Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
OdinsEye
Silenced by HP. Cant be intimidated into Facebook
01:38 PM on 10/26/2012
How to expand background checks to private sales:

Option 1) Allow anyone access to NICS. Problems: A) Swamping the system, B) Misuse, C) No way of telling if a seller did a check.

Option 2) Require all firearm transfers be done by an FFL (tried in a few states). Problems: A) Swamping the system, B) Difficult to tell if a background check was done.

The states which have tried Option 2 report very low compliance rates.

In order to be even a little effective, either option would require complete federal firearm registration, something the federal government is forbidden from doing and something which Canada found out can be exceedingly expensive. Further, considering that of the estimated 300+ million firearms in private hands, less than 5% are registered with their state (most states have no firearm registry), there is no way to tell who owns what -- causing a rash of firearms to be reported as "lost", "sold", or "destroyed" in Canada, rendering their registration scheme pretty ineffective. Similar things have happened in California.

So, while background checks even for private sales sounds really, really great on the surface as an idea, even rudimentary evaluation of how to put it in effect, how to enforce it, and what its benefits and costs would be show it to be unfeasible, unenforceable, expensive, and ineffective.
photo
jetjocki
Somewhere in the middle
03:58 PM on 10/27/2012
Another option was tried in Pennsylvania - all private handgun transfers within the state had to be executed at an FFL or at a law enforcement office to ensure a background check had been conducted. The process would provide the "seller" with a document proving they had transferred the weapon and that an appropriate background check had been done before the transfer.

Many FFL's refused to participate as it made them resposible for the background check record keeping. Others charged a large fee for the service.

Then the compliance totally collapsed when is was discovered that many Law Enforcement Agencies in the state were retaining records of checks and copies of the private transfer documents in violation of the statute. The statute explicitly forbids LE from retaining copies of the documents because they would become a defacto registration database.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ElmCreekSmith
I hunt the things that go bump in the night.
11:52 AM on 10/26/2012
Mr. Gross:

The National Rifle Association has proposed allowing temporary access to the NICS for individual gun owners on numerous occasions. Every time it is proposed, the usual suspects, the darlings of your organization, shoot it down, so to speak. If you are really serious about having all gun sales go through the NICS, you might want to speak to Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, et al, to tell them you're okay with the NICS being available to individual seller on an as-needed basis.

ECS
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Carson
01:47 PM on 10/26/2012
ECS--of course you realize that Dannyboy want to make the purchase of a firearm as big a PITA as possible
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ElmCreekSmith
I hunt the things that go bump in the night.
10:44 PM on 10/26/2012
Sure, I do. The problem he has is that his own people are the reason that "table top gun dealing" (that's their preferred term) can't use the NICS.

ECS
spiffy nid
For the Emperor.
11:31 AM on 10/26/2012
I agree wholeheartedly. There is no valid reason not to.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
swatcapt
03:37 PM on 10/26/2012
How about the FACT that I as a none FFL holder can not access the background check system. Makes it kinda hard to do a background check.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wolflover3825
Hungry Like the Wolf.
09:10 PM on 10/26/2012
Since I do not have a FFL, I can not access the NICS. I am prohibited by law from doing so. Several requests have been submitted to Congress to allow non-FFL holder access to NICS, but the friends and supporters of the Brady Bunch, the Organization Dan Gross works for have blocked every request. If they really think that the lack of background checks in private sales is so bad, why not fix the problem. Instead, they leave it hanging open, refusing to allow non-FFL holders access to NICS. Why is that do you think?
03:31 PM on 10/27/2012
Because if every gun was subject to a background check, they would be useless. The best reason for them to block such a idea is to try and keep the money flowing in.
08:12 AM on 10/26/2012
Thank you for your careful analysis of this issue. Gun violence is out-of-control in the United States and much of the blame lays on those who fight against sensible laws such as background checks that would prevent dangerous individuals to get their hands on dangerous weapons. This is not a "liberal" issue; this is about public safety and about values. What do we value more in this country -- guns or human life? I pity those of you out there who think guns are more important.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
crosswiredmind
homo sapiens sapiens
10:04 AM on 10/26/2012
While I agree with the proposal that all gun sales should go through the background check system, the notion that "gun violence is out-of-control" is not backed up by the facts. According to the Justice Department, violent crime is down 72% since 1992, and the FBI statistics show that homicide has dropped by 57%. Background checks for all gun sales is a common sense upgrade to our existing laws and not a solution for the mythical rise in crime.
10:21 AM on 10/26/2012
Individual liberty is the most important thing to me, and it should be so for you and every other American as well. That being said, in a free society there is no guarantee of safety. You still won't get safety in the totalitarianism that you and the Brady campaign so desperately desire. Danger will still be there, but liberty won't.
03:25 PM on 10/26/2012
Of course there's no guarantee of safety if we refuse take even the simplest steps to keep a gun away from a violent domestic abuser. But given that such a move would in no way impact your individual liberty, what's your real agenda?
photo
jetjocki
Somewhere in the middle
04:35 AM on 10/26/2012
Danny -

Lying about the number of homicides to strengthen your case only demonstrates the weakness in your argument, but then again you as usual will post and run rather than face up to challenges to your deceptions.

"We are better than a nation that allows 32 people to be murdered by guns every day --"

There is no valid need for you to inflate the number of homicides by more than 25%
04:14 AM on 10/26/2012
gun control in this country is impossible. i read one estimate that stated their are 300 millions guns in private hands in this country
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pete Gerasia
If you can't think logically, don't talk to me.
03:48 PM on 10/26/2012
That's about right. And those are just the legal ones.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OCerInTN
Hoplophobics worst nightmare.
12:55 AM on 10/28/2012
That is 20 million more than automobiles.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:40 AM on 10/26/2012
This guy was on a mission and I seriously doubt that any gun law would have stopped him. Gun laws are for law-abiding people. If he couldn't find a gun one way, he would have found one another way.

