• House Passes Unenforceable Background Check Bill
    54 replies, posted
House passes most sweeping gun control legislation in decades Still has to pass senate, but I have a feeling it will be. Congratulations! Private sales are now essentially banned unless a check is preformed! Now what does that actually mean? A person who loans their gun to a trusted friend for backpacking in bear country would have to run a background check on them first (and pay the FFL's fee), and when returning it, would have to run another background check (and pay the FFL's fee) just to give it back to the original owner. A husband who temporarily gives his gun to the wife for home defense in a bad neighborhood when he runs an unexpected errand is now a felon. A grandfather who gives a family heirloom M1 Garand to his trustworthy grandson has to first go to the gun store, and run a background check (and pay the FFL's fee) on his own grandson. Criminals who simply sell their guns for cash without running background checks in the first place (i.e. most cliche "bad guy" gun sales) are completely unaffected, because they cared about the law they wouldn't be doing it in the first place. This still does not address the issues of felonies not being reported to the database that this system would rely upon (i.e. the system that allowed mass murderers to buy them from gun stores in the first place even though they had dis-qualifiers). Two people who already have arsenals would have to run background checks on each-other (and pay the FFL's fee) just to trade things as simple as lever action .22's. Straw purchases (another main source of guns getting into criminal hands) are completely unaffected despite the advertising regarding this bill. Sets up groundwork for federal database of gun owners (law abiding gun owners, that is). What's the worst that could happen with that... right? Unenforceable, unjust, misguided, and ineffective. That's what this bill is.
Great. Well, fuck them. I'll break the law regarding this anyway.
I don't think the Senate or Trump are gonna approve this. I'd assume McConnell won't even hold a vote on it
It's a little heavy handed for the owners that have had previous background checks but need to keep doing it to trade guns, but this legislation in general is pretty fitting for a first world country. The legislation should exist to reduce harm even if people will break the law and do private sales. Sounds pretty run of the mill for most countries to do these kinds of checks at this frequency. Your hypothetical about the grandpa giving his M1 to his grandson, the grandson might be a fucking lunatic and gramps kept his piece in fully working condition.
This wouldn't be terrible if the public could actually access NICS and not get paywalled to use their rights. But we're not going to see legitimate common sense from people who claim to have it on either side of the aisle. Unenforceable and half baked. The only thing worse than inaction in this case is poor action. I wonder if you have a CCL if that counts as a background check, since that is the common method for private sellers currently.
This thread is bunk. Mods please change the title. I'm calling out your bullshit. Look at the actual text of the bill. Specifically subsection 3, paragraph 2. All of what you said has been accounted for. Subsection 3, Paragraph 2, Section F Subsection 3, Paragraph 2, Section B Yes, a background check wouldn't stop criminals from actively doing background checks when selling weapons. That's not the fucking point. It's to add another charge and potentially deter people who are not confident about committing a crime. A murderer is still going to commit murder. Should we make murder legal since there's no point to having it be criminal to murder someone if making it illegal doesn't stop it? Agreed, but we can also work on legislation and once we have control of the necessary apparatuses such as the executive branch, we can work on that to shore it up a and make sure it works? I know right? Isn't it so terrible that two gun owners convenience is ruined just so we can stop criminals!!!! This is just outright false. Subsection 3 again, Paragraph 1, sections A through C. A licensed dealer has to comply with the background check process in order to sell in the case of any transfer. That includes straw purchases. This is an entirely separate issue anyways as we'd need another bill to close the loophole. Good fearmongering chicken little. Uninformed, manipulative and just flat out wrong. That's what this thread is.
Mass shootings are not a good representation of gun violence overall. This should apply to pro-gun and anti-gun arguments alike. That being said, background checks are effective in general and we should seek to expand them to states that do not require them. Two recent studies provide evidence that background checks can significantly curb gun violence. In one, researchers found that a 1995 Connecticut law requiring gun buyers to get permits (which themselves required background checks) was associated with a 40 percent decline in gun homicides and a 15 percent drop in suicides. Similarly, when researchers studied Missouri's 2007 repeal of its permit-to-purchase law, they found an associated increase in gun homicides by 23 percent, as well as a 16-percent increase in suicides. Research Suggests Gun Background Checks Work, But They're Not Ev..
