McCarthy files H.R.141, requiring background check on all gu

[oldtexan]

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D, NY, filed H.R.141, a bill to require a background check on all firearms sales, yesterday. This type of bill has been referred to as "closing the gun show loophole". No text is available on thomas.loc.gov or govtrack.us .

[Teamless]

isnt the NICS check considered a background check, or are they talking (possibly) about a waiting period of days/weeks?

[anygunanywhere]

isnt the NICS check considered a background check, or are they talking (possibly) about a waiting period of days/weeks?

NICS checks are only required when buying from an FFL.

The antigunner brain dead morons want even private sales to go through NICS checks. Of course the scumsucking criminal element will submit to these NICS checks.

Unbelievable.

But hey! Don't offend the antigunners that file these ridiculous pieces of legislation. If you talk sweet to them they will come over to our side.

Anygunanywhere

[oldtexan]

isnt the NICS check considered a background check, or are they talking (possibly) about a waiting period of days/weeks?

I don't know because, as I stated in the original post, no text of the bill was available when I started the thread. I haven't checked Thomas.loc.gov or govtrack.us since late Friday because I doubt the folks uploading info into Thomas work on weekends. I included all the info I had on the bill. When I get more info I'll update the thread.

[oldtexan]

The text of this bill is available at this link:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/1 ... dium=email" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is worth a read.

[K.Mooneyham]

Yeah, its the "close the gunshow loophole" thing, which means outlawing private, face-to-face sales of firearms between individuals. Now, if you are a money-hungry socialist Democrat Party member, what do you love more than gun control? New sources of "revenue"...getting money out of the pockets of the public to fund social programs, etc. Let me guess that somewhere there is money to be raked in by forcing everyone that wants to buy or sell firearms to go through an FFL...and I don't mean the FFLs will be raking in said money, either.

[oldtexan]

Yeah, its the "close the gunshow loophole" thing, which means outlawing private, face-to-face sales of firearms between individuals. Now, if you are a money-hungry socialist Democrat Party member, what do you love more than gun control? New sources of "revenue"...getting money out of the pockets of the public to fund social programs, etc. Let me guess that somewhere there is money to be raked in by forcing everyone that wants to buy or sell firearms to go through an FFL...and I don't mean the FFLs will be raking in said money, either.

From the text of the bill. Note the definition of a gun show: "(b) Definitions- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(36) Gun Show- The term ‘gun show’--

‘(A) means any event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, exchange, or transfer, if 1 or more of the firearms has been shipped or transported in, or otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce;

‘(B) does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal collection of that individual, at the private residence of that individual, if the individual is not required to be licensed under section 923; and

‘(C) does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer at events--

‘(i) where not more than 100 firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, exchange or transfer;

‘(ii) that are conducted by private, not-for-profit organizations whose primary purpose is owning and maintaining real property for the purpose of hunting activities; and

‘(iii) that are attended only by permanent or annual dues-paying members of the organizations, and the members of the immediate families of the dues-paying members."

The way I read this it specifically says that a private sale conducted at the private residence of a private seller isn't considered as being part of a gun show, and later on in the text of the bill it only addresses transfers taking place at the gun show as requiring a background check. So the way I read this bill, it would not require a background check for private transfers unless they happen in the context of a gun show. Do you read this bill to say differently?

I added the bold above for clarity.

[K.Mooneyham]

Yeah, its the "close the gunshow loophole" thing, which means outlawing private, face-to-face sales of firearms between individuals. Now, if you are a money-hungry socialist Democrat Party member, what do you love more than gun control? New sources of "revenue"...getting money out of the pockets of the public to fund social programs, etc. Let me guess that somewhere there is money to be raked in by forcing everyone that wants to buy or sell firearms to go through an FFL...and I don't mean the FFLs will be raking in said money, either.

From the text of the bill. Note the definition of a gun show: "(b) Definitions- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(36) Gun Show- The term ‘gun show’--

‘(A) means any event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, exchange, or transfer, if 1 or more of the firearms has been shipped or transported in, or otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce;

‘(B) does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal collection of that individual, at the private residence of that individual, if the individual is not required to be licensed under section 923; and

‘(C) does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer at events--

‘(i) where not more than 100 firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, exchange or transfer;

‘(ii) that are conducted by private, not-for-profit organizations whose primary purpose is owning and maintaining real property for the purpose of hunting activities; and

‘(iii) that are attended only by permanent or annual dues-paying members of the organizations, and the members of the immediate families of the dues-paying members."

