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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

A little humor about gun law

Some people manage to use humor when writing about gun policy. I must admit that I am way too serious and could use a dash of humor when writing posts. I just read an opinion piece about a law introduced in the Ohio legislature to close the gun show loophole that bears sharing.
"No sooner had the National Rifle Association pistol-whipped, I mean, persuaded Gov. John Kasich to allow concealed-carry permit holders to pack heat in their favorite strip club, juke joint, Hooters or Red Robin -- all prime militant Islamist targets -- than extremist Democrats declared jihad on the sacred Second Amendment."
And the writer goes on to describe the legislation and how easy it would be for someone to get a background check from a licensed dealer when purchasing from a private seller who cannot run background checks.
If HB 263 becomes law, you'll have to trot over to the nearest federally licensed firearms dealer and -- for a fee not exceeding $10 -- run a background check.
If it comes back dirty, no deal.
If it comes back clean, the dealer records the name, age and address of the buyer, the make, caliber and serial number of the weapon, and the date of the transfer.
Simple right? Wrong. The NRA will oppose this simple bill because.... well, er, because....let's see now; why would the NRA oppose the bill?
"The legislation will not eliminate the illegal sale of guns," Flask acknowledged. "That'll still happen on street corners, or wherever. But it does close an obvious loophole that we all know exists. How do you argue with that?"
Two words: Political contributions.
Money speaks louder than mayhem. The NRA seal of approval is much more influential than some inner-city schoolyard shootout.
There. I knew there was a good reason to oppose common sense gun legislation. As for other legislation concerning guns that doesn't make sense, like shoot first and ask questions later, that's the kind of bill the NRA can sink it's teeth into. Never mind that incidents like this one in Michigan happen with some frequency in this country. And this one is not funny at all.
A St. Joseph County woman who investigators say was intoxicated is facing felony charges after she shot her husband in the shoulder while the couple was investigating a suspicious noise they heard Monday outside their home.
Oh dear. How could this have happened? Was this person a law abiding gun owner?
Lillywhite said the couple had been inside their home Monday when they heard a suspicious noise outside and decided to investigate. Lillywhite said Darryl Tolbert told his wife to get her gun, a .380-caliber handgun, and she followed her husband to the back door of their home.
Lillywhite said the pair was standing about three feet apart when Darryl Tolbert heard a noise outside their back door and made a motion toward his wife that prompted her to fire her gun, wounding Darryl Tolbert in the right shoulder.
(...) Lillywhite confirmed Monday that the gun used by Connie Tolbert was registered to her and she legally owned the firearm.
“I think alcohol is definitely the main factor,” Lillywhite said of the incident. 
Connie is a lucky woman. Darryl was only injured. Where is common sense?

8 comments:

  1. Requiring an FFL to accept the responsibility and paperwork for a background check, yet he can't charge a market driven price or be involved in the sale is tantamount to slavery. He will be forced to work at government command.

    Furthermore, what does one do when there is no FFL available? As in DC? Or in extreme rural areas?

    Also, why do you want to increase background checks? You, yourself, have stated that they are useless.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Slavery- really? That's a bit over the top don't you think. I wonder what all of those slaves think in California and other states where these laws are in place. I believe there are many FFLs all over this country. People who live in rural areas are used to driving into the closest town for their shopping, medical care or other services. I'm sure they could do the same for a gun sale. When have I said that background checks are useless? I am working to make sure background checks are increased, in fact, and that all gun sales require them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I believe there are many FFLs all over this country."

    There are 80% fewer FFLs, since BATF started trying to drive as many out of business as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If FFLs are selling guns illegally or knowingly involved in straw purchasing, or violating some other law, they deserve to go out of business. They are not being closed down with no cause.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Japete: “If FFLs are selling guns illegally or knowingly involved in straw purchasing, or violating some other law, they deserve to go out of business. They are not being closed down with no cause.”

    It is interesting that you would think 80% of FFLs could be corrupt. Is that really what you think happened? The massive cuts in licenses were a gun control movement through the ATF against what your groups called “kitchen table dealers”. These were largely dealers who operated a side business out of their home. The ATF revoked these licenses by forcing FFLs to have a store front location. It is not that they did anything wrong.

    You have heard my views about background checks being acceptable so long as the check doesn’t have to go through an FFL. How would you feel about something in between, basically reopening part-time home dealers like the way it used to be? It could greatly increase the number of people allowed to perform checks (read: more checks happen). Also private collectors can get their own FFL just to make transactions easier. They used to be able to do that, but not anymore. I still like opening private checks better and would not necessarily support this, but how do you feel about it? If it is background checks you want, how could you oppose this?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Japete: “I wonder what all of those slaves think in California and other states where these laws are in place.”

    California does not have restrictions on how much the FFLs are allowed to charge (however, the law does have a restriction on how much goes to the DOJ). I have been quoted as much as $225 to do a transfer. So that is the other side of the coin. When you force transactions through dealers, someone is getting shafted.

    ReplyDelete
  7. TS- that is something for the ATF to determine, not me. I don't know enough about how it would work or why the ATF shut them down in the first place. There are private collectors with FFLs but they would have to abide by ATF rules to make sure they are not selling illegally.

    ReplyDelete
  8. $225 seems pretty high- most checks are in a range from $10-$20 or so. I don't think most dealers charge as much as you quoted.

    ReplyDelete