevent gang bangers and felons from getting guns. Even if it were possible to completely prevent sales between private parties, gang bangers and felons were either steal them or illegally purchase them. Forcing private gun owners to use background checks before sales won't change anything.

[Moby]

I don't think I have a problem requiering background chIecks between private individuals. Know one on this forum that didn't require I show my CHL would know if I'm a felon or not. And we can't really use the confines of this forum as a scale to measure against. How many private buyers do not request to see a CHL, are not a member of this forum, or in any other way know the buyer? Adding $50 to the purchase of a firearm or using the FBI and paying $12 and waiting for them to get to it is a safeguard I do not see as overly intrusive. The selling of firearms needs to be kept out of the hands of gang bangers, felons, etc. I'm not for more restrictions on the purchasing of firearms. But with this addition it is not any more intrusive for me.

But it is more intrusive. And it won't do a single thing to prevent gang bangers and felons from getting guns. Even if it were possible to completely prevent sales between private parties, gang bangers and felons were either steal them or illegally purchase them. Forcing private gun owners to use background checks before sales won't change anything.

We'll have to agree to disagree sir. I think any sale of any firearm should have the same background check I currently have to have.
If I have to do it, I see no issue with it. It may not stop all gang bangers etc. but I have to do it. Anyone that is responsibl on these forums whould ask about my CHL to ensure their not selling to a felon. I just don't see a logical argument against it. I'm not for Obama's universal national database. But what we have right now would be just fine for all gun slaes in my opinion.

[baldeagle]

We'll have to agree to disagree sir. I think any sale of any firearm should have the same background check I currently have to have.
If I have to do it, I see no issue with it. It may not stop all gang bangers etc. but I have to do it. Anyone that is responsibl on these forums whould ask about my CHL to ensure their not selling to a felon. I just don't see a logical argument against it. I'm not for Obama's universal national database. But what we have right now would be just fine for all gun slaes in my opinion.

How would you implement it? Let's say, for example, I decide to sell one of my pistols to my son in law. I decide I'm not going to bother with a background check, because it will cost me money. How do you, as the government official with no knowledge that I'm doing this, force me to follow the law?

[Salty1]

I still feel that the actual solution is to enforce the laws that are currently in place. If people are renting tables at guns shows and buying and selling firearms for a profit then they are a dealer, plain and simple. If they choose not to get an FFL then by all means prosecute them and let a jury decide if they are a dealer for profit and breaking any laws.

There are many people engaged in the firearms business who do not have an FFL, is that fair to those who follow the laws and get an FFL and pays the appropriate taxes on their sales? I am on record being against private sale background checks, I am also on the record to go after anybody who continually buys and sells firearms for profits, force them to play by the same rules as the FFL's have to.....

[GeekwithaGun]

But it is more intrusive. And it won't do a single thing to prevent gang bangers and felons from getting guns. Even if it were possible to completely prevent sales between private parties, gang bangers and felons were either steal them or illegally purchase them. Forcing private gun owners to use background checks before sales won't change anything.

No amount of background checks, be it private sales at a gun show, outside a gun show, or even in a retail business will prevent someone who really wants to find a gun and do harm or commit illegal acts. The current system doesn't prevent them because the criminals do not do business with retail store or FFL in the first place. They steal or buy stolen guns from other criminal elements and will always find away around rules.

I have conceded to the current system for 1 transaction (pre-CHL) and since have purchased from FFL or retail dealers with a CHL and only required the 4473 and one 2 other FTF transactions. The only people who are really screned by background checks for gun purchases are the law abiding. There are probably a few who have a checkered past, but are wanting to live according to the rules who are denied by the current system, but I'm sure this is a low percentage of all the checks made. I don't have any stats, so it is purely mu opinion.

The only real answer is the 2nd amendment - with the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. Because we live in a free society, based on our Constitution and bill of rights, we are the most free nation on earth and have been for the past 100+ years - just an infant compared to most other nations. But every law passed that erodes these rights just a little, will end up killing this nation just a little bit at a time until there is nothing left of the freedoms the founders fought and died for.

I say repeal all the nanny state laws that have been proven not to work since 1934 to keep guns from the criminals - all we have to do is look at LA, Chicago, D.C. and NYC to see how wonderful the laws in those states and cities have prevented crime. They DO NOT WORK and are only "feel good" laws for the sheep. This is the road that good intentions lead us down.

[SherwoodForest]

Something that is routinely overlooked while discussing the subject of preventing convicted felons from acquiring firearms is that many of these "felons" are our wives, husbands, sons, & daughters who made a very poor choice 20, 30, 40 years ago, paid their debt to society, and moved on to become productive citizens.

In Colorado many of these folks who have had their firearm right restored may posses a firearm legally, but are still subject to harassment by law enforcement.

In Texas these folks may legally posses a firearm on their own property after 5 years following the completion of their sentence - even though they will not pass a NIC's background check.

