Why I disagree with the NRA

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

...and the person who sold it to him could also be held partially responsible for his actions. As it stands the guy who sold him the handgun(s) can claim he broke no laws or rules and went by the book.

So you want to punish the people who did NOT commit the crime? That's kind of bizarre.

If you sell a car to someone, and then they kill someone driving drunk, should you be punished for not knowing that he was prone to drinking and driving?

Be careful of what you ask for.

But once kallend finishes up his future crime prediction machine, then we can run all transactions through him, and that will make the world perfect.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

...and the person who sold it to him could also be held partially responsible for his actions. As it stands the guy who sold him the handgun(s) can claim he broke no laws or rules and went by the book.

So you want to punish the people who did NOT commit the crime? That's kind of bizarre.

If you sell a car to someone, and then they kill someone driving drunk, should you be punished for not knowing that he was prone to drinking and driving?

Be careful of what you ask for.

But once kallend finishes up his future crime prediction machine, then we can run all transactions through him, and that will make the world perfect.

No, I want to punish those who would facilitate the crime by selling a gun to a known felon.
If you have a gun and you want to sell it, fine. Sell it to whomever you want as long as they pass a background check. They pass, you sell the gun, your responsibility ends there. But if you don't run a background check or sell the gun even if the check comes back witha big red flag, then you would be held partially responsible.
It should be common sense for people to take responsibility such as selling a gun seriously. People shouldn't have to be told to check the buyers background. Unfortunately the world is full of people who only care that they got what they wanted and don't care what happens next. It is sad that we have come to the point where laws are needed just to make people take their responsibilities seriously.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If you are legal, what have you to worry about? I can understand why CRIMINALS would worry. Is there something you're hiding from us?

Once again Kallend parrots the supporters of the Patriot Act - if you have nothing to fear, why worry about this massive attack on your rights?

Ignoring the obvious concerns about illegal confiscations (see Cal SKS, New Orleans during Katrina), those lists give nice targets for burglars. I seem to recall you to get off on whining about how often guns are stolen.

--
The link in the original posting fails, but the question again that should be asked is why are we sending letters to people that fail Brady checks? Perhaps we should be taking stronger action, esp against the felons that know they can't buy guns?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

So then do you advocate private gun sales go thru a gun dealer? If not, more restriction on gun dealers only pushes the bad guy to the private sector and does nothing to keep guns out the hands of the crook/murderer.

No, I don't advocate running all sales through a gun dealer. The instant check system can be modified to allow private sellers to call and get a simple yes or no to the sale without revealing any private information. This in no way pushes more restriction on gun dealers, nor any more responsibility. Yes, it would push them toward the black market. But, as i said, it would also enable us to hold the seller partially responsible for the buyers actions if no attempt was made to check the buyers background.

You have to have that private info FOR the NICS check, so how do you figure to get a 'simple yes or no without revealing any private information'?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35860968/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Quote

Law enforcement officials say Bedell, a man with a history of severe psychiatric problems, had been sent a letter by California authorities Jan. 10 telling him he was prohibited from buying a gun because of his mental history.

Nineteen days later, the officials say, Bedell bought the Ruger at a gun show in Las Vegas. Such a sale by a private individual does not require the kind of background check that would have stopped Bedell's purchase.

Though I am a life member of the NRA, I don't agreee with them on everything. Background checks should be required on ALL firearm transactions, not just those involving a licensed dealer.
Would this have prevented the nut from getting a gun? Probably not. But it would have made it much more difficult and the person who sold it to him could also be held partially responsible for his actions. As it stands the guy who sold him the handgun(s) can claim he broke no laws or rules and went by the book.

So, like Virginia and Cho, California didn't report Bedell's treatment to Federal authorities. Do they have concrete proof Bedell purchased from a private seller, or are they just assuming so since he didn't trip NICS?

Disagree on the shared responsibility crap until kallend invents that future crime machine where we know who's going to commit crimes.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I would agree if that after the search the record of the inquiry and a sale (if it happened) are destroyed and not kept

So in common with criminals, you like it that guns are untraceable.

