This video shows something that anti-gun control advocates say doesn’t exist.
More detail here.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Video Exposes The Gun Show Loophole
October 7th, 2009
65 Comments
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Surely, the people who wanted to expose ACORN’s dirty little secrets will also jump on this story.
Surely.
Yeah, but did anyone give advice to a fake pimp? I didn’t THINK so.
This story doesn’t give 40 year old Andrew Breitbart a chance to sit next to a 20 year old girl
In other news, 30 Republican Senators today voted AGAINST allowing employees of overseas government contractors to sue if they’re raped on the job.
But look over there! Kevin Jennings once said nice things about a guy!
Fox News Nation. Charming.
Oliver, assuming you don’t have a record that would prohibit you from purchasing or possessing a firearm, and you went to a gun show and purchased a nice Glock from a private seller sans a background check, what laws were broken?
Presumably the law requiring background checks on gun buyers?
But let’s be serious here. We all know gun show dealers wouldn’t sell arms to a black man without documentary proof of a lack of felony convictions.
Gosh, I wonder if more stringent gun control laws are in order. That’s a toughie. What should I base my decision on, my lyin’ eyes, or NRA Jay?
You have training and a test to own a car, plus you have to carry insurance. Anybody see where I’m going with this?
Presumably the law requiring background checks on gun buyers?
Yeah except there is no law that requires a private seller to get a background check. So you’re wrong.
Next.
Oliver, assuming you don’t have a record that would prohibit you from purchasing or possessing a firearm, and you went to a gun show and purchased a nice Glock from a private seller sans a background check, what laws were broken?
Isn’t the answer to this question, none? I phrase it like that because I find it hard to see how the answer advances your argument in any way.
The problem isn’t people without criminal records buying guns at gun shows.
The problem is with people who have criminal records buying guns at gun shows.
Right now, those people can.
You keep telling us that it’s against the law for them to do so.
We keep telling you, “Duh,” and a big reason they get away with it is because there’s no required background check.
Now, Jay, would you care to answer a question?
If I’m a private gun dealer at a gun show and I unknowingly sell a gun to a convicted felon who cannot legally own one, have I committed a crime?
Yeah except there is no law that requires a private seller to get a background check. So you’re wrong.
Gosh, I wonder if that should change…thinking…thinking…
We keep telling you, “Duh,” and a big reason they get away with it is because there’s no required background check.
No you keep arguing in a dishonest fashion (either that or you’re all dumb enough to believe it) that they’re not breaking the law because of this “loophole” that suddenly makes their purchase legal. What’s also dishonest is the notion that there’s a large segment of crimes being committed around the United States with guns purchased at gun shows which is not true that makes closing this supposed “loophole” so urgent.
You guys keep going on and on about “loopholes” and you don’t even know the laws! Nor do you have
But let’s just say that background checks are required for ANY purchases at gun shows. What then is done about the garage sale “loophole?” Or the Gunbroker.com “loophole”? The newspaper ad “loophole”? The word of mouth “loophole”?
How about we close all the loopholes to the best of our ability? What is the real objection to this?
My sentence got clipped. I wanted to say, “Nor do you have any supporting data or evidence that necessitates requiring background checks for all gun purchases at gun shows. It’s all emotional claptrap, sophistry and hyperbole.”
No you keep arguing in a dishonest fashion (either that or you’re all dumb enough to believe it) that they’re not breaking the law because of this “loophole” that suddenly makes their purchase legal.
Please quote where i ever said anything of the kind. In fact, I’ve said the exact opposite and you know it:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/10/05/study-wild-west-gun-policy-doesnt-work/#comments
In other words, Jay, it doesn’t matter if it’s illegal for a felon to buy a guy at a gun show if there’s no way of stopping them from doing so and private sellers are not encouraged from doing so.
It’s a loophole because felons can illegally purchase guns at gun shows. The purpose of background checks is to keep them from illegally buying guns in the first place. Get it?
So, Jay, I’ve answered your question. Why don’t answer mine:
Can a private seller at a gun show be arrested if he unknowingly sells a gun to a felon?
I have a few questions…Since we have gun shows (or what I call them gun buy shows because no one there is just showing their guns) shouldn’t these gun owns not be consider “private sellers” because they are selling to a mass amount of people in a given day at these shows, and non of the transactions are private?
What makes them any different from a gun dealer?
What is the limited number of guns a “private seller” can sell compared to a gun dealer?
To me it’s kind of silly to call these people “private sellers” if they are at a gun show selling.
Convicted felons are not legally permitted to buy a gun, and all gun sellers, including private gun sellers, are not permitted to knowingly sell to them. With licensed gun dealers at gun stores, purchasers are required to submit information for a background check. This is not the case for private sellers at gun shows.
Legislators want to close this “loophole” in the law that allows convicted felons to buy firearms without having to undergo a background check that would bar them from purchase. These videos demonstrate, at the very least, a real danger of such transactions occuring.
Jay: But let’s just say that background checks are required for ANY purchases at gun shows. What then is done about the garage sale “loophole?” Or the Gunbroker.com “loophole”? The newspaper ad “loophole”? The word of mouth “loophole”?
So if a problem can’t be fixed in it’s entirety, then no effort should be made to improve the situation at all?
Looking forward to Jay not “arguing in a dishonest fashion” when he responds to mike in dc’s comment.
I was gonna say… Mike beat me to it.
