Skip to main content

View Diary: Committee mark-up of Senate gun legislation postponed. Background check hang-ups irk Biden (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Re: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nextstep, KVoimakas, Smoh, notrouble

    The question isn't so much whether or not there will be record keeping, but who will keep the records.  The argument seems to be between the side that favors enlisting the FFL as notary and trust and the side that wants to keep those records in the hands of private citizens.  This shouldn't be something that hangs it up indefinitely, especially since you can always require private sellers and buyers set up specific vehicles for maintaining their documentation.  There's a lot we can do with technology these days.

    •  PC - using the FFLs seems like a reasonalble (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nextstep, sethtriggs, notrouble

      approach that should satisfy both sides.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:28:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, Smoh, CwV

        I could settle for that (if it were offered for free, even better), but if we could get to a genuine peer-to-peer system; well, the developer in me would love to tackle that project.  One of my goals is to knock the complacency out of some of my fellow gun owners.  Too often guns are treated as just another household item to be hoarded and forgotten about.  If you're going to keep and bear arms, you should also have a stake in accounting for their possession and transfer.  The burden need not be heavy, certainly no heavier than keeping your insurance up to date.

        Also, at some point we're going to need to address the problem of gun owners who, by whatever circumstance, become medically or criminal incompetent to exercise their Second Amendment rights.  It's going to be hell bringing both sides to the table.

        •  Maybe when you take grandpas car keys (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Patrick Costighan

          the guns should be in the trunk of the car when you drive it away.  Maybe someone could start a public service campaign that would have people thinking through gun ownership along with driving safety. A middle ground is to keep the guns at grandpa's house, but in a locked case that grandpa can't open.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 12:18:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm pretty sure that gun shop across the border (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        S F Hippie, Smoh

        from Illinois that supplies all those guns to Chicago is an FFL.

        Why on earth do you think all FFLs are superhumanly honest and aboveboard?

        *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

        by glorificus on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 12:41:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't but most are and do keep long term (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KenBee

          records of gun purchases. We trust FFLs with the overwhelming majority of gun purchases and this seems like a middle ground that can move the bill forward.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 12:50:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Have you been reading about the minority of (8+ / 0-)

            gun shops that provide the majority of guns used illegally?

            Cleaning them up, which the ATF is forbidden to do, would help greatly, also.

            *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

            by glorificus on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 01:21:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  My understanding is that they supply the guns (0+ / 0-)

              largely through straw buyers. This makes the dealers records look clean. I don't see how straw buying can continue to work in such an unfettered way if a background checks are required for the straw buyers "private" sales.

              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 28, 2013 at 03:51:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Because there is no limit on how many guns these (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                luckydog, notrouble

                people can buy and no record of their sale thereafter. I don't know about the upper Midwest, but in the fast&furious mess, the straw buyers were perfectly legal in buying dozens of guns and "changing their mind" and selling them in the parkinglot of the gun dealer. And the Federal agents saw this happening and could not do anything about it.
                The guns are documented as far as the FFL dealer they disappear once they go out his door and they don't reappear until they are found at a crime scene.

                If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 04:40:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That is the current system, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  glorificus

                  but if those parking lot sales require the buyer to have a NICS check done how can that continue to work? Isn't that the point of mandatory background checks? The straw buyers exist largely because they can't pass the NICS check. If they could pass they could have gone into the dealer and paid a little less.

                  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 28, 2013 at 05:25:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What makes the straw buyer comply? (0+ / 0-)

                    There's no report of the private sale.

                    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                    by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 05:30:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What?? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      VClib, KenBee

                      The whole point of ending the private party sales exemption is that there WILL be a report of a private sale. The dealer doing the NICS check for the seller has to retain the records for 20 years, like they do with records now. This system is already in place for sales across state lines. If the private party sales exemption is ended then there has to be a criminal penalty for violating that. Right now the seller just claims they "changed their mine" and sells them without any real risk of penalty to someone who can't pass the NICS check.

                      Because some people will break the law is not, in and of itself, reason to not have a law. If it was then we should repeal laws and burglary, car theft, even murder. They still happen, but we have laws in place to deal with those who would commit them. For starters, I would say that violating a mandatory background check should be a felony. Then they won't be a straw buyer again because they won't pass the NICS check to buy.

