Senators seek back room deal on firearm background checks

[baldeagle]

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/02/08/s ... bscriber=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Think gang of eight - this could be bad.

The senators' talks have included discussions about ways to encourage states to make more mental health records available to the national system and the types of transactions that might be exempted from background checks, such as sales among relatives or to those who have permits to carry concealed weapons, said people who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to describe the negotiations publicly.

The private discussions involve liberal Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is the No. 3 Senate Democratic leader; West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, an NRA member and one of the chamber's more moderate Democrats; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., another NRA member and one of the more conservative lawmakers in Congress; and moderate GOP Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois.

I'm opposed to background checks on any private sales outside a gun show. I have no problem with background checks at gun shows for private sellers IF a CHL will suffice. Outside of gun shows, absolutely not.

Better write all four of these Senators plus your own before this becomes a done deal.

[baldeagle]

I will submit this to all four Senators and Senators Cornyn and Cruz as soon as I finish posting this.

I am a life member of the NRA. (Just upgraded when our government again began making noises about violating our rights.)

I am OPPOSED to private party background checks outside of gun shows. The government has no business inserting itself into a private transaction between two consenting parties and forcing them to pay for background checks. All that will do is punish law abiding citizens. Do you seriously believe criminals will worry about doing background checks before conducting private arms transactions?

I have no problem with requiring background checks for private sellers at gun shows so long as the presentation of a CHL will suffice as proof of having already passed one.

As far as I am concerned you are focused entirely on the wrong problem. Law abiding citizens do not represent a threat. In fact, in Texas, CHL holders commit less crimes than law enforcement do! I am a Texas CHL holder, a six year Navy veteran, currently hold a secret clearance and have never had any dealings with law enforcement (excluding friendships) other than a couple of speeding tickets in my 65 years.

I am not the problem. Guns are not the problem. Criminals are the problem.

If you feel compelled to pass more laws rather than enforcing those that already exist, increase the penalties for felons caught with weapons and remove any judicial discretion regarding disposition of the charge. Far too many gun charges are dropped through plea bargains. If a criminal is caught possessing a weapon, they should be immediately arrested, charged and, once convicted, incarcerated for the full 10 years with no possibility of parole. A second offense should require a 20 year sentence.

Encourage the states to do the same for intrastate crime. If you are serious about getting guns off the street and not just engaging in political grandstanding, attack the problem, not law abiding citizens.

It's time for law abiding citizens to take a stand. No more abrogation of our rights!

[steveincowtown]

I will submit this to all four Senators and Senators Cornyn and Cruz as soon as I finish posting this.

I have no problem with requiring background checks for private sellers at gun shows so long as the presentation of a CHL will suffice as proof of having already passed one.

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?

[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?

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.

[Dave2]

I will submit this to all four Senators and Senators Cornyn and Cruz as soon as I finish posting this.

I have no problem with requiring background checks for private sellers at gun shows so long as the presentation of a CHL will suffice as proof of having already passed one.

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?

I think the argument is that renting a booth and advertising "no background checks" at a gun show is kinda really a business even if it doesn't meet the ATF's definition, whereas random private sales do not. I know that there are random private sales that happen to be at gun shows... Don't have an answer for that, other than to say this is why the exact way a law is worded is important. "All persons or businesses renting booths at a gun show must run NICS checks" and "all sellers at a gun show must run NICS checks", for example, are essentially identical to someone who isn't familiar with gun shows (actually, they might actually be identical depending on how "sellers" is defined).

[RAM4171]

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Why do people not understand thesese words?

[baldeagle]

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Why do people not understand thesese words?

Well, first of all, it's BEAR arms, not BARE arms. Secondly, understanding it is one thing. Dealing with the existing environment is something else entirely. Why do people not understand THAT?

[steveincowtown]

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?

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.

Using this theory, I assume you would support making all gunbroker.com, texasguntrader.com, etc. subject to back ground checks as well? I haven't known any if the folks I have sold guns to through these websites.

Also how well would someone have to "know" someone to be excluded from the background checks?


Lastly, I this compromise, what are we as gun is owners getting in return?

I am a little befuddled that you can say that implementing background checks on private individuals would have zero impact on the felons getting guns, while at the same time inferring that background checks at gun shows somehow would keep felon from getting guns.

I do agree with your point that as gun owners we should use our best judgement when selling firearms, but I strongly disagree that I need help or guidance on this or any other issue from the Federal goverment.

[Andrew]

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Why do people not understand thesese words?

Well, first of all, it's BEAR arms, not BARE arms. Secondly, understanding it is one thing. Dealing with the existing environment is something else entirely. Why do people not understand THAT?

Does this mean I have to start wearing long sleeve shirts again? Dang!

[jimlongley]

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Why do people not understand thesese words?

Well, first of all, it's BEAR arms, not BARE arms. Secondly, understanding it is one thing. Dealing with the existing environment is something else entirely. Why do people not understand THAT?

