Skip to main content

View Diary: NRA's fear factory lies to its flock (113 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, obviously (9+ / 0-)

    it's prohibiting private gun sales without a background check, heh. And to some folks that is a bad thing, apparently.

    “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

    by tytalus on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:59:18 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yep it's a sad for RKBA and NRA (7+ / 0-)

      Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Republican. But I repeat myself. Harry Truman

      by ratcityreprobate on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:37:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That was my point. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose

      I'm actually not saying it's good or bad right now (if you'll notice in my comments). All I'm saying is that yes, it is a ban on private sales as they currently exist.

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

      by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:39:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry pal (4+ / 0-)

        I can see your other comment from a minute ago where you call the status quo a feature, not a bug. That is calling it good. Queue up the usual river in Egypt.

        “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

        by tytalus on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:42:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's like saying driving is banned (5+ / 0-)

        because you have to get a driver's license.

        Your claim is ludicrous on its face.

        I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

        by coquiero on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:50:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Driving without a license IS banned. (0+ / 0-)

          Thank you for proving my point.

          (Driving without a license on public roads anyway.)

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

          by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:52:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wow, you are really wanting to covolute this issue (5+ / 0-)

            Driving is not banned in any sense of the word, you just have to get a license.

            Purchasing a gun through a private sale is not banned (in the example we're discussing here), you just need to get a background checked.

            Banned means you can't do it, it's illegal.

            Now tell me again how it's illegal to purchase a gun through a private transaction?

            You are twisting logic so hard to try and make a point and you are failing.  Seriously.

            I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

            by coquiero on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:04:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So you can drive on public roads without (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose

              a license?

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

              by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:12:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  What does that have to do with the price of tea (5+ / 0-)

                in China?

                You are in rare form this evening.

                Driving is not banned, because it is legal.

                All you need is a license.

                So, to answer your question, no you can not drive on public roads without a license.

                So, by your logic, driving is banned.

                And yet, millions of people drive legally.

                I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                by coquiero on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:29:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  uh, no. (0+ / 0-)

                  No where do I say driving was banned. No where did I say private sales would be banned. I always had a qualified on there.

                  Driving on public roads without a permit is banned.
                  Private sales without background checks would be banned.

                  Are you just missing that?

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

                  by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 05:28:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And around we go (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Glen The Plumber
                    Isn't prohibition of something, banning said something?
                    I'm not missing anything involving your circular logic.

                    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                    by coquiero on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 05:33:08 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Can I throw up an alternate idea? (0+ / 0-)

                    Let's say we close the so called "gun show loophole" (private party sales exemption, let them have their term.)

                    There is concern, especially with the hard right, that the government is using 4473 to create a de-facto gun registry. We can stop that while doing background checks on all buyers. All we have to do is split the form -- so the US government form only lists the buyer and dealer. They don't know if you are buying 1 gun or 3. They don't know when you sell a gun as only the FFL is listed. These records are kept, like now, by the dealers. With this we can change the law so every buyer has to have a background check with the transfer handled by a dealer (like sales across state lines now), but with no way to create this registry.

                    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                    by notrouble on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 07:48:52 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Should someone who is not a dealer be (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      tytalus

                      shielded when they want to by 25 guns, 50 guns, 100 guns?

                      Pastor X wants to keep 150 guns on hand so he can pass them out to his parish "when the end times" come?

                      When will you admit that there's a gun trafficking problem that needs to be addressed.

                      Fewer and fewer households own fire arms, but fire arms and ammo are flying off the shelves so fast stores are out of stock, and some are jacking up prices.

                    •  If someone wants to buy multiple weapons (0+ / 0-)

                      over a certain number, they should be licensed, as a dealer, as a collector, as a range operator.

                      •  "over a certain number" (0+ / 0-)

                        I would agree.

                        The government isn't supposed, under current law, to be using 4473 data (NICS check) to build a registry of gun owners' firearms. Some on the right are afraid they already are. This is a big part of their push back against requiring the NICS check for all gun purchases. My idea was to make it clear the buyer check wasn't (couldn't) be used as a de-facto registry system. That might make it easier to close the private party sales exemption. It would make gun seller information, and who last legally owned a gun, available from dealers with due process (for things like straw buyers, or firearms used in a crime.) It would need to be paired with a requirement to report stolen or missing firearms by both individuals and dealers.