                      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 28, 2013 at 05:46:38 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  "there WILL be a report of a private sale" (0+ / 0-)

                        To whom? What authority is there to report it to? BATF?
                        "violating a mandatory background check should be a felony"
                        Who would be checking? When?
                        You mean, after a gun has turned up in a crime scene, after it has changed hands maybe several times, the number traces back to the original dealer? Then they try to locate the original purchaser and obtain that person's records? Since there is no record of the BC after 24hrs, it would rely on the seller keeping good documents. Do you have the transfer papers for the used car you sold ten years ago?

                        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                        by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:05:58 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Mandatory background checks... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          KenBee
                          To whom? What authority is there to report it to? BATF?
                          The idea is that private party sales will have the SAME seller verification requirement as a dealer sale. Here is a little info about the dealer requirements, from the DOJ.

                          I'm sorry, I am NOT going to support a federal firearm registry. As in, I will not contribute to, support in any other way, or vote for, any politician wanting to create a federal firearm 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 Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:13:32 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  SO if I get this right, (0+ / 0-)

                            the private seller has to keep records of all purchases and sales (an A&D book) and report them to the Feds (Form4473), who must then effectively maintain a database of all those transfers.
                            It must include the name and address of the buyer as well as description and serial number of the weapon.
                            The private seller also has to be available for periodic inspection by BATF.
                            That sounds like a national database of all new gun sales is already in place and this would be expanded to include all successive sales, basically forming a Federal Registry of gun ownership, tying every gun, by number, to a registered owner by name and address. The only guns that would not be in this registry would be ones that don't change hands.
                            This is exactly what you say is unacceptable, isn't it?

                            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                            by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:56:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh No (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KenBee
                            the private seller has to keep records of all purchases and sales (an A&D book) and report them to the Feds (Form4473), who must then effectively maintain a database of all those transfers.
                            It must include the name and address of the buyer as well as description and serial number of the weapon.
                            The private seller also has to be available for periodic inspection by BATF.
                            The seller has to use the services of a dealer who preforms the background check and maintains the records required as a part of that. This system is already in place, it is used to buy a gun from out of state sellers now. I have done this. The seller ships the gun to my dealer. I fill out the paperwork at the dealer and get the gun when the NICS check clears. My dealer charges $25 for a long arm and $30 for a hand gun to perform this service and retain the records. For private in state sales the seller could continue to hold the firearm until the NICS check clears. It isn't always "instant" and can take up to 3 days in a few cases.

                            The BATF destroys their records within 24 hours of buyer approval under the current system. For this reason I don't see why the BATF needs information about what firearm is being purchased if a sorted list of reported stolen firearms is made available to dealers. This would help to ease concerns by some that the NICS check is being, or could be, used to create a back-door gun 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 Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:25:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So every private sale has to be run through (0+ / 0-)

                            a licensed dealer? And that's how the UBC will be enforced?
                            That I'd have to see to believe.
                            " I don't see why the BATF needs information about what firearm is being purchased"
                            Because they use that information to track where crime guns originate.

                            The records kept by FFLs also enable the ATF to trace firearms recovered by LEAs to learn when those firearms were purchased and by whom.
                            So, which would you prefer? Making it more difficult and expensive to get a gun in the first place for everyone, legit and illegit or making it easier to trace a gun back after it has been used in a crime?
                            Or just, status quo, anyone can get anything they want regardless and law enforcement can't do a damm thing about it?

                            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                            by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 08:00:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Every out of state sale already is (0+ / 0-)

                            run through a licensed dealer. A system is in place, handled by many dealers. Not all gun dealers will do this and those that do charge between $20 and $60 in my area. The dealer I've used for this service charges $25 for a long gun and $30 for a hand gun. Nothing new has to be created to extend this to in-state private party sales. It simply has to be made a requirement with suitable criminal penalties for non-compliance.

                            The information in a NICS check is already being kept in a way that doesn't allow it to be used to create a gun registry. However, part of the push against ending the private party sales exemption is a fear by some that the way the information is submitted it COULD be used for that purpose. I think it should be very possible to disconnect the NICS checks from dealer gun sales records so that no such backdoor registry would be possible. With due process, records about the purchaser of a gun can be obtained from the dealer.

