quade 4
Recommended Posts
NewGuy2005 53
QuoteQuote>Anytime a citizen purchases a gun from a dealer, he must submit to a background
>check. Gun shows are no exception.
I didn't say "gun dealer." You can show up at a gun show with some handmade belt buckles, some fancy holsters and some guns. You can then sell the belt buckles to some Texans, sell the fancy holsters to some gun club and sell the guns to convicted murderers. And you will have done nothing wrong - at least, legally.
That's why gun shows are a great place for criminals to get weapons. Take in your cash, carry out your gun.
How many gun shows have you actually been to where you observed this?
Off the top of my head, I'd say I have been to at least 4 or 5 where I have seen tables set up (with just guns) and the person had a sign on the table that said "Private Collection" or something like that.
wmw999 2,442
Thoughts about your thoughts
"Unnecessary legal barriers" shouldn't do away with the need to get a court order. I think that court review is very important, just as it is in other situations where constitutional rights (e.g. search and seizure) are affected. But right now medical information is completely off-limits in most cases.Quote2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system." – here it is. This is the big one. THIS is my fear, right here. This IS HUGE! Here is Just what I was saying with regard to health histories – for this to work, personal privacy must yield. In order to exercise your Second Amendment rights you must waive your First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. You read it, folks. “Right to Privacy” is now an “unnecessary legal barrier.”
#5 I pretty much agree with you, although I'd bet that a number of cold cases would be solved by this.
They already are, in the case of suspected child abuse. Right now in many jurisdictions they limitations for "imminent danger" are extremely specific, to the point that some worried medical (and psychiatric) personnel can't report what they're legitimately worried about (I saw it on "Law and Order" so it must be trueQuote16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes." – WOW! Think about this – doctors become the snitches. And they ask questions about issues that do not relate to medical diagnoses.
. Physicians of America, you are law enforcement agents.
).
The limitations on reporting specific threats are pretty severe.Quote17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities." – they know this. But you better provide federal protection for those who do report in order to immunize them from civil suits.
The biggest difference between child abuse and possible perceived gun violence threats is that the child welfare system is well set up and very anonymous -- there are often a lot of different potential sources for reports. I'm uncomfortable with the potential for a new anonymous gun violence reporting system, but I'm also uncomfortable with a seemingly endless number of people who see guns as a fairly easy way to resolve issues permanently.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
QuoteQuote
16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes." – WOW! Think about this – doctors become the snitches. And they ask questions about issues that do not relate to medical diagnoses.. Physicians of America, you are law enforcement agents.
They already are, in the case of suspected child abuse.
I do note that suspected child abuse is pertinent to the diagnosis of the medical condition of the patient. "Are there guns in the house?" That has nothing to do with medical condition.
And happy belated birthday, Wendy.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
wmw999 2,442
I don't believe it is -- my understanding is that even if the suspected child abuse is based on off-hand comments (e.g. a man coming in for a prostate exam can still be reported for whaling away on his kid in the exam room, or for talking about some wildly inappropriate discipline method) it should be reported.
Edited to add: And thanks
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
killler 2
It is NOW banned in new york, new jersey, california and massachusetts ....
The old assault weapons ban , Banned it and the
new bans going to congress will also ban it...
Sorry for the misunderstanding....
Killler
jclalor 12
QuoteHow many gun shows have you actually been to where you observed this?
I went to a gun show in Reno with a friend a few years ago, the only thing the private seller wanted to see was his Nevada drivers license, 2 minutes and $2800 later he had a very nice HK-91.
davjohns 1
Full agreement. I've bought at shows. They are set up to do the background check right then and there. And guess what? It's a background check. Been doing it for years. So, there is no gunshow loophole and there are already background checks. So, what is this legislation really? As pointed out, what they are selling as a gunshow loophole is really the ability for me to sell to you. They want to limit my ability to sell my property. And clearly, they want some kind of background check other than checking for felonies. We already do that nationwide. Just for fun, I'll throw in that we know the assault weapon ban doesn't do anything to reduce crime. We tried that.
So, what is America really being sold here? All I've heard so far, I know to be deception. I'm happy to read the rest, but I'm not optimistic.