I will say that, considering the ease by which a non-law abiding citizen could get a weapon, that holding a private seller to the same criteria as a licensed gun owner is better than this system. I guess that means I hate America, George Washington, the Baby Jesus and John Wayne, but yeah, close the loophole.
Convicted felons are not legally permitted to buy a gun, and all gun sellers, including private gun sellers, are not permitted to knowingly sell to them.
But can a private gun seller be arrested for selling a gun to a felon, if the seller didn’t know the buyer was a felon?
Like I said in another thread Jay, move to Somalia. All the guns you can handle. Sounds like you’d be a lot happier there.
In my mind Faf, it’s a better idea to make sure it’s kosher to sell a weapon before actually doing so, rather than assume he is, and be wrong.
In my mind Faf, it’s a better idea to make sure it’s kosher to sell a weapon before actually doing so, rather than assume he is, and be wrong.
That’s my point, too, but I’m not clear on the actual law.
So far jay refuses to answer my simple question:
Can a private gun seller be arrested for selling a gun to a felon, if the seller didn’t know the buyer was a felon?
I have to assume that Jay knows the answer to the question as he seems to pride himself on knowing a lot about gun laws.
So, I guess we’ll have to see if he bothers to answer it.
How about we close all the loopholes to the best of our ability? What is the real objection to this?
Because people have been making private transactions with regard to guns for a long long time. You have guys that have memberships to shooting ranges often buying guns off each other. It is asinine to require that each time one of those transactions takes place that they get background checks.
Where is the compelling interest of the state to do this when less than 2 PERCENT of crimes are committed with guns acquired at gun shows (and that is not some NRA statistic, but a statistic directly from the Justice Department)? And please, nobody respond with the “if it just saves one life” nonsense because that is total crap.
If the person who is intent on committing crime wants to acquire a gun, he can do so. That’s why this notion that somehow requiring background checks at gun shows is going to punch a big hole in crime is bogus. As I said, only a minuscule amount of crime is committed with guns acquired from gun shows, so the effect on crime would barely be measurable.
So what is the compelling interest in doing so? Private transactions of this kind of have been legal for the longest time.
and private sellers are not encouraged from doing so.
Well this is another instance in where you’re wrong. If a private seller makes a transaction with somebody he knows or even suspects may not be eligible to make the transaction, he could be convicted of conspiracy.
Can a private gun seller be arrested for selling a gun to a felon, if the seller didn’t know the buyer was a felon?
No, and why should he?
Because people have been making private transactions with regard to guns for a long long time…Private transactions of this kind of have been legal for the longest time.
Ah, the “It’s always been done this way” argument. You hear that one a lot in the Deep South, for some reason.
You have guys that have memberships to shooting ranges often buying guns off each other. It is asinine to require that each time one of those transactions takes place that they get background checks.
He said, without a single citation to buttress his case. It’s asinine because it’s asinine. Or something.
And please, nobody respond with the “if it just saves one life” nonsense because that is total crap.
You should mention this to people in Littleton, Colorado (and elsewhere). I’m sure they would be persuaded of your well thought out logic.
If the person who is intent on committing crime wants to acquire a gun, he can do so.
So why have any gun laws–or any laws at all really. If someone wants to break the law, they can do so. Great point.
The NRA and its mindless shills: So awesome!
You should mention this to people in Littleton, Colorado (and elsewhere). I’m sure they would be persuaded of your well thought out logic
Why? None of the guns purchased at the Columbine shooting were purchased illegally.
Get educated on the issue indeed and then maybe you can hang with the big boys. In the meantime, stick with the mindless quips and accusations of racism because that’s about as much as you can muster up with that small, closed mind of yours.
And just to be clear before Indeed hurts himself thinking, the shotguns used at Columbine were purchased at a gun show — legally — by Robyn Anderson who then gave them — illegally — to Kliebold and Harris (in what is known as a “straw purchase”). They also acquired the handguns they used from a friend – also illegal as they were minors and were not legally allowed to possess handguns.
Why? None of the guns purchased at the Columbine shooting were purchased illegally.
And how were they purchased? Please remind me.
stick with the mindless quips and accusations of racism because that’s about as much as you can muster up with that small, closed mind of yours.
Those are some strong words. Can you back them up with some specific examples?
The video clearly identified the activities depicted as illegal.
It even showed a “private seller” following the law to illustrate the difference.
So…tell me…if the current laws that make what was shown on the video illegal aren’t being enforced, why, praytell, is one more law going to have an effect?
This video wasn’t an illustration of any loophole. It was an illustration that the ATF isn’t enforcing current laws.
Oliver: What is the real objection to this?
Jay: Because people have been making private transactions with regard to guns for a long long time.
So the real objection is tradition? Admitedly extreme example, but people had been making private transactions with slaves for a long long time, too.
You have guys that have memberships to shooting ranges often buying guns off each other. It is asinine to require that each time one of those transactions takes place that they get background checks.
Rather than just rejecting outright the idea of requiring some kind of verification the buyer isn’t a felon, couldn’t some system be set up? Folks can bypass some of the security lines in airports if they undergo a background check and get certified as being OK. Then all they have to do is show the card (or whatever) that they’ve been cleared.
Where is the compelling interest of the state to do this when less than 2 PERCENT of crimes are committed with guns acquired at gun shows. …And please, nobody respond with the “if it just saves one life” nonsense because that is total crap.
To pervent another 2% of crimes. And that isn’t ““if it just saves one life” nonsense”. How many people are victims in those 2% of crimes? Far more than just one.