                            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 28, 2013 at 09:40:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  That making "violating a mandatory background (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        notrouble, KenBee

                        check ... a felony" is why that cop got to school Graham the other day. The cop said he was interested in keeping guns out of the wrong people's hands, not pushing paper.

                        I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but funds for follow up will be needed. Lots of funds.

                        *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

                        by glorificus on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:14:22 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

    •  Really. (7+ / 0-)

      Not about whether or not there will be record keeping? From the diary:

      But for two weeks committee negotiations have been stalled because Coburn says there should be no record of any kind kept of private sales. This sticking point is said to have sent gun-friendly Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia looking for other Republican NRA members in the Senate who might be more flexible in crafting the universal background check legislation.
      As for the rest, I suspect enlisting licensed gun dealers as go-betweens will work, although in Michigan the records are apparently kept by the police and no mass hysteria has resulted.

      We demanded a plan to reduce gun violence. Now it's time to demand a vote.

      by tytalus on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:38:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

        I can't find a single quote by Coburn to support that take on the impasse.

        What works in Michigan, where gun owning individuals are in the minority, will probably not fly in Wyoming, where gun owners are approaching a 60 percent majority.  Also, I don't think anyone's banking on mass hysteria.

        •  You can't find such a quote? ... (7+ / 0-)
          There “absolutely will not be record-keeping of legitimate, law-abiding gun owners,” Coburn told “Fox News Sunday” according to Fox. “That will kill this bill.”
          Coburn has yet to clarify whether he literally meant by no record keeping. So for now we'll have to take him him at his word and accept that "no" means "no."

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

          by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 11:38:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

            Transcript for context:

            WALLACE: And finally, Senator Coburn, a bipartisan group of senators is reportedly close to a deal to greatly expand background checks of almost all gun sales. But the hold-up is the question of whether or not the government should keep records of those sales.

            Question: you are a member of this group. How close are you to a deal and what's the problem with keeping records?

            COBURN: Well, I don't think we're that close to a deal, and there absolutely will not be recordkeeping on legitimate, law-abiding gun owners in this country. And if they want to eliminate the benefits of actually trying to prevent the sales to people who are mentally ill and to criminals, all they have to do is create a recordkeeping, and that will kill this bill.

            So, if you really want to improve it, you have to eliminate the recordkeeping and give people the right and the responsibility to do the right thing and, that's check on the NCIS list to make sure you're not selling a gun to somebody who is in one of those two categories.

            •  In nothing Coburn has said publicly any... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tytalus, luckydog, stevej, Smoh

              ...indication that he supports private sellers keeping a record of sales. (You present a plan for that, but he doesn't).

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

              by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 12:15:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KenBee

                Agreed.  In fact, it's not clear what sort of record keeping he supports (if any).  But it's only clear that he opposes government record keeping.  I don't know if this is a sticking issue for Schumer or Manchin, and it's possible to likely that Coburn is dealing in bad faith.

                •  I think you (0+ / 0-)

                  can take it as read that he isn't making a case for non government record keeping.

                •  but govt must keep the record of applicants (0+ / 0-)

                  that's the only purpose of the background check application...(unless it isn't the intent, and for some people, that would be the intent, a registry of guns id'd with owners and addresses) in which case, eliminate the gun id for the national database, and just stick to the background check part of the application, not the gun id.

                  ATF only needs to know who and when and where and therefore how many times. The presumption should be that the sale is not for something illegal, so the application need not contain such info, as it is the FFL has to keep that info, I believe...so it is available to backtrack where and to who and when a certain gun was sold.

                  Records kept at the FFL dealer show the guns dealt with as private sale...and presumably legal guns or else the FFL dealer wouldn't handle the improper illegal sale and risk the shit for a $25 application and record keeping.

                  My observation is based on the application posted here a month ago showing the gun id and serial number as part of the application.
                     That info is not necessary for the background check, the presumption should be that the applicant is not buying an illegal gun and the FFL dealer  is acting legally in not selling or handling such a transaction.
                    Only the Dept of Pre Crime would need that info.

                  This machine kills Fascists.

                  by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 02:52:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Currently, the government does NOT... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    luckydog, notrouble, jeff in nyc

                    ...keep records of those who have background checks. Records are destroyed after 24 hours.

