Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Moving over guns

Since I am out of my home state on a short trip, I've been thinking about differences between states. And, of course, with the massive snow and ice storm covering much of the country, there are differences in how states handle the snow and, of course, the varying climate in the states making the snow more or less heavy. Speaking of states, I have had the most curious exchange with some of the "gun guys" who live in the "other" world concerning guns. Someone suggested that I should move from Minnesota to a state where I would like the gun laws better. Really? I can't imagine that. When I wrote back that I just couldn't imagine anyone doing something that extreme over guns, here is the answer I received: " I left a very well paying job in the Chicago area precisely over the gun laws. I inherited a house in Massachusetts on Cape Cod that was my childhood summer home and I refuse to return until Massachusetts gets sensible gun laws. Like honoring carry permits from other states and their ridiculous idea of a 5 year prison turn for simply possessing a firearm from out of State. I can send you a long list of people who have moved over Gun Rights."


There was another curious comment. Someone commented that guns may be needed in case of the apocalypse. O.K. Whatever. Meanwhile, in the real world, I want to call my readers' attention to yet another hidden camera video released by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. How many more of these videos do we need before the citizens of this country say, "enough is enough"? We make it way too easy for someone who isn't responsible with a gun to take a human life.


And my last thought before I sign off for a few days is this: Those who think everyone should just up and move to a place where they like the gun laws better should move to South Dakota, where some legislators would like to pass a law to make it mandatory for everyone to own guns. South Dakota would be called the gun state where no one could say, "if only he had had a gun, my neigbhor wouldn't have been shot in the park the other day." But then, even the felons, adjudicated mentally ill, domestic abusers, drug users, etc. would also have their guns because of the mandate-quite a problem for law enforcement as well. How will they know who the original shooter is if everyone and their brother or sister has a gun in their possession and perhaps out in plain view when a shooting takes place? Oh well- the "devil is in the details." There is a real lack of common sense in South Dakota. 

54 comments:

  1. you did read the article you linked to about South Dakota right?

    "But the legislation isn't really intended to force South Dakota residents to take up arms. Instead, it's meant to highlight the questions some have regarding the constitutionality of the mandatory coverage portion of the health care bill."

    ReplyDelete
  2. in addition The Huffington post article linked to in your link has this as the 3rd sentence.

    "The only people exempted would be those legally prohibited from owning a firearm"

    There goes your "devil in the details"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Given that I originally proposed the idea, I have some vested interest in inquiring further. Why do you think the idea is so crazy?

    People move because they like the snow, hate the snow, like warm weather, hate warm weather, like lots of social services, hate paying taxes, like gay marriage, are uncomfortable with gay marriage, and for many other reasons both large and small.

    It is totally reasonable for a firearms owner to not want to live in a place where the laws are unfriendly to gun owners. For example, in MA you have to pay $100 every six years for a FID, another $100 for a LTC, and then you need to physically go to the police station during business hours to fill out an FA-10 for transfers or acquisitions of new firearms (perhaps taking time off of work); if you carry a firearm anywhere even for lawful purposes (like going to the range), you can be subject to arrest by local law enforcement or your property can be seized without even reasonable suspicion for indeterminate periods of time. Or in NJ, the default assumption is generally that a firearms owner is a criminal and any protestation to the contrary is an affirmative defense. Residents of Guam need to pay ~$60 for a license then $40 per firearm per year to register them. Personally, I don't want to be arrested and charged with any crime, much less a felony. Unless I really have to, I'm not going to choose to live in a place that is likely to consider me a criminal.

    Likewise, if you are legitimately concerned for the safety of yourself and your family, and you feel that strong gun laws are significant in enhancing your safety, then move! Who would risk their child's safety by choosing to live in an unsafe place where they fear for their lives on a daily basis? It only costs a few thousand dollars to move. I don't know about you but my family's safety is worth a few thousand bucks to me. If your job doesn't financially allow you to move, then ok, that's one thing--but if it is just socially inconvenient, then either maybe you aren't that unsafe in your current locale. Nobody should judge someone for moving their family to a safe community; I certainly wouldn't (although I might question whether or not downtown Chicago or DC is safer than MN).

    There could also be principles involved. Do you know people who refuse to travel to Arizona in protestation of their illegal alien law? How about people who refuse to go to certain southern states that fly the Confederate flag? Are those also unreasonable positions?

