Let's Close The Gunshow Loophole

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Sorry, if you want to talk about "crooks" you have to talk about crime.

No, they are different. Crook in this context is a legal status as in convicted felon. How or why he/she became one is irrelevant to this discussion I believe.

The govt can regulate all of the things I listed because they are not rights.

The government can and does regulate and restrict rights. The regulation/restriction must pass constitutional muster and the NICS does for the 2A. Government regulation is government regulation but with a right the scrutiny is different and more rigorous than with commerce. Serve over to you

 

[orchidhunter]

If you go to the Official White House website: www.whitehouse.gov then to agenda then Urban Policy and scroll down to Crime and Law Enforcement, you will see where it says that "They (Obama & Biden) support closing the Gun Show Loophole". It's just a matter of when it comes up on the agenda. orchidhunter

 

[maestro pistolero]

They can't sign anything that both houses of congress don't first approve. I hope to help make sure that doesn't happen.

Curiously, Orchid Hunter, What is it about this site that appeals to you? I'm glad you're here, but your ideas of what will make us safer are at odds with most gun owners. Have you read the law review recently posted here?

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=333419

It (comprehensively, I think) outlines the utter futility of the supply side approach to gun control, which the misnamed, 'gun show loophole', IS.

What they are really talking about is face to face sales of any weapon, whether legal or not. No criminal, who is by definition outside of the law, is going to give a whit about such legislation.
As such, any face to face restriction is impotent to prevent gun crime. Once again, the only group affected will be the law abiding, and valuable time, energy and political capitol will have been squandered on a futile effort.

As is typical of gun control schemes, like the 'assault weapon ban', it is described in a misleading fashion, because it depends on an uniformed public to be passed.

Having to mislead the public about proposed legislation is almost always a clue that it shouldn't be passed in the first place. Another example would be the so-called Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which in fact, was a gun ban.

 

[DonR101395]

No, they are different. Crook in this context is a legal status as in convicted felon. How or why he/she became one is irrelevant to this discussion I believe.

It's perfectly relevant. I hope you can see the different between someone who at 40 murdered three people and then another two after he was incarcerated and 40 year old accountant who cheated on his taxes. There are thousands of felons convicted of non-violent crimes who are prohibited from owning guns. Why are they not prohibited from free speech, going to a church of their choosing, etc?

The government can and does regulate and restrict rights. The regulation/restriction must pass constitutional muster and the NICS does for the 2A. Government regulation is government regulation but with a right the scrutiny is different and more rigorous than with commerce. Serve over to you

Other than the 2A what other individual right is restricted or regulated? Everything that I can think of involves your right interfering the the rights of another person.
There is no NCIC to write a paper, go to church, speak your individual mind.
While I respect your opinion, I refuse to be apologetic for exercising my individual rights.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I hope you can see the different between someone who at 40 murdered three people and then another two after he was incarcerated and 40 year old accountant who cheated on his taxes.

What I see is that they both are felons. I am not prepared to raise a thief or an extortionist (both who can absolutely destroy people's lives) above a murderer in some type of moral equivilency. As I said before, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. It bothers me not a whit that the former CEO of TYCO or Worldcom cannot own a firearm.

Why are they not prohibited from free speech, going to a church of their choosing, etc?

They are however, prohibited from voting, sitting on a jury, holding public office, and may face legal job discrimination in some cases and not be allowed state licenses and be barred from some professions. Earlier, you mentioned being tough on criminals, well there it is.

Other than the 2A what other individual right is restricted or regulated? Everything that I can think of involves your right interfering the the rights of another person.

No not really, prohibitions against polygamy is a limitation on freedom of religion, many municipalities require permits and bonds for groups to assemble and protest legally, voters have to register and provide ID when they vote, free speech is limited for those who serve in the military. The list goes on and on.

Anyway, a nut or a crook with a gun can certainly violate my rights as a law-abiding citizen and he/she has no right to a firearm.