But if stopping 2% of crimes isn’t enough then where is the threshold? If guns bought at gun shows were used in 10% of crimes, would that be enough damage for for us to have an interest in stopping it? Would it have to be higher? 20% before we should be interested? Or was 10% to high? Can we get interested in stopping crime when it’s as low as only 5% of crimes?
Serously, Jay. You said 2% is too low for there to be a compelling interest in doing anything so where would you draw the line?
If the person who is intent on committing crime wants to acquire a gun, he can do so.
Now there’s a total crap response. If the person is intent on assassinating the President they will be able to do so. So why bother having any Secret Service protection?
The argument that we can’t stop all criminals, which is what you’re making here, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make it hard for them to do so.
As I said, only a minuscule amount of crime is committed with guns acquired from gun shows, so the effect on crime would barely be measurable.
2% is minuscule? Seems measurable to me. Even if some crimes are still committed with guns bought at gun shows (As there certainly will be. Can’t stop all crime.) it would be a measurable amount.
Essentially your argument keeps boiling down to “It’s not that big a deal.” I’d argue back that requiring anyone who wants to get a gun to provide some certification that they’ve passed a background check isn’t that big a deal.
Hell, I’ve got to show a driver’s license to make a credit card purchase. Requiring that I show something to demonstrate I’ve passed a background check before I buy a gun isn’t that big a deal.
(And puts the onus on the buyer, BTW, not requiring the seller to do anything other than ask to see a card. What possible objection could the buyer’s possibly have then?)
Jay: In the meantime, stick with the mindless quips and accusations of racism
Whoa. Whoa. Full stop. Sound of brakes screeching and record needle scratching.
Indeed’s reference the Deep South had nothing to do with racism. It was a direct response to your claim that no changes should be made to laws regarding gun show transactions because “transactions of this kind of have been legal for the longest time”. You said tradition should prevail, and he replied with a reference to long standing traditions that nobody would argue should be brought back.
It was on point and a playing of any “race card”. It was you who just tried to do that.
“It was on point and NOT a playing of any “race card”.”
Argh. Fixed.
Oliver: What is the real objection to this?
Jay: Because people have been making private transactions with regard to guns for a long long time.
So the real objection is tradition? Admitedly extreme example, but people had been making private transactions with slaves for a long long time, too.
No. The real objection is that this is an unenforceable boondoggle designed only to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain guns and has no effect whatsoever on criminals.
If we create a special case in the law that requires private citizens to get government permission before selling their personal property but only at a specific location and time known as a gun show, what’s to stop them from going across the street and selling it in the parking lot of the McDonalds?
Or selling it from their garage? Or the trunk of their cars?
The only people who will be hindered are the people who are actually concerned about following the law…otherwise known as the law abiding. It will add costs to the sale of the property, add inconvenience and add time as well as requiring additional paperwork for licensed gun dealers who are routinely persecuted by the ATF for such egregious offenses as allowing a gun purchase applicant to abbreviate their state of residence or the word “Boulevard” as “Blvd.”
And the unscrupulous will just go across the street to sell their wares “no questions asked”.
This is not a measure designed to catch criminals…heck, if the ATF wanted to do that, all they’d have to do is run a sting operation just like the undercover one that Bloomberg’s hired criminals did. This is an effort to add pitfalls and stumbling blocks to gun ownership, and to criminalize the unwary and uninformed.
So the real objection is tradition? Admitedly extreme example, but people had been making private transactions with slaves for a long long time, too.
Oh please. Don’t make stupid comparisons like this. The objection isn’t “tradition.” The objection is that it is unnecessary and yes that it is another in a long line of laws that is proposed that won’t do anything to affect crime, but will impose on law abiding citizens.
Serously, Jay. You said 2% is too low for there to be a compelling interest in doing anything so where would you draw the line?
Well Sean, if the interest is in savings lives, then why doesn’t the government force auto-makers to build cars that don’t go faster than 10 miles per hour? Why don’t we ban cigarettes and alcohol? Why not a national ban on trans-fats? Why not require a background checks on the purchase of knives? Far more people are killed and injured each year with knives than crimes committed with guns acquired at gun shows. I mean, if the percentage is needs to be 0%, what are we waiting for?
Now there’s a total crap response. If the person is intent on assassinating the President they will be able to do so. So why bother having any Secret Service protection?
Bzzzt! Wrong. The very fact that the President has Secret Service protection makes it extremely difficult for people to assassinate him. Once again, it leads back to the fact that there are a minuscule amounts of crimes committed with guns acquired at gun shows (the percentage is probably smaller when taking into consideration anybody that acquired a gun ILLEGALLY at a gun show), yet it is being treated as though the lack of a requirement by private sellers to get background checks on buyers has led to major waves in crime. It has not. Secret Service protection for our Presidents has proven to be compelling since 4 were assassinated and there have been documented assassination attempts against 11 other Presidents.
I’d argue back that requiring anyone who wants to get a gun to provide some certification that they’ve passed a background check isn’t that big a deal.
That’s actually a good idea. Some kind of renewable background check ID is something I think is reasonable.
This is not a measure designed to catch criminals…heck, if the ATF wanted to do that, all they’d have to do is run a sting operation just like the undercover one that Bloomberg’s hired criminals did.
Sooooo…the ATF is not interested in catching criminals? Huh. Who knew?
what’s to stop them from going across the street and selling it in the parking lot of the McDonalds?