Only allows for temporary possession if the recipient is using it at a shooting range (i), for hunting (ii), or in the presence of the owner (iii). None of those cover lending someone a firearm for self-protection. Completely missing the point. Straw purchase is already illegal, but the law is unenforced. Private sale is not a significant source of firearms used in crime, yet here we are banning private sale for academic reasons that do not reflect the reality of gun crime. A felon who receives a gun from a friend or family member is already committing a crime. A felon who uses a friend to straw purchase a gun is already committing a crime. A person who buys a gun off-the-books from a shady FFL is already committing a crime. A person who steals a gun is already committing a crime. Those are the top sources of firearms used in crime per Harvard research, they're all already felonies, and none of them have anything to do with private sale to begin with. This is banning firearm sales that statistically do not have any connection to crime. It's pointless, feel-good legislation, another 'symbolic measure' that does nothing to address the actual gaps in gun control, while unnecessary infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens. The only things Zombinie was wrong about were lending a gun to a family member or giving a gun to a family member as a gift. Everything else is accurate.
You're right about mass shootings. The guy I quoted just used vocabulary and examples that made it seem like he was pointing to mass shootings as his point. Those studies required you to get a permit from an LEA, on top of the background check. At that point, I'm sure confronting the LEA was the deterrent and not the background check. I've said it in just about every gun thread I've posted in, and I will bring it up again. I think requiring background checks is a great step forward to actually enacting laws that could make a difference, as well as not trampling over current rights. However, that would also have to include the ability for a normal person to run their own background checks free of charge, as well as there being severe penalties and policy redesign on the administrative side of things. We can't just wake up tomorrow and say "Ok, do background checks" and leave it at that. We don't have the proper infrastructure for that. (Also, as mentioned above, absolutely zero chance of an kind of registry)
Look my entire point with the post was just to show how absurd and ridiculously biased Zombinie's OP was, especially with outright lies, falsehoods and with a sensationalized title, and I only had about 10 minutes to do it before I had to go to work so I hope you'll forgive some mistakes made. I'll argue the points as much you want but that wasn't what I was trying to bring up. Reread Section D of Paragraph 2. The bill has a clause for self defense loaning, and I have no doubt in my mind the courts would interpret its meaning to include the situation Zombinie was talking about. Private sales are not being banned, they're just being regulated by making it so you have to transfer through a licensed official who has to run a background check before it can be done. At worst, it inconveniences people. Is the convenience really worth the potential ability to reduce crime, as @Splash Attack showed they do reduce crime? The majority of people in America do not think so. You'll have to forgive me on the Straw Purchase front, I messed it up with the Gun Show loophole, in which they would be regulated. Then we should also try to find measures to reduce straw purchases, except the methods that do such as gun registries are apparently pretexts for confiscation despite the fact that isn't the case in any other civilized nation and even in places inside the US. Sources? Also Sources on the private sales not being used in crimes? It's not useless, it's ensuring that people are using private sales for what they're supposed to with people who won't abuse or misuse their firearms. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither are incredibly complex gun laws that have to have every nuance to try and respect the needs of people like you even when people like you do everything to protest these bills. Creating legislation and running the government is a rolling process and this is only the first step into shoring up background checks and making sure everyone goes through them, a policy that the vast majority of people support because once again people place the potential lives and safety of others over the simple convenience of gun owners. This does not prevent you from owning a gun in anyway, it is not against the constitution, and it is an entirely reasonable measure to ensure guns are misused in private sales. Problem is that it doesn't guarantee that a gun registry will be set up, and acting like it will is nothing but blatant fearmongering when there's no certainty it shall, especially when it's incredibly likely that a gun registry would be shot down in congress. And that's the entire point of my post. What Zombinie did was post an OP with outright falsehoods and fabrications as well as a sensationalized title in a very blatantly biased manner to try and influence opinion about this. Not cool.