There is no NCIC to write a paper, go to church, speak your individual mind.

Because their is no compelling reason or interest to do so. There is, however, a compelling reason for a nut or crook not to be able to buy a firearm. The NIC simply IDs those who have lost the right to own a firearm to those who wouldn't know otherwise.

While I respect your opinion, I refuse to be apologetic for exercising my individual rights.

Don, I don't think anyone is asking you to apologize for anything. Your opinion is as valid as mine (maybe more) but the issue is whether to extend a check (one that is constitutional) already in place for FFLs and their sales to FTF sales as well.

What I don't understand is how that takes any right away from us.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

What they are really talking about is face to face sales of any weapon, whether legal or not. No criminal, who is by definition outside of the law, is going to give a whit about such legislation.

No, but the seller, who would face criminal charges for selling a firearm FTF without the NICS would care. And if he didn't I have no problem locking him up too.

 

[DonR101395]

What I don't understand is how that takes any right away from us.

It further limits an individual right.


As for being tough on criminals. If they are dangerous enough that they can't own a gun; they should still be incarcerated or dead. IMHO, if they have paid their debt in full i.e served full sentence, parole etc. They should have the same rights as any other citizen. I didn't always feel this way, but after watching the sham that is taking place in DC over the last two years and what is on the White House agenda web page I said screw it. If every other degenerate can get special treatment, released felons should get at least the minimum that every other citizen gets.

 

[zukiphile]

No, but the seller, who would face criminal charges for selling a firearm FTF without the NICS would care. And if he didn't I have no problem locking him up too.

Not having a problem locking someone up merely for not having jumped through a bureaucratic hoop does not reflect an instinctive valuation of people's rights.

What I don't understand is how that takes any right away from us.

If you effectively must apply for and receive a license to engage in an activity, it looks less like a right than a privilege. We have to obtain a driver's license to drive a car, but not a license to travel because that is a fundamental right. We need to register to vote, but not obtain a license to vote. We do not need a license from the government to speak publicly, though this right is arguably used to the general detriment on occassion.

To require government approval before one can purchase from anyone (not just a federal licensee) effectively translates into the requirement of a government license to obtain and own an arm. This is inconsistent with describing it as a right.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

but the issue is whether to extend a check (one that is constitutional) already in place for FFLs and their sales to FTF sales as well.

What I don't understand is how that takes any right away from us.

To further your argument, why don't we extend the existing, already constitutional, in place checks for NFA firearms to all firearm transfers? After all, it takes no rights away from us and we'd be really sure that unauthorized people do not get approved for a firearm.

I've went through the NFA process a half dozen times now, and some people say it is no great hassle if I want to own machineguns. So, why don't we equal the playing field and require all firearm transfers on a Form 4?

You might say that is a little overkill for a normal transfer. That is the same thing I say about NCIC checks for all FTF transfers.

 

[Wildalaska]

To further your argument, why don't we extend the existing, already constitutional, in place checks for NFA firearms to all firearm transfers? After all, it takes no rights away from us and we'd be really sure that unauthorized people do not get approved for a firearm.

If they didnt tax it or require a CLEO signoff, whats the problem?

Take it one step further...what about a National Firearms ID card...no registration, no list of guns, show your card and "poof" buy what you want. You apply for it when you turn 18, posession of a firearm is unlawful without one, they take it away when you get indicted or convicted..... call it a Militia Eligibility card

WildwouldntthatbetheanswerAlaska TM

 

[DonR101395]

Dang Ken, you disappoint me. I figured you would be all over that giving felons guns stuff like a hobo on a ham samich.

 

[HuntAndFish]

Take it one step further...what about a National Firearms ID card...no registration, no list of guns, show your card and "poof" buy what you want. You apply for it when you turn 18, posession of a firearm is unlawful without one,...[snipped]

Yeah, that's the answer. Then the Government can just stop issuing them at some future cutoff date. Then "poof", everyone after that date is ineligible.

