Conservative Media Give Cover For Illegal Sales At Gun Shows

[SecularMotion]

Conservative media are touting a video from the right-wing Media Research Center purporting to show that vendors at gun shows always refuse to sell firearms to felons and other disqualified persons and that legislation to expand the background check system is unnecessary. But according to prior undercover reports, when private sellers at gun shows were not aware they were on camera, a substantial portion agreed to sell guns to people they believed could not legally possess them.

Vendors who have a Federal Firearms License are required to perform background checks on their customers, but so-called private sellers who say they are not "engaged in the business" of selling firearms have no such requirement at gun shows in 33 states. This discrepancy has been termed the "gun show loophole" and is the reason narco-terrorists, illegal gun traffickers and other dangerous individuals seek out unregulated sales at gun shows. The most infamous use of the loophole is the 1999 Columbine High School massacre where all four guns involved were passed through a local gun show by private sellers.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has estimated between 25 and 50 percent of vendors at gun shows sell without a background check. Adding sales over the Internet and through newspaper classified adverts, a substantial proportion of firearms are transferred without a background check in the United States. Federal legislation to expand the background check system to cover private sales failed in the Senate last year.

For an April 7 video report, MRCTV's Dan Joseph brought a camera crew to The Nation's Gun Show in Chantilly, Virginia to "dispel some of the myths that some people may have about gun shows." Joseph conducted on-camera interviews with several vendors who all said that they would not sell firearms to prohibited persons, with many describing how the background check process would weed out such individuals.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/13/conservative-media-give-cover-for-illegal-sales/199288

[gejohnston]

1. So, does MM have any evidence to back up its claims?

of Illegal sales?

This discrepancy has been termed the "gun show loophole" and is the reason narco-terrorists, illegal gun traffickers and other dangerous individuals seek out unregulated sales at gun shows.

Not true, and they provide no evidence to back it up. It is easier to go to a local drug dealer. As the Wright/Rossi studies showed that those people do not go to gun shows.

The most infamous use of the loophole is the 1999 Columbine High School massacre where all four guns involved were passed through a local gun show by private sellers.

Seems that I remember the straw purchaser went to prison. With a straw purchaser, a background check would be irrelevant.
I have no idea what MRCTV is, but MM has a track record of shilling for the prohibition lobby.

This is of value

On the fifth anniversary of Columbine, the FBI's lead Columbine investigator and several psychiatrists published their conclusions in a news article.[65] They said Harris was a clinical psychopath and Klebold was depressive. They believed Harris had been the mastermind, having a messianic-level superiority complex, and hoped to demonstrate his superiority to the world.

The attack was the culmination of more than a year of planning, firearms acquisition, and bomb building. Harris's journals, in particular, show methodical preparation over a long period of time, including several experimental bomb detonations.[66][67] The massacre was anything but a failure of impulse control.

For prior behavioral issues, Harris had been prescribed the SSRI antidepressant Fluvoxamine.[68] Toxicology reports confirmed that Harris had Fluvoxamine in his bloodstream at the time of the shootings.

[ManiacJoe]

2. It would help if private sellers were not prohibited from doing NICS checks by federal law.

[Jenoch]

3. "Sales over the internet" are already illegal.

It is not legal to ship guns through the USPS or private package delivery services unless the reciever holds an FFL and the transfer is done with a background check.

[flamin lib]

4. sales over the internet cannot be regulated as long as

there is no requirement for background checks and sellers are not charged with whatever crime is committed with the gun sold.

Go to Craigs list and search on 'bang' or 'boom'. Craigs list does not officially condone sales of guns.

[Jenoch]

5. My point is that when people hear

'internet sale' they think it's like Amazon in which the goods are shipped to the buyer's home. It has been illegal to ship guns in that manner since 1968.

Craigslist typically involves the exchange of goods face to face.

[flamin lib]

6. Oh, yeah, Sure. I bow to your impeccable and infinate knowledge. nt

[Jenoch]

7. Thanks for your understang and support.

I wish more people on DU would allow themselves to be better informed about gun laws.

[flamin lib]

9. Oh yeah, sure. Tell me how you're going to

Enforce the law if there isn't any penalty, say prosecution for any crime committed with the gun you sold, or method of tracking the gun back to the seller?