The way I read this it specifically says that a private sale conducted at the private residence of a private seller isn't considered as being part of a gun show, and later on in the text of the bill it only addresses transfers taking place at the gun show as requiring a background check. So the way I read this bill, it would not require a background check for private transfers unless they happen in the context of a gun show. Do you read this bill to say differently?

I added the bold above for clarity.

My mistake. I didn't read the text of this particular bill, and assumed it was the standard "gun show loophole" thing that is being batted around by many of the anti-gun types. I didn't see how narrow the focus was on this. That said, I'm really not seeing the point to it because most of the people selling guns at gun shows I've been to here in Texas are already FFLs. Not all of them by any means, but a very large percentage of them. Is ol' Representative McCarthy just trying to make herself feel better by pushing this or does she just want to say that she was able to pass SOMETHING?

[Phoenix6410]

How would this affect a CHLer, if I remember correctly, currently you only have to show your CHL for back ground check, would this change.


**edited for spelling and grammer....dern phone

[fickman]

I'm not supporting this, but it is interesting. If you close the "gun show loophole" so narrowly that it only applies to gun shows, the talking heads will lose a major talking points. The Bloomberg's of the world will hate it because it'll be harder to go after private sales.

I'd want the "residence" requirement changed. I could still walk around a gun show with a private gun for sale and just give out my phone number to interested parties.

Still, thanks but no thanks. I don't think this solves anyyhing or prevents any crimes.

[Topbuilder]

This is all about claiming credit for a solution where there was no problem. The media claims 40% of all gun sales are private sales to indivuals, mostly at gun shows. They also claim the weapons used in crimes are then traced back to these transactions. Of course, I have never seen anything to back any of that up. What is to be gained from claiming victory on a made up issue... I do not know the answer to that.

[RoyGBiv]

I'm not supporting this, but it is interesting. If you close the "gun show loophole" so narrowly that it only applies to gun shows, the talking heads will lose a major talking points. The Bloomberg's of the world will hate it because it'll be harder to go after private sales.

I was surprised to see the bill written this way.
Perhaps they know it would be unconstitutional to prohibit private sales in private homes.? Although I don't know when the Constitution became an obstacle for them. Hate to give them too much credit.

[terryg]

With checks of the wording to ensure private sales are indeed exempt, I would not have a problem with this.

I know that criminals purchasing guns from non-FFL dealers is not a huge problem. But the way I see, if you have enough guns to sell to afford to purchase a table at a gun-show - you probably should be doing NCIC checks on purchasers.

The whole concept of private sale is to allow a person to conduct a firearm sell to someone they have good reason to believe is legally able to purchase a firearm. Perhaps you personally know this person or perhaps the arrangement is made via a common community gathering place ... i.e. you sell to another member of this forum or someone you meet at the local gun club. Those would be considered acquaintances and I have no problem with that.

But private sales to otherwise complete strangers is, in my opinion, pretty irresponsible. I have sold a gun on gunbroker before and was very happy to send it to an FFL to vett the unknown buyer. I am not a big fan of the armslist website, however because it is simply linking two complete strangers for the purpose of conducting a private sale. That seems irresponsible to me. Am I wrong here? I think most of us support the NCIC check for normal gun purchases but we don't think it is appropriate for the government to butt their noses in during a private transaction.

Doesn't enabling private sales between two strangers kinda of defeat the point behind both the NCIC process and the concept of protecting private transactions? What am I missing?

[RoyGBiv]

What am I missing?

Paperwork = Forms = Database = Privacy Concerns = de-facto Registration

Someone, I forget where, suggested that we let the Feds compile the NICS data, beef it up with mental health information, then let the States, or even better, a State-level NGO run the checks. The data could be secured by law, out of the hands of any government agency. A link could be established to local LE and a "stolen" check could be run at the same time as the NICS. Both parties (buyer and seller) could be given a receipt proving the date/time of the transaction, for the protection of all parties.

Not perfect, but keeping "registration"/transfer data out of gooberment hands would be closer to a palatable solution for me...

[MeMelYup]

Think we should start writing these people and asking, "How does this stop the criminals from getting guns? How does this reduce crime? How is this germane to the Constitution"?