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

                    by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:20:10 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  yeah, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense (0+ / 0-)

                      does it, a would be straw purchaser just keeps going til he gets it passed, and uses others to apply as well...can't foiul that with this process except that the transfer to the criminal is illegal, now , and still would be, hopefully especially so without the UBC and FFL dealer participation.

                         Tracking those multiple attempts should be a priority...and yet haven't we heard about the ATF tracking some people from state to state with multiple applications? How did they do that without keeping those records...maybe they had reason to track those individuals and there is a provision for that?

                      There should be..if there is any anti trafficing benefits to be derived from this.

                      I would say keep the records 90 days and eliminate the gun id as I suggested..these are for new and used sales.

                      Used sales are harder for LEO to track as the mfg records are long irrelevant for those already purchased and in private hands.

                      New sales would be able to be tracked from mfg records to the FFL dealer, their records show the purchaser.
                      That's my idea to get UBC improvement passed...then fund the thing...

                      Now you say the records are  tossed, I hope that in actuality that the LOE's are , as usual, tricky enough to keep records of the records so that some tracking is currently available to them...?

                      This machine kills Fascists.

                      by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:46:47 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  gun id with applicant/purchaser's name? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy

            cause that is what I have seen complained about as the de facto gun registration.

            Get rid of the gun id, that info kept with the FFL dealer, uncentralized.

            Application just for the applicant/purchaser.

            It's the multiple applications/purchases that are key here...not what exactly was bought, that info available  from FFL dealer if and when necessary. that's my suggestion to get this to pass.

            This machine kills Fascists.

            by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 02:41:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Widely reported (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber, tytalus, stevej

          You just have to look in the right places - RW and anti-gun-control sites are jubilant about it - there apparently were fears that Coburn was going to "cave" and "compromise"

          Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn said Sunday any Senate legislation on gun control that includes a national registry of firearms owners will be a deal breaker.
          “Absolutely will not be record-keeping of legitimate, law-abiding gun owners,” Coburn told “Fox News Sunday.” “That will kill this bill.”
          http://www.foxnews.com/...

          "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

          by Catte Nappe on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 11:39:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

            That was in response to a question on whether or not government should track transfers.

          •  like i have been saying, records of the guns purch (0+ / 0-)

            purchased is the sticking point and all but guaranteed to kill this bill..that is, to kill any improvement in the background checks.

            Keeping records of the applicant is necessary but not the actual serial number of the gun(s) purchased. That gun serial number data can be and  I believe is kept at the FFL dealer and is available to the ATF and LEO needs, and should not on a national database....if this legislation is to be compromised and passed.

            If Repubs are sincere about passing a better background check, and if Dems are sincere about a better background check, then they will de-link this data, the national database keeps the applicant's records, not the serial numbers of which guns and who owns them. The actual record of the gun purchase and it's serial number id is kept by the FFL dealer only....I hope.

            The application is then for the applicant only, as it should be.

            Now, the application I have seen shows the gun id to be purchased as part of the application...that is not necessary. At all.

            Not compromising on this is a treachery to us all at this point, and if they, R and D,  won't compromise then this is all about cheap political posturing and fuck them all. To hell.

            This machine kills Fascists.

            by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:07:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Without some way to track transfers, how do you (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              luckydog

              know that a gun is being sold?
              And if you don't know that it is being sold, then what makes the buyer and/or seller perform a BC?
              Ever work under the table? Ever pay sales tax on an item you bought at a yard sale?
              If there's no record of transaction or ownership, there's no enforcement of universal BC, it's voluntary.
              I trust that will work about as much as I trust Wall Street to police itself.

              If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

              by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 04:50:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It makes that illegal.....to quote BJ (0+ / 0-)

                'that won't work'. Is that what you are saying?....

                pick a side and stick with it: I hope, and I think you want legislation

                *that might actually get passed- then remove this poison pill.

                *that might prevent some criminals and others proscribed from possession from illegally purchasing and taking possession- then make it easier to pass this UBC by eliminating the most annoying thing to the opposition, also the most costly and likely flawed and a waste of time.

                This transfer without proper paperwork would be then illegal, therefore a crime, and punishable.

                A whole lot of our daily behavior counts on this system, rather than some PreCrime Thought Police thing.

                seriously, this would criminalize, and hopefully control one aspect of the gun possession thing, it's not going to satisfy the gun banners and the gun confiscators whoever they may be.