All of the laws in the world are not going to stop criminals from obtaining them and using them illegally. Chicago is a good case in point. Up until recently, it had both one of the strictest laws in the nation and simultaneously was one of the most dangerous cities in the nation.

So, while you would think that Chicago should have been one of the safest cities in the nation due to strict gun laws, the opposite is actually true.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robyn Singleton
screw you guys, Im going home
11:53 PM on 10/25/2012
I think everyone should have guns!! Guns all around. Yay
10:44 PM on 10/25/2012
While the OP is correct, I'd like to hear how he thinks he can enforce requiring background checks on private sales. I mean, I'm fine with giving every citizen access to NICS so that they CAN run checks, but requiring them to do it isn't going to make any appreciable difference in the long run since no one can make sure they actually DO.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
crosswiredmind
homo sapiens sapiens
10:08 AM on 10/26/2012
It is more about punishing those that break the law. It's like the laws on straw purchasing. You cannot prevent a straw purchase, but you can punish those that get caught. I have sold four guns privately, and each time I went through my local FFL simply because I wanted to be sure the person on the other end of the transaction was a legitimate buyer. If I could walk up to a bank of phones at a gun show and access the system myself, I would definitely use it.
05:46 PM on 10/26/2012
Yeah, I just think it's hoops and cost for next to no benefit. I'd like it, I'd probably even use it myself (provided costs weren't prohibitive), but given where the REAL gun violence in the nation stems from it won't have any meaningful impact there, so it's largely an empty gesture.
photo
Grumpy Man
Disappointed idealist
10:36 AM on 10/26/2012
To address that issue, the BradyBunch would then suggest that we need registration.

Slipper slope? What slippery slope? ;o)
05:45 PM on 10/26/2012
Word. Of course, my response would be similar: How exactly will they enforce registering the existing 300,000,000 guns that can't be tracked, and of which no records exist?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dylan Monsini
09:23 PM on 10/25/2012
Liberals would have claimed racial profiling if they searched the spa shooter. Cut the nonsense.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SouPro
Southern. Progressive.
08:59 PM on 10/25/2012
Another smoke and mirrors article from the Brady Campaign.

The problem mentioned above is a serious one, and effort needs to be made to address it. HOWEVER, the Brady Campaign hides a sinister motive behind their simple refrain of "fix background checks". Instead of simply allowing individuals to obtain temporary sale licenses, or otherwise access the NICS database, the Brady Campaign wants to prohibit private transactions, and specially register all private transactions. The sales of commercial dealers are not effected. (under current law their sales are not registered) A recent attempt at this, S.436 (112th), is a great example of what they are really trying to achieve.

For a group using a "We are better than this" slogan, one would expect a more open dialogue as to their intentions. It's another sad example of how gun control special interest groups are more interested in petty politics than proposing smart, meaningful gun laws. It's past time for individuals who want to see the latter laws ever materialize hold these groups accountable for their hidden extremism.
10:18 PM on 10/25/2012
Ooh, yes, the smoke and mirrors Brady Campaign has the "sinister motive" of SAVING INNOCENT LIVES. I'm so sick of people trying to divert the issue with petty arguments. Universal background checks will save lives. Period. Why can't you just agree with that?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Bourbon
12:51 AM on 10/26/2012
Of course, we all know that people who cannot pass such checks would NEVER, ever, even in a million years, purchase a gun illegally...

That would be illegal, after all...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:42 AM on 10/26/2012
That holds true only if criminals, gangsters and gangs comply with the law. Unfortunately, they don't say "Oh, OK!"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
08:40 PM on 10/25/2012
How would this work unless the government had a list of gun owners and what guns each and everyone of us owned? Wouldn't it require national gun registration? And hasn't gun registration led to gun confiscation around the world and even in parts of our own nation?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
crosswiredmind
homo sapiens sapiens
10:11 AM on 10/26/2012
You wouldn't need a registry. The background check system simply confirms that the buyer can legitimately own a firearm. I have sold four guns privately, and each sale went through my local FFL because I wanted to be sure the buyer was legit.
photo
Grumpy Man
Disappointed idealist
08:23 PM on 10/25/2012
Whatta ya know... another gun related topic where comments get squelched or put in indefinite time-out even when the posts are legit and are within ALL guidelines. Whoodathunkit?
photo
OdinsEye
Silenced by HP. Cant be intimidated into Facebook
08:06 PM on 10/25/2012
While it might be nice for all private sales of firearm to have to go through background checks, such laws are simply not feasible and virually unenforcable.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
crosswiredmind
homo sapiens sapiens
10:12 AM on 10/26/2012
True, but it would provide a way to prosecute some of the more sophisticated straw purchasers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pete Gerasia
If you can't think logically, don't talk to me.
03:55 PM on 10/26/2012
Personally, I'm ok with this so long as nothing is registered to anyones name. As a simple check, I'm fine with it. Sure, it's definitely unenforceable, but so long as it's not a real inconvenience to private sellers, it'd be nice to be able to prosecute those who would give good gun owners a bad name.
photo
Grumpy Man
Disappointed idealist
06:09 PM on 10/25/2012
Mr. Gross makes a pretty big assumption here.

According to Mr. Gross, if the perpetrator of this crime couldn't have bought a gun from a private seller he would have simply packed up and gone home, every thing would be peachy keen and we could all go home and enjoy a milkshake made from unicorn milk.

Mr. Gross is also assuming that the police followed through and entered the perpetrator into the NICS system in an expedient manner. The police seem to have been very mum on that point so far. Can anyone verify that they followed through like they were supposed to? Was he in the system already?