I don't like it. You shouldn't have to prove you are eligible. The Government should have to prove that you aren't. If the Government would provide a convenient way for a person to "instantly" do a background check on FTF transfers, I suspect that most gun owners would use it. It wouldn't have to be mandatory to be effective.

 

[Wildalaska]

Then the Government can just stop issuing them at some future cutoff date.

How is that any different from just a flat ban?

All the card does is say you have no impendiment to buy or own

If the Government would provide a convenient way for a person to "instantly" do a background check on FTF transfers, I suspect that most gun owners would use it.

The card...or implant a chip

Dang Ken, you disappoint me. I figured you would be all over that giving felons guns stuff like a hobo on a ham samich.

Doin my part to keep the signal to noise ratio up

Wildcodsintheoven!Alaska TM

 

[vranasaurus]

You shouldn't have to prove you are eligible. The Government should have to prove that you aren't. If the Government would provide a convenient way for a person to "instantly" do a background check on FTF transfers, I suspect that most gun owners would use it. It wouldn't have to be mandatory to be effective.

Exactly.

This system would essential make you guilty until proven innocent. I don't like it.

 

[Wildalaska]

So does NICs.....

You are stuck with it, constituion wise. Now make it better.

WilditsnottheifitsthewhenAlaska TM

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

It further limits an individual right.

That is true but it does not take it away. As I have shown all rights can be limited if they pass constitutional muster.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

To further your argument, why don't we extend the existing, already constitutional, in place checks for NFA firearms to all firearm transfers?

Gosh, don't give 'em any more ideas! I guess they could do that. I would then say what is the compelling state reason for that? NFA has a broader restriction based on the weapon type than the NICS whose only really job is to id those who should not have firearms.

You shouldn't have to prove you are eligible. The Government should have to prove that you aren't.

Which is what the NICS does.

As to the technology I agree it can and should be better. I think it could be and easily so. They would just need the funds.

Again I ask, why should FTF sales be any different than FFL ones regarding the NICS check? Please don't say the NICs is unconstitutional because it isn't but just tell me what makes the FTF sales so much more sacrosanct than FFL sales.

 

[DonR101395]

That is true but it does not take it away. As I have shown all rights can be limited if they pass constitutional muster.

You have also shown that compromising your rights leads to too much govt intervention. i.e. 1934 and 1968.
It's obvious we will never agree on this one. We're at polar ends of the spectrum on the issue.

Which is what the NICS does.

By assuming you're guilty until you prove otherwise. How convenient for the government.

 

[maestro pistolero]

No, but the seller, who would face criminal charges for selling a firearm FTF without the NICS would care. And if he didn't I have no problem locking him up too.

Nor would I, if the seller had any reason to suspect that the buyer was ineligible. I hope my meaning wasn't misunderstood. In Nevada it is not required. Unless you know the buyer is disqualified, you can make the sale.

However, I don't think that using some form of NICS for sales to persons unknown to you is a bad idea. If I am to sell a firearm to someone I don't know, which I can do here in Nevada, I like to call local LE and just ask, is this guy a felon? Is this person prohibited from legally owning a firearm?

LE here in Nevada is cooperative with such requests. It is voluntary, but it feels like the responsible thing to do. And it doesn't create a gun registration or a record of any sale. If the buyer has a problem with that due diligence on my part, then maybe I don't need to make the sale.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

You have also shown that compromising your rights leads to too much govt intervention. i.e. 1934 and 1968.

I actually don't have a problem with the NFA and the CGA of 1968 has been modified a bit by the FOPA of 1986 and is more reasonable.

It's obvious we will never agree on this one. We're at polar ends of the spectrum on the issue.

That's why I post here I guess to sanity check my own views.

By assuming you're guilty until you prove otherwise. How convenient for the government.

Reminds me of the IRS. Now THERE'S somebody to hate!