So it turns out that pro-gun proponents don't really support background checks after all

[BainsBane]

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2013, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Many of them oppose them and make false claims that all gun sales already go through background checks in an effort to deter people from acting. If that were true, why would the NRA devote so much money into defeating background check bills?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=131721

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172131721

BTW, please click on the second link to accept the challenge about calling your representatives to demand expanded background check legislation.

[rdharma]

1. I've heard these pro-gun folks claim that most states require background checks.........

They will tell you with a straight face that there is NO "gun show loophole".

This is absolutely false. 34 states do not require background checks for private sales at gun shows.

[BainsBane]

3. They are doing it right now in both linked threads

One of which is in GD, so you can participate in it.

[PoliticAverse]

6. But there is also no background check for private sales not at gun shows.

So it's not a 'gun show loophole' as it has nothing to do with whether the sale occurs at
a gun show or not.

[hack89]

13. You are misrepresenting what we are saying

when we say there is no "gun show loophole" what we are saying that there are not unique rules for gun shows - the laws for background checks are exactly the same outside of a gun show as they are inside.

The proper term is private sales.

[rdharma]

14. Not true ........ at least it wasn't that way in Colorado until recently.

Used to be you could make a private purchase at a gun show by meeting the seller off the gun show grounds. They just recently closed that loophole in CO. BUT.........

34 states still do not require background checks for private sales at gun shows.

[hack89]

16. That is exactly what I just told you.

private sales are private sales regardless of location. There are no special rules for gun shows.

[rdharma]

18. No. Private sales are NOT private sales regardless of location.

You're uninformed. http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

You are correct about Colorado which recently passed a background check law for private sales everywhere in the state. The way it should be!

Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks.

[hack89]

19. What do you think is the gun show loophole

and how does it differ from private sales outside of gun shows?

[rdharma]

22. Exactly what was stated in that link I gave you.

Did you read it?

[hack89]

25. Yes. Can you explain it in you own words because it is not clear you understand it.

your link says exactly what I have been telling you.

[rdharma]

33. You're just being obtuse.....

The gun show loophole allows "private venders" an opportunity to sell large numbers of firearms with no record keeping requirement. That's what the "gun show loophole" is.

[hack89]

79. But they can also do that in the parking lot, or in their driveway, or in their house

it is not exclusive to gun shows - which is what I said.

BTW - they cannot sell large numbers of firearms without getting the attention of the ATF. They cannot sell guns for a living.

[rl6214]

83. What if they are NOT "large numbers" but are just a few guns?

[rdharma]

92. I'm waiting for the definition of "large numbers"

Can any gun show enthusiasts tell me at what point the authorities step in?

Bet you can't!

[hack89]

103. You cannot make a living selling guns - it has more to do with the frequency.

If you sell guns once or twice a year, no big deal. If you are selling guns once a month, you are a dealer. And of course, if you sell even one gun out of state you better have a FFL.

[rdharma]

104. Where is that "once a month = dealer" law?

I've never seen that. Can you tell me where I can find that reg? TIA

[hack89]

106. Here are some legal definitions.

Last edited Thu Sep 19, 2013, 02:09 PM - Edit history (1)

C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921 (a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

(22) The term “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

If you do it for a living you are a dealer. If you are buying guns just to sell, you are a dealer. If you regularly sell guns you are a dealer.

It is not hard to understand.

[rl6214]

82. Might I ask, how DO the states that require background checks at gun shows

Ensure that those background checks take place?

[rdharma]

88. The "honor system"

And sometimes some under cover folks.

Busts are extremely rare.

[Mojorabbit]

109. No professional dealer is going to risk their livelyhood

by not doing a background check at a gun show. Most sellers at the gunshow here are professional dealers and they do a check.

[rdharma]

113. You have the figure of private sales vs. FFL dealer sales that take place at gun shows?

Probably not......... because there is NO record of the private sales!

So how can you state that "most sellers" at gun shows are professional dealers?

[Mojorabbit]

114. Have you ever been to one?

Ours is not huge. Almost all the dealers know each other and do a circuit of shows. It is easy to see who is not a professional dealer.

[rdharma]

117. So you can tell the FFL dealer from the Private Seller/Dealer...........

Good for you! What's your point?

[Mojorabbit]

120. It gives you an idea of the ratio of professional to private sales in the show. nt

[rdharma]

124. And how about the parking lot? And those guys walking aroung with a gun that has a price tag on it

And those guys who approach someone they saw looking at a FFL dealer's and suggest he take a look at what he's got instead?

No, I don't think you have an accurate idea of what goes on at these gun shows.

[Mojorabbit]

125. You asked a questions about proportions and I answered

We have several friends who do the circuit. My husband goes and sits at the table with them when they are in town at the show and they gossip. They mostly all know each other and have for years. Most tables are professionals who are going to do a check. It is their lively hood. There are person to person sales outside but the numbers of people doing that compared to the professionals inside is not huge. No one is saying there are not people selling to each other outside. I am not commenting on the practice. I am commenting on the distortion of the sellers in your posts. Good evening.

[rdharma]

126. Fair enough.

But I don't think you realize how many guns are being sold that you don't know about. The private sellers with tables aren't the only ones selling guns. At a gun show, you don't need a table to make a private transaction.