So, what is America really being sold here? All I've heard so far, I know to be deception. I'm happy to read the rest, but I'm not optimistic.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
jclalor 12
QuoteSo, there is no gunshow loophole and there are already background checks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baPgr_tw79Q
wmw999 2,442
We're all quibbling around the private individuals who sell guns, as private individuals, at some gun shows (and flea markets).
If they have grandaddy's old rifle out there alone, it's one thing. If they have their 50-gun "collection," and they're at a number of gun shows, it's another. Where the dividing line is would probably be as easy to determine as the dividing line between porn and literature, or a packer who doesn't report his income with a tax cheat
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
jclalor 12
So, what is America really being sold here? All I've heard so far, I know to be deception. I'm happy to read the rest, but I'm not optimistic.
QuoteTherefore, since merchants face prison for selling firearms to certain people, background checks become critical. Commercial firearms dealers are required to run background checks on prospective buyers, and it's highly recommended that private citizens selling guns request a background check as well.
http://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/weapon-laws.html
Quote>What gun show loophole?
People can sell guns at a gun show without a background check - and thus it is an excellent place for a criminal to obtain a weapon illegally.
News flash, they don't even have to be at a gunshow for most firearms in most parts of the country.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteI like the universal background check and increased penalties for illegal arms dealers. I don't like the magazine limit or assault weapon ban.
I agree. I don't see much point in regulating clip size, or "assault weapons".
I do believe the gunshow loophole should be closed though.
Ian
I mean this nicley
Can you tell me what this loop hole is?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
wmw999 2,442
My post about 3 posts up sums up my view of this loophole.
Wendy P.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
It's a term used to refer to private sale purchases without background checks. The validity of the name can be argued, but as it stands it's possible to legally purchase a firearm without a background check. I see no logical reason to not have ALL firearm sales subject to the same background check requirements.
QuoteThough commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.
Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.
Performance Designs Factory Team
rushmc 23
QuoteIt's a term used to refer to private sale purchases without background checks. The validity of the name can be argued, but as it stands it's possible to legally purchase a firearm without a background check. I see no logical reason to not have ALL firearm sales subject to the same background check requirements.
QuoteThough commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.
Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.
Ok
Then the name should be changed because it is not a universal problem
As in Iowa, ALL private sails from a private seller require that the seller insures the buyer can legally do so.
This is done in two ways
(and really only applies to hand guns but nearly everyone does this for all guns and ammo)
In Iowa, a person can go to the local sherif and get what is called a permit to purchase. You fill out the form, wait 3 days and get a permit that states you are legal to buy, costs $5 bucks and is good for a year. If the buyer provides this then the sale is good to go. NO PAPER WORK NEEDED
or
You get your Iowa weapons permit
This is good for 5 years and works the same as the permit to purchase
It has nothing to do with gun shows
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteThanks, Bill. I didn't see it when I initially posted.
1. "Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system." – I see no problem here
2. "Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system." – here it is. This is the big one. THIS is my fear, right here. This IS HUGE! Here is Just what I was saying with regard to health histories – for this to work, personal privacy must yield. In order to exercise your Second Amendment rights you must waive your First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. You read it, folks. “Right to Privacy” is now an “unnecessary legal barrier.”
3. "Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system." - okay
4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks." – increase the category of dangerous people (Ron Paul bumper sticker territory)
5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun." – problem here: this is not due process. This is moving into Bill of Attainder territory. SEIZING PROPERTY FROM PEOPLE NOT EVEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME?
6. "Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers." – no problem here
7. "Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign." – no problem here
8. "Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)." – no problem here
9. "Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations." – no problem here
10. "Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement." – why hasn’t it been released before?
11. "Nominate an ATF director." – that’s your job.
12. "Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations." – no problem here. But what is “proper training?”
13. "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime." – that’s your job.
14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence." – no problem here. But how you gonna pay for it? Where will the resources come from?
15. "Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies." – no problem here.
16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes." – WOW! Think about this – doctors become the snitches. And they ask questions about issues that do not relate to medical diagnoses.. Physicians of America, you are law enforcement agents.
17. "Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities." – they know this. But you better provide federal protection for those who do report in order to immunize them from civil suits.
18. "Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers." – And yes, I heard the President say, “if they want.”
19. "Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education." – houses of worship?