In Colorado many citizens who have previously been convicted of felony offenses have acually had their firearm right restored - but still can't pass a NIC's check due to the current policy of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation's deliberate policy of ignoring the restoration process under Colorado law.

Logic - would appear to dictate that if laws enacted providing severe criminal penalties for the possession of firearms by clearly "prohibited persons" were effectively enforced we wouldn't be faced with this problem.

We would not need background checks because the laws prescribing criminal penalties for firearm possession by those previous offenders determined to pose a threat to public safety would be sufficient to resolve the problem.

The criminal statistics speak for themselves - violent , habitual criminals are not deterred by "prohibited person" laws.

[mojo84]

Are the crimes being committed by people that buy the guns from a gun show, local gun store or private individuals that know each other or find each other through classifieds or sites like this one? Or, are they being committed with guns sold or given by one thug/criminal to another or stolen by a thug/criminal from someone that lawfully purchased it? Before you go off on me, I know there are exceptions to everything.

Therefore, I don't see universal background checks as doing much to help prevent violent crime. I do see it is an opportunity for the government to say "see, we did something and we would have done more if it wasn't for all the gun nuts and NRA". I also think some second amendment supporters will go along with the background checks so they can say "see, we are reasonable and agreed to background checks".

I would be surprised if vary many guns purchased legally from someone or a gun store are used to commit crimes and murders.

[K.Mooneyham]

I still feel that the actual solution is to enforce the laws that are currently in place. If people are renting tables at guns shows and buying and selling firearms for a profit then they are a dealer, plain and simple. If they choose not to get an FFL then by all means prosecute them and let a jury decide if they are a dealer for profit and breaking any laws.

There are many people engaged in the firearms business who do not have an FFL, is that fair to those who follow the laws and get an FFL and pays the appropriate taxes on their sales? I am on record being against private sale background checks, I am also on the record to go after anybody who continually buys and sells firearms for profits, force them to play by the same rules as the FFL's have to.....

I agree with the highlighted text. I do NOT have a problem with someone occasionally selling a firearm from their private collection face-to-face. I do have a problem with those who are "selling from their collection" at a gun show, but its two, three, four firearms and they doing it again and again, and are turning a profit at it...but aren't having to abide by the same rules the actual FFLs are abiding by. So, I'd say this is what I really meant by me stating I'd be okay with "closing the gunshow loophole". Thank you, Salty1, for stating it well.

[jimlongley]

So this is an example of a compromise YOU would be willing to make? Knowing that a compromise is a two sided transaction, what are we getting in return?

We defang an emotional argument and expose the anti-gunners true agenda. I believe there is value in that.[/quote}

But that's not compromise, it's just surrender.

This rule is onerous to me, as a private person I have taken several of my collectible or unwanted guns and sold them at gun shows, without renting a booth, and a couple were actually sold to persons at booths. This blanket "All persons renting booths . . ." law would then mean that the person renting the booth that sells nothing but nuts and candy would have to run a background check on themselves if they bought my gun from me.

I think we should deal with the existing environment thusly: In the true spirit of coompromise, we will agree to requiring background checks to be run on all (gun) transactions at gun shows as long as there is a booth provided to do all of the background checks for face to face transactions and for face to booth sales, but in return GCA '68 will be repealed. That sounds like a good compromise.

The '68 GCA reads, in part:

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person - (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) 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)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien - (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that - (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Which of those parties do you think we should be allowed to sell guns to? How are you going to sell that to the average uninformed citizen? Because I can tell you EXACTLY how the anti-gunners will frame it. OMG, these extremists want to sell guns to criminals and spousal abusers. See, we told you they couldn't be trusted. We need to require background checks on EVERY gun owner to ensure none of them are doing this. We need registration and annual inspections to make sure they aren't trying to bypass this law. These people are nuts. No wonder crime is so high!

And the average uninformed American will agree with them. You don't defeat an enemy by playing into their hands. You defeat them by exposing their weaknesses.

As has been pointed out many times, before GCA '68 was passed and since, those restrictions are already in place and therefore useless in that act, so they should be more than willing to bargain them away in the spirit of compromise. Giving them their "loophole close" without gaining something in return is not exposing their weaknesses, they will never acknowledge them, just as they don't acknowledge the total ineffectiveness of the "Assault Weapons Ban."

[baldeagle]

As has been pointed out many times, before GCA '68 was passed and since, those restrictions are already in place and therefore useless in that act, so they should be more than willing to bargain them away in the spirit of compromise. Giving them their "loophole close" without gaining something in return is not exposing their weaknesses, they will never acknowledge them, just as they don't acknowledge the total ineffectiveness of the "Assault Weapons Ban."

I really don't care if they acknowledge them. It's about winning public opinion, not convincing pig-headed idiots that they're wrong.