                What I am suggesting is that the UBC just denies or approves the sale of a firearm to the applicant. No gun id necessary in the application.

                That's all...or approves or denies a sale, one gun..

                What was bought and the serial number would still be available from the original FFL dealer or whoever gets his records and license I would hope. It is the central database aspect that is giving the opposition it's strength..compromise, look centrist, be a pushover, a wimp, whatever you call it, just get the UBC thing done for private sales.

                The national database is the big sticking point , are you suggesting we not compromise and not get private sales covered under the FFL dealer handled UBC?

                That would be silly, imo.

                Small steps, or else we're just posing.

                Look, between criminals, sure, they don't give a crap, just like we all have been saying, this controls the good citizens who don't want to be illegal..say you are at a gun show, you mention you were thinking of selling your black scary gun just because, a guy says,' hey brother, I might be interested, could we do that out in the lot, we've known each other from gun shows, you know, wink, wink, ...'

                That is the way things are done now..a FFL dealer at a show would be risking his license and freedumz to sell in the parking lot without the UBC, especially for a higher price..and aren't likely to risk it, but a private citizen does exactly this, buy and sell at gun shows, without the UBC. Currently.
                   With this private sale being made illegal to avoid and transfer without a background check, the seller..and the buyer for that matter, is risking that he is dealing with an ATF agent.

                They would now be subject to arrest.

                That is what the majority of owners would fear, as , guess what, they are ordinary people who don't want to be arrested.
                  A key point to remember: most gun owners are not criminals, and don't plan to be.

                As to the not recorded since 'Hector was a pup' gun, now being sold, now being put into the system for the first time: I don't think a spotty record/database of newly sold but long used is going to be much good, especially harmful as a proposal  if it prevents the benefits of the expanded UBC.

                To be helpful as a national gun registry database, it would have to be made into law, and don't even start to tell me that is going to happen, when this simple law is in danger.

                If it is searchability you want, that is a problem when the used gun is not entered in a searchable national database: but remember, it is in the FFL dealer that has sold it, legally, and now has a name and address and gun id and serial number on file.

                A law enforcement problem?...maybe,but the ATF could very certainly require that the FFL dealers search their database for gun sn# 123, made by, model, and see if they have it in their records. That would be a burden on the FFL dealer, but that is the deal, they have to keep records and make them available.
                  Hell, pay a reward for any gun that the ATF/LEO puts in the wanted list, make the FFL dealer certify they have examined the weekly list and have no such record...again, a sting is very possible...so compliance would be high I bet, and, again, pay them for finding a wanted gun, wanted info by an LEO for a criminal investigation.
                  And that is how a used gun gets to be known and in the system without a national database...

                And remember a new gun is now tracked , I believe, from the mfg to the point of sale, and that is a national database...the FFL dealer also has to keep that local sales record, keep it secure,  and make it available on demand. If there was a software that could help that, run offline, that would really help get new legislation passed as well as make the FFL dealer and the  LEO's jobs easier. And us safer.

                But one thing at a time.

                You want improvement, right?

                This machine kills Fascists.

                by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 05:47:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not interested in passing a law just to (0+ / 0-)

                  pass a law. An ineffective system can be worse than nothing.
                  Look at prohibition or the drug war.
                  How do you prove that a BC has been done? The record is gone in 24 hrs. The private seller has to keep a hardcopy record? How long? Do you have the transfer papers from a used car you sold years ago?
                  How is the transfer of the ownership in a private sale reported and to whom? If it's not recorded, then why would anyone have any reason to do the BC?
                  Have you paid sales tax on every used item you've bought at yard sales and such? Of course not, because there was no way the state would ever know, unless it was something like a car or a boat that you needed to get a tag for.
                  The "most annoying thing" to the gun control opposition is any kind of effective control. If people who should not have guns are prevented from buying them, their sales will suffer.
                  The majority of gun owners may well be law abiding, model citizens. And people like that should not have any problem with registering their weapons, passing a BC, obtaining proper training and licenses for their weapons, et cetera.
                  But enough gun owners are NOT model citizens. If they were then there wouldn't be the mass casualties we suffer every year in this country.
                  Easily one out of every four gun owners that I've known have been unfit and would definitely not have passed BC. Gangsters, drug dealers, alcoholic wife beaters, prescription drug abusers, senile. name it.
                  But they can get them and they do.
                  That's what I want to stop.
                  And relying on people to be upstanding citizens and voluntarily go through the UBC procedure, probably have to pay a fee, wait, deal with paperwork from the GUBMINT..."not gonna happen". These transactions will be off the books and BC will be forgotten.