Um, a broader law perhaps?
In addition, how about more stringent penalties for breaking gun laws. If the fine for going 5 miles per hour over the speed limit were $1 million and a trip to the pokey (and was aggressively enforced!), I’d wager there would be a lot less speeding. Now, going 5 per over the speed limit isn’t huge problem. Columbine and this video (and what have you) are. Standing up to the lunatic NRA, no matter how deep there pockets are, with more stringent and enforced gun laws would be a net benefit to society. If that would mean that someone would have to jump through a few hoops to sell a gun legally, so be it.
Jay at 1:10 pm:
Jay at 9:29 am:
…er…9:28 am, not 9:29 am….
I regret the error.
No, and why should he?
For the same reason that we make it illegal for people to knowingly or unknowingly sell alcohol to minors: because it’s in society’s best interest to keep as many guns as possible out of the hands of felons and other people who shouldn’t have them.
And what’s all this complaints about paperwork and government intrusion?
Just make it illegal, period, to sell guns to felons or other restricted persons and you put the responsibility on the seller to know who they’re selling to.
They don’t have to do official background checks, although they could, but if they know they could be arrested for selling guns to a felon, the seller will be damn motivated to know who their selling to or to find out who they’re selling to. Buddies could still sell guns to buddies at gun ranges without fear of arrest or the need to fill out background checks on their neighbors.
Just like the laws governing sales of alcohol to minors: “Well, officer, he looked over 21″ is not a defense.
Neither should be “Well, officer he didn’t look like a convicted felon.”
The system we have now trusts the felon to obey the law while providing him with a ready way to skirt the law in plain view of everyone.
Sooooo…the ATF is not interested in catching criminals? Huh. Who knew?
I’m sorry, where did he say that? Oh. Wait. He didn’t. Your making stuff up again. You see, it’s for me to see what he was getting at. Instead of our politicians wasting time with nonsense like closing the ever dangerous gun show “loophole” which would largely affect people who already obey the law, maybe they’d be better served allocating more money to the ATF to conduct operations that would catch people…you know…break the law.
Indeed go grab a hold of brif’s College Dictionary and look up the word “context.”
Thanks.
And what is with the constant references to Columbine? This has nothing to do with that as has already been pointed out.
Just make it illegal, period, to sell guns to felons or other restricted persons
It already is illegal. Federal law states that it is illegal for anyone to sell a gun to someone they “know” or “have reasonable cause to believe” is a prohibited purchaser, such as a fugitive or felon.
Ok, so if the buyer in this video was indeed prohibited from purchasing a firearm, then the seller violated federal and most likely, state law.
Sooooo…the ATF is not interested in catching criminals? Huh. Who knew?
I’m sorry, where did he say that?
at 1:01 pm:
And what is with the constant references to Columbine? This has nothing to do with that as has already been pointed out.
I thought you were going to remind me (us) where and how the Columbine shooters got their guns. You clearly implied that you knew. Thanks in advance!
Federal law states that it is illegal for anyone to sell a gun to someone they “know” or “have reasonable cause to believe” is a prohibited purchaser, such as a fugitive or felon.
Jay, you’re obviously ignoring my central point, repeated multiple times in this thread, for some reason.
The law should be changed to make it a crime to sell a gun to a felon knowingly or unknowingly.
All the reasons why I’ve enumerated above.
so if the buyer in this video was indeed prohibited from purchasing a firearm, then the seller violated federal and most likely, state law.
Okay, you agree that this is not acceptable behavior. Does it look like it is a common violation? It sure does. But what to do?
Shut down ACORN.
Let’s weigh the consequences of this “violation” that put a firearm in the hands of someone who had admitted not being legally qualified to purchase it. Would those consequences be worse for society than if an ACORN worker violated his employer’s trust by giving financial advice to someone who should not be getting it?
One criminal might launder money so he could pay taxes without revealing the illegal source, the other is a felon with a gun who probably didn’t get it so he could find a way to pay taxes.
ACORN can solve its problem quickly by firing the employee and making a statement that illegal behavior will not be tolerated, so what can the gun show culture do to correct this dangerous problem? Whom would you suggest is responsible for enforcement and how should it be conducted?
You know, those awkward details.
I thought you were going to remind me (us) where and how the Columbine shooters got their guns.
I did. You apparently missed it.
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/10/07/video-exposes-the-gun-show-loophole/#comment-183387
at 1:01 pm:
This is not a measure designed to catch criminals…heck, if the ATF wanted to do that…
Once again you reveal your issues with context.
And just to be clear before Indeed hurts himself thinking, the shotguns used at Columbine were purchased at a gun show — legally — by Robyn Anderson who then gave them — illegally — to Kliebold and Harris (in what is known as a “straw purchase”). They also acquired the handguns they used from a friend – also illegal as they were minors and were not legally allowed to possess handguns.
Missed it. My bad.
And my point is that we should look in to this. Maybe regulate it. Hmm?
And my point is that we should look in to this. Maybe regulate it. Hmm?
It IS regulated. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold broke like a dozen state and federal laws before they even fired a single shot.
Sailorcurt: No. The real objection is that this is an unenforceable boondoggle designed only to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain guns and has no effect whatsoever on criminals.
No, that wasn’t the objection Jay was making. He clearly stated the basis for his objection was tradition.