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?

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 ass 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.

[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?

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.

Using this theory, I assume you would support making all gunbroker.com, texasguntrader.com, etc. subject to back ground checks as well? I haven't known any if the folks I have sold guns to through these websites.

I would not, because the present system of going through an FFL works perfectly fine - unless it would be less expensive. Every one of those transactions that already goes through a background check would still go through a background check, so the only reason to change would be to reduce costs or reduce hassle.

Also how well would someone have to "know" someone to be excluded from the background checks?

It's irrelevant, because private party transactions outside gun shows can't be monitored any way. Even if you required background checks for private party transactions while excluding familial sales (which is what they are proposing), there would be no reasonable way to enforce it without requiring total gun registration and regular inspections. At gun shows it would be easy to enforce. Those sellers who didn't want to deal with it would simply sell elsewhere.

Lastly, I this compromise, what are we as gun is owners getting in return?

Private sales outside of gun shows would remain untouched, and the political windbaggery of the "gun show loophole" would be gone. The pro-2A folks could simply say, "That loophole was closed. Why do you want to penalize law abiding citizens when everyone knows the criminals will not comply? The average uninformed citizen would nod their head in agreement with that statement.

I am a little befuddled that you can say that implementing background checks on private individuals would have zero impact on the felons getting guns, while at the same time inferring that background checks at gun shows somehow would keep felon from getting guns.

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.

To an uniformed American there is a day and night difference between the term "gun show" (which may appall them) and Uncle Joe selling Nephew Johnny his pistol.

I do agree with your point that as gun owners we should use our best judgement when selling firearms, but I strongly disagree that I need help or guidance on this or any other issue from the Federal goverment.

I strongly disagree as well. But in the present political environment, if all we have to give up is background checks for private gun sales at gun shows, that's a small price to pay for protecting our rights and stripping the anti-gunners of one of their most powerful emotional arguments. Face it, even a lot of gun owners think background checks at gun shows are a reasonable thing to do.

You have to think of this fight in the terms it's being fought, not the terms you'd like to fight it in. I'd like no background checks at all, just like it was when I was a kid. I still own a Western Auto bolt action single shot .22 that was bought by walking in to the Western Auto store. I'd like to return to those days. To get there, we have to start defanging the anti-gunners and find ways to expose their true agenda, which is total disarmament of the citizenry.

[SherwoodForest]

The statistic frequently cited pertaining to thousands of "criminals" being stopped from firearm purchases by the NIC's check is seriously misleading.

Many ( if not most ) of these attempted FFL purchases involve people who ARE NOT "criminals" by any definition at the time of the attempted purchase. In many cases their criminal conviction may have occurred decades ago, frequently under juvenile adjudication, and they are merely operating in ignorance of their status. That's why very few are ever prosecuted. They simply were not aware that they were "prohibited persons".

In many cases their right to keep & bear arms has been restored by some operation of state law, but bureaucratic error at some level has resulted in the restoration not flagging the record. This is presently a huge problem in Colorado , and accounts for many failed NIC's checks.

The important point to be noted here is that VERY FEW of the purchases prevented by current background check system involve hardened, habitual, aand active violent felons. They are not stupid enough to think they can get away with an FFL gun buy. Straw purchases are the preferred route around the NIC's check.

I actually witnessed such a "straw" transaction a few years ago at a Gun store in Arlington, Texas. A very "respectable"looking young man
was transacting a purchase of a SA handgun while I was inside the store. The " purchaser" exited the store and got into his vehicle while I was still buckling my seatbelt. As he prepared to enter Collins Street this "banger" looking guy comes RUNNING up from the adjacent CVS parking lot - jumps in the front passenger seat, and they take off up North on Collins towards UTA at a high rate of speed.

I considered going back to the gun store, and informing clerk/owner regarding what I had just witnessed, but I reasoned that he SHOULD HAVE been able to see what I saw in the parking lot, and probably didn't want to hear about it - after the deed was done. He had not violated the law - but it was pretty obvious what had just gone down. This happens every day . Such straw purchases are the crux of the problem. I would even expect that in many cases the "straw" purchaser is making a moral choice to help a close relative who may be subject to some threat.

[baldeagle]

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Why do people not understand thesese words?

Well, first of all, it's BEAR arms, not BARE arms. Secondly, understanding it is one thing. Dealing with the existing environment is something else entirely. Why do people not understand THAT?

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.

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.

[texanjoker]

Typical politicians. That is why they are throwing so much garbage out there. To see what they can "save" and be the hero when in fact they pass stuff.

[K.Mooneyham]

Typical politicians. That is why they are throwing so much garbage out there. To see what they can "save" and be the hero when in fact they pass stuff.

This is what I've been saying. They go outrageously big to start with so that the things they really want don't seem that bad. The most important thing for us to prevent is any registration schemes or ammo bans.