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: (0+ / 0-)

    The buyer and seller bear responsibility for maintaining the record.  In other words, if you encounter a break in the transfer chain from gun manufacture to crime gun, you have convincing evidence of an illegal transfer.  This is exactly how it would play out with a national registry.

    •  how does a background check on an individual... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, decembersue

      ...reveal the chain of transfer of the gun from manufacturer to the purchase at hand, if the checker (the gov't) has no records on the gun itself?

      Cheers.

      •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

        If you're not going to build a national registry, then I as a seller or a buyer I have no excuse not to record the item being transferred.

        Private sellers and buyers should meet the same auditing requirements imposed on FFLs, and the small scale of the peer to peer trade + technology makes such a burden almost negligible.

        •  each gun transfer occurs w/ a full title history? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          ...how do the buyer and seller verify that title history?

          Can the "scale of the peer to peer trade" accurately be called "small scale" or "negligible"?

          And rephrased from above, who verifies that the "auditing requirements" are being met?

          Cheers.

          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

            Yes, each transfer occurs with full title history.

            Appends to the history can be digitally signed and verified to guard against both repudiability and forgery.  

            Law enforcement can audit buyers and sellers when the need arises (in the midst of an investigation, with warrant in hand).

            •  so your system requires internet access...? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber, decembersue

              ...for all potential buyers and sellers, and a great big database of personal identifiers and digital signatures, along with all of the specific guns owned by specific people.

              What happens if a private buyer or seller determines that a firearm's title history is broken?

              And, repeating an unanswered question...

              Can the "scale of the peer to peer trade" accurately be called "small scale" or "negligible"?
              Cheers.
              •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                You'll need a central authority for background checks, but not for anything else.  The keys (which you can expire periodically to ensure up to date background check information) and history store will be entirely in possession of parties to the transfer.

                THe question of what happens to a buyer and/or seller when a break in the history is discovered is a matter of law.  If someone attempts to reintroduce a criminally transferred gun into the legitimate secondary market, the break will be immediately evident.  I assume law would require the recipient to report the incident.  As it stands now, even a national registry has to deal with non-compliance of this sort; either you're honestly participating in the system or you're evading it illegally.

    •  the government (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CwV

      should maintain the record. Forever. Period.

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

        Are you willing to burn a deal on background checks for that?  If so, why?

      •  stick with the applicant, not the gun (0+ / 0-)

        there has to be some presumption of innocence here, unless all you want to do is not get a better background check covering private sales.

        The govt does not need to know the gun id, it should be presumed that the FFL dealer, the seller, and the purchaser are all acting legally.

        Keep the applicant record, sure, exactly correct, the gun id is of no use. If it is necessary the FFL dealer has it.

        The only justification for the central database is for used weapons, guns that have not been recorded as has not been ever done, with many millions not able to be traced from the mfg as is currently done with new guns.

        That is a problem for law enforcement, but having that data national is a mighty task and would be useless until many or most private guns are transferred thru this system...and that record keeping will not pass muster, politically.

        The background check, yes, the registry, no, and certainly for private weapons as well as new transfers...new transfers are kept track of from the mfg to the dealer, so they are trackable now, with out some national gun owner database, it is available for new guns purchased thru the system, ie 'new guns', available to law enforcement.

        Conflating any registry attempt with background checks will fail...but I am of the opinion that the dems want it to fail so as to paint the repubs as obstructionist for a wider agenda, one that won't have gun control in it. It's politics, not public safety.

        This machine kills Fascists.

        by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 03:28:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "it should be presumed..are all acting legally"..? (0+ / 0-)

          ...well, they wouldn't be acting legally if the gun was stolen...and gun enthusiasts don't seem to be suggest any way to make that determination except through the gun itself.

          Can you show any numbers that would back up your advocacy for the presumption?

          Gun enthusiasts don't seem to be able to even present numbers of private sales per year.

          Cheers.

          •  no reason to presume illegal, basic. (0+ / 0-)

            that is kind of basic to life here.
            Right or wrong...and this is a fundamental question: if you presume illegal we're done talking, essentially.

            1. a used gun's previous owners may or may not be known, it totally varies. Grandad may have stolen it in 1922, how do I know, or bought it from someone who found it, won it at cards, whatever...

            2. you asking for unknown numbers Fu won't work on me grasshopper.

            3.  A gun I purchased from a FFL dealer in 1984 may have some record of once being stolen somewhere, and it may have been resold by a police department somewhere...so really, there has to be some presumption of innocence here, otherwise you are being disingenuous and saying all used guns are stolen, and/or are likely to be.

            4. If I go to sell a gun, (and this concerns many people currently in possession of a gun they may have bought or been gifted many years ago), the thought that this can lead to new arrests of innocent people for ancient data is a good reason for people to oppose this what-looks-like-a-national database,..and again, are you for some progress, or if you aren't going to get a national registry, trash this UBC improvement?

            This machine kills Fascists.

            by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 06:01:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  as described, no backup for your assertions.. (0+ / 0-)

              ...just some commentary about "may or may not" and "if"...

              Cheers.

              •  That nonsense is getting old LD, we've all seen it (0+ / 0-)

                asking for statistics is cheap, do your own research, I would say you haven't.

                I am suggesting a strategy passing this legislation for improving the UBC, a widely supported change.

                Why are you trolling that?

                Cheers? really?

                I am not cheered by your constant repetition of this cheap tactic nor your apparent willingness to NOT get a bill passed that will improve the chances of keeping my criminally crazy in law from easily buying a gun...again.  

                This machine kills Fascists.

                by KenBee on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:25:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  it's your assertion, you can support it or not... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...either there's something to the presumption that you proposed above, or it's just speculation and unsupported opinion.

                  The rest of your comment is diversion...

                  Cheers.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site