[morningfog]

29. Yall are technical as shit. It makes you look desperate in your arguments.

"The proper term" is "fucked up" that any sales anywhere can skirt background checks.

[hack89]

30. I support UBCs. My state has had them for years.

but if you think strength can be found in ignorance of existing laws then knock yourself out. In my world ignorance is ignorance regardless of the cause.

[Mojorabbit]

110. I can't see how you can say that of the replies. They are facts.

It is not the person stating facts that looks desperate. I understand it is an emotional topic but facts are important.

[Recursion]

42. The problem is it had nothing to do with gun shows

Keep calling it that, and people will keep saying it doesn't exist, since in fact the laws at gun shows are no different than anywhere else.

However, "yard sale loophole", "classified ad loophole", and "Christmas present loophole" don't poll as well.

[rdharma]

45. Why go to a yard sale when there is a MUCH better selection at a gun show.

UBC requirement could plug up all the loop holes....... Including Adam Lanza's mom giving him an AR-15 for Christmas.

[sir pball]

127. Why go to a show when there's even more guns in Uncle Henry's weekly swap-and-sell paper?

It covers ME and parts of NH and VT, all pretty rural and full of guns...any given issue had 20 to 40 pages of firearms. Much wider selection and more convenient than the twice-yearly show in Waterville. I picked up some there, and sold a few too. I do all my sales via FFL, but until the law changes most people advertising there most definitely don't.

[rdharma]

128. Thanks for proving my point!

As you can see, intra-state internet sales can bypass the BGC too.

SO ..... as you've pointed out,....those who claim that the "internet sales loophole" doesn't exist...... are also full of it.

Thanks for pointing that out to our gungeoneer friends who deny the "internet sales loophole".

[sir pball]

130. I generally don't use the term "x-sales loophole" either.

I lump them all under the "unregulated private sales"; going with "gun show loophole" or "internet sales loophole" can confuse the matter and promote bad legislation. I personally know some people who honestly believe that all sales at gunshows are unregulated and that all unregulated sales are only at gun shows, and that seems to be the larger meme as well - which results in IMO idiotic laws like Colorado's old one requiring BGCs on all checks at gun shows...but not on other private sales.

For the record I advocate for Every. Single. Transfer. (gun show, local paper, internet, yes even family) to be not only checked but done through an FFL, on a Form 4473 - recorded to create a chain of custody, should a crime gun need to be traced.

[krispos42]

115. Because using "gun show" in this context is misleading.

When you use descriptive terms, it is assumed that the term is somehow relevant to the discussion.

There are two, and only two, kinds of retail gun sales:

dealer to buyer
private seller to buyer

Sales at gun shows must be one of those two things.

There is no exception from background checks at gun shows.

Sales by dealers must go through a background check, regardless of location or venue.

Sales by private citizens do not go through a background check, regardless of location or venue.

Period.

(Note: this applies regarding to federal law, and intra-state sales only. Individual states may have stricter laws)


Now, I happen to agree that all sales should go through a background check, so I'm with you on this.

[rdharma]

116. Private "dealers" do not require background checks at gun shows.

Face it. There are many unscrupulous dirtbags who get by playing the "private sale game". How many guns are sold at gun shows through "private sales" vs. through FFL dealers? I've heard its about a 40% to 60% ratio. But we will never know...... because no records are kept.

[krispos42]

118. I doubt it's that high.

I've been to several guns shows, although I haven't been to one in close to a decade.

The ones I went to were basically a grand meeting of all the local gun dealers in the region. A lot of dealers had packed up the choosiest pieces of their inventory and brought them to a table at the show. It was basically a dealer convention.

There were a lot of tables selling gun-related merchandise as well, but that obviously is a peripheral fact.



It enabled the buyers to shop around without having to drive around. Doubtless there are a few people there looking to sell guns, and I'll bet that some people make a pretty penny working part-time as an unofficial gun dealer.


Hmmm... I wonder if I could find that post I made that had a detailed plan for both background checks and limits on purchases to 12 per year.

I'll see if I can find it for you.

[krispos42]

119. Here it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2301318

The first half of my post is a rant on the politics of it, the idea is the second half.


[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]1) Universal background checks. The ATF should create a special kind of license. This license, which I'll call "Firearms Transfer Agent License" or FTAL, would be issued by the ATF to people that would make money acting as a transfer agent from a private seller to a private buyer. An FTAL would not be a stocking firearms dealer, but would have access to the NICS system and would have all the appropriate forms to purchase a firearm. The fee the FTAL could charge would be no more than 3x the federal minimum wage (currently, $21.45) to transfer a gun.

I think that there would be a lot of people that would make some extra money on the side by doing these transfers. A nice little kitchen-table business. Currently, only federal firearm licensees (FFLs) can access NICS.

I guess we could call the permit "FaTAL", too...

2) A purchase limit of 12 guns a year. After your 12th gun is purchased in a calender year, the NICS system will not approve any more transfers until January 1st of the next year. If you want to buy more guns than that, get a permit.

I'll even go lower, down to 10. I based the "12" on the fact that some states have a one-gun-a-month policy, or 12 per year total.

This should cut down on trafficking.

3) A sale limit of 12 guns per year, unless the sales are to a federally licensed dealer. Again, after you sell your 12th gun, the NICS system refuses to approve any more transfers until January 1st, unless you're selling them to an FFL.