20. "Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover." – no problem
21. "Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges." – okay.
22. "Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations." – okay.
23. "Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health." - okay
If they can force Dr's to give info on the people they see, I wonder when lawyers discussions on certin topics might come?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
normiss 798
IMO, the state issued CWP is a much more secure form.
ANY legal actions that would disqualify a person is processed in a relatively timely manner - at least based on my understanding of how this process works in FL anyway. The felon database and the CWP database appear to communicate quite efficiently.
ANY legal actions that would disqualify a person is processed in a relatively timely manner - at least based on my understanding of how this process works in FL anyway. The felon database and the CWP database appear to communicate quite efficiently.
GeorgiaDon 362
What you are talking about is also known as "making the perfect the enemy of the good", which is a clever way to make sure nothing changes at all. No law can prevent the targeted actions from ever occurring at all, which is why they also have provisions for punishment for violators. Or are you suggesting we should repeal DUI laws because some people still drive drunk, so obviously the laws aren't effective?QuoteBut can you tell me honestly that requiring background checks for gun purchases will mean guns aren’t sold without background checks? It’ll just expand the black market, and I assure you that there are some criminal enterprises out there that are cheering this proposal.
A couple of points here. You are speaking as though any mental health issue, no matter how unrelated to the potential for extreme violent behavior, would have to be reported. I'm not aware of any recommendation by anyone anywhere that people who are being treated for depression, eating disorders, substance abuse, or any of the myriad other mental diseases would have to be reported to anyone. Currently procedures exist to "flag" people, under very limited circumstances when they provide a specific and imminent threat, but it seems that information often does not make it to where it would show up on a background check. I'll concede that there are a lot of things that could be done to improve the process, for example I don't see why a short-term problem has to effectively become a lifetime ban. The process could be more like taking the car keys from a friend who's had a bit too much to drink, where they can drive as soon as they sober up. Also the reason for the restriction need not be accessible to all and sundry. And of course there has to be legal oversight, such as a court order, governing the process. Such problems can be addressed if there is a will to do so.QuoteSo I’m arguing AGAINST background checks because: (1) They would not have prevented the majority of the shootings that the order is seeking to prevent; (2) They will be largely ineffective considering the right to privacy enunciated in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade – the penumbra of rights under the 14th Amendment; and (3) They will chill people from accessing treatment for mental health issues.
No system of background checks can be expected to address every possible circumstance, and so it is quite likely that Sandy Hook and many other incidents would not have been prevented. I'll be curious to see what comes out the investigation/trial re the Aurora shootings, where it seems the perpetrator was under psychiatric care and had been flagged as of concern, but then the doctors lost the ability to intervene when their patient withdrew from the University and stopped being their patient (as I understand the situation anyway).
There is however the bigger picture of 15,000 homicides annually in this country, the great majority committed by people with criminal records that should have precluded them from getting a firearm. Obviously these people are not buying from dealers or going through a background check at present. We can think in terms of one pool of guns, in the hands of law abiding people, and a second pool that circulates amongst the criminal elements. Guns can move from the law-abiding to the criminal pool through theft or by private sales where a seller may or may not know that the buyer is prohibited from having guns. If we can restrict the movement of guns from the legal to the criminal pool by requiring checks for all sales (enforced by penalties for circumventing the checks) perhaps over time we can decrease the availability of guns in criminal hands. Just impeding sales to convicted felons could have a beneficial effect, even without factoring in mental health issues.
In the very long run there could be useful positive feedbacks in the system. Getting guns out of criminal hands could decrease the frequency of violent crime, reducing the perception amongst the law abiding that they need to be armed to the teeth, which might then reduce the pool of firearms available to be stolen and used by criminals.
Of course there are a myriad of factors that play into the high rate of violent crime in the US. It would be useful to make a serious attempt to identify and address such factors, but I fear that any attempt to do anything at all would be attacked as "social engineering", "coddling the 47%", or whatever. It is clear that there are entities, such as the NRA and firearms manufacturers, who find the status quo quite profitable and would be reluctant to see any action taken that might lessen the climate of fear and so the market for their wares.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Emphasis mine.
Uh . . . what rules are in place now? No assault weapons ban has been enacted today. Only a request by the President for Congress to consider it. No definitions are in place.
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites