Say this slow to yourself because you have read it several times. As was argued in congress during the Manchin-Toomey bill debate, ....background checks on secondary gun sales is unenforceable. There is nothing to prevent black market sales, or an exchange between two individuals. There is no way to know that a recovered gun during a crime was illegally transferred. UBCs would carry no impact without requiring gun registration. No one could be caught or charged for ignoring the secondary market background check requirement.
"As was argued" false argument !!!!! The Manchin Toomy Bill Actually, the amendment outlawed any such registry. In fact, a registry was already outlawed, and the amendment extra outlawed it. These are the facts. The five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Louisiana, Mississippi, Alaska, Wyoming, and Montana. Each of these states has extremely lax gun violence prevention laws as well as a higher rate of gun ownership. The state with the lowest gun death rate in the nation was Rhode Island, followed by Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. Each of these states has strong gun violence prevention laws and has a lower rate of gun ownership and include stronger control over secondary gun sales(Source) For the 50 th time, it is not the criminal alone you hold accountable. It is the legal gun owner. It is YOU and all LEGAL gun owners who should not be allowed to sell a gun to an unqualified buyer. If you did, you should be held accountable too. The FFL dealer is held accountable for his sales. It has less to do with gun recovery and more to do with opportunity. If you combine this with required permits, you would be well on your way to sensible gun laws.
Btw, laws ARE MADE FOR HONEST PEOPLE, WE GET THAT. Legal gun owners are not breaking ANY law selling a gun to an unknown criminal. Most guns that criminals get come from LEGAL GUN OWNERS. If you made it mandatory to sell only through a back ground check, the vast majority of legal gun owners would abide by the law. Just the threat of losing their own gun rights if caught, would be enough to deter the vast majority of illegal sales. IT WORKS WITH RESTRICTED WEAPONS. It works in states with mandatory secondary gun sales background checks.
Daniel, it is painful to recognize you are still as ignorant today as you were when we met on line years ago. How do you manage that? Well regulated does not refer to either the organized or unorganized militia, it refers to both. How can you read a founding fathers quote without realizing the primary purpose is TO ARM THE PEOPLE (ALL) such that a tyrannical government can be overthrown? "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or prevent the PEOPLE of the United States, who are peaceable from keeping their OWN arms.". Samuel Adams "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government. It is one of the “High Powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it because it is above the law, and independent of lawmaking” Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859) "When the Constitution was signed on September 17, 1789, federalists claimed the new government would only have limited powers expressly delegated to it. This wasn’t enough for anti-federalists like George Mason, who wanted explicit guarantees to certain rights in order to prevent any potential encroachment by the federal government." One of them was the right to keep and bear arms. Mason wrote: “A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State”
We have a First Amendment for redress of grievances. You have nothing but a fallacy of false Cause. Rights in private property, including the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Article of Amendment.
It only works for restricted weapons because of the high expense and rarity of restricted weapons. It doesn't work in states with mandatory secondary gun sales background checks. The San Bernardino shooters are an example of that. It is currently against federal law (it's a felony) to transfer a gun to a convicted felon (and a group of similar legal statuses). That doesn't stop straw purchases, why would background checks on private sales stop straw purchases? Most criminals get guns from people they know: http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/survey-crooks-get-guns-from-pals-dont-keep-them-long/
We can cherry pick everything. Only general trends count. Criminals get guns from people they know, even if they are ineligible gun owners themselves. But, a legal buyer was in the chain. . Criminals do not generally go to gun shows, but their suppliers do. There are a plethora f ways crminals get their guns, but 97% of their guns, started out as a LEGAL PURCHASE. So this idea that criminals get guns from people, they know, means little. A legal buying was in the chain in the vast majority of the cases. It's the legal buyer that needs regulation when he sells the gun. The general trend has never changed. Stricter gun laws in states mean less gun violence. City gun laws mean little as gun shows can be feet accross city lines and with no secondary BGC, they can literally, order weapons. I am not telling you guys somthing you don't already know. You know you are supporting lies.
Then the fact the supposed legal buyer knowingly committed at least one felony offense, and did so with no regard for the legal consequences of their actions, means nothing to you in this discussion? If a person is willing to give a firearm to a convicted felon, despite knowing it is illegal, what good would mandating background checks on secondary sales do? Do you intend to charge them not only with supplying a firearm to a known criminal, but also failing to carry out a background check?
How can you make that statement? It's as if you assume that everyone can read everyone's mind. You need to read what the federal laws say. You cannot "knowing" sell a gun to a felon. Hello McFly ! In gun shows and private sales, the seller asks nothing, and he becomes legal. If it read, you cannot sell a gun to a felon or it's federal crime, whether you know it or not, secondary sellers would demand a background check by the buyer.....just like a federal licensed firearms dealer is required to do. You are making up a situation that almost NEVER occurs. People at gun shows and private sales will never exchange real names. If they do, they need not even ask, "are you a felon." You must think everyone is as missinformed as you guys...you know how it's done....many of you do it already in private sales. You avoid finding out....which makes the sale legal.