Your objection (different than Jay’s) isn’t accurate. It is not designed to make things more difficult to law abiding folks. Now if you want to say that will be the result, then do so and we can debate that. But don’t start off with something clearly wrong that that is the goal.
If we create a special case in the law that requires private citizens to get government permission before selling their personal property but only at a specific location and time known as a gun show, what’s to stop them from going across the street and selling it in the parking lot of the McDonalds? Or selling it from their garage? Or the trunk of their cars?
This is the “we can’t fix it perfectly so why fix it at all” objection. Now if you’re going to complain it isn’t a perfect solution, then fine. but follow up with a proposal that makes it better. Don’t just argue that nothing should be done.
The objection, at it’s root, isn’t really that guns can be sold to felons at gun shows, but that guns can be sold to felons at all. So you’re right to the extent that perhaps we shouldn’t be focusing on gun shows.
So how about we don’t make it a special case tied to gun shows. What if we make it a requirement that guns can’t be sold in any location to someone who hasn’t passed a background check. You want to buy a gun? Fine. Get your background checked to verify you aren’t someone and then present that certification to the person selling the gun when you buy it. Gun dealer in their shop, gun owner at a show, neighbor in their garage. Ask to see the buyer’s certification and away you go.
The only people who will be hindered are the people who are actually concerned about following the law … It will add costs to the sale of the property, add inconvenience and add time as well as requiring additional paperwork for licensed gun dealers
Nope. Just hinders only those who are legally prohibited from buying guns. No cost added to the seller. No additional paperwork other than ticking a box “certification checked” and probably noting down a number.
Jay: The objection isn’t “tradition.”
Really? “Because people have been making private transactions with regard to guns for a long long time.” Sounds like tradition to me.
Well Sean, if the interest is in savings lives, then why doesn’t the government force auto-makers to build cars that don’t go faster than 10 miles per hour? … I mean, if the percentage is needs to be 0%, what are we waiting for?
Nice dodges, Jay. First you avoid answering the question I did ask. Then you claim I said something I specifically didn’t (I didn’t say it had to be 0%. I actually noted it never could be) so you can complain about what I didn’t say to avoid responding to what I did say.
That’s actually a good idea. Some kind of renewable background check ID is something I think is reasonable.
Common ground! Lets go with this.
Any objection to having purchasers required to show they are legally allowed to get guns, and sellers required to ask to see it before making a sell?
Jay: <i.t already is illegal. Federal law states that it is illegal for anyone to sell a gun to someone they “know” or “have reasonable cause to believe” is a prohibited purchaser, such as a fugitive or felon.
Ok, so if the buyer in this video was indeed prohibited from purchasing a firearm, then the seller violated federal and most likely, state law.
Actually, from what you say, the seller is guilty ONLY if they had reason to believe the buyer was a felon. And why would they have reason able cause to believe that? The buyer looked felon-y?
It is not designed to make things more difficult to law abiding folks.
Sean, don’t be naive. That is precisely the goal of many on the anti-gun side. We saw that with the Heller decision. Even though DC was required to allow people to register firearms and keep them in their home, their initial requirements were so convoluted and absurd that Dick Heller had no choice but to take the District back to court because they were not following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Really? “Because people have been making private transactions with regard to guns for a long long time.” Sounds like tradition to me.
It was not the reason I object to it. I said it in the context that people seem to think there is a compelling reason to change the current law and there really isn’t beyond hyperbole.
Nice dodges, Jay. First you avoid answering the question I did ask
Because your question was nonsense. “What is the threshold?” Please. That’s not a serious question. I am not the one that supports this legislation. Again, those who do are the ones that need to provide some compelling reason to do so.
“Gun toting mom, husband shot” in an apparent murder-suicide:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/08/gun.soccer.mom.dead/index.html?iref=topnews
2ND AMENDMENT!!! 2ND AMENDMENT!!!
It is not designed to make things more difficult to law abiding folks. Now if you want to say that will be the result, then do so and we can debate that. But don’t start off with something clearly wrong that that is the goal.
“clearly wrong that that is the goal?” I don’t think there’s anything clear about that at all.
You’re entitled to your opinion (which, as insistent that you may be that it is “clearly” factual, your opinion is all it is), and I’m entitled to mine…which is that this is simply another of the measures continually touted by gun grabbers as “a good first step”. Funny…I’ve never heard one of their proposals touted as a “good last step”.
This is the “we can’t fix it perfectly so why fix it at all” objection.
No…this is a “this is a stupid idea that has no hope of having any impact whatsoever” objection.
There’s a difference between imperfect and completely ineffective.
Now if you’re going to complain it isn’t a perfect solution, then fine. but follow up with a proposal that makes it better. Don’t just argue that nothing should be done.
I didn’t argue that nothing should be done. Completely ignoring my suggestion doesn’t make it magically disappear, as inconvenient as you may find it to address. Clearly what needs to be done, as is demonstrated by the video evidence of criminal activity, is actually enforce current law.
Every incident documented in that video is already illegal. Why are those people not in jail? Because it’s much easier to harass the law abiding than to go to the trouble of investigating and prosecuting actual criminal behavior, now isn’t it?
So how about we don’t make it a special case tied to gun shows. What if we make it a requirement that guns can’t be sold in any location to someone who hasn’t passed a background check. You want to buy a gun? Fine. Get your background checked to verify you aren’t someone and then present that certification to the person selling the gun when you buy it. Gun dealer in their shop, gun owner at a show, neighbor in their garage. Ask to see the buyer’s certification and away you go.