Gun laws are purposely unenforceable.

I guess I forgot the sarcasm notice when I referenced your impeccable knowledge . . .

[Jenoch]

12. I'm not opposed to requiring background checks on all

gun sales, with a few exceptions.

I am opposed to hyperbole, including that it is not against the law to sell guns over the internet.

If you sold your car to somebody who later drove drunk and killed somebody, should you be held responsible?

[blueridge3210]

8. From a functional standpoint

What is the difference between listing a firearm on the internet or the local "Thrifty Nickel" or "Dollar Saver" publication? None require a private seller to conduct a background check as private sellers are unable to access the NICS system.

[flamin lib]

10. Therein lies the problem. Nobody is responsible for individual sales.

Unless you are willing to keep records of where the gun came from and where it went and surrender them to the ATF when requested and help pay for the NICS I think you'd be better off paying a ffl $25 (going rate here) to do that for you.

[blueridge3210]

11. You did catch the part where private sellers

are not permitted to access the NICS system? So they cannot conduct a background check of any sort? Personally, unless I sold a firearm to a family member or longtime friend (that I had direct knowledge was permitted to buy) I would require a photocopy of a picture ID and keep it forever "just in case". To what extent would you hold a private seller responsible? For argument's sake, let's say Joe sells to his nephew Steve. Steve sells to his college buddy. College buddy has the firearm stolen from his locked vehicle or burglarized from his house. Thief sells to dope dealer; dope dealer uses the firearm to settle a business dispute. (Let's also stipulate that all sales are to persons who would pass a background check conducted by a FFL). Who is held responsible for the criminal misuse of the firearm, and why? Just curious.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. But we can't allow private citizens to use the NICS

We have to make sure every transaction goes through a member of the firearms industry. That's the only way we'll be able to overcome the firearms industry --

-- or something.

(Unless the prohibitionists are just setting up the goalposts to be moved at a later time.)

[blueridge3210]

14. Uhh... yeah.... I think...or something like that.

I'm trying to understand where he's trying to go. It seems like he's supporting a nationwide registry to keep track of all firearms in the country. I doubt that would fly given Supreme Court rulings and precedent; of course I'm not a lawyer and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[flamin lib]

15. Yes, I did catch that private sellers can't access NICS.

As for the convoluted scenario the one responsible would be the one last linked to the gun. If its stolen and reported the last owner is exonerated of responsibility. Here in Texas the owner isn't required to report a theft.

That you are willing to keep records into perpetuity is admirable but what about the 40% of other gun sales? Shouldn't those sellers be held to the same level of responsibility you volunteer to? Then there's the question of paying for the access to NICS. How much are you willing to pay for that?

[Jenoch]

16. Do you believe that if someone sells a gun to another person in a private sale without

a background check and the buyer uses the gun in a crime, the seller should be held responsible for that crime?

[flamin lib]

18. yes. nt

[Jenoch]

19. So you would also agree with the

car selling scenario where you sell a car to somebody, they drive drunk in that car and kill somebody, and you are responsible. How can you justify that?

[flamin lib]

21. Here in Texas if a seller registers the sale of a car with the state

the seller is free and clear of responsibility for the car. If not, deal with the civil and criminal system.

This is true regardless of whether the buyer registered the vehicle.

[Jenoch]

22. In the state of Texas,

and elsewhere, the seller of a gun is not responsible for subsequent crimes that gun is used for as long as they did not participate in the crime.

[flamin lib]

23. And there is something wrong with that. nt

[Jenoch]

24. Do you believe the auto selling rule is wrong?

If not, why not?

[flamin lib]

27. Again, here in Texas until the title is changed or until the State is notified

with the State provided form the vehicle is treated as if you own it. If it is used irresponsibly and someone is injured you can be held responsible as if you loaned the vehicle to the drunk driver.

I wish guns were treated the same.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. What if the car isn't licensed for use on the roads in the first place?

You are mixing unlike objects. There are vehicles that do not require licensure, because they are not operated on public roads. If someone transfers such a vehicle, and the recipient commits a crime with that vehicle, does the seller still bear some responsibility?

