Mixed feelings and competing thoughts on Obama's Town Hall on Guns

[aikoaiko]

I think the president was honest and sincere about his desire to improve existing laws to reduce, ever so slightly, gun violence.

Its really a shame that professional gun control advocates and the Whitehouse have used more extreme language about "closing the gun show loophole" and "ending internet sales without background checks." They oversold the president's recommendations and now he is trying to walk it back to reality. Nevertheless, the NRA now will fight the perception that president is orchestrating substantive changes.

Cooper's question about the fairness of calling worries about broader gun control and confiscations conspiracy theories hit a nerve with the president. Obviously, door-to-door confiscation is far fetched, but the idea that passing modest gun control laws will be a prelude to more restrictive gun control laws is not. The president supports an Assault Weapons Ban. I don't think the president understands that or maybe he does but won't admit it.

So I hope congress funds the hiring of more agents for background checks and investigations, I hope congress funds the implementation of new processes where those who are dangerous due to mental illness are identified as prohibited from gun ownership and have a fair process for defending themselves, I hope congress provides the funds to improve the quality of datasets so that they can provide correct denial decisions.

But let's be clear that the so-called gun show loophole is no more closed today than it was a week ago and nothing he proposed closes it at all. A collector with 100 guns can rent a table and sell each firearm to 100 different people without a federally required background check. All we have now is the hysterical bleating from the loudest mouths on both sides of the RKBA issue.

And maybe that was the point -- to create the impression of substantive change in order to create energy in the anti-RKBA base to produce actual substantive change.

[Kingofalldems]

1. So by your last sentence you are calling President Obama a liar.

Or did I read it wrong?

[aikoaiko]

2. No, but I think he is a politician trying to create change.

For example, he could have released a statement saying that he agrees with the NRA and will help enforce existing federal gun laws and not propose any new gun laws that impact law abiding gun owners in anyway.

As my OP title says, mixed feelings and competing thoughts.

[Snobblevitch]

3. I understand the 1986 law removed specific numbers

before a seller of guns is considered a 'dealer'. However, even with the underenforecemenrt of the ATF, a person with 100 guns and selling them all would attractect attention.

I can see the FFL's on either side of this guy calling the BTAFE and turning them in.

[aikoaiko]

4. I don't think so.The ATF guidelines specifically mention that it was fine to sell off a collection

as a private seller.

[Snobblevitch]

5. The selling of a collection had not occurred to me,

however, the time period in which that collection is sold might make a difference.

If a person inherits a collection of 125 guns and decides to sell them all, in a single transaction, wouldn't they attract zero attention from the ATF? If the buyer was an FFL holder, are they required to do a background check on themselves? (Is there such a thing?)

If the same person decides to rent a table at gun shows, at what point would they attract the attention of the ATF? Do the FFL's care about the competition?

[aikoaiko]

6. The problem is that most people are selling their guns for as much money as ...

...unless they are gifts. Liquidating collections (partial or complete) is ok to do as a private seller without federally required background checks.

Here is an example from the ATF guidelines:

Bob inherits a collection of firearms from his grandfather. He would rather have cash than the firearms, so he posts them all online for sale. He makes no purchases, but over the course of the next year he sells all of the firearms he inherited in a series of different transactions. Bob does not need a license because he is liquidating a personal collection.

I know a couple of small-time FFLs (gun dealers) and they are always worried about the distinction between their personal collection and their business inventory. Most of them do NICS checks when they sell their personal collection to be on the safe side.

The biggest criteria for being declared a business seems to be repetitive buying and reselling for a profit and the representation of acting as a business.

[virginia mountainman]

7. I know of an FFL who went to prison..

For selling "a" gun from his personal collection that had been in his personal collection for 30 years before he became an FFL dealer, without a background check... This was back around 1991.

To make matters worse, he was a decorated WWII Submariner, and he lost all his military benefits because of that fiasco.

[Separation]

8. When it comes to the ATF

Its in everyone's best interest, especially your family and pets, to side on caution, then to give them a reason to notice you.

[aikoaiko]

9. Ouch.

How long did he serve?

[HereSince1628]

10. Actions re mental illness are mostly not based on evidence.

Your dream of invention and implementation of a "new processes where those who are dangerous due to mental illness are identified as prohibited from gun ownership" is mostly application of techniques similar to those used in RICO investigations against a new set of targets...

The new targets are persons who custodians placed in charge of their SSDI payments. At this time there is no evidence that the 75000 or so persons in that circumstance make a significant contribution to gun violence.

The American Psychological Association has been very clear that their industry has no capacity to predict, with anything that approaches accuracy, who among any class of persons with mental disorders is going to commit gun violence.

What we have here is a politician reacting to the outcry for something to be done by a population with great fear of gun violence and very very little understanding of the dangerous-ness of persons with mental disorders. The general, albeit ignorant, outcry both creates motivation for political action and makes it possible.

Don't expect any of the half billion dollars of support for mental health care that Obama muses about to ever be made a reality by Congress. Republicans will never go for this.

In the end doing the doable means creating policy that conforms and reinforces stigma against persons with mental disorders.

As a nation we don't want persons with mental disorders to have guns. It sounds so reasonable because it falls so in line with 'common (un)knowledge. But, we also don't want the mentally ill to be our surgeons, the teachers of our children, pilots of airplanes, drivers of trains, our co-workers or our neighbors.

The mentally ill, somewhere between 15 and 25 percent of the population are responsible for about 4 percent of violent crime. Which is to say they are very under-represented among perpetrators of violence while the 80-85 percent of mentally well persons are committing ~96% of the criminal violence.

But because it is possible to label them, and associate them with negative stereotypes, it's also possible to target them. The mentally ill are feared, stereotyped, marginalized and politically powerless. They are the perfect target for a national policy motivated by 'the tremendous need to do something'.