So, in common with criminals, you don't want the LAW to be followed.

USC Title 18, Sec 922(t)(2):
(2) If receipt of a firearm would not violate subsection (g) or (n) or State law, the system shall—
(A) assign a unique identification number to the transfer;
(B) provide the licensee with the number; and
(C) destroy all records of the system with respect to the call (other than the identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records of the system relating to the person or the transfer.

Gun dealers have to make records in their bound book for every sale, so tracing can still be done.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I think of it as being a way to make those who otherwise don't care what the buyer does with the gun take some responsibility for, at the minimum, making a reasonable and very simple effort to make sure the buyer is, in fact, legally qualified to purchase. We already hold people responsible for selling booze to minors. It only makes sense to hold people responsible for selling guns to illegal recipients if they don't make an effort to check their background.

Do you support the same background checks and responsibility requirements for selling a car, since there are many more vehicle deaths than gun deaths?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Given the lightning-quick speed that government seems to work at, I'm curious if he'd have shown up in NICS anyway.

There is alwasy the chance he wouldn't have. But we know that if a check isn't run, he would slip through every time.

True.

At every gun show I've been to, the vast majority of the sellers have been gun dealers, who have to run the NICS checks anyway. I think most of them would be happy to run the NICS check on behalf of a private seller for a small fee, provided such a thing is legal.

I'd consider myself a "gun-nut", but I have no problem requiring NICS checks for private sales at gun shows, however I'm not in favor of requiring it for private sales elsewhere, as it'd be pretty much unenforceable anyway.

Unfortunately, none of the groups wanting to close the "gun show loophole" are interested in addressing just the gun-show part, which I'm certain many pro-gun people would support - they want to essentially ban all privates sales w/o an NICS check.

You are correct in saying it would be unenforceable, but the consequences of getting caught not complying could be severe and thus serves as a deterrent.

I can see that, but it would do little to deter the criminal element, defeating the point of the law in the first place. It'd serve as nothing more than a nuisance for the law-abiding.

The exact same thing can be said about laws against murder, bank robbery, kidnapping, rape, and even speeding.

It's a silly argument.

The silly argument is passing laws to "prevent" crime and expecting criminals to abide by them.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

No, I want to punish those who would facilitate the crime by selling a gun to a known felon.

I'm sure there's probably some sort of civil liability involved in such a case.

The problem I see is that there's little common sense involved in outlawing all private sales w/o a NICS check.

What if I was to purchase a gun from my dad? A NICS check really wouldn't be warranted at all, but would I run the risk of being arrested and convicted of a felony because I didn't get a NICS check done?

Doesn't seem right.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So then do you advocate private gun sales go thru a gun dealer? If not, more restriction on gun dealers only pushes the bad guy to the private sector and does nothing to keep guns out the hands of the crook/murderer.

No, I don't advocate running all sales through a gun dealer. The instant check system can be modified to allow private sellers to call and get a simple yes or no to the sale without revealing any private information. This in no way pushes more restriction on gun dealers, nor any more responsibility. Yes, it would push them toward the black market. But, as i said, it would also enable us to hold the seller partially responsible for the buyers actions if no attempt was made to check the buyers background.

You have to have that private info FOR the NICS check, so how do you figure to get a 'simple yes or no without revealing any private information'?

The decision would be made on the Feds end of the call. All the seller would be told is a simple yes or no. If the buyer doesn't want to give out his name and SS number to the seller he would have the option of having the local police run the check. If the buyer is turned down he would have the option of finding out why...unless he already knew the reason.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

So, like Virginia and Cho, California didn't report Bedell's treatment to Federal authorities. Do they have concrete proof Bedell purchased from a private seller, or are they just assuming so since he didn't trip NICS?

Yes, they have proof. The gun was traded by the police to a dealer, who then sold it to the person who sold it at the show in Vegas.
Where did you see anything saying his treatment wasn't reported?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

I think of it as being a way to make those who otherwise don't care what the buyer does with the gun take some responsibility for, at the minimum, making a reasonable and very simple effort to make sure the buyer is, in fact, legally qualified to purchase. We already hold people responsible for selling booze to minors. It only makes sense to hold people responsible for selling guns to illegal recipients if they don't make an effort to check their background.