So for those curious on the wording “(D) a temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm; Imminent and immediate do not mean some vague time in the future in legal wording(Nor do they in normal dictionaries). This is to cover cases where the owner of the gun is transferring it to someone whose life is in danger at that moment. This covers cases where the owner is unable or unwilling to fire upon an imminent threat, but believes the recipient can. In the bear example, the owner of the firearm would need to be with the backpacker and hand the gun off to them when the issue arises. This is why if you learn that someone is planning to make an attempt on your life in the future, you can't go to their house and shoot them first. You are not in imminent danger/peril and you will be charged with murder. An applicable situation would be a robbery where hostages are taken. A guard is taken unaware and is subdued. He is allowed to tell a customer or employee of the bank to take his gun(If they can get to it) for defense of themselves or others. If the robber is subdued and the imminent danger is gone, they are to immediately return the gun. As the bill is written at the moment, you cannot legally lend your weapon to someone for a possible future threat. Only if you are present during the threat.
I highly doubt this is a situation that would ever come up and if it was, like I said, I think the courts would rule in their favor anyways as its entirely reasonable in a scenario such as the one Zombinie gave to do so. The intent of the law is not to stop people from being able to defend themselves, it's to regulate mostly economic transfers. Either way, email/phone your senators to amend it if you're that concerned about it.
Courts don't ask "what's reasonable", they ask "what is the law" "I don't think this bad thing would happen because I don't want it to " is not an adequate response
all of the things you listed here are valid. you own your gun for yourself. you had to go through the process of obtaining it and being verified as a valid owner. not your friend, not your grandson, not your wife.
Well I'm glad you have 'no doubt', but I see absolutely no reason to think that a court in California or New York would agree that 'imminent death or great bodily harm' includes backpacking in bear country or living in a bad neighborhood, and having to hope that a court will rule in your favor over an ambiguous law is a terrible position to be in. That's literally a ban on private sale. It means instead of selling a gun to a buyer, I have to, on paper, transfer ownership to a FFL, who then transfers ownership to the buyer. That's how the transfer process works. Here's an idea: Why not let anyone run a background check using the same NICS that an FFL does, and require both buyer and seller to have documented the transaction via bill of sale and a confirmed NICS clearance in case law enforcement ever has a reason to get involved? That way you have all the same background checks and accountability, but without forcing private citizens to rely on FFLs. (Answer: Because that doesn't allow the feds to build a registry, which is why when Sen. Coburn proposed it in 2013, Democrats shot it down) First off, Canada had a gun registry for two decades. Then they abolished it, because it never contributed to solving a single crime, and was judged a massive waste of resources. Registries aren't necessary for law enforcement to do their jobs. Second, registries were used for confiscation in both Hawaii and New York, so don't give me this 'apparently' line. It's not speculation, it's a matter of historical fact. I'd be a lot more receptive to the idea of a registry as they're used in other countries if I could trust that they wouldn't be exploited for confiscation. The Czech Republic, Switzerland, and New Zealand all have gun registries, but they also have cultures that are generally supportive of gun ownership- not half the country clamoring to ban the scary guns and use those registries to do it. Third, this is all irrelevant anyways, because registries do nothing to address straw purchases to begin with. Straw purchases are when someone buys a gun from an FFL under false pretenses, and the bill doesn't change the process of buying from an FFL. There's already a paper trail when someone commits straw purchase, and the person who is getting the gun via straw purchase is already a prohibited person (else they could buy the gun legally), so they're already committing a felony. There are measures we could take to reduce straw purchases- like, say, actually prosecuting them, whereas right now they're largely ignored on a federal level, and it's been up to states to enact their own policies without the support of the federal law enforcement. Here's a summary of psychological research on how harsher punishments don't deter crime. Here's 2016 research on sources of guns used in crimes. See table 6: A whopping 1.2% of guns used in crime came from private sellers. Adding red tape isn't doing us a favor. Complexity for complexity's sake isn't desirable. If this isn't the most direct, straightforward approach to solving the stated problem, then it's the wrong solution. You won't see me protesting a bill to fund ATF to crack down on shady FFL dealers, or to prosecute straw purchases, or to reform HIPAA to ensure mental health data is reported to NICS, or to address mental healthcare, or any of the other things that would demonstrably help with the massive problem of gun violence in the US. Because those would actually work, not just be symbolic efforts as part of a larger movement towards disarmament. No, it's not guaranteeing a gun registry will be set up. But you'll notice Zombinie didn't say it would. They said it sets the groundwork for a registry, which is factually correct, and it doesn't take a deep reading of history to see that Democrats have used similar universal background check systems to build registries repeatedly. 'Congress might not allow it' doesn't mean this isn't a step in that direction. Again, the only falsehoods in the OP are mistakenly stating that the bill would prevent gifts within the family or loaning to a family member. Everything else is factually correct.