Ahhh, and now we get to the heart of the matter because that’s what the gun grabbers really do want. They only couch this in terms of some nonexistent “gun show loophole” because it’s easier to sell.
There is only one way to enforce the proposal above: registration. Without registration, how will you know how many guns I have and whether I’ve sold one or not?
Registration will not fly in this country at this time…and the gun grabbers know it. So they settle for this incremental step toward their goal…the “good first step”…even though they know as well as anyone that it will be completely ineffective. In fact, they COUNT on it being ineffective because that sets the stage for their next “good first step”.
No gun control law ever enacted has been demonstrated to have any effect on crime whatsoever. So, what’s the solution? To the gun grabbers, the solution is always “do it again, only harder”.
What’s more…the gun grabbers oppose laws that have been demonstrated to, at worst, have no detrimental impact on crime rates and, at best, actually reduce crime…because those laws make it easier for law abiding citizens to obtain or carry firearms for self defense.
They support the laws of cities with the highest crime rates and oppose the laws of cities with the lowest.
Why would that be?
Simple: Because it isn’t about crime. Heck, it isn’t even about guns.
It’s about control.
Nope. Just hinders only those who are legally prohibited from buying guns. No cost added to the seller. No additional paperwork other than ticking a box “certification checked” and probably noting down a number.
Spoken like someone truly ignorant of the laws and regulations governing the sale of firearms in this country (and basic economics if you think there will be no added costs to the seller).
“Where is the compelling interest of the state to do this when less than 2 PERCENT of crimes are committed with guns acquired at gun shows”
Violent crimes account for about 10-12% of crimes. Your statement implies that about 20% of violent crimes are committed using guns acquired at gun shows.
That seems pretty high to me.
“No gun control law ever enacted has been demonstrated to have any effect on crime whatsoever.”
Really? Like in Canada and France and Japan where they ban guns and have close to zero shootings every year?
Jay: “What is the threshold?” Please. That’s not a serious question. I am not the one that supports this legislation. Again, those who do are the ones that need to provide some compelling reason to do so.
It is a serious question, and you’re trying to dodge again. You used as part of your argument that 2% isn’t significant. It’s fair and appropriate to then ask you to clarify what is significant.
You object because it’s “only” 2%. OK. Would you object if it was 5? 10? 14? Where is your line?
Jay: Again, those who do are the ones that need to provide some compelling reason to do so.
They have. They’ve said 2% is too high.
Really? Like in Canada and France and Japan where they ban guns and have close to zero shootings every year?
Or like Mexico, Jamaica, Russia, Thailand or any number of other countries that ban guns but have a much higher rate of gun homicide than we do?
How many shootings did those countries have every year BEFORE they banned guns? What impact on THEIR society did the gun bans have?
Your argument is specious.
The US crime rate has been steadily declining since the early ’90’s even though gun restrictions have been relaxed and gun ownership has expanded dramatically.
I wonder what’s been going on in France:
France has a similar crime rate to most other European countries and in common with them crime has increased considerably in recent years; the number of reported crimes has almost doubled in a decade
Surely Japan is faring better:
In this trusting country, where people once left their doors and windows open and their car keys in the ignition, things have changed.
Break-ins are up, but more disturbing to most Japanese is the increase in break-ins involving violence. Earlier this year a family of four was murdered during a break-in.
Of the three you mentioned, only Canada can report a decrease in overall crime…but with a caveat:
Canada’s crime rate falls, but murders up
Incidentally, Canada’s violent crime rate, as of the last year Official US statistics are available (2006) was higher (962.4) than the US Rate (474 by about a factor of two.
Hmmm…Maybe crime rates don’t have much to do with gun control after all.
Sailorcurt: Every incident documented in that video is already illegal. Why are those people not in jail?
Have you looked into more of this specific investigation than was shown in the video? Becuase what did or didn’t happen to those people isn’t mentioned. You presenting your opinion as fact?
There is only one way to enforce the proposal above: registration. Without registration, how will you know how many guns I have and whether I’ve sold one or not?
And where is the objection to that? In the US you have to register your car. Why to objection to registering your gun. Doesn’t stop a single person legally allowed to own a gun from doing so, so there can’t be any Constitutional objection to it.
Guns can be dangerous. Guns can be easily misused. GUns have been misused. What reasonable objection is there to having some common sense controls in place to make sure they can’t get into the hands of those who are most likely to misuse them?
Sales to minors are not allowed, something with a higher legitimacy for Constitutional challenge (2nd ammendment doesn’t mention age) than requiring buyers to present ID.
Your arguments are boiling down to objecting to the extreme case of “gun grabbers want to outlaw all guns” when, in fact, the majority of people in the US support reasonable restrictions on gun transactions. It wouldn’t be legitimate for me to point to the gun enthusiast who wants their own ICBM and say “That’s what we get if we don’t ban all guns!”. Nor is it legit to object to all controls on the grounds they inevitably lead to complete bans.
Spoken like someone truly ignorant of the laws and regulations governing the sale of firearms in this country (and basic economics if you think there will be no added costs to the seller).
Oh, utter nonsense. There is no measurable added cost to the grocery store when you have to show them your driver’s license to use your credit card to pay for groceries.
Have you looked into more of this specific investigation than was shown in the video? Becuase what did or didn’t happen to those people isn’t mentioned. You presenting your opinion as fact?