Again, if you're selling this many guns to private individuals, you're really a dealer and should be licensed as such.. This also should cut down on trafficking.

4) The ATF should keep records of what guns are sold by who. Not bought; that would be national registration, which I am not for. But if the ATF knew a gun's sale history, they could track down the last owner of a gun recovered in a crime by paying a visit to the last seller of the gun. This would keep the DoJ and the various police forces from trolling through databases (or the newspapers from printing lists of gun owners), yet still provide them with the ability to quickly find the owner of a gun. And if the last seller didn't know... then they've collared a guy feeding guns illegal to criminals.

5) Start denying transportation funds to states that are not in compliance with reporting mental-health and criminal records to NICS. If you don't want to spend the money to keep NICS current, you can maintain your own damn highways. Give the money as a bonus to states that ARE compliant!

[hrmjustin]

2. I just wish we people would call the NRA for what it is, EVIL.

[BainsBane]

4. Thank you

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[LiberalEsto]

5. +100 nt

[etherealtruth]

9. I do, every chance I get!

[pintobean]

7. Redundantly redundant post by poster.

[etherealtruth]

8. That group will say and do anything to protect gunz

Gun ownership is a basic human right ... it is at the top of the hierarchy of needs ... guns are people, too



It is quite disturbing

[Robb]

10. ...

[BainsBane]

11. Yep, that's exactly it

Perfect!

[hack89]

12. We all know that there is one type of sale that does not require a background check

you are the one that doesn't understand our present laws.

[Duckhunter935]

15. some are very dense

They will never let facts get to them.

[mwrguy]

17. The myth of the law-abiding gun owner

[hack89]

20. Because the majority of gun owners are law breakers?

interesting perspective.

[The Straight Story]

23. Only 99.2% or so are law abiding, but folks love them some bias, unless of course

it is bias against something else. Post about Gosnell and his abortion practice "Well, most are not like that! Don't let the rw use that crap to pass new laws, you know they will!" or the RW'ers and post after post about Islam, etc.

[Decaffeinated]

27. Yay for math!

[Gravitycollapse]

21. The loophole is private sale or transfer.

[ManiacJoe]

26. And it is not a loophole.

At least by the normal definitions. It is a purposely written exclusion to the rule. For whatever unstated reason, the law writers did not want private sellers to have the ability to do background checks on the buyers and wrote the law to prevent them from doing so.

The problem is not that private sellers "do not required" to do background checks. The problem is that private sellers are not allowed to do background checks on the buyers.

[Gravitycollapse]

28. I've been to enough gun shows to know that those selling don't give a shit about background checks.

And those who do are licensed and only care because they are afraid of getting in trouble.

So, no, it is not a matter of masses of sad private sellers being unable to perform background checks.

[ManiacJoe]

31. That is what happens when existing laws go unenforced.

When was the last time you heard of someone being prosecuted for an illegal sale of a firearm?

[Gravitycollapse]

32. It is virtually impossible to convict someone of illegal sale of a firearm...

http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#gca-unlicensed-transfer

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

[ManiacJoe]

41. Many folks have that belief.

Maybe they are right, maybe they are not.

"if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe"
If the seller purposely does not make a good faith effort to inquire about the buyer's status (ie, purposeful willful ignorance), does this qualify as "does not know or have reasonable cause to believe"? Some folks think it does qualify; some of us folks do not think that.

Illegal sales do get prosecuted, but not in the numbers they should be done at.

[rrneck]

24. What makes you think I ever supported universal background checks? nt

[BainsBane]

34. I don't know that I did think that

The OP doesn't mention you by name. That was in reference to the legions of gungeon folk who have sworn up and down they support background checks. Well it turns out only a handful of them really do. Given a chance to voice exactly what they want in a bill, they oppose it.

I understand that some consider it crucial for felons to have ready access to guns--lots of money to be made from bloodshed. Who cares about children when profits are at stake? Crazy for me to think that people who identify as Democrats actually want a safer American. I'll ask my GOP brother in law to call. He supports background checks, along with the rest of the 92% of the American public. Funny how much of that 8% who opposes them are on DU tonight.

[rrneck]

35. You've made another hyperbolic leap of logic

assuming the worst motivations resulting in ideological heresy.

Actually I don't necessarily have a problem with universal background checks, but with the registry that would go with it.

You know, these expostulations of high dudgeon are faintly entertaining, but not enlightening.

[BainsBane]

36. What registry?

Oh, you mean the one the NRA has?

[rrneck]

37. I don't think the NRA has a list of

every gun and gun owner in the united states. And whatever they've got, I'm against that too. I'm not much of a fan of the NRA.

[BainsBane]

38. They've got a whopping database

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12624281

The NCIS need only keep records of felons and those adjudicated a danger to themselves and others. My OP stipulated that you should let your reps know the provisions of the bill you want to see. I didn't specify what those were.

[rrneck]

39. How would you prosecute an illegal transfer to a felon without chain of custody documentation? nt

[BainsBane]

40. I'm not sure

I'm not a lawyer. Is there a way that you can think of that you'd be comfortable with? I mean, if the person is a felon, they shouldn't be sold a gun in the first place. Are you opposed to keeping records on felons?