                        A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                        by notrouble on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 02:18:22 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I don't follow how your idea gives any LEO (0+ / 0-)

                          or any buyer an ability to know who is operating as an unlicensed dealer AKA gun trafficker.

                          Straw buyer is just too benign. In this economy especially, there just too much need, and too much incentive to make a little cash on the side (or a lot of cash).

                          •  The straw buyer problem (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            should largely go away if the private party sales exemption is closed. It becomes illegal, with criminal penalties, to sell a firearm without a dealer doing a background check. The whole point of straw buyers is that they cannot pass that check.

                            The system of having a dealer do a background check for a private sale is already in place -- for sales across state lines. If I want to buy a gun from someone out of state they have to ship the gun to the dealer of my choice. I go to the dealer and fill out 4473 and the federal and state background checks are done. Then the dealer lets me take possession of the firearm. This would become a requirement for in state sales too if the private party sales exemption was closed.

                            The current system is supposed to be that the dealers keep the records of who buy what from them. They are then supposed to (but not currently required to -- we need that fixed) cooperate with lawful request by law enforcement. Some fear the federal government is keeping the records on what firearms someone purchases. That causes some of the resistance to closing the so called "gun show loophole," especially by those on the right.

                            A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                            by notrouble on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 04:00:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, closing the private sales exemption is (0+ / 0-)

                            a step in the right direction. It will make it easier for lawful sellers to know that the buyer is less likely to use the gun in a crime.

                            But the straw buyer problem is only part of the gun trafficking problem.

                            There needs to be clarity in the term "private sales" - who's a dealer, who is a collector, and who is licensed to operate a private shooting range.  

                            Currently there is no way to know who is buying and selling 100 semi-automatic pistols a week. Or who purchased 300 semi-automatic rifles over a 2 year period, and has purchased 50 more in the past week from 25 different dealers. I'm not sure how we address that.

                          •  If it is criminal to sell them without a 4473 (0+ / 0-)

                            is it a problem if some private person has 100 guns? I mean, they can only shoot one (or perhaps 2 poorly) at a time.

                            It is clear who is a dealer, they are federally licensed. If the private party sales exemption is closed then one of them will have to submit a 4473 (or whatever replaces it in the future) before a firearm is transferred to a new owner.

                            Closing the private party sales exemption puts enforceable criminal penalties into trafficking. Gun registration isn't going to fly -- at least I won't support it.

                            A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                            by notrouble on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 05:19:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes it is a problem for a private person to (0+ / 0-)

                            have a private arsenal, or to operate a private unlicensed gun range. Securing a 100 guns is vastly different than securing one or a few for self defense, hunting, or hobby shooting.

                            There should be licenses for different levels of ownership. And anyone who is buying and selling more than a certain number should be required to be licensed as a dealer.

                            All kinds of professions and industries require licensing, but some profesions don't. The distinguishing feature is whether the public can be harmed by unscrupulous our incompetent practices. Listen, I support the right to keep and bear arms, but even Scalia admitted the right is not without limit. I don't know precisely where certain limits should be.

                            E.g. someone who wants to keep a large collection, say on average 300 guns, should have an ability to do that. I just think it's reasonable that such a person should be subject to inspection and proof of secure storage. Those are not the people who are the problem. Buying and selling over a certain level within some time frame, should require a dealers license.

                            Thank you for the sincere discussion.

                          •  I won't support (0+ / 0-)

                            gun registration or a general gun owner licensing requirement.

                            Dealers are licensed and if the private party sales exemption is closed all sales will include a background check. Criminal penalties for sales done without a background check will pretty well close off the current straw buyer problem. Perhaps some additional rules will be required, but I think we could wait to see how ending sales without a background check works.

                            I'm not even sure what an "unlicensed gun range" is. Guns aren't quiet, you can find where a bunch of them are being fired. There are zoning rules in place in most locations, and I don't think we need to be worrying about what rural home the locals stop by to target practice. I spent summers out in the sticks with my grandparents and we could just go 50 feet into the back yard and shoot. The lot was a quarter mile deep and the lot behind that was vacant too. I suppose you could call that a "range," but it surely didn't need licensing.

                            E.g. someone who wants to keep a large collection, say on average 300 guns, should have an ability to do that. I just think it's reasonable that such a person should be subject to inspection and proof of secure storage. Those are not the people who are the problem.
                            If they are not the problem then why do they need additional regulation? It sounds like a law just to increase bureaucracy.