Do you support the same background checks and responsibility requirements for selling a car, since there are many more vehicle deaths than gun deaths?

There are far fewer restrictions on purchasing a car. The only one I know of is in some states a minor cannot legally purchase a car without their parents permission. In those cases the law is the same as it is for booze....if you sell it to a minor, you can be held partially responsible for what happens next.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Given the lightning-quick speed that government seems to work at, I'm curious if he'd have shown up in NICS anyway.

There is alwasy the chance he wouldn't have. But we know that if a check isn't run, he would slip through every time.

True.

At every gun show I've been to, the vast majority of the sellers have been gun dealers, who have to run the NICS checks anyway. I think most of them would be happy to run the NICS check on behalf of a private seller for a small fee, provided such a thing is legal.

I'd consider myself a "gun-nut", but I have no problem requiring NICS checks for private sales at gun shows, however I'm not in favor of requiring it for private sales elsewhere, as it'd be pretty much unenforceable anyway.

Unfortunately, none of the groups wanting to close the "gun show loophole" are interested in addressing just the gun-show part, which I'm certain many pro-gun people would support - they want to essentially ban all privates sales w/o an NICS check.

You are correct in saying it would be unenforceable, but the consequences of getting caught not complying could be severe and thus serves as a deterrent.

I can see that, but it would do little to deter the criminal element, defeating the point of the law in the first place. It'd serve as nothing more than a nuisance for the law-abiding.

The exact same thing can be said about laws against murder, bank robbery, kidnapping, rape, and even speeding.

It's a silly argument.

The silly argument is passing laws to "prevent" crime and expecting criminals to abide by them.

Do you really think the rates of murder, bank robbery, kidnapping, rape, etc. would remain unchanged if suddenly they became legal?
Laws nevber prevented anyone from committing a crime. They only deter most people and punish those who get caught breaking those laws.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The decision would be made on the Feds end of the call. All the seller would be told is a simple yes or no. If the buyer doesn't want to give out his name and SS number to the seller he would have the option of having the local police run the check. If the buyer is turned down he would have the option of finding out why...unless he already knew the reason.

To the best of my knowledge, the only responses for NICS are yes, no and delayed - there's no 'reason' given to the seller for a denial.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

No, I want to punish those who would facilitate the crime by selling a gun to a known felon.

I'm sure there's probably some sort of civil liability involved in such a case.

The problem I see is that there's little common sense involved in outlawing all private sales w/o a NICS check.

What if I was to purchase a gun from my dad? A NICS check really wouldn't be warranted at all, but would I run the risk of being arrested and convicted of a felony because I didn't get a NICS check done?

Doesn't seem right.

I agree. That is why I suggested the alternative of making the check optional but holding the seller partially reponsible for the buyers actions IF the buyer was legally prohibeted from owning a gun. In the case of selling to your dad you would have a pretty good idea of whether he was a convicted felon or a documented nut case. As the law stands now, you could sell your gun to ANYBODY as long as you didn't know for a fact they were prohibited from owning it.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

So, like Virginia and Cho, California didn't report Bedell's treatment to Federal authorities. Do they have concrete proof Bedell purchased from a private seller, or are they just assuming so since he didn't trip NICS?

Yes, they have proof. The gun was traded by the police to a dealer, who then sold it to the person who sold it at the show in Vegas.

So, they confirmed it was a private sale? How did they confirm that?

Quote

Where did you see anything saying his treatment wasn't reported?

*IF* it was a private sale, the point is moot under Federal law. *IF* it was a dealer sale at the gunshow, then he passed NICS, which means that Cali did not send the barring information to the Feds.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, like Virginia and Cho, California didn't report Bedell's treatment to Federal authorities. Do they have concrete proof Bedell purchased from a private seller, or are they just assuming so since he didn't trip NICS?