Funny, it seems to me that I didn’t “present [my] opinion as fact” I asked a question. Do you have some information indicating that charges were pursued against these people? I sure haven’t seen any. Can I prove they weren’t charged? No…it’s rather difficult to prove a negative. I’d be happy to entertain any evidence you can provide that they were charged…or even any evidence that Bloomberg’s criminal enterprise even offered their video evidence to the proper authorities for investigation.
And where is the objection to that? In the US you have to register your car. Why to objection to registering your gun. Doesn’t stop a single person legally allowed to own a gun from doing so, so there can’t be any Constitutional objection to it.
And again you tip your hand.
That’s the point of my entire argument. The end goal is not to require background checks at gun shows. The end goal is not to require background checks for all private transactions. Heck, the end goal is not even registration, although that’s another “good first step” that the gun grabbers must go through before reaching their REAL end goal…which is obvious to anyone who’s paying attention.
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.”
-Senator Dianne Feinstein
This discussion thread absolutely demonstrates the intended and inevitable progression. Just in this discussion, we’ve moved from the supposedly “common sense” measure of banning private sales at gun shows, to your advocacy of registration.
In your opinion, there is no constitutional issue with registration of people who desire to exercise a constitutional right. Then I guess you wouldn’t have a problem with registration of…say…everyone who wants to post on a blog? Registration of everyone who wants to freely practice their religion…say…Jews? If you want to enjoy the protections of the fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, all you have to do is register with the government, pay a small $100 fee, provide fingerprints, and undergo a background investigation first? Trial by jury? Sorry, you didn’t register for that.
Gun registration will not fly in this country. I’d like to say that it would never fly but I’ve been surprised before so I’ll stay away from that. It won’t fly right now and would be met with massive non-compliance…and for good reason. History demonstrates that gun registration leads to confiscation. It’s even happened here in California and another instance was recently reported in Toronto.
After registration comes banning of certain types of guns, guns that are too small and easy to conceal. Guns that are too large and powerful. Guns that are scary looking. Guns that are too cheap. Guns that are too expensive. It never ends, and once the guns are banned, registration makes it easy for the ban de jour to be implemented through confiscation. You only need to look at the recent case studies of Britain and Australia for real life examples of how it happens. Britain is now working on banning kitchen knives now that banning every kind of gun on the planet (including toy guns and “bb” guns) has only resulted in ever increasing crime rates and an inexhaustible supply of helpless, disarmed victims.
Do it again…only harder.
Your arguments are boiling down to objecting to the extreme case of “gun grabbers want to outlaw all guns” when, in fact, the majority of people in the US support reasonable restrictions on gun transactions. It wouldn’t be legitimate for me to point to the gun enthusiast who wants their own ICBM and say “That’s what we get if we don’t ban all guns!”. Nor is it legit to object to all controls on the grounds they inevitably lead to complete bans.
That’s what’s known as a “straw man argument”.
You point out (correctly) that it wouldn’t be legitimate for me to argue something that I’m not arguing. Nice.
I didn’t say that all gun regulations should go. That’s you putting words into my mouth.
I absolutely support common sense gun laws. We just differ on what constitutes “common sense”.
Oh, utter nonsense. There is no measurable added cost to the grocery store when you have to show them your driver’s license to use your credit card to pay for groceries.
And your ignorance of gun law is just as obvious as your ignorance about the credit card law:
No you do not have to show your id. in fact if a merchant refuses to accept your credit card because you wont show id they are in violation of Visa and Mastercard regulations. They can be fined for a refusing a charge due to no id. [emphasis added -ed]
Do you actually believe that outlawing private sales would only entail the showing of a driver’s license? What do you think is currently required for purchase of a firearm from a licensed dealer? Do you know the typical rates that licensed dealers charge to transfer a firearm between unlicensed individuals (which is required for out of state transfers)?
If you don’t understand the laws as they exist today, how can you expect to be taken seriously when you make ridiculous claims about the potential effects of proposed new laws?
You are arguing from a position of ignorance. Hardly a suitable foundation upon which to build public policy.
Sailorcurt: Funny, it seems to me that I didn’t “present [my] opinion as fact” I asked a question.
“Why are those people not in jail?” presupposes that they are not. And I asked what you based that on. Nice try to turn it around as if I’m responsible for backing up your assumptions, but doesn’t work.
This discussion thread absolutely demonstrates the intended and inevitable progression. Just in this discussion, we’ve moved from the supposedly “common sense” measure of banning private sales at gun shows, to your advocacy of registration.
First, your paranoia is showing. I didn’t advocate for registration. I did ask what was the objection to it (and haven’t gotten a reasonable response to that yet) but asking for your view isn’t advocating the opposite one. But in any event, registration is a sidenote which, despite your diatribe against, I wasn’t arguing for. What I did suggest is that every buyer be required to show some form of ID.
Second, that’s not a pregression. That’s an alternative suggestion on how to deal with the problem. Again, your turning every point into “everyone not if full favor of no controls is a ‘gun grabber’ in full favor of outlawing all guns” really makes a reasoned discussion difficult.
In your opinion, there is no constitutional issue with registration of people who desire to exercise a constitutional right. Then I guess you wouldn’t have a problem with registration of…say…everyone who wants to post on a blog?
Is there a constitutional issue with it? You haven’t said there is.
As for registering before posting to a blog, it should be noted that many blogs do require exactly that. This one included, to an extent. But you’re talking about registering with the gov’t, of course, and I would have problems with that. But a blog comment isn’t the same as a gun.
