Skip to main content

View Diary: GOP official says man who accidentally shot girlfriend at church shouldve had 'better instruction' (193 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A few issues: (8+ / 0-)

    One, there is no gun show loophole. FFLs have to run a background check no matter where they are.

    Two, I think that all of our civil rights (including RKBA) should not be restricted before the fact. Freedom of speech? Prove what you're saying is worth it. Freedom of religion? Well, fit inside this box labeled "Christian" and you're good to go.

    Three, you're confusing firearm related death prevention with gun control. We've liberalized firearm laws in this country and violent crime is dropping. I'm not saying more guns = less crime, but more guns != more crime.

    I agree that the ILA goes nuts. It really does. But I come from an area that elected a pro-RKBA, NRA backed Democrat for multiple terms (to the House). The NRA is coming around and endorsing Dems who are pro-RKBA and not just the GOP candidate.

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 09:14:05 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  "there is no gun show loophole." (0+ / 0-)

      Yes there is. You can sell guns at a gun show without being an FFL. It's a classification known as "occasional seller." Basically if you only sell your guns at gun shows (you don't own a shop, you don't sell at commercial volume) then you fit into that "occasional seller" loophole. FFLs have had to run background checks for a long time now, though at gun shows you're not required to be licensed to sell, hence the loophole.

      Secondly, I agree within reason - fire in a crowded theater, child pornography, etc; should not be protected speech and I'm going to assume you're of the same mind there. The application of a background check is not an undue abrogation of rights, since it doesn't place any kind of burden on the purchaser, other than an expectation of mental and emotional well-being.

      Third, there's a half dozen Arizonans who would disagree with you on the point of "actually enforcing existing laws and closing current loopholes" if they were alive to do so. Every time you hear of guns legally owned by someone with a history of mental instability, violent crimes, or having exhibited evidence of premeditation of murder per witnesses prior to a crime, that's a failure of our current system. Not so much a lack of laws, but one of enforcement. Crimes of passion will still happen. Illegal guns will still be bought and sold. That, however, is no reason at all to simply throw our arms up and claim we're facing the best we'll ever get. Liberty and safety are not mutually exclusive, and current laws, under proper enforcement, exhibit that - if you would like to purchase a firearm, by all means do so. There's just no rational reason a gun needs to be purchased immediately, and there's clear safety concerns with placing a firearm in the hands of a paranoid schizophrenic.

      I'm glad the NRA's policies are safe and sane on paper and in action. If only the political and public affairs aspects of the organization would get on board and drop the paranoid shenanigans.

      Conservatives (to the last) are racist, hypocritical cowards.

      by Thomas Boyko on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 11:37:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There really isn't... (6+ / 0-)
        You can sell guns at a gun show without being an FFL. It's a classification known as "occasional seller." Basically if you only sell your guns at gun shows (you don't own a shop, you don't sell at commercial volume) then you fit into that "occasional seller" loophole.
        This is technically correct, yet still not really accurate.  You can, as a private seller, sell your guns anywhere you want to -- not just at gun shows.  It could be in the parking lot at the gun show, in the parking lot of a 7-11, or in your living room.  It has nothing to do with gun shows, except that, sometimes, private sellers happen to sell or trade their firearms at them.

        The term "gun show loophole" is not only inaccurate, but is simply a scare tactic.  It makes it sound as if gun shows are lawless, "Wild West" settings where the various laws about firearm ownership, possession, and selling are put on hold -- it is simply not true.

        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

        by theatre goon on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 11:47:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why is it a 'gun show loophole'? I can sell my (7+ / 0-)

        firearms anywhere and not run a background check.

        Secondly, I agree within reason - fire in a crowded theater, child pornography, etc; should not be protected speech and I'm going to assume you're of the same mind there. The application of a background check is not an undue abrogation of rights, since it doesn't place any kind of burden on the purchaser, other than an expectation of mental and emotional well-being.
        "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is perfectly legal. As long as there's a fire. You're looking, after the fact, at intent and harm caused, not on what actually happened. Child pornography would fall under the 'harm caused' section of what I'm talking about there.  So you abuse your rights by harming someone else. Then they should be revoked using due process.
        There's just no rational reason a gun needs to be purchased immediately
        From the research, waiting periods do not work. I own 20+ firearms. Why wouldn't I just use one of those?

        What is a history of mental instability?

        If you're committing violent crimes, you're a felon and not allowed to own firearms. (If you've been to trial, etc.)

        I'm curious as to how you'd implement any kind of mental check for firearms without breaking any sort of confidentiality law.

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 11:48:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Easy. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          43north
          I'm curious as to how you'd implement any kind of mental check for firearms without breaking any sort of confidentiality law.
          Mental health system communicates on a strictly yes-no basis with ATF regarding "Is this person safe for ownership?"

          A properly executed system would have multiple points where a person would be considered unable to own a firearm, the FFL would simply receive a yes or no as to validity, no reasons given. We manage to hold similar levels of confidentiality and vagueness regarding credit applications, there is no reason at all it cannot be done for gun purchases. The gaps here would of course be undiagnosed illnesses, but the issues that would most likely contraindicate gun ownership would be the ones resulting in third party reporting or involuntary institutionalizing - baker act, law enforcement, etc.

          From the research, waiting periods do not work. I own 20+ firearms. Why wouldn't I just use one of those?
          Ask any newspaper editor about the civility of the letters they receive and how it has changed with the advent of e-mail. They'll probably tell you they received the odd nastygram back in the day, but nowhere near the sheer hatred they receive electronically today. Sure, there will be people who legally purchase and own guns, and later use them in crimes, but those crimes of passion where someone is able to go buy a gun in a private sale will be decreased. Trying to claim otherwise is similar to trying to claim tobacco taxes have had no effect on tobacco use. You own 20+ firearms, took the background checks, endured the waiting periods, etcetera. That's great, I'm glad you do. I'm also glad the law made a reasonable effort to ensure you are of sound mind and clean criminal background when you purchased them, non-FFL sales notwithstanding.

          And at the end of the day, that's all that's really needed - a "reasonable effort." The laws as they are right now, as they apply to licensed sales are adequate. It's enforcement that's the problem. We have systems in place that already do share limited information between the mental health system and law enforcement with regard to gun purchases. However, that system was underfunded and backlogged when Jared Laughtner bought his gun. Enforcement is the issue, not a lack of laws (Personally I see the occasional seller/gun show loophole to be one of enforcement, though it would require legislation to close). I don't know where the idea that we would see a tidal wave of legislation enacted if we were to actually make the system we do have work.

          Conservatives (to the last) are racist, hypocritical cowards.

          by Thomas Boyko on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 05:18:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Minor point: FBI, not ATF. (8+ / 0-)

            The crimes of passion item you're talking about are oft quoted but not oft cited. Do you have a link showing crimes of passion tied to firearm ownership or lax gun laws?

            You own 20+ firearms, took the background checks, endured the waiting periods, etcetera. That's great, I'm glad you do. I'm also glad the law made a reasonable effort to ensure you are of sound mind and clean criminal background when you purchased them, non-FFL sales notwithstanding.
            No background checks on my non-pistol firearms.
            No waiting periods on any firearms.

            I buy most of my firearms through third parties, not FFLs. Usually it's cheaper.

            I don't know where the idea that we would see a tidal wave of legislation enacted if we were to actually make the system we do have work.
            You will find most people, including the NRA, say that we need to enforce what we currently have. Fund and require 100% compliance with reporting to NICS (by the states). You'll find most people don't have issue with that. You'll also find support for prosecuting those who try to buy a firearm and fail the NICS or adding additional charges to those possessing a firearm illegally (violent felons).  

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 07:05:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  That would have had no effect in Arizona.... (8+ / 0-)

            Loughner was never put into the system, he was never ordered by a court to be evaluated, never held by the police to be so evaluated.

            He passed his NICS check, because no-one activated any part of the mental health system that might have evaluated him.

      •  You've defined you "occasional seller" incorrectly (9+ / 0-)

        and in a way that you could go to jail for.

        Nor do you understand the rules for private sales.

        Most of us like background checks, and would love to have that system available to the private seller.  The Brady's apparently strenuously object to this.  I don't know why.

        There was no "failure of enforcement" in Arizona, the mental health care and court system were never activated in order to be enforced.  Please read up on the incident, you are missing some crucial data, and interpreting that as bad data.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site