[rrneck]

43. That's an interesting question.

Keeping records on felons is fine I guess, but are we really just keeping records on felons? The assumption is that guns get transferred from legal owners to illegal owners, right? New guns already require a background check, so we're talking about transfers between people who are not dealers. So half of every illegal transfer would require a non felon, who would ostensibly have to become a felon at the moment of illegal transfer. You can't really expect a law to work unless it has teeth, and teeth presume prosecution. Prosecution assumes proof in a court of law. Proof assumes documentation of transfer.

But what are we documenting? What is being registered? We are documenting something that happens between two people - the transfer of a firearm. That's a relationship, and I'm not enthused with the documentation of that particular relationship. I know that lots of things that get transferred between people are documented (insert car analogy here), but guns are personal items that occupy a different cultural space than almost any other piece of property.

So to answer your question, no, I can't think of a way to register firearms with which I am comfortable. Unfortunately, when I ask my fellow Democrats here on DU to explain it to me, the only answer I seem to get is "I'm not a lawyer" or "there's no way to convince you" or some other such excuse.

That's not to say that I want bad guys to have guns. What I want, but I don't think there is a way to get, is a means to adequately separate guns and bad guys without seriously eroding law abiding citizens civil rights or their privacy. Furthermore, efforts to do so seem to me to be a dangerous distortion of liberal ideology to no good end.

[BainsBane]

44. Why do guns occupy a different cultural space?

and why must they? And what have you to fear if you plan no illegal use of a weapon?
Your SS number and identity is on file with the IRS. You fill out a census. Why is the gun so sacred, more sacred than your person?

[rrneck]

54. Because guns are made to kill.

How many times have you heard that? And it's true. The real question to ask is who are they made to kill. Every feature that makes a gun deadly makes it equally useful for offense or defense. Hence the culture war merry go round involving magazine capacity and fire extinguishers. That duality of intent combined with the irrevocability of a firearms function makes almost every analogy to other technologies collapse. Guns are culturally unique because of their symbolic power for great good or great evil. They're also a dandy cash cow for organizations like the NRA and the alphabet soup of competing culture war profiteers.

Information about my relationships with others belongs to me. If the government claims a right to that information, it has to make a compelling case that it will do me more good than harm. I have barely seen that case even attempted, much less compellingly made. The controversy over NSA collection of metadata is ironic since a firearms registry is metadata on steroids, since it documents a relationship between people using an object with a unique serial number kept on file for perpetuity.

Of course my SS number and identity are on file with any number of governmental agencies. How many of them are correlated with the information of others? Again, we aren't talking about registering information about people, which is problematic in itself, but registering relationships, which is significantly more so.

[BainsBane]

55. That is all the more reason they should be subject to checks

because they are designed to kill and do kill. If you sell guns to a felon, the government has a right to that information. If you don't, what's the issue?

If you think your relationships with others belongs to you, do a Google search under your name right now. I can access all that for $19.95. You want guns to have an exemption that nothing else in society does. The reason you cite is not persuasive. In fact, it shows exactly why guns should be subject to closer scrutiny. They are deadly. They are designed to kill, used to kill, and used in the commission of felonies. The only interest the government has, or has a right to access, is information about felons and guns used in crimes, in addition to people adjudicated dangerous by the courts. The fact they are a cash cow is not something that should keep progressives from supporting UBCs. In fact, when I raise that issue gunners become angry with me. Here you cite it as justification. Are you honestly telling me you believe the gun industry's profits are more important than the lives of gun shot victims?

[rrneck]

56. I even italicised it.

WHO are guns made to kill?

ETA

If you sell guns to a felon, the government has a right to that information.

They don't have a right to that information if it cannot be shown that giving them that right will do me more harm than good. Can you show that?

If you think your relationships with others belongs to you, do a Google search under your name right now. I can access all that for $19.95.

I don't like that either. The most frightening part of the NSA scandal is that private contractors were involved. The relaitonship between business and government has a, shall we say, checkered history.

"Gunners" become angry with you because you insult them.

[BainsBane]

57. statistically

people use them to kill themselves, black males, white males, women, and children.

[rrneck]

58. Statistics are useless

to the people actually affected by violence.

I edited the previous post if you would like to check it out.

[BainsBane]

59. What did you want to know when you asked who they killed?

We could list names but it would take years. Those lives are worth whatever inconvenience you feel at having to go through a background check. I find it hard to believe that anyone wouldn't recognize that, but I can't put myself in the head of a gun evangelist. The gunners love exchanges where they hurl as good as they get. Asking for action, however, that they hate, which is why so many work assiduously to disrupt any and all efforts at gun reform. Obviously I suspected that many didn't support background checks but I am truly surprised to find out how many have been misrepresenting themselves. I figured it would be about 20%. Turns out it's closer to 80%. So I think the lesson is to focus on ordinary Americans and ordinary gun owners and forget about the extremists that populate the gungeon. The benefit of this is that I've learned who people really are.

[rrneck]

60. This is just an internet message board. Who gives a shit about percentages.

Internet polls are garbage.

Even a casual reading of what I have written in this thread would show that I recognize the evil that is done with guns. Can you show where you have recognized the good that is done with them?

Can you show how universal background checks will work?

Can you prove that universal background checks will be effective?

Can you prove that information relinquished by people who mean no harm will not be used to harm them some time in the future?

[BainsBane]

61. No, I don't recognize that good has been done with guns

when used against other human beings, but I do recognize they are at times a necessary evil.