    I think the right to move freely around the country is one of the best things about America. The 50 states are one of the largest and most diverse states in the world where you can move about like at relatively low expense that without need of passports or visas.

    Although I will say that I am somewhat sick of Californians fleeing the Bear Flag Republic's taxes who come up North and then vote for more government spending... How do they think they F'd up California's finances?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Safe travels.

    In terms of moving ... people move all the time to pursue a hobby. I know Coloradans who have given up great opportunities elsewhere because they love skiing, or mountain biking, or off-roading, or some other great aspect of Colorado life. Although I, personally, enjoy the empowerment of Colorado gun laws, they wouldn't be enough to keep me away from a really good opportunity in Boston or San Francisco or some other place.

    So I can see how somebody who wanted to keep their family safe would move to an anti-gun haven, like D.C. or Chicago (haven't checked the stats to see if those places really are safer than Denver or Phoenix, but if they're not why would we even be having this conversation? ;-) )

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've noticed that the gun guys have refrained from commenting on this story I found in the news: http://www.myvalleynews.com/story/54074/

    A felon buying guns in Arizona and carrying them back to California -- busted!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Read the facts about the SouthDakota gun bill. It has nothing to do with guns but in fact is a allegorical response to Obamacare requirements using governmental force to buy something they may choose not to want to do.

    The idea is that if Govt can force people to buy health insurance then Govt can force people to buy guns. It is knowingly an Unconstitutional bill just like Obamacare will be proven to be.

    Secondly, by supplying the money and commissioning people to buy guns for them, MAIG has broken federal laws against straw purchases. Secondly, the AZ governor and the AZ AG have both said that in the videos released the sellers had practiced Due Dilligence in seeing the Purchasers IDs and had broken NO Arizona laws. Both also told Bloomberg to pay attention to issues in his own state before sticking his NYC nose into their business.

    Again only about 250 mayors out of nearly 19,000 nationwide are members. That's about 1.3% of all mayors. Furthermore several mayors listed as being on the MAIG roles have emphatically denied being involved with their ilk. MAIG is hardly a national powerhouse of public opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My family is quite safe without all of our guns to protect ourselves in Minnesota as are the many people I know who live in other states who do not choose to own guns for self protection- that would be Texas, Florida, Colorado, Maine, California, New Jersey, NYC, Chicago, DC, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh yes, I know what the proposed legislation is all about. It is a cynical attempt to get rid of the mandate to buy health insurance. But along the way, it will get something the gun guys want.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Right- so they will do a NICS check on everyone then- no matter where they buy their guns?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Joan,

    Did you support the idea of everyone being required to own medical insurance?

    If you support that then I don't see why you have a problem with someone being required to own a firearm.

    How will they know who the original shooter is if everyone and their brother or sister has a gun in their possession and perhaps out in plain view when a shooting takes place?

    You mean that the police would have to figure out who the bad person who shot someone is?

    What a concept!!
    I didn't realize that now the police simply walked up to who ever has a firearm and that person was guilty.

    Imagine police having to establish motive, means and opportunity

    Also, if the law passes; isn't that the people speaking?

    I often hear from anti-right advocates like you that say that.....if a law passed the people have spoken.

    Why isn't it the same when it is a law you don't like?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Joan - your arguments (and tone) above have been refuted on the SD proposed bill -- can't you admit you're wrong? The introduced legislation has no hope of passing...much like McCarthy's and Lautenberg's proposed bills! :)

    P.S. "Gun Guys" aren't salivating - requiring that the entire population be armed is just silly, much like mandating Health Care coverage.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Quite a difference between something that will allow you to be healthy and get coverage for same than to mandate a weapon that can kill people and actually raise the cost of health insurance for us all in the billions of dollars spent to care for gunshot victims and the money spent for law enforcement and the court systems.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "The idea is that if Govt can force people to buy health insurance then Govt can force people to buy guns. It is knowingly an Unconstitutional bill just like Obamacare will be proven to be."

    That's a bogus argument.

    First, the constitutional problem with the individual mandate is that it exceeds the authority of the federal government. State governments have far fewer restrictions on their power.

    Second, the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to organize, arm and discipline the militia. They can, and have in the past, require every member of the militia to obtain a firearm and ammunition for it.