[aikoaiko]

17. Well, evidence-based decisions are not common in gun control.

For example, the gun control crowd salivate over the idea of banning AR15 (and other similar) types of rifles, but less than 300 murders a year are committed with them.

Like the AR15, the mentally ill have been involved with some gruesome cases and they are an easy target.

[DashOneBravo]

24. I was hoping that number

Would come up in the Town Hall.

At least someone pointed out the declining crime rate.

[karadax]

11. The President made a great point about using technology

To make guns safer. I support the second amendment strongly and it's one area where I feel changes can be made for the good while taking nothing away from gun owners. Constructing the guns to be only fired by those who own them is common sense safety. I also agree with the President when he said he believes there would be significant demand for safer guns. If I can buy a gun that none of my kids can use until I choose and no criminal can use against me if stolen then you bet your butt I would pay a little bit more.

It's a good place for both sides to come together and work to make some progress. It would be a losing fight if the gun lobby opposed.

[aikoaiko]

18. The NRA fights the development of "smart" guns because they fear them being mandatory

And its a well founded fear. Gun control advocates have honked about making them mandatory once developed and there are a lot of gun owners who don't trust that they will work when needed.

Previous legislation created for smart guns often exempts police because law enforcement doesn't trust that they will work when needed. And that is the same reasons why civilians don't want to be forced into using them.

So I kind of like Obama having DOD do the research on them and they should be made mandatory for the military. That will go a long way toward them being accepted.

[Lizzie Poppet]

19. A technology that should be developed fir the civilian market, but...

...I'd argue that the Department of Defense is the wrong choice for doing so. This technology is a very, very bad idea for soldiers: a combat soldier must be able to pick up and use the weapons of his or her fallen comrades (or the enemy). It's directing the Defense Department to help develop a technology it will never adopt, save perhaps for some MPs and such.

[DashOneBravo]

25. Yep that's true.

Maybe you could give them to pilots.

[Lee-Lee]

12. Its not even that the collector selling off his stuff doesn't have to do checks

It's that he isn't even allowed to access the system to do them.

So to do check he has 3 options.

First, consign them to a dealer who will take a 15-25% cut of the sale.

Second, run them all through a dealer as a transfer, requiring seller and buyer to travel to a dealer and spend 30 minutes on paperwork and pay the dealer a $25-75 fee per gun depending on costs.

Third- get an FFL. It used to be very common for collectors to go ahead and get an FFL as a home base "business" so they could get wholesale pricing on guns and parts. However the same law that brought background checks into existence directed the BATF to not issue any FFL if the listed location was not zoned to allow a business. So even if the person applied for the FFL knowing they only wanted to sell at gun shows so they could do background checks and be legal the BATF would deny the application if they didn't have a storefront unless zoning allowed "retail sales" from their home. This actually pushed tens of thousands of collectors who had FFL's and would have been doing checks to turn in their FFL.

Open NICS up to private sellers and you have fixed the problem. I don't get why anyone opposes this easy fix.

[HereSince1628]

13. I don't want NICs to be available to anyone unless their bonded and insured

The information in that database can be misused and consequently be very damaging.

If that's part of an easy fix I'm ok with it. If spending money to be bonded and insured is just another too expensive hurdle, meh

[Lee-Lee]

14. People using it can't see the info in the database

When a gun dealer calls in a NICS check there are only 3 responses- Proceed, Denied or Delayed wait for further guidance.

It's not like they can see anything in the database or get told the reason for a denial.

[HereSince1628]

15. They don't need to see it. Its called a national -CRIMINAL- background check

If an answer comes back a hit, people without too much consideration can, and I think will, assume that the person whose name is in the database is at least an untrustworthy person, and possible a person who is a criminal or deemed dangerous.

That assumption is enough to stop people from getting a job, approval on a rental application, etc. Allowing thousands of 'gun hobbiests' or anyone that claims to be free-access to that data is an invitation to misuse/abuse.

[Lee-Lee]

23. So simply make if a felony to misuse the info

And do random checks of when it's misused.

You don't need bonding for that any more than you would need bonding of every single person who has access to medical info because HIPPA exists.

Besides, there are any number of websites where you can purchase criminal background checks and check court records. I do this stuff for a living now, it's easy to find all 50 states easily. If you want dirt on people you get it with far more details for a few bucks online with a little research, or free in some states.

[Lizzie Poppet]

20. Perhaps a collector-specific grade of FFL could be the answer.

Similar to the idea behind a Curio & Relic license...

[Lee-Lee]

22. It would be a great idea

Something like a C&R that doesn't limit one to just older guns.

Of course, that exactly how an FFL was often used before 1993 when the BATF was instructed to start clamping down on home based FFL's and forced thousands of them out of their licenses.

[DashOneBravo]

27. Who opposes it and why?

It would be a great thing to open it up.

Just go online put the info in and get a simple yes or no.

[Angel Martin]

16. one problem is

that Obama and other gun control advocates continually say things like:

"no-one needs an assault weapon"... "no-one should have an assault weapon"

When politicians say that no-one "should have" a type of firearm that tens of millions already own, they are raising questions about what future possession rules might be, and stirring up a hornets nest that they didn't have to disturb.

It would have been much more effective to focus from the start on people rather than guns, and stick to what Obama is talking about now which is background checks.

[Paladin]

21. I would have been amazed if you had liked the President's guns discussion. (nt)

[aikoaiko]

28. I liked parts of it.

[randys1]

26. Disgusting puke CT about Obama being after your guns...that is what they are

[aikoaiko]

29. Too many Democrats speak well of the Australian confiscations and gun bans in the US

There is a lot of fuel for the hyperbole.