Licensed dealers and manufacturers are all people who can already do background checks because they are already firearm dealers...
Aren't you also the guy who planned attacks on the US power grid, etc, with his domestic terrorist "militia" buddies and then openly admitted it here on FP a while back? Because I feel like if so then that really doesn't surprise me that you'd be against laws that try to prevent people like you from getting guns which could then be used to commit said attacks... To be entirely honest, I do think background checks and permits are well within reasonable gun control legislation. Yeah people can lie and try to conceal their motivations, but that's some real edge case super premeditated shit because if you look at most of the big serial shooters that generally spark this kind of legislation to the floor again, it's almost always people who have a history of mental illnesses that would prevent them from having guns who are stealing guns from family members and shit to kill people. The idea isn't to stop gun violence 100% with legislation, it's to raise the barrier of entry to getting the gun in the first place so it makes only the worst criminals actually able to commit crimes instead of literally even a fucking child who is bullied at school and snaps. It's like saying that well criminals are going to find ways to make bombs either way so I should be able to just go to the local hardware store and buy detonators and explosives because "criminals will find ways to do it". Like no shit criminals are going to find ways to commit crimes, what you can control is the barrier of entry to committing said crime. Cameras, active employees and secure storage of product prevents more thefts in a store than if you just left a bunch of Iphones on a random street corner with a sign saying "lol please don't steal these Iphones". The US's current gun policy is basically locking up the most expensive phones (automatic weapons, explosive devices, etc) behind a display case but leaving literally everything else just sitting on a street corner for the most part.
Yeah, actually, I didn't mention it in either post, but I'll absolutely and wholeheartedly support safe storage laws, especially for someone who has a prohibited person under their roof. Unlike private sale, irresponsible shit like 'truck guns' represents a significant source of the firearms used in crime, and several high-profile mass shooters have stolen unsecured weapons from family members. It makes sense to restrict access to legally-owned firearms. That would be evidence-based gun control. This feel-good stuff like banning private sale isn't.
Like I said, let's change it then. Phone/Email your senators. Alright, that's more reasonable, let's do it then. Just do something please. Perhaps this bill isn't the best solution out there but it's something. My mistake. Perhaps gun registries aren't the solution. I disagree with that, guns are a very dangerous tool and there should be proper checks to ensure a person isn't going to misuse or abuse them. They might make up only 1.2% of crimes with firearms used for private sales, but I'd rather have that number be 0. Believe me, I want to own a firearm in the future, but I would have no problem with jumping through the hoops necessary in order to own one if we added complexity to ensure safety, and neither should any reasonable gun owner who understands that firearms are dangerous. You know as well as I do the intent with what he said was to establish fears that possibly in the future a gun registry could be established. I never said it's factually incorrect, it's just ideologically and ethically dishonest. That's the point, his entire post reeks of dishonest sensationalism that uses some factually incorrect information to push a narrative that this bill is absolutely horrendous when at worst it makes things more complicated for gun owners to transfer and sell their firearms between themselves.
At what cost Because that's not only possible but likely...? "You know as well as I do that his intent was to POINT OUT that THIS LEGISLATION ALLOWS SOMETHING BAD TO HAPPEN. The disgrace!"