Yes, they have proof. The gun was traded by the police to a dealer, who then sold it to the person who sold it at the show in Vegas.

So, they confirmed it was a private sale? How did they confirm that?

Quote

Where did you see anything saying his treatment wasn't reported?

*IF* it was a private sale, the point is moot under Federal law. *IF* it was a dealer sale at the gunshow, then he passed NICS, which means that Cali did not send the barring information to the Feds.

It was a private sale, so as the law is now it is, as you said, a moot point. But if the seller knew he was responsible for making a reasonable effort to check the buyers background, and instant check was available, then it would NOT have been a moot point.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

The decision would be made on the Feds end of the call. All the seller would be told is a simple yes or no. If the buyer doesn't want to give out his name and SS number to the seller he would have the option of having the local police run the check. If the buyer is turned down he would have the option of finding out why...unless he already knew the reason.

To the best of my knowledge, the only responses for NICS are yes, no and delayed - there's no 'reason' given to the seller for a denial.

The there is no issue about the seller gaining private information about the buyer, is there? Especially if the check is done by the local police.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

There are far fewer restrictions on purchasing a car. The only one I know of is in some states a minor cannot legally purchase a car without their parents permission. In those cases the law is the same as it is for booze....if you sell it to a minor, you can be held partially responsible for what happens next.

There's ALREADY laws against selling to someone that is a known felon, so where do you draw the line? If I sell you a gun, why should I be held responsible if you twist off 10 years down the road and go on a rampage?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The decision would be made on the Feds end of the call. All the seller would be told is a simple yes or no. If the buyer doesn't want to give out his name and SS number to the seller he would have the option of having the local police run the check. If the buyer is turned down he would have the option of finding out why...unless he already knew the reason.

To the best of my knowledge, the only responses for NICS are yes, no and delayed - there's no 'reason' given to the seller for a denial.

The there is no issue about the seller gaining private information about the buyer, is there? Especially if the check is done by the local police.

Release of private info is always an issue.

Given that 80% of criminal guns come from friends/family/illegal street sales (according to Justice Bureau stats) and only 0.7% from gunshow sales, I think it's more of a feel-good measure than anything that's going to make any appreciable difference.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I would agree if that after the search the record of the inquiry and a sale (if it happened) are destroyed and not kept

So in common with criminals, you like it that guns are untraceable.

So, in common with criminals, you don't want the LAW to be followed.

USC Title 18, Sec 922(t)(2):
(2) If receipt of a firearm would not violate subsection (g) or (n) or State law, the system shall—
(A) assign a unique identification number to the transfer;
(B) provide the licensee with the number; and
(C) destroy all records of the system with respect to the call (other than the identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records of the system relating to the person or the transfer.

Gun dealers have to make records in their bound book for every sale, so tracing can still be done.

Looking-glass logic in action. Why is a raven like a writing desk?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The decision would be made on the Feds end of the call. All the seller would be told is a simple yes or no. If the buyer doesn't want to give out his name and SS number to the seller he would have the option of having the local police run the check. If the buyer is turned down he would have the option of finding out why...unless he already knew the reason.

To the best of my knowledge, the only responses for NICS are yes, no and delayed - there's no 'reason' given to the seller for a denial.

The there is no issue about the seller gaining private information about the buyer, is there? Especially if the check is done by the local police.

Release of private info is always an issue.

Given that 80% of criminal guns come from friends/family/illegal street sales (according to Justice Bureau stats) and only 0.7% from gunshow sales,

According to CRIMINALS, who are ALWAYS truthful. BATF says otherwise.

Tell us, why do you think it important that criminals should have easy and untraceable access to guns?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Tell us, why do you think it's more important to go after 0.7% of guns rather than 80% of guns?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Tell us, why do you think it's more important to go after 0.7% of guns rather than 80% of guns?

I bet all those convicted criminals you believe also made "Not Guilty" pleas.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Tell us, why do you think it's more important to go after 0.7% of guns rather than 80% of guns?

I bet all those convicted criminals you believe also made "Not Guilty" pleas.

So, you're in good company with your support of 'existing laws', then.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706