The rest of your paragraph is another attempt to avoid reasoned debate by ignoring that fact and tossing of extremes and absurdities. Again, it’s the equivalent of claiming anyone who wants to own a gun is also interested in getting their hands on a Trident missle.
And your ignorance of gun law is just as obvious as your ignorance about the credit card law:
I’m actually quite aware of the credit card laws, that showing ID isn’t required and that merchants who do require it are actually in violation of their agreements with the credit company. So what? The minutia of credit company agreements has got nothing to do with the point I actually made? Asking to see an appropriate ID and noting it’s number adds nothing measurable to a merchant’s costs. You’re off attacking irrelevant side points and neglecting the actual issue again.
Do you actually believe that outlawing private sales would only entail the showing of a driver’s license?
Not what I said. Driver’s license was used as an example of an ID to illustrate my point. Sorry you didn’t get that.
I did presuppose that they are not in jail when formulating my question…because I have seen no reports that they HAVE been prosecuted for their criminal activity, or that the video evidence was used for anything other than Bloomberg’s propaganda piece. I would imagine that had those things happened, it would have been reported.
Yes, such a presupposition required an assumption…one that I believe to be correct. Feel free to prove me wrong at your leisure.
You didn’t get any “reasonable response” as to what is objectionable about registration? As I said before, pretending like I didn’t answer your point doesn’t make my answer magically go away, regardless of how much easier it is to simply dismiss it rather than address it.
The progression from requiring background checks only at gun shows to your suggestion that registration would not be objectionable, absolutely WAS a progression…the natural and inevitable one based on the exact reasons that I put forth: requiring background checks at gun shows wouldn’t work, and outloawing all private transfers would be unenforceable without total registration.
Refusing to acknowledge the progression because it’s more convenient to ignore it does not make it any less real or any less obvious. Nor does it make the next inevitable step of the progression after registration (confiscation) any less a legitimate concern.
You have to register with the government to post on blogs? Which ones?
We’re not talking about registering with a private entity for the privilege of using their server space and bandwidth to post your opinion…we’re talking about registering with the government prior to being granted permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right.
Registering to exercise the right protected by the Second Amendment is no less extreme than having to register to exercise the rights protected by any of the other amendments.
It’s only your own biases against the right protected by the Second Amendment that makes you see the other examples as “extreme” while completely dismissing the similarities with what you propose.
You are aware of the laws pertaining to credit cards?
“Hell, I’ve got to show a driver’s license to make a credit card purchase.” -Sean D. Martin, October 8, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Hmm. How, specifically, does “I’ve got to show my driver’s license to make a credit card purchase…” translate logically into “showing ID isn’t required and that merchants who do require it are actually in violation of their agreements with the credit company.”?
Be that as it may, I agree that you were simply using that as an example. Since you refused to even address my point about your ignorance of gun purchasing laws, I was simply using your obvious ignorance of credit card laws to illustrate your ignorance of the law in general.
I really didn’t NEED to go there, since your entire point…that federal background checks and recordkeeping associated with gun purchases is in some way analogous to showing ID to use a credit card…is ridiculous on its face and adequately demonstrates your ignorance in and of itself.
Unfortunately, you are so woefully ignorant of the gun laws that you seem to have no idea how ridiculous the “illustration” you tried to draw was, so I went another way with it.
Either way, the fact remains.
Throughout this discussion, your “go-to” tactic has been to either simply ignore, or dismiss without addressing any substantive points I raised to which you had no viable response.
It’s pretty pointless to continue a debate when one side simply refuses to address the points raised.
Sailorcurt: Hmm. How, specifically, does “I’ve got to show my driver’s license to make a credit card purchase…” translate logically into “showing ID isn’t required and that merchants who do require it are actually in violation of their agreements with the credit company.”?
In that I was using it as a tossed-off example to clarify a point and and didn’t realize I’d have to be as nit picky as a lawyer in choosing the precision of my words to avoid being pulled off into a tangent on an irrelevant aspect by someone who seems more interested in picking those nits than recognizing the point actually being made.
For argument’s sake, just imagine I’d originally said “I get asked to show my driver’s license to make a credit card purchase…”. Would that do it for you?
Jesus.
Sailorcurt: since your entire point…that federal background checks and recordkeeping associated with gun purchases is in some way analogous to showing ID to use a credit card…is ridiculous on its face
Then it’s a good thing that isn’t what my point was. There is no place where I suggested the level of recordkeeping that you are envisioning.
You want to buy a gun? OK. You will have to undergo a background check. Exactly the check you currently have to pass to purchase a gun from a dealer. So no real additional burden there.
Now that you have a “I can buy a gun” card all you have to do is show it when making a purchase. The seller (dealer, gun show person, neighbor with garage, whoever) has to see your card before making the sale. I think there value to their recording the name and ID number of the buyer, but would be willing to debate that point.
I haven’t suggested the seller then has to report the sale to anyone. So what has been registered? The buyer goes and buys lots of guns from lots of people. I didn’t suggest any central repository for the info, any place the gov’t could go to see an inventory of buyer’s guns at a glance.
If we were seriously discussing this suggestion, I’d get more into whether the sales should be reported or not, etc. But to the depth we’ve gone into it you end up with some validation being done that the buyers of guns anywhere aren’t folks who shouldn’t be allowed to have them, and nobody being required to register their purchase.