There are many existing laws and bills governing universal background checks. I am not a legislative aid. My OP specifically said you should tell your representative about the version you support. You see, it has never occurred to me in my life that legislation should be exactly as I want it. I am not a person born into privilege, and I am a woman. The world has ever revolved around me, and I have never expected it should. So I haven't dreamed up an ideal bill because that would be an exercise in futility. Okay, when I was 17, I wrote a college paper about a socialist utopia, but I was 17. I grew out of it, and even then I never believed it would really come about. So I refer you to the Tooney-Manchin amendment and any number of state bills and laws. Take your pick. Imagining an ideal one here would be no more than mental masturbation. I want to see more guns go though them and less guns in the hands of felons and the dangerously mentally ill. That's it. I'm open to all kinds of compromises to protect the rights of law abiding gun owners but not felons or the profits of the gun lobby.

I can't possibly even imagine what harm would come to you from going though a background check unless you are a felon, in which case you shouldn't have gun. It might take you an hour longer to buy a gun. Is that really such a big deal? Limiting access to guns for the mentally ill adjudicated dangerous will likely save many lives from suicide. I think that matters great deal. Those are people the least likely to obtain illegal weapons if it becomes more difficult to do so. Since suicides are the primary use of guns, I would think would be significant. I don't happen to think people deserve to die because they have a mental illness, as many here casually dismiss their deaths.

[rrneck]

62. Like I said..

I don't necessarily have a problem with background checks, but with the registry they would require. It's not really about guns, but relationships between people and how that information may be used by government and/or business. Two entities which are becoming dangerously intertwined.

Now, I know you have posted on this subject at great length, and yet you don't seem to have given any thought to how your desires will actually work. I know for a fact that I have asked you, very nicely, how you think they will work and you have consistently declined to even consider it. I don't mind. If you don't want to think about it, you don't have to. But try to remember that a lot of people are asking those same questions, and the answers they are getting will likely shoot any universal background check legislation in the foot.

If you're really serious about gun violence, you will give serious consideration to the mechanics of regulating firearms transfers and elucidate your solutions so that others will accept them. Anything less indicates that your passion is more for your own benefit than for others.

[BainsBane]

63. Look at Saristaka's thread in the gungeon

He outlines a bill that is okay with me. My only concern was the stipulation about loans. It's important that not become a loophole to transfer weapons to criminals. It must be for very short term loans among friends, and I don't think the owner should be exempt from what the lendee does with the gun because that makes it too easy to pass guns on to criminals.

[rrneck]

64. I posted in it.

rrneck (14,776 posts)
8. Registration is the fly in the ointment. nt

sarisataka (2,828 posts)
13. So true it is a solution to so many goals and so unobtainable now that it is hard to envision when any registration law could be enacted.

[BainsBane]

65. He is saying there is going to be no requirement for federal registration

That would be a separate bill and not part of this. Also there is no way it would pass.

[rrneck]

66. It appears to me

that without registration universal background checks are unenforceable. Now it's fine by me to open up the NICS database as long as access to it is blind to anyone whose information is accessed with some sort of transaction number scheme or something, but the people who really need to use it won't if they are not compelled to do so. And that requires the threat of prosecution with some means to actually prove the infraction in court.

[BainsBane]

67. Look, you can set up a system where you feed in the info

like the Everify for immigration. Then either the person is approved or not, like a credit check. The seller gets a yes or a no. That's it, no info. So say you go to buy a gun and you're denied. You know you shouldn't be denied. So you contact the agency and have your record corrected. If the person who is denied is a felon or has a restraining order, he knows he shouldn't be buying a gun anyway. All the seller knows is the personal qualified or not, nothing else.
You register with the govt to work, via a SS number. Why not to buy a gun? It's not a real registration. It would be more like a black list. The names on there are prohibited. If your name and ID don't come up, you're good to go.

[rrneck]

68. Fine by me.

How will you compel people to perform the check?

[BainsBane]

69. Throw the fucker in jail

How else?

[rrneck]

70. Great.

How will you prove they broke the law without registration?

[BainsBane]

71. They get a confirmation number and receipt to keep

Just a number, no name. Now how to tie the number to the sale, I have to think about. As for the jail part, it really depends on the seriousness. If a person sells to a prohibited person on the blacklist and that person goes on to commit a crime, the seller should do some jail time, maybe a year. If it's a seller known to habitually fail to do background checks, and it's clear he's knowingly selling to felons, he does more time. Other cases less serious that don't seem to be willfully selling to prohibited persons could be penalized with fines.

[rrneck]

72. The government cannot possibly prosecute anyone

without associating the transaction with some particular person. If the government can't show that the transaction occurred or the transactees cannot produce an affirmative defense, the law won't work.

Making the check blind to the transactees is pretty easy to do. It's even pretty easy to come up with a scheme whereby the person being checked can request a number with an expiration date so that potential employers or whatever cannot use the system to get information they are not entitled to.

It all boils down to how much you trust government. I am of the mind that government should fear the people, not the other way around. I am also of the mind that the chances of getting another proto fascist Republican administration are still more or less fifty fifty, and I am not at all interested in giving up even a sliver of my civil rights, right to privacy, or right to be left alone until we get some much larger problems straightened out around here.

Crime is on the decline and for my money the political will to enact background check legislation is not only weak, but too precious to waste on a problem that should be solved within the more civilized purview of liberal ideology.

[BainsBane]

73. Well, what you're prosecuting is the absence of a check

not the check itself. Right?

Homicide is on the decline because of the population of young adult males. Our country's homicide rate far exceeds every other industrialized nation and most underdeveloped nations as well. More Americans have died from gun violence since 1968 than in all wars in US history. Are you going to tell me avoiding war is insignificant because not enough people are killed? Those numbers pale in comparison to domestic gun shot victims.

[rrneck]

74. Yes, the absence of a check,

so if the government doesn't have the record they could prosecute based on that absence, and if the seller is tasked with keeping the records he or she would have to produce an affirmative defense. Either way, chain of custody documentation has to exist somewhere and the government must have access to it to prosecute illegal transfers.

Like I said, crime is on the wane. The cause doesn't matter. What does matter is that since crime is going down the political will to do something about a problem that is diminishing will be weak, and political capital doesn't come cheap.

[BainsBane]

75. The political will is a function of you

you, me and the citizens. 32,000 people a year is a very high number of gun deaths.

The seller keeps the numbers. That is all the seller has to keep. The govt stores the denials for decades but destroys the records associated with the approvals within a shorter period of time. here is no risk to anyone's privacy but the felons or otherwise ineligible purchaser.


What you are really saying is that the lives that could be saved aren't worth the bother. If that is where you're at, I have nothing else to say. We might as well drop the nuclear bomb next time Syria or Iran get testy because human life isn't worth anything anyway. More people die from guns, so we might as well go to war every week. It would take a long time to catch up to the toll from gun violence. You are saying the people who die from gun violence aren't worth your mental energy or inconvenience. I don't understand that world view. It seems extremely reactionary, the kind of thing I would expect from a caver but not a real human being.

[rrneck]

86. "What you are really saying is that the lives that could be saved aren't worth the bother."

Actually, that's what you're saying. Remember the merry go round in post #54? People use guns to defend themselves. It happens. It's been happening since guns were invented, and it will continue to happen. Sometimes they are used to kill the assailant. Sometimes simply brandishing them works. Most frequently I expect, guns keep people from doing bad things because of the possibility of their use. How many? We don't know because we can't attach a number to things people decided not to do because of what they thought might happen. Awareness of the humanity of others through a theory of mind is a large part of what makes us human. Disregarding that ability in others is inhumane. Public policy that fails to take that into account results in horrible injustice because you have to dehumanize people to brutalize them.

Thus, when we cite the statistics of death by firearm without taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances of the reality of people's lives that cannot be plugged into a spreadsheet and base public policy on that attitude, we get public policy that turns it's failures into collateral damage of that policy. Public policy that fails to take into account the humanity of the people it is designed to serve lies at the heart of the most horrible injustices in human history. And those injustices almost always begin by good meaning people who refuse to admit to the realities of peoples lives in favor of defending ideology. Note that you have yet to acknowledge that people use guns to defend themselves. In fact, you explicitly denied the possibility.

If you want the seller to maintain the records, here's what you get. A gun can last a hundred years, or significantly longer than most people live. That means that records of a sale have to be kept for the rest of your life. How many people are actually able or willing to do that? Plus, the infrastructure to regulate people mandated to keep records like that already exists, and would no doubt have to be expanded to include private citizens. That's the infrastructure that governs gun dealers. So requiring private citizens to keep the records creates a potential eighty million gun dealers, and all the problems associated with regulating them. If you think straw purchases are hard to catch now, just wait until you expand the number of gun dealers by a factor of ten or twenty. Plus, the ATF has the right to walk into any gun dealers place of business and demand to examine his records. Mandate record keeping for private citizens and you just granted the government the right to conduct surprise inspections inside people's homes. That is a civil rights and political turd in a punchbowl.

[BainsBane]

89. You specifically said the declining crime rate made expanded checks unnecessary

Last edited Thu Sep 19, 2013, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)

There exists plenty of data to show that self defense accounts for a very small portion of gun deaths. I'm not disputing you have the right to self defense and background checks do nothing to impede that in anyway. I didn't deny people use guns for self defense. I said I didn't see guns as being used for good but recognized they are a necessary evil. Killing is never good. I can't imagine a mentality that thinks it is. Most people who find themselves in a position where they must take a life do it with a very heavy heart and suffer lasting trauma from the event. I can't imagine those people who have acted in self defense, unless they are homicidal by nature, consider that killing to be a "good."

The records do not have to be keep for the rest of your life. Are they now? No. The only difference is that background checks would extend to more types of sales. Your reasons are red herrings.

The ATF doesn't have the right to demand records. They can only go to a gun dealer once every year and the store doesn't have to account for weapons that have gone missing. That is the current state of affairs that allows for guns to pass freely to criminals. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3693909

You don't support the checks. You made that clear. You said the crime level wasn't enough to worry about. But apparently it's bad enough to compel folks to be armed to the teeth. Your arguments are not consistent.

I've spent enough time on arguing with people who aren't interested in doing anything for five lifetimes. Be well.

[rrneck]

100. Your response is innaccurate.

You specifically said the declining crime rate made expanded checks unnecessary

This is what I said:

Crime is on the decline and for my money the political will to enact background check legislation is not only weak, but too precious to waste on a problem that should be solved within the more civilized purview of liberal ideology.