    And the militia is basically every able-bodied male not enrolled in military service.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I believe that may be the point that South Dakota legislators are making: that "allow" is not an apt description of a mandate. The health insurance mandate does not "allow" people to buy health insurance any more than you would describe the South Dakota firearm ownership proposal as simply "allowing" self-defense.
    It's not the firearm or the health insurance that they're objecting to, in other words, it's the denial of individual choice.

    Personally, I live in Illinois, where the right to keep and bear arms is infringed as a matter of state and local policy. I've considered moving many times, though I must confess that gun rights aren't the only reason. I've always ended up deciding against it because my family is here and I love the land, but every time I visit Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, or Indiana, I'm reminded of what I'm missing. At the moment it feels like there will eventually be a confluence of events (perhaps when the state declares bankruptcy?) that will convince me to get out. My wife says she will veto any move that doesn't place us in a warm climate; why move, she reasons, if you still have to have winter?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "But along the way, it will get something the gun guys want. "

    How? There is no chance that this legislation will pass. The legislators proposing it don't want it to pass. It's simply about making a statement, and nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's 2011 jdege. You are not a member of the militia by any stretch. Good luck though with that archaic idea

    ReplyDelete
  17. The fact that they proposed it means something. Yes it makes a statement-a stupid and dangerous one.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Actually Japete. According the Constitution, he and all able body men are the militia. You may "feel" otherwise, but the Law of the Land says otherwise. Time after time in our nations past, the populace has stepped forth to exercise it's Right and responsibility in maintaining public order and combating civil unrest and lawlessness. I have seen it happen with my own eyes in South Florida after Hurricane Charley when civilians grouped together to secure damaged areas and prevent looting when the "Official" authorities were overwhelmed by the situation. Not once have these people been ever charged with a crime in their efforts to maintain civic order. These are doctors, plumbers, retirees, and the rest of a local population who gather in a disaster to work as a Community. Often arming themselves in the process, these groups do not become vigilantees but instead exhibit the best America has to offer in coming to the aid and defense of their neighbors and families.

    In the aftermath of the Northridge earthquake, the same events took place. People organized search parties, check points and aidstations before the local authorities were able to coordinate efforts and even after the official recovery and rescue efforts got under way these same people worked along side the authorities providing relief workers, cooks, and just plain manpower to do what needed to be done.

    Not all of the militia acts are armed, some are, but the concept of a civilian mobilization is basic to the American way.

    When the big tornado hit St Peter MN, within an hour trucks bearing people who "just had to do something" were showing up, gathering farm animals, opening roads blocked by fallen trees, searching debris piles for survivors or victims, this is the militia. You may not like the word and it's connotations but it is the meaning the Framers of the Constitution had in mind.

    Real world practicalities put a limit on what any Government can do, our forefathers lived in a world where enemies foreign and domestic were very close. It was behoven on us as a burgeoning nation to act as a unit to work against these force and others. At times armed Citizens were all that stood between order and chaos, between life and death. Besmirching that inbred reality is insulting.

    You love to smear the gun culture and gunguys, yet I KNOW that when the need arises, these same American Citizens are the first to step up and say "Here am I, send me".

    ReplyDelete
  19. "
    When the big tornado hit St Peter MN, within an hour trucks bearing people who "just had to do something" were showing up, gathering farm animals, opening roads blocked by fallen trees, searching debris piles for survivors or victims, this is the militia. You may not like the word and it's connotations but it is the meaning the Framers of the Constitution had in mind." Yes,P, I know about that "militia" What a strange and ridiculous definition of a militia. My daughter was one of them along with many of her friends who had graduated from Gustavus. She is NOT a member of the militia. For you to even try to make a case for that is so beyone the pale. No one in their right mind would call that a militia. They were volunteers. You guys make things up as you go along.

    ReplyDelete
  20. On the video of the people illegally buying guns:

    So you catch an unscrupulous person breaking the law and selling a gun to a prohibited person. So what? The sale was illegal already, and passing another law will do what? Selling a firearm to a prohibited person is a felony. Buying a firearm in a state other than your own is, for the most part, a felony.