A couple extra sheets of paperwork and potentially some more time waiting to get a gun? I'm sorry is that too big a cost to you? except it really isn't because you know the last time we tried to do any kind of gun legislation such as the Manchin-Tooney Amendment which actually did things that helped gun owners like ban registries, even it didn't get passed it's just fearmongering.
Two examples of gun registries being used against gun owners were already posted in this thread.
A gun registry bill would never in a million years pass in this climate. The gun control lobby couldn't even pass a bill that traded reasonable universal background checks which are supported by 90% of Americans in an exchange for banning registries and expanding interstate sales. I have serious doubts this bill itself will even pass Senate, and it's sure as hell not going to get the president's signature. Yes, there's a possibility of a gun registry being a thing in the future that comes up because of this, but stoking fears about it is entirely unnecessary and just dishonest. Focus on the actual negatives of the bill, which catbarf has demonstrated that there's a much easier and better solution to all of this of funding the NICS and opening it up to everyone.
The only thing dishonest is the fact you keep saying this. This exact thing was said on two different occasions in the past, and on each of those occasions, it turned out to be false. Both of which, again, are mentioned in this thread. "Hey guys, I know it's happened twice before, but trust me. A third time DEFINITELY won't happen!" These are basically the exact points I mentioned in another post of mine above, but you still didn't seem to understand because you said: Implying that FFLs/manufacturers were hampered while doing background checks.
Okay, why is this a problem? Aren't background checks made to ensure those who wield firearms can be trusted with them? Why should only the original buyer be checked? Just run a background check on every family members if you buy a firearm with the intention of both using it? Why should only the original buyer be checked? Yes, and? Does him being a family members absolve him from checks or something? Do you think once a background check is made everyone in the family should be considered safe? That it's in the genes? Still the dumbest argument to date when it comes to anti-regulation stances. Let's legalize murder then, after all criminals are gonna be criminals either way. Then let's do that as well. Source? It really seems to me you'd be against any and all policies that would have the slightest chance of remotely inconveniencing gun owners. It's not even close to the strictest reasonable policies you could have. Enforcing secure weapon storage and a permit system that doesn't baselessly assume that any non-criminal instinctively knows how to safely and responsibly handle a weapon come to mind. Background checks on anybody who handles a weapon is the bare minimum, but it seems you are inherently opposed to even that.
'People who do this are already breaking the law and don't care, so making it double-illegal is pointless' 'oh yeah well why don't we just legalize murder then?' ?????
Saying "People who do this are already breaking the law and don't care, so making it double-illegal is pointless" is akin to saying that inflicting bodily harm on other people is already illegal and doesn't stop murderers who don't care about breaking this law, so there's no point in making murder illegal as well, as that would just make bodily harm "double-illegal". If you can't see why that argument is retarded, then I'm sorry but there's nothing more I can do for you.
No, it's making unnecessary exaggerations to push a narrative that the democrats are coming for your guns. It's happened twice before on the state level with state legislatures that are incredibly majority democrat, and neither of which have resulted in unreasonable confiscation. Marijuana is fully legal for recreation in 10 states with it being broadly legalized in another 24, but congress refuses to legalize it. You really think 2 states being examples is going to be what lets democrats push a gun registry through? This isn't even to mention the fact there's a lot of democrats in congress who come from gun-owning states literally cannot vote for it or else their heads would be on the chopping block. A couple of registries at the state level do not inform the chances of a gun registry happening at the federal level where things are incredibly different, and where precedent shows that it wouldn't pass I understand now and changed my mind.