Like I said, crime is on the wane. The cause doesn't matter. What does matter is that since crime is going down the political will to do something about a problem that is diminishing will be weak, and political capital doesn't come cheap.

There exists plenty of data to show that self defense accounts for a very small portion of gun deaths.

Like I said, data about what people didn't do because of what they thought might happen cannot be obtained, and ignoring that fact is a defense of ideology at the expense of people.

The records do not have to be keep for the rest of your life. Are they now? No.

From your link: Sales Records: FFLs are required to maintain records of the acquisition and sale of firearms indefinitely.

They can only go to a gun dealer once every year and the store doesn't have to account for weapons that have gone missing.

Q: To whom does an FFL report stolen or lost firearms?

A theft or loss of firearms must be reported to your local police as well as to ATF within 48 hours after the discovery. Licensees should notify ATF on the 24-hour, 7 days a week toll free line at 1-800-800-3855 and by preparing and submitting ATF Form 3310.11, Federal Firearms Licensee Theft/Loss Report.

Theft or loss of NFA firearms should also be reported to the NFA Branch immediately upon discovery.

[18 U.S.C. 923(g)(6), 27 CFR 478.39 and 479.141]
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/licensees-conduct-of-business.html#report-theft-loss

Surprise inspections inside people's homes once a year is once a year too many, and that's assuming that it will stay only once a year. Note that this paragraph is contradictory. You have offered a solution to allay my concerns about civil rights abuses by telling me that your system won't actually work. That means you will allow an incursion into people's civil rights for a regulatory scheme that doesn't work. Why? Because you are defending ideology instead of people.

[BainsBane]

102. Um, you have that backwards

My only interest is in defending people against preventable gun violence. I'm interested in defending my community that is subject to regular gun fire and where children are killed from stray bullets. You are defending ideology, or more accurately the religion that has become the exaltation of a peculiar interpretation of the Second Amendment. No one said a thing about going into people's houses but you. That is in no legislation. You have created straw men. I see you find it interesting to engage in theoretical discussions that go nowhere, but I don't. We disagree on guns and the meaning of life. That is clearly established. We are on opposite sites of the political divide. There is nothing I can do about that. I wish you well in your life of guns. I will go on to try to find Americans who put their communities and fellow citizens first.

[rrneck]

107. So,

If you want private citizens to keep records of sales, how will you enforce that requirement without access to the location where they keep those records? It's in no legislation because it's a political and civil rights non starter. That's why Mancin/Toomey explicitly made registration illegal, which doomed it from the start and turned the debate into political theater.

If you believe something, that's fine. You have yet to prove that your beliefs, when acted upon in the real world, will actually make people's lives better. The best you are able to do is focus on certain aspects of the problem that that confirm your bias. Anybody can read this subthread and see the contradictions in what you want to do. Every time I point out those contradiction and inaccuracies you ignore them and recharacterize the discussion in terms of religious belief, because that is how you interpret the issue. There are any number of possible reasons for that attitude, most of which are unflattering for anyone who expresses it.

I asked you to prove your policy proposals would work, and you failed to do so. But no matter, I don't mind asking you again.

How will you make registration work without damaging and unnecessary sacrifice of people's civil rights and privacy? If you are able to accomplish that, will universal background checks and the required registry actually help any given individual survive an assault against another? If so, explain how that will work.

[Niceguy1]

78. statistics

Are revelant when it comes to governance and law making...........

[rrneck]

81. Properly applied, yes they are. nt

[rl6214]

84. I cannot post in that thread because on ONE question I asked in that forum but

How do ANY of those things mentioned in that OP translate to a gun registry? Even if the NRA purchased any of those lists, that does not mean any of those people purchased any guns. It just means they went to a gun show to look, took a safety class because it may be required for hunting or any of a nimbler of other things.

[BainsBane]

93. How do background checks constitute a registry?

They don't.

[rl6214]

123. I never said it did.

[cherokeeprogressive]

46. Your subject line is a misrepresentation of reality.

I support background checks for every TRANSFER of EVERY FIREARM, EVERYWHERE, under EVERY circumstance, no matter if it's a SALE, INHERITANCE, or GIFT. "it turns out that pro-gun proponents DON'T REALLY SUPPORT BACKGROUND CHECKS AFTER ALL" (emphasis mine) I guess my statement makes your subject line bullshit. Had you qualified your statement rather than made it a blanket indictment, that might not be so.

To borrow a line from a popular movie... Do you like apples? How do you like THEM apples? I've written my Congresscritter and BOTH my useless Senators.

[BainsBane]

47. Good for you

Have you looked at the other two threads? Have a gander.

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. I don't care what the other two threads say. You made a blanket statement. It was wrong.

[BainsBane]

49. So you read that to mean cherokeeprogressive doesn't support background checks

That was a misreading. The vast majority of responses, however, had been in opposition to background checks.

[cherokeeprogressive]

50. "pro-gun proponents don't really support background checks after all"

I didn't read my name in there anywhere.

[BainsBane]

51. I'll also note that few of the people

who have been shouting "Fuck the NRA" and "gun humpers" have shown support either. One even alerted on the other thread, not the insulting threads but mine calling for action.