you are not being truthful. Chicago had the strictest gun laws in the nation and its murder right was off the charts. so you are telling lies
that is another lie. I don't know how many gun shows you have been to I have been to over 300. From 86-90 I would often work sales for one of my biggest clients-who at the time-was one of the biggest gun show dealers in SW Ohio. then as a basic attendee since then but I also was a federal prosecutor meaning I was looking for problem dealers because I knew the ATF and FBI agents at the show. I bought several guns from private buyers. I also showed them my Ohio Drivers license proving I was a state resident and of age. They always asked me if I had a record. I'd show them my Supreme Court of Ohio ID or my credentials. Several wrote my name down-two guys gave me receipts which I signed the copy they had. So you are not being truthful
I disagree. How many private sales have you made? Every private sale I've made asked for my driver's licenses, one even made a copy of it. Have you ever been to a gun show? The people selling felons guns on private sales are people they know--criminal associates, friends and relatives. Almost no criminals get guns from private sales from otherwise innocent folks. Here's what a U. of Chicago study says: http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/survey-crooks-get-guns-from-pals-dont-keep-them-long/
You are right, registries are outlawed. Thats why on the floor of congress it was put forth that UBCs can't be successful until they can turn the registry law around. For the billionth time.....Criminals seldom get their guns from people they don't know. UBCs wont keep them from getting them from their social network of friends. Montana, Wyoming and Alaska have little gun violence. Their stats come from suicides which makes the secondary sales argument in irrelevant.
Because it is factual. And those in prison have been polled, and they admitted that they acquired a firearm through a friend or other acquaintance that they knew. Thus meaning there is knowledge on their part of a disqualifying criminal record. So again we must ask, what good would mandating background checks on secondary sales do? Do you intend to charge them not only with supplying a firearm to a known criminal, but also failing to carry out a background check? What is known, is that few criminals acquire firearms from such events. The statistics have shown that those criminals who have acquired firearms, have done through channels they feel they can trust. Acquisition themselves puts them at risk of being apprehended in a sting operation.
Well...let's see those statistics. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
More sources of bogus Antigun statistics, PBS is funded by Antigun organizations as is any research about firearms funded by those organizations.
PBS is more believable then rags published by organizations that receive money from gun makers and PACs like the NRA. You don't believe the advertsers funder by car makers to find the best car, you take those results fundered by fact based science which IS public broadcasting and the like. People who sell guns have an obligation tho lie. Institutes of higher learning....don't. Their integrity is at stake. LaPierre has little integrity.
there are several cases of people who started out as anti gun-engaged in studying gun crime and then posted studies showing that gun control laws were worthless or did little good-Kleck and Lott are two and then you have Paxton Quigley, a Kennedy activist who researched why women were carrying guns (a thought initially abhorrent to her) and after interviewing countless victims of rape and abuse, became a major league advocate for armed self defense by women. I am unaware of credible academics who were hard core pro rights advocates who, after studying the relevant issues, became members of the Banoid Movement. most of the "Studies" banoid advocates cite are created by Banoid organizations that started off with a goal of banning or restricting firearms ownership and worked backwards to "prove" their banoid positions
I got to meet Paxton Quigley, her organisation; AWARE, arming women against rape and endangerment. I also got to meet Marion Hammer too.
Wrong! These are the states with the factual number of death by gun violence. 10.Tennesee 9. New Mexico 8. Oklahoma 7. Wyoming 6. Arkansas 5. Montana 4. Alabama 3. Mississippi 2. Louisiana 1. Alaska
a local range/gun store in Cincinnati had a ladies night with PQ. I was a member, and a staff pro shooter there. So my wife got the first invite and got to spend some time with PQ. She even got first dibs on a hard to get SW Performance Center PQ revolver which she still has and carries sometimes. Neat lady, neat story how she transformed from a Democrat-yuppie gun hater to a real world advocate for armed women
So I’m trying to wrap my head around Dagosa’s argument for universal background checks (without registering all guns)—that is, every firearm transfer, including secondary market transfers between private individuals, must be done with a background check. If you are going to do this you have to mandate it by criminalizing the failure to get a background check. So how do you enforce this? This is the detail that every UBC advocate glosses over. Say a trooper stops me on I-95 and for some reason searches my car and finds a handgun. Dagosa says there will be no registration of guns—and, by his admission, 300 million guns are already in circulation which to me makes universal registration unattainable. So how is the trooper going to know how I got this gun, and whether I submitted to a background check? Did I get it before the law was passed? Did I get it with an actual background check? Have I stolen the gun? He can ask me, and I can stand on my right to remain silent. What then? There is no registration database he can check. There is no way to know how I got the gun, and whether I complied with the background check requirement absent universal firearm registration—which Dagosa does not advocate (and there is a reason it cannot be done which he has not considered yet). Heck, I could have even borrowed the gun for the weekend from my father to go target shooting. Which raises another question: How do you define “transfer” for a background check requirement? Does temporarily borrowing a gun constitute a transfer that requires a background check at all? If my son wants to borrow my shotgun to go dove hunting this afternoon, does he have to undergo a background check first? For that matter, what if I’m at the range with my friend and he asks to shoot my gun, and I ask to shoot his—does this require both of us to undergo background checks before we can handle each other’s gun? And then there is the issue of felons—who you are trying to get at with this law in the first place. Felons can never be prosecuted for not undergoing a background check. The law simply cannot apply to them. Why? It is already a crime for them to have or to attempt to have a gun, and a requirement to undergo a background check is a requirement that they confess to having (as the seller) or attempting to have (as a buyer) a gun—which violates their 5th Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. Oh you can prosecute them for having a gun if you catch them with it (which we do already), but you cannot create a separate program that requires them to surrender a constitutional right, and then make it a crime for them to refuse to surrender that right. So the UBC law, which already cannot be effectively enforced, can be completely ignored by the very people you want it to be effective against. Laws like this are very shiny and pretty in the abstract, but they lose all their luster when they come into contact with reality. So tell me, if you favor a UBC law, how do you address these fatal shortcomings?
