Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun-sales background check bill needs all Democratic senators on board. Four are still hold-outs (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Patrick - Gun lobbyist has AR-15 stolen from car (12+ / 0-)

    is he still a law abiding, responsible gun owner? Was he ever? Are those privledges revoked? Can he earn them back with good behavior?

    A prominent Utah gun lobbyist fell victim to a robbery earlier this week when his AR-15 was stolen from his vehicle, the Salt Lake City Tribune reported.

    Clark Aposhian, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, said his car was locked and parked outside his home on Wednesday, with his weapon secured in a case in the backseat. By Thursday morning, the AR-15 was nowhere to be found. Investigators still have no leads on the missing weapon.

    Geez, I sure hope he went through a background check and a record of sale was kept so that if that gun ends up doing bad, this responsible law abiding gun owner can be reprimanded. Don't you?

    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/...

    •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      We Shall Overcome

      Hope it's recovered soon.

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

      by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 09:41:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Me too, but what if it isn't and what if it's on (3+ / 0-)

        its way somewhere out of state and/or into the wrong hands? What if it shows up at a crime scene and it can't be traced back to the owner because there was no comprehensive background check?

        •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annecros, FrankRose

          Background check has nothing to do with it.  The audit trail does.

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

          by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 10:02:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Huh? So, if the guy bought it at a gun show out (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, Smoh

            of the back of a car trunk the seller is going to have a record of sale? And then he's going to file that record in some system?

            Come on, Pat. You know me better than that.

            •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              annecros, FrankRose

              That's the problem.  There's no audit trail.  The background check is a separate piece of the puzzle.

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

              by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 10:07:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