    I don't understand how you think that you can stop a behavior that is already illegal by making it more illegal. I would also point out that the "undercover officers" from NYC who made the gun buy at the gun show in AZ were breaking the law themselves, as it is illegal for them to purchase firearms in a state other than their own.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Since private sellers are not required to run background checks, some are unscrupulous enough to sell to people who say they can't pass one. They do this often enough at guns shows, as has been evidenced by the number of hidden camera videos, that it should be alarming. It would be simple enough to stop these kinds of sales if we closed the private seller loophole at gun shows. And it is not illegal for those folks to purchase. In all the cases of which I am aware, the folks who have done these hidden camera videos turn their guns into law enforcement when the videos are completed, explaining to them the purpose of their purchase. They have not kept the guns.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Why isn't Bloomberg pushing for PROSECUTION of people breaking the existing law?

    He's got them on video -- looks like pretty good evidence!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yet again, even in states that have universal background checks, you don't see a change in where the criminals get their guns. And yet the BC et al keep calling for more and more.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Unless you consider current US code outdated....then neither is the idea of all able-bodied men being part of the militia...

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

    § 311. Militia: composition and classes
    How Current is This? (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Pat. Maybe he will but that was not the purpose it the video was it?

    ReplyDelete
  26. japete - I'd encourage you to describe the transaction as a "private sale loophole". While I don't personally think it's a loophole in the same sense as you, all the gunshow provides is a central meeting place for random buyers and sellers to meet.

    With slightly more planning, I can post a classified ad and meet a buyer in a Walmart parking lot or my living room.

    That said, it's my personal opinion that if you are selling a gun, it's your moral obligation to avoid selling to suspicious buyers and to protect yourself. The typical practice I see used is a bill of sale. Each party takes a copy that includes serial #, date and signatures of each party. That way if the gun had either a criminal past, or future - the opposite party has a paper trail to establish their innocence.

    This is really the only practical option, unless registration was imposed. A NICS check does nothing to divorce a private seller from a gun if it's later used in a crime.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Why doesn't bloomberg prosecute the crime?   

    Well, for one he has no jurisdiction.   

    Two, according to the AZ state AG, NO crime was committed by the Seller.  


    Those two pesky facts sorta prevent prosecution of legal gun sales.

    The illegal purchases are under consideration.  

    ReplyDelete
  28. @ Japete: It isn't that private sellers are not required to run background checks: They are not ALLOWED to. Under the law, a person must have a Federal Firearms License in order to use NICS. A private party selling a gun doesn't have the ability to use NICS.

    For those unscrupulous people who are dealing in firearms without a license, a law requiring them to run checks will be obeyed as well as the law requiring them to obtain a license. Your proposed solution will not do anything to stop this.

    Also, it was illegal for Bloomberg's people to purchase the firearms. See 18 USC 922:

    (a) It shall be unlawful—
    (9) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, who does not reside in any State to receive any firearms unless such receipt is for lawful sporting purposes.

    Turning them in to law enforcement is not an excuse for breaking the law, any more than buying cocaine and turning it in to the cops would be.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I have to disagree with you Divemedic. As you quoted it, "does not reside in any state" is a qualifier. They reside in a state. It wasn't illegal for them until they crossed state lines with the firearm, which they didn't. Typically they turn them into the local LE.

    It was only illegal to the seller if they thought they were prohibited. Obviously that hinges on whether they heard what they said or not.

    While I think the stings are wrong because of who is doing them and where (not in his city but in other states), I don't believe the "buyers" were breaking the law.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ref: The Militia that you speak of Japete. We saw the same thing in my area during the storm. Lots of rednecks that live for this stuff were out in the F250s and 2500s in coveralls with tow chains, pulling people out of ditches, running people from homes down country roads out to the highway to meet relatives and generally make themselves helpful. After thunderstorms in the summer they run around with chainsaws clearing limbs.

    Most of them are prepared folk that like to help. Most of them own guns. Most have them in those trucks if not on their person.

    The unorganized militia is alive and well.

    ReplyDelete
  31. If Bloomberg's agents had purchased the firearms from an FFL dealer, they would have had to answer the first question on Form 4473, 11(a), asking, "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearms(s) listed on this form?" If they were not buying the firearms for themselves, then they were engaged in a straw purchase, which is a felony. Weren't they buying the firearms under Bloomberg's instructions and for Bloomberg?

    It doesn't make a difference if they turned over the firearms later to law enforcement or if they weren't purchasing them from an FFL dealer. Bloomberg's agents were not operating in a law enforcement capacity and even if they thought they were, they were outside their jurisdiction and operating without notifying local law enforcement. A straw purchase is a straw purchase is a felony.