[blueridge3210]

17. Why should I pay.

As a private seller my use of NICS would be minimal at best and any fee would be hard to assess. Believe me, my record keeping would not be out of altruism; if the weapon were linked to a crime I would want to divert attention from myself as quickly as possible. I can't speak to the motives of other persons, or hold them to any standard short of what is required by current law.

[flamin lib]

20. Because you are using a service provided by government and should be willing

To pay for that service. What, you think a ffl is free? Why should those who pay for the service subsidize you?

That you can't speak for others is irrevalent. Just because you sell only a few guns doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to support the system and you should be advocating g to make other private sellers as responsible as yourself.

Don't ya think?

[blueridge3210]

25. Because I'm not engaged in the business of fireams sales

Any transaction I make would be incidental, not how I make a living. Currently the point is moot as I cannot access the NICS database; but if you want private sellers conduct background checks it would need to be offered at no cost. How would you propose to collect a charge? Currently if a FFL facilitates a sale the fee they charge is to cover their time; not the built in cost of conducting background checks.

[flamin lib]

26. Typical. A gungeoneer wants something for nothing to do the responsible thing.

Just like the discussion about gun safes. "I'd have a gun safe if the government subsidized it.". As if a $100 safe is too expensive to hold a $400 handgun.

[Straw Man]

28. Typical. A prohibitionist misunderstands the situation.

A gungeoneer wants something for nothing to do the responsible thing.

Currently, NICS is available without charge to commercial users -- FFL holders. Why should there be a charge for private users?

[blueridge3210]

29. Thanks, didn't know if FFL's paid to use NICS or not

and wasn't in a position to research it. Last time I use a FFL to facilitate a sale was to buy back my old issue weapon after we transitioned to semi-auto. $20 + cost.

[Straw Man]

30. They don't.

Last time I use a FFL to facilitate a sale was to buy back my old issue weapon after we transitioned to semi-auto. $20 + cost.

There shouldn't be any cost, so I don't know what he was charging you for. Some states have their own system in lieu of NICS, and I believe some states charge a fee per transaction. Your state might be one of those.

[blueridge3210]

31. processing and handling to cover his time.

cheap at the price overall.

[Straw Man]

33. Right.

But you said "$20 + cost." If the $20 is for his time, what's the "cost"?

[blueridge3210]

34. Sorry, I was distracted and wasn't clear.

$20 + his original purchase cost, IIRC $160. So the agency sold to him for $160; I paid $180 to cover his time to process the purchase and re-sale. 4" stainless S & W Revolver, still in good shape.

[Straw Man]

35. I see.

That's a great price. I paid $225 + $35 transfer fee for the same gun: police-department turn-in.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. Some states are full-POC

The red ones in the map:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/Participation%20Map

States (like PA) with restrictive privacy laws include mental health records in the state database. The full-POC option plugs those gaps.

[flamin lib]

36. 1. I'm not a prohibitionist.

2. FFLs pay a licensing fee. My C&R renews every three years and I don't have access to NCIS because selling is not my primary interest. If it were the fee would be much greater and I'd have access.

3. In another thread about safely storing guns to prevent theft and accidental discharge the common theme was government sudsidy to to the right thing. Just like this sub-thread.

4. I'm out ta this thread.

[Straw Man]

37. Uh-huh.

1. I'm not a prohibitionist.

You're very quick to sling names like "gungeoneer" around. Why are you so unwilling to wear the mantle that your opinions have earned you?

2. FFLs pay a licensing fee. My C&R renews every three years and I don't have access to NCIS because selling is not my primary interest. If it were the fee would be much greater and I'd have access.

You said it yourself: FFLs pay a fee because selling is their "primary interest." There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to operate a business. Hence their fee is not an infringement.

3. In another thread about safely storing guns to prevent theft and accidental discharge the common theme was government sudsidy to to the right thing. Just like this sub-thread.

I'm not interested in what the "common theme" of another thread was. I'm talking about what you said in here. You disparaged the notion that NICS should be available to private sellers without a charge. In other words, you care less about reducing gun crime than you do about limiting government expenditure. Kind of ironic coming from someone on a progressive forum, don't you think?

4. I'm out ta this thread.

Buh-bye.