                  If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                  by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:42:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Would a state-based records system help (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, tytalus

      calm down the "tyranny" fears? Couldn't the FFLs keep records with the states they operate in? I realize they are "Federal" but it seems to me that the fear of a tyrannical gov't (or more realistically that propaganda tactic the NRA uses so effectively) could be eliminated/reduced from the equation if states kept the records. And, that would seem to be a compromise that Dems could offer to the gun rights group - it would be both an effective way to manage the records and help law enforcement do its job AND it would make Dems look reasonable and willing to compromise. If the right declines, they look unreasonable.

      •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KenBee

        If there's no need to involve any government organization in any aspect of the affair except in auditing transfers involving crime guns, then what's the problem?

        The registry panic is not driven simply be irrational fear of a federal government, but by extent abuse by public officials in states where such things exist.  It's not the fear of tyranny that's driving much of the revulsion, it's a far more proximate disillusionment with increasing of invasion of privacy and official antipathy (in some jurisdictions, including some of our largest states) towards gun owners.

        So no, a state-based registry is not going to fly.  We all agree that records need to be kept, but there's no reason for public agency to do it.

        •  There is every reason for a public agency (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CwV, FogCityJohn, BvueDem

          to do it. The only reason to oppose a public agency keeping these records is to hide trafficking of weapons. Period.

          •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shaktidurga

            Or thwart political efforts to curtail gun ownership.  We're not going to agree on this, so let's end it here.

            •  You might want to read your own comment (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FogCityJohn

              one more time. I think you'd be all for it if it did what you just said.

              In any case, thwarting gun hoarding is a worthy cause, so I'm happy to join it.

              •  can we stick to the background check issue (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Patrick Costighan

                instead of dragging  everything into the catbox?

                The background check has a specific purpose: not as a means to deal with hoarding, or weapons trafficing..those are benefits that may result, but the check should be just for an applicant and the background, if there is anything that precludes him from purchasing, not having, a gun.

                Police do not use the application to search for any guns if someone is denied the right to purchase having failed a background check.

                The main issue here is adding the private sales requirement.

                The attempt to keep gun id records linked to the purchaser is what is going to kill this attempted legislation, whether out of arrogance, ignorance, or lack of sincerity I can't say.

                You can either compromise on this, with no loss of anything, or not paqss and pose as outraged.

                I know what I prefer..a funded and enforceable background check that is useful and not exorbitant and overreaching.

                This machine kills Fascists.

                by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:15:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                  I'd add one more provision.  A 5 year sunset.  In all likelihood, reauthorization would be a no brainer, but a sunset would force Congress to evaluate the program and make changes as needed in order to keep it running.

                  When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                  by Patrick Costighan on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 05:55:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Re? (0+ / 0-)

                As I said, we won't agree on that issue.

        •  Poor oppressed gun owners (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Penny GC, BvueDem
          it's a far more proximate disillusionment with increasing of invasion of privacy and official antipathy (in some jurisdictions, including some of our largest states) towards gun owners.
        •   "by extent abuse by public officials in states (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          luckydog, BvueDem

          where such things exist"?
          Examples?

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 04:53:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Oh please. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BvueDem

          A claim like this requires some kind of backup:

          The registry panic is not driven simply be irrational fear of a federal government, but by extent abuse by public officials in states where such things exist.  It's not the fear of tyranny that's driving much of the revulsion, it's a far more proximate disillusionment with increasing of invasion of privacy and official antipathy (in some jurisdictions, including some of our largest states) towards gun owners.
          Invasion of privacy?  Official antipathy towards gun owners?  Abuse by public officials?  Really, I'd love to see some proof of this.  

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:41:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (154)
  • Community (72)
  • Baltimore (68)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Freddie Gray (38)
  • Elections (28)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Culture (24)
  • Racism (23)
  • Education (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Law (19)
  • Media (19)
  • 2016 (16)
  • Science (16)
  • Politics (15)
  • Environment (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site