    Do you think the ATF or FBI would be so lenient with me if I bought explosives from a licensed explosives distributor under false pretenses, and upon being arrested, I told them, "But I was going to give it to you guys anyway!"

    ReplyDelete
  32. Migo- they bought from private sellers- no forms required so no straw purchase. Anything goes with private sellers, as you know. There is a huge difference between purchases from ffls and private sellers.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Anything goes with private sellers, as you know."

    Even you know that's not true. Knowingly transferring a firearm to a felon is a federal felony, whether you're an FFL or a private seller. 18 USC 922(d)

    In fact, the liability for a private seller in transferring to a prohibited person is greater than for an FFL, because an FFL can make a legitimate claim that a passed NICS check proved that he didn't know the transferee was a prohibited person, the private seller cannot.

    So it's not criminal liability that's missing in the case of private sellers, as you claim, it's simply an absence of prior governmental approval of the sale.

    What other fundamental rights would you consider this kind of prior restraint to be appropriate? Should you only be able to speak, to write, to publish, to worship, etc., if you get approval from the government in advance?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Do you actually believe all that stuff jdege?

    ReplyDelete
  35. A straw purchase isn't explicitly defined in US Code but the following is applicable:

    USC Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Sec. 922 (a)(1)(A)
    It shall be unlawful for any person [Bloomberg's agents] except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate [Arizona to New York] or foreign commerce.

    That was the law they were trying to break, but they didn't, so this entire conversation is moot. Bloomberg hired Arizona private investigators to lie to an Arizona private seller before purchasing a gun in Arizona. Private sales by law-abiding citizens within a state are legal.

    I feel like the victim of an April Fool's joke.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Do you actually believe all that stuff jdege?"

    What? That 18 USC 922(d) makes it a crime to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person? Yes, of course I believe it. I'm astounded that you think it's a matter of opinion.

    It is just as illegal for a private seller to transfer a firearm to a felon as it is for a licensed firearms dealer to do so.

    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922

    18 U.S.C. § 922 : US Code - Section 922: Unlawful acts

    (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person -

    (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

    (2) is a fugitive from justice;

    (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

    (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

    (5) who, being an alien -
    (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
    (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a) 26)));

    (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

    (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

    (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that -
    (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
    (B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
    (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

    (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

    This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who pursuant to subsection (b) of section 925 of this chapter is not precluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a person who has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant to subsection (c) of section 925 of this chapter.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Which part is nonsense? I looked for a straw purchase definition between private sellers in the firearm code, but I couldn't find one. The phrase "straw purchase" doesn't appear in the code. Section (h) prohibits purchase of a firearm while employed by someone who violates USC 922(g),(n), or (x), but Bloomberg's investigators didn't violate USC 922(g),(n), or (x) and they were also Arizona citizens according to Bloomberg spokesman Jason Post. Please let me know if you know otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  38. a handgun goes for roughly $350-$500 USD.
    That's roughly the cost of an emergency room visit. Not counting recovery from severe injury.

    Gee in South Dakota a gun could pay for itself if it saved me an ER trip.

    ReplyDelete
  39. jdege: "So it's not criminal liability that's missing in the case of private sellers, as you claim, it's simply an absence of prior governmental approval of the sale."

    That's the best laugh I've had today. I thought Bob S./Anonymous was the king of the twist.

    jdege takes the crown.

    ReplyDelete
  40. You have conveniently forgotten jdege that private sellers transfer guns every day to prohbited people and do so legally because it is not illegal to sell to people without background checks. The last time I checked, private sellers didn't have to comply with the same laws as licensed sellers.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Migo- see my response to jdege. Private sellers do pretty much whatever they want to do because they can, by law, sell to anyone. I'm sure it is illegal for them to knowingly sell to prohibited people, including straw purchasers, but the many hidden camera videos show us that they do it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Yes it's illegal to sell to anyone in USC Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Sec. 922(g),(n), or (x), but in most cases, the reason it happens is because the seller can't know who fits in those categories. What does a "person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" look like? And while I see many people on Portland's streets that look like an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802))" or like they might have "been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution", how can I be certain that's true? Can you tell what a person who has renounced his citizenship looks like? How can you tell? And before you say that gun show private sellers should be required to transfer through an FFL dealer on the show floor, think about private transfers in the seller's kitchen. How would you regulate those? Remember that the Tucson shooter violated Sec. 922(g)(3) at an FFL dealer.

