Skip to main content

View Diary: Negotiations over universal background checks collapse. Senate committee marking up four gun bills (207 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Current background checks... (21+ / 0-)

    ...of sales by federally licensed dealers, as I am sure you know, are tied to the requirement that those dealers keep sales records for 20 years. Coburn opposes not just government records of private sales but also opposes records being kept by those private sellers the same as licensed dealers now do.

    What exactly is "fair" about this?

    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 Mar 07, 2013 at 08:36:38 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  They are not federal databases (7+ / 0-)

      Justice can still get access to the records held by dealers for investigations.
       Personally, I think all sales should go through the FFLs.  But if not, I think most private sellers, even without the FFL connection, would appreciate access to using the NICS. If nothing else but their ease of conscience. Although many here believe gun owners to be cretins and criminals unless they back all gun control legislation, I know the majority of gun owners to be very responsible.
       A big brand new database hooked into Homeland Security will work about as well as the No-Fly list. Everyone on this site is probably against that flight list nonsense, and yet perfectly willing to impose it upon firearms.

      "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

      by meagert on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 08:48:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yes. I understand how dealer records work... (25+ / 0-)

        ...Running all private sales through an FFL would be a workable approach. Propose that to Coburn.

        Or not.

        Because this is absolutely opposed by the NRA and Coburn.

        It's not, as you imply, mere opposition to a new gun database. They simply do not want ANY record-keeping by anybody for private sales.

        Explain to me, please, why this is reasonable.

        What it really means is that, if no record-keeping requirement of sellers is imposed on private sellers (even if it's kept at home with their other documents), the NRA would be able to come back in a year or two and give us examples of how the new background checks didn't work so we shouldn't have passed them in the first place.

        The NRA's leaders have no shame because their chief objective these days, after decades of the organization doing good work, is to sell more guns for the people who provide most of their funding.

        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 Mar 07, 2013 at 09:01:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Tipped for making sense (as usual)... (5+ / 0-)

          but here's my concern:
          Forcing all sales through FFL's would be OK with me, because they are already required and equipped to keep records... the government knows where to find those records... and there are laws & procedures in place to ensure access to those records of the FFL holder dies, goes out of business, or sells the company.

          None of this exists for private sellers, nor can it be established by any means that should be acceptable to us let alone the NRA.

          Here's the scenario: You sell a rifle to your neighbor. You are required to retain a record of the background check, and produce it upon demand, for 20 years.
          Twelve years later, you've both moved. The neighbor's new home is burglarized and the gun is stolen. Two weeks later, it is used in a crime. The BATFE follows the paper trail (like they do today) to the distributor, to the FFL who sold it to you, figures out your new address & phone number, and gives you a call demanding the record of the sale to your former neighbor and the accompanying background check...
          What if you can't find it?
          How long do you have, in terms of a deadline, to produce it when the government suddenly needs to see it?
          What is the penalty for not having that piece of paper? What if it is destroyed in a fire or flood?
          Are you held criminally or civilly liable for crime(s) committed with the gun you sold twelve years ago, stolen from or resold by a person whose name you can't even recall (but who passed the NCIS check), because you are unable to produce a sheet of paper?

          Do you routinely inventory your tax record paperwork from two years ago? Of course you don't. You could probably find them if you needed them, but you're probably not facing criminal penalties if you can't come up with those pieces of paper.

          Having FFL's do background checks on all private sales, for a set & reasonable fee, is workable and I would wholeheartedly support such a law. Forcing every gun owner to maintain the scattered paper trail for every gun sale for two decades is not.

          Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

          by Tom Seaview on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:29:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What you propose is reasonable... (6+ / 0-)

            ...but Coburn doesn't. So, he shot down that idea.

            And he shot down the more cumbersome idea of having some third-party trust handle the keeping of the records.

            And he shot down the negotiators' simple approach of having the private seller keep a record.

            This says to me that it is not Chuck Schumer who is stubbornly resisting an enforceable law.

            As for the seller being required to keep those sales records, as a gun owner I don't personally have an objection to being told that if I am going to engage in a private gun transaction I have to keep a record of it for a long time with an appropriate penalty for screwing up. Guns aren't toasters.

            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 Mar 07, 2013 at 10:56:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  That's a good incentive NOW to go through (0+ / 0-)

            a FFL with a background check even if you are selling to someone you personally know very, very well.

            Your example of selling to a neighbor identifies an important  example.

            You might think you know your neighbor very well after living next to them for 15 years. You might be completely unaware that they couldn't pass a background check because of something they did prior to you knowing them, or somewhere else while the happened to live next to you.

            We currently expect individual civilians to eyes/ears for risks that they have no way of fully assessing.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 01:07:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Totally agree, but Tom's example (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          luckydog, Tom Seaview

          is a believable one and then there are the millions of guns no one has any record on. We have to start somewhere and we have to agree on a workable way forward. I look forward to seeing what people come up with, because I'm all out of ideas.

          "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

          by high uintas on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:59:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The millions of guns securelystashed away in some (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            high uintas

            one's private collection pose very low risk to society if they never come out in public.

            I like provisions that will regulate all transfers going forward for that reason. It's the firearms changing hand into new owners that are most likely to be used in a crime.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 01:10:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  The solution is to have all transfers go through (6+ / 0-)

      FFL's.  Congress could set a limit on the fee that the FFL could charge if they elected to do the paperwork...say $20 or $25.  The FFL could decide to offer the service or not.

      Records would be kept.  Straw purchases would be avoided.

      I'm in favor of it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site