                            Looking over data about murder rates in the USA and in Australia I'm not even seeing any coralation between gun restrictions and homicide rates.

                            A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                            by notrouble on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 07:15:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It'a a problem because people are selling (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tytalus

                            hundreds or more of fire arms a year, without background checks, all under the private sales exemption. Those people are dealers, and they are selling to the public. It's not news that a significant fraction are to buyers from other jurisdictions and who could not pass a background check.

                            Where are those sellers picking up 300, 400, 500 fire arms?

                            They are unlicensed dealers, but the respect for so-called "private sales" gives them cover.

                            Unlicensed gun ranges are exactly what the words mean. Places on private property where gun enthusiasts to go to shoot things. It's actually a problem in the Newtown, CT area and the county has tried to address it, but the people couldn't agree, so they have gone back to the drafting stage to try to write regulations that people will vote for.

                            It stems from more demand for firing ranges, and very long waiting lists to join the existing gun ranges. One of the local ranges there burn a few years ago, and the problem has been building ever since. I wrote about this in comments with links some time ago, but am too lazy to go digging. Admittedly, I do not know if the problem exists elsewhere. But there were reports of complaints of hearing gun fire and even explosions within in hearing distance of residential zoned property, in the morning, in the evenings, during the week, on the weekend.

                            Did you ever wonder how it could be that Adam Lanza fired 4 rounds in a quiet suburban neighborhood around 9 AM in the morning, and nobody heard it? Or did somebody hear it, but didn't call the police, because gunfire in a residential area has already been normalized in that community?

                          •  My whole line of posts (0+ / 0-)

                            down this thread has been about CLOSING the private party sales exemption, starting with an idea that may make it easier to pass. Closing it ends the whole point of the top 3 paragraphs of your reply. Did you  not read my first post in this thread?

                            Gun ranges are a local zoning issue. At least where I'm at all of incorporated cities and surrounding residential areas are "no shooting zones" where a gun owners would be fined, and possibly face chargers, for shooting.

                            A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                            by notrouble on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 05:03:02 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, I did read all your posts (0+ / 0-)

                            and I agreed that tighter regulations around private sales will reduce the problem of straw buyers. It will inconvenience law abiding gun owners, and will drive some of that market to licensed dealers, which is a good thing.

                            Perhaps I should have acknowledged that concerns about a back door registry are valid concerns, in my view.

                            There are significant problems in police corruption that also need civilian oversight. E.g. If I lived in Maricopa Co. I wouldn't want the Sheriff or his deputies, or his private posse to have direct access to a detailed listing of who legally owns which weapons. If I lived in Fullerton, CA I wouldn't want those police to have direct access either.

                            And I appreciate that you've explained in detail that the "infrastructure" for universal background checks is already in place. Increased enforcement of existing law will help.

                            What I've tried to add to the discussion is that the problem of gun trafficking is larger and more complex than the so-called straw buyer problem. Gun buy-backs to get guns off the street, do some good, but if police turn around and sell those guns back into that market it's still a problem. Licensed dealers are required to keep records, but unlicensed dealers can continue to turn over weapons with relative impunity.

                            The main point I've tried to address in this thread is that the term "straw buyer" minimizes the problem the same way "responsible gun owner" minimizes a different part of the problem. While there are many people who should have few restrictions on their RKBA, there are many others who are operating as an unlicensed dealers. Closing the "private sales exemption", AKA the "gun show loophole" will be a step forward but it doesn't address the problem of unlicensed dealers. Closing the "private sales exemption" only addresses 1/3 of the sales volume at gun shows.

                            Significant sales volume at guns shows is by unlicensed dealers who are selling to the public.

                            Just like 1st amendment gives a right to freedom of religion, but does not exempt an employer from complying with labor law, the 2nd Amendment gives a RKBA, but does not give anyone the right to operate an unlicensed business selling a dangerous consumer product to the public.

                          •  I guess I'm confused... (0+ / 0-)

                            If every sale requires a 4473 (if the "gun show loophole" is closed) then every sale will have to be facilitated by a dealer who preforms that check. Every sale ends up recorded in a dealers records and every buyer is checked to make sure they are eligible to possess a firearm.

                            Of course it won't stop all guns from getting into the hands of criminals, but it will make the person who puts them there a criminal. Isn't that the essence of stopping unlicensed gun dealers? (some teeth to allow prosecution)

                            The issue I see with the generally popular idea of ending the private party sales exemption is that the current 4473 discloses who is buying AND what they are buying. The government is supposed to get rid of the "what" after 24 hours. "What" is supposed to be available from the dealer if a lawful request is made (they have to keep records for 20 years, often referred to as their "black book".) There is a lot of fear from the right, and even some from the left, that that data is being kept against the law and creating a gun registry. If the government form was only about the buyer, and not what they where buying, then that wouldn't be possible. That should reduce resistance to closing the "gun show loophole." I doubt this backdoor registry is being made, mostly because illegally obtained evidence is generally not allowed in court and can get the law enforcement agency that collects it in trouble.

                            A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                            by notrouble on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 10:39:58 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Establishing a registry is already against the law (0+ / 0-)

                            Enforcement of that law is a separate problem that law abiding gun owners and gun manufacturer's have every right to address through the courts and through Congress.

                          •  The privacy concerns of lawful buyers (0+ / 0-)

                            I believe I understand the privacy concerns of lawful buyers.

                            There are a number of intersecting problems. And I don't see gun manufacturer's even doing the simple things to enhance the privacy rights of lawful gun buyers.

                            Gun manufacturer's could help protect the privacy of lawful buyer's information being permanently stored in a number of ways, such as by using unique serial numbers.

                            That could begin to reduce the problem of partial serial Nos. being used to permanently capture a large number of buyer's information. The fact that they reuse serial numbers, so there are multiple guns out there with the same serial numbers tells me that they don't really want to help, but are playing both side against the middle. By repeating serial numbers they empower LE to skirt the law against registration of lawful buyers, and also create an incentive for lawful gun owners to resist any changes that increase creation and storage of permanent records.

                            (It's my understanding, that it's similar to the way police use cell phone carriers to legally request info on a specific number, in a limited window of time, but then capture and retain information on all calls and texts made through that specific tower during that same limited range of time).

                            Those are privacy rights concerns that go far beyond the 2A.

                          •  What I'm not hearing from the RKBA group (0+ / 0-)

                            is any recognition that sales volume/seller background check is any issue. Relying on voluntary reporting of high volume purchases, or sales is not working.

                            Please correct me if I'm wrong, the current push for background checks through FFL, will list the FFL as the seller?

                            Will the FFL do background check on the seller? Even if an FFL is required to report sales greater than 2 firearms to a single buyer in a 5 day window, what prevents someone from selling hundreds of fire arms year year without ever being reported, as long as they sell them one at a time to different FFL's?

                            An absurd example might be: a person legally owns 200 rifles and 100 hand guns that they have collected over the years. But something has happened and they need to raise a significant amount of cash in a hurry. So they visit 3 different FFL each day selling only 10 guns to each until they've sold half their inventory. All of that sales volume gets reported to the ATF but if none of those guns show up in a crime the data on the seller/buyers should not be stored. Such legal behavior should be protected.

                            If, on the other hand, a seller (not the FFL) wants to buy and sell a couple HUNDRED fire arms every year (say more than 2 per month, or any combination of buying/selling above 24 transactions total), at what point should that individual seller be required to be a licensed dealer (not necessarily a FFL)?

                            At what point does buying/selling to legal buyers cease to be private sales or purchases for personal use?

                            At what transaction volume should an individual be required to pay tax, and keep records of what they bought and sold, which FFL did the background check on the buyer, and themselves be subject to periodic (due process) inspection/audit of their records.

                            There has to be some transaction limit under which private firearm ownership, use, and collection is protected, and above which buying/selling is legally recognized as an occasional side business and becomes subject to business laws.

                          •  I can't speak for the RKBA group (0+ / 0-)

                            though I am a member. There is a diverse range of opinions within the group, including some opposed to ending the private party sales exemption.

                            I suppose we may need a written definition of dealer, but I think requiring a background check for all buyers will pretty much end the straw buyer issue. I'm not an FFL, so I never spend much time studying the dealer information. As I envision a revised 4473, which is about the information needed for the background check, they wouldn't see the seller but perhaps a checkbox to indicate the dealer is doing the background check for a private seller. The dealer would still keep that information, along with the rest of the information they hold, for 20 years. It wouldn't be released to law enforcement unless a lawful request in connection with a criminal investigation was made.

                            An absurd example might be: a person legally owns 200 rifles and 100 hand guns that they have collected over the years. But something has happened and they need to raise a significant amount of cash in a hurry. So they visit 3 different FFL each day selling only 10 guns to each until they've sold half their inventory. All of that sales volume gets reported to the ATF but if none of those guns show up in a crime the data on the seller/buyers should not be stored. Such legal behavior should be protected.
                            Right now in most places that seller could also sell the guns privately without an background check on any buyer. Unfortunately, none of us can look at a person and talk to them for 5 minutes and really KNOW they are allowed to own a firearm. If this person sells 150 guns it is very likely at least one unqualified buyer got one.
                            If, on the other hand, a seller (not the FFL) wants to buy and sell a couple HUNDRED fire arms every year (say more than 2 per month, or any combination of buying/selling above 24 transactions total), at what point should that individual seller be required to be a licensed dealer (not necessarily a FFL)?
                            I guess this is where I'm confused. If every one of this sellers sales are going through a background check by an FFL is there still a market for this? I've always figured that the market for straw buyers was largely the market to supply guns to those not qualified to own them. (I want to be clear though, I believe that most private party sales are legitimate sales of a few guns by a seller who did not buy them for the purpose of resale being sold to someone the he or she believes is legally entitled to own one.)

                            My idea was to make some changes to what information is being turned over to the government in connection with a background check (concentrating on who, leaving out what) as a way to make it easier to pass with less push back from the right. Nothing is going to be easy to get through the republican lead House, especially if it stirs up the tea partying gun grabbin' conspiracy theorists.

                            A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                            by notrouble on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 02:38:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It looks like we are the last (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            notrouble

                            active posters on this thread.

                            I appreciate your detailed comments and have learned some things about how the problem is viewed from the legal gun owner's perspective who will be inconvenienced by any new legislation, and better enforcement of existing law. And I have a better understanding of some of the ways civil rights to RKBA are already being unlawfully infringed.

                            I'm certainly not an expert, but have exposure to both ends - was taught to shoot straight at the age of 10, in a home where the rifles were not locked up, and in which no one ever accidentally discharged a gun...

                            My perspective is that it's an incredibly important civil right, but that in daily practice the system of regulation is so sloppy and full of holes, that the problem of irresponsible, but not criminal, gun ownership and use is not addressed in any meaningful way. And that might be because police do not want to have any RKBA lawsuits on their hands.

                            My understanding of the scale of the problem, is that only 1/3 of the sales at gun shows are illegal sales with no background check. Some additional fraction is to straw buyers who sell privately after themselves passing a background check. I don't think we have any good measurements of how large that market actually is, Universal background checks of the buyer - without any information about what the buyer want's to buy, will go a long way to plugging that gap.

                            What I fear will happen is that people who can legally purchase and own guns will compete with police departments who set up gun buybacks, and will continue to sell to people who can pass a background check, but who, for one reason or many reasons, really should not possess firearms.

                            And that will effectively defeat a valid public health goal of reducing the number of guns in circulation among careless and criminal people. You know? Many of those accidents in which "the gun went off" while someone was cleaning it, the "accidental" self shootings, and the worst, the "accidents" where children handle guns and shoot  themselves or someone else."

                            Thanks again for a sincere discussion.

                          •  I think we are the last here (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            But it has been a good discussion without the handful that seem to post just to cause flames.

                            My understanding of the scale of the problem, is that only 1/3 of the sales at gun shows are illegal sales with no background check.
                            In most states that is a legal sale (and I would bet most of private sales don't occur at gun shows.) Only a few states require background checks for buyers in a private party sale. It is possible the buyer commits a crime by buying. It is possible the seller commits a crime by selling to someone who has told them they can't pass a background check.
                            Some additional fraction is to straw buyers who sell privately after themselves passing a background check.
                            I think requiring a background check, handled by a licensed dealer, for all sales will go most of the way to ending that. Right now a big part of the problem is the inability to legally define, and therefore prosecute, straw buyers. Closing the "gun show loophole" (private party sales exemption) will, in effect, define the straw buyer by their sale.
                            I don't think we have any good measurements of how large that market actually is, Universal background checks of the buyer - without any information about what the buyer want's to buy, will go a long way to plugging that gap.
                            We are in agreement on those points.

                            You're quite welcome, I thank you too for an open and honest discussion.

                            A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                            by notrouble on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 04:34:28 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The 1/3 was from an undercover investigation (0+ / 0-)

                            a few years ago, (I forget who produced it), specifically looked at gun shows, and transactions where the buyer openly admitted to the gun show seller that they probably couldn't pass a background check, i.e. not just breaking the law, but both buyer and seller were aware the buyer would be leaving with unlawful possession.

                            It is possible the buyer commits a crime by buying. It is possible the seller commits a crime by selling to someone who has told them they can't pass a background check.
                            I don't recall which states, whether it was 3 or 5. And I don't have any way to gauge how representative those gun shows would have been of gun shows, across the whole country. According to that investigation 1/3 of sellers were willing to sell to someone who just told them about their intent to commit the crime of buying a firearm they were not legally allowed to possess. That is what I meant by illegal sales, a sale in which one or both parties knows the other is breaking the law.

                            They even filmed one seller saying, in response to the buyer's admission, that he (the seller) couldn't pass a background check either.

                          •  Wow... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            Knowingly selling to someone not eligible to own a firearm should be a felony, resulting in the seller loosing their RKBA.

                            A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

                            by notrouble on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 08:55:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Some posted a video clip of it in the past (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            notrouble

                            few days. I'll see if I can find it.

                          •  I couldn't find it in the comments but (0+ / 0-)

                            I did find the whole investigation online. The percentage of knowingly ignoring the law is much higher than I remembered.

                            http://www.gunshowundercover2009.org/

                            Please feel free to tear it apart if you think it's intentionally misleading or selectively conducted to guarantee a high number of unlawful sales.

                            Many caveats on NYPD/Bloomberg, especially on minority civil rights, but I support their efforts to continue the progress that has been possible thus far by getting guns off the streets of NYC and out of the hands of many who shouldn't have guns but who could legally own them if they lived elsewhere.

                            Back when they were doing random bag/backpack checks in the transit system, they didn't uncover any terrorism (that I heard of), and IIRC only uncovered few firearms. But they did uncover some previously unknown drug trafficking networks using pedestrian mules, carrying backpacks on the subway, moving drugs that came in from JFK or up by car on I95 up to the Bronx. They don't do random bag checks in the transit system anymore.

                          •  Here in NY state AG did an investigation (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            notrouble

                            of gun shows and found widespread and flagrant disregard for New York's requirement that sales at gun shows require background checks.

                            http://www.timesunion.com/...

                            10 gun sellers were actually charged with unlawfully selling guns without background checks.

                            NYS is working with gun show operators to develop best practices and ensure background checks are actually performed:

                            http://www.poststarnews.com/...

                            http://campaigntoclosethegunshowloophole.org/...

                          •  This is the reality that responsible gun (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tytalus

                            owners must take into account for there to be meaningful reforms.

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            1/3 of the sales volume at gun shows, hiding behind the shield of legal "private sales exemption." No one who is selling a couple hundred guns a year is buying guns their own private use and occasional sales.

                            You may persist to avoid seeing the extent of the problem, but if you persist to deny there is a problem larger than the occasional "straw buyer" then I don't know what else to say.

                            The other part of the problem is that according to the National Library of Medicine, one third of households with children also have guns, and 40% of those households don't keep their guns locked up.

                            There needs to be licensing and sanctions for accidental discharges, and shootings, so that those who are capable of safe gun ownership can keep their guns, and those who are incapable or unwilling to do the easy stuff lose their RKBA. I've posted about it at some length this past week.

          •  Precision in language (0+ / 0-)

            both a requirement and an annoyance when dealing with those who want to split petty semantic hairs.

            Your point is not proven, unless your point is that you can split petty semantic hairs.  If so, then it's been nicely demonstrated.

            Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

            by a gilas girl on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 10:46:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Just as there is a ban on fully automatic... (4+ / 0-)

        ...weapons without, OMG, a tax, registration, an extensive background check and other paperwork. (Plus a lot of money.) Yes, I know you oppose this, too. But it's wholly constitutional. So, there's precedent, and the proposed laws for background checks on all private gun sales are not nearly so tough as those constitutional ones required for registered automatics.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 06:11:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  So you're neutral on the easy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus

        ability of criminals to buy guns in private sales, with no tools for authorities to prevent crime or intervene at that stage.

        In your words,

        "I'm actually not saying it's good or bad right now."
        Got it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site