You realize murder is a different charge from assault or manslaughter, not one stacked on top of those other charges? As in, the difference between them is severity and circumstance, and it's not just an extra, lesser charge thrown in as a deterrence? This is a terrible analogy, find a better one. Stacking cumulative charges serves two purposes: It makes it easier to get at least one charge to stick, and it increases the cumulative punishment. If you catch a prohibited person with a firearm, they are already committing a felony. The fact of their owning a gun is illegal, regardless of the source. If they can convince a court that the gun isn't theirs, then whether or not it was purchased via private sale is irrelevant. If they can't, then they go to prison. Going after the exact means by which they acquired a firearm doesn't make it any easier to convict when the fact of them acquiring a firearm is already illegal. So that's out. And increasing punishment on what are already felonies has been conclusively determined to not deter crime. So that's out too, by default. The only criminals that this will affect are those who are already committing such significant crimes that the idea of an 'unlawful transfer' charge presenting any kind of meaningful deterrence is downright laughable. If you really want to go with the murder analogy, it's like passing a law that says committing murder with a knife is extra super special illegal. Never mind that most murders in the US are committed with guns, or that all research shows that someone who is already committing murder doesn't think about sentencing because they don't expect to get caught- this'll help fix our murder problem, right? At least I can say that that law wouldn't be impacting law-abiding citizens. If it's not addressing any significant problem now, then the fact that another, better law might actually do something to address the real, direct, immediate problems doesn't in any way make this useless bill more valid. Those criminal uses of weapons arising from private sale account for, per the research I linked above, a whopping one percent of the weapons used in crime, and that's before assessing any displacement if that source were cut off. There is no evidence to suggest that universal background checks will address any meaningful percentage of criminal uses of weapons, accidental deaths, or suicide. Let's talk about voter ID laws, because the logic behind universal background checks is more or less the same. You've got a reasonable principle: Only citizens should vote. Only responsible people should have guns. So you propose a new law, to add some checks, and ensure that that principle is being followed. There's no actual evidence that the lack of such a law is causing a problem- voter fraud isn't a significant issue, and private sale isn't a significant source of misused guns. But it's a good principle, so what's the harm, right? The harm is that we do know that putting additional red tape on the exercising of a right deters it, and causes secondary problems. Poor people can't easily get voter ID. Many gun owners or would-be gun owners can't easily go through an FFL*. If you're going to impose that kind of restriction, you better have an airtight case for what problem you're solving, and this sort of vague 'well I'm sure it happens so it'll probably help someone, somewhere' doesn't cut it. And the biggest sin is that the red tape is so easily avoided. If you want voters to prove their identity, issue every voter an ID. If you want universal background checks, give everyone the ability to run them. If you want to mandate restrictions without providing any means to ease the burden they impose, we're justified in being suspicious of your motives. Give me a bill that addresses straw purchase, safe storage, NICS reporting, cracking down on corrupt FFLs, forcing law enforcement to do their jobs, or any of the underlying causes of crime, and I'll support it. Give me a bill that mandates universal background checks and makes it easy for law-abiding citizens to get them, and I'll support it. This is neither of those things, so that's gonna be a no from me. *Right now, if a DC resident wants to buy a handgun from any source other than private sale with another DC resident, they are required to go through an FFL. There is exactly one FFL in the entirety of DC, and because the District has denied him a retail location by exploiting zoning laws, he is forced to operate out of the DC police headquarters- not exactly a welcoming location if you're poor or a minority. The price he charges is $125, about six times the typical rate for the service, and you have to schedule months in advance. If he decides he doesn't like you and won't serve you, that's it, you're done, you can't legally acquire or sell a handgun. DC refuses to allow anyone else to become an FFL, so he's the only option. If he drops dead tomorrow (the guy's getting old), it'll almost certainly take a lawsuit against the District to get them to allow for more FFLs. Forgive me if I don't exactly see 'just get a background check through your local licensed dealer' as a just, equitable solution to this problem.
UBCs in principle don't bother me - I'd like to have the option to run checks on people I transfer guns to. The problem is that forcing me to do it through an FFL is unnecessary red tape - for rural areas that may require a 2 or 3 hour drive to the nearest FFL, who may then levy an additional fee on top of it for the hassle. Why can't I + the person I'm selling the gun to contact the FBI ourselves and sort it out as private citizens? I've argued before that allowing private citizens to use NICS to run background checks would potentially reduce private purchases by criminals, so I'm on board with that. But I won't support a law that requires it to be carried out through an FFL, that's fucking stupid.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.