    The only section I see that is enforceable is Sec. 922(x) because that's selling to kids. That enforcement can be done with a drivers license and if selling guns to kids is truly important to society, then a proper sting operation should be done by the FBI, BATFE, and local law enforcement in much the same way that pubs are subject to those types of stings. That would at least weed out the unscrupulous sellers.

    The real question is why isn't the FBI or BATFE enforcing the existing laws? Is it for budget reasons or is it because the charges gathered during such stings wouldn't stick because the laws simply aren't enforceable? What would a reasonable jury think of the charges?

    There are so many unenforceable laws in Sec. 922. What law do you want to add to it that could be enforced? How would you enforce your new law?

    ReplyDelete
  43. It seems to me, Migo, that you have just outlined the very problems we have in this country when we allow private sellers to sell to anyone without a background check. The background check would find that those people you describe are most likely on the NICS list of prohibited purchasers. So if you are a private seller, you would find that out by making the buyer go through a background check first. That is what the gun show background check law would do. Also to catch even more of these folks, a more universal background check on all private sales would catch a lot of these folks.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "You have conveniently forgotten jdege that private sellers transfer guns every day to prohbited people and do so legally because it is not illegal to sell to people without background checks. "

    ...and you've twisted that statement all around. It is NOT (repeat it with me, N-O-T) legal to transfer to a prohibited person...lets just make sure thats laid out there CLEARLY.

    It is also NOT legal for a prohibited person to purchase a firearm...so...now what?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Moho. These transfers happen attest gun shows, legal ornot. You keep missing my point. As long as weleave the private sale loophole in place they will continue to happen. That'swhy weareadvocating to close it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Sorry for typos above- darn iPhones! I meant Migo

    ReplyDelete
  47. Sorry again- last comment for Pat.

    ReplyDelete
  48. but the many hidden camera videos show us that they do it anyway.

    So you have just talked yourself around full-circle. Hidden videos show that people don't mind breaking the law when they know they are selling to prohibited people. That is, in effect, what you are saying. The video shows that they break the law by selling to people they know can't pass a background check or are prohibited. Yet some how you think that if we just make checks mandatory, these people who have no problem breaking the law, would suddenly stop selling to people they know shouldn't have firearms.

    Before you say nonsense, let us look at the facts.

    The video shows people saying "I probably wouldn't pass a background check" and it shows a private seller, selling them a firearm anyway. That is breaking a law that already exists. They are not allowed to do that. They can be convicted for the evidence on that tape. You and those like you need to now explain how putting a background check, mandatory for any sale, would suddenly stop that behavior. Remember, you want a new restriction, so you now have to show a)what behavior it prevents b)how it would be enforced and c) how it does not burden otherwise lawful citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  49. You mean the "Private Sale/Transfer Loophole", lets just make sure we lay that out there clearly for all your readers who aren't "gun guys".

    Here's another one for you. Why is there no prosecution of the sellers in the Bloomberg video? Why doesn't the ATF take matters into their own hands and weed out these bad apples. You said that wasn't the "point" of the video -- funny...I thought your side advocated for punishing criminals.

    I went to another show this weekend -- and did my own survey of 16 separate "private" sellers. EVERY single one asked me for a permit to purchase or carry prior to a sale of ANY firearm...heck, prior to letting me even "look" at anything, and not just handguns, long guns included. Your videos provide a very slanted view of whats going on in the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  50. No Migo,

    I would say you have circular reasoning. If all sellers are required to run background checks, they will be in serious trouble with the ATF if they don't run them. We must give this a chance to work. You guys keep saying it won't work thereby making it a self fulfilling prophecy that it won't. That is what is nonsense. It will work for the most part if we but give it a try. There may be a few who do not comply just as there are some bad apple ffls right now. But it will be a whole lot better than it is now.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Yes Pat. But there are those won don't. They are clearly in the video that Colin Goddard did in Forest Lake, Mn. No request for a permit. And if the Republicans have their way, there won't be a permit request. There will be nothing!

    ReplyDelete
  52. Migo said it perfectly. What does a prohibited person look like? Answer: just like a non-prohibited one. That's exactly why we need background checks on all of 'em.

    ReplyDelete