[cherokeeprogressive]

52. I don't speak for anyone else. You made a blanket indictment. It was wrong.

Keep defending it if you must, but it's still wrong.

[BainsBane]

53. This is pointless

You don't even care what the reaction is of people who claiming they support background checks all along. You are obviously looking hard to be offended. So have at it. Enjoy yourself.

[Eleanors38]

87. Again, we agree!

[BainsBane]

95. So you admit you were not being truthful

in the past when you said you supported background checks?

[Eleanors38]

97. "Bwah-ha-ha-ha," he said to da Inquisitor.

[BainsBane]

99. I'll take that as a yes

Be well.

[Eleanors38]

121. "...the man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" - P. Simon

[BainsBane]

122. I'm bored with the games

This advances nothing. It's a waste of everyone's time. The only thing I see evidence of is your unyielding determination to disrupt all efforts at gun control. 88 people a day are killed from guns and it's all a game for you. There is no point pretending we have anything to talk about.
'

[Eleanors38]

129. Well, you keep posting replies.

[Ohio Joe]

76. Gun nuts don't support ANY gun laws...

oh... Some might say they do... Right up until someone actually tries to make it a law. Then it is suddenly a draconian restriction on their freedoms and shit.

[BainsBane]

77. So I have discovered.

Of course they have all claimed they support background checks, but ask them to actually do something and they not only resent it, they actively disrupt any efforts to do anything. I would have thought about 20% were misrepresenting their position, but it turns out it's closer to 85%.

They have said some really amazing stuff tonight. They truly do not care society, public safety, or anyone who dies from gun violence. They don't seem to care about anything but their stuff. I don't think most of them would piss on a fire to save a burning child. That would be too much effort. The NRA is able to get away with its rape of the American public because of them. I have learned tonight that you can't compromise with extremists. I'm glad that a few of them want to support reform, but as for the rest: I'm going to put them on ignore and forget they exist. They take energy away from getting real work done, which is why they are here.

[CTyankee]

96. I have come to the same conclusion as you, BB...

I think their ruse is there to fool the newbies who haven't engaged in debates with them yet. The thing is, once they get into these discussions, the mask slips and then the gun safety folks have a good chance to reveal their hypocrisy. So it's an educational cycle and your efforts are critical to it. Newbies have to be informed beyond the pious declarations of defending UBC by the gun folks. Perhaps this is the real reason behind Skinner allowing gun threads in GD. Maybe he wanted to see just this kind of educational process by Progressives, such as yourself.

I also think the CO recall was a watershed. The NRA clearly sponsored that recall effort. So a bright white line can be attached to those supporting the recall with the NRA, something the gun folks hate. But there it is.

[BainsBane]

98. Oh no

They insist the recall was "grassroots." It wasn't the NRA after all.
Truly, I feel kind of foolish for taking any of them at their word. Then I have the bizarrely enraged below insisting their intransigence is all about me personally and not about the issue at all.

[CTyankee]

101. I have engaged them on the "grassroots" argument, too. But the NRA label is there

permanently. It cannot be wished away. Also, if they claim it is the "will of the people" you have only to point out the slender number of votes the effort got compared to the electorate at large. That's why we have the arguments about voter suppression. It's so obvious what is being done by the extreme right wing in this country.

Their arguments about you personally serve to reinforce the "delicate flowers" description we often use. It is clear that "having hurt feelings" is one of their favorite positions. It is kind of strange, don't you think, coming from people who favor carrying guns around or strapping them to their anatomy?

[badtoworse]

80. Just because I support something doesn't mean I'll give it away for nothing.

There are aspects of current law that I believe are unfair and would like to see changed. Like I've said before, how about a more comprehensive approach that includes some elements appealing to gun owners, IOW, a deal?

Your approach is to make one-sided demands and insult people when you don't get them. I've found that rarely accomplishes anything.

[Sissyk]

85. You are comical!

I have never seen anyone else here like you.

No other person on this board can twist facts like you do.

No other person on this board is 90% insulting and rude like you are.

No other person on this board throws their MIRT membership in people's faces like you do.

And that one makes me wonder if you are in MIRT leading a bandwagon to get people (short term and long timers) banned that do not agree with you; and that proves your "facts" wrong every time you post the garbage.

You are constantly rude and angry, and harass everyone you come in contact with that doesn't agree with you.

IMO, you make DU suck!

And, I am for background checks. You should notice, there are a number of supporters on this board but your thread received less than 10 recs. It wasn't the subject; it was the author.

[clffrdjk]

90. watch yourself

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Sep 19, 2013, 09:55 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Just reading the thread I would hide the op rather than this poster
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

[Eleanors38]

94. Ah! Case in point. nt

[Eleanors38]

91. Now, if I had said that I would have been MIRTed to the

Black River Wildlife Management Area.

[pintobean]

105. This may help explain

the attitude. When someone can dehumanize others to try to get what they want, one wonders where the line is, if there is one.

See the comment and the reply.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023672445#post175

[gopiscrap]

108. fuck all that we need to get rid of guns period

[BainsBane]

111. Well, I was trying to compromise

and have sadly discovered it's a lost cause. As a matter of tactics, however, we need to focus on what can get passed. But if you want to advocate for something else, that's your choice, just throw in background checks as well when talking to your reps.

[hack89]

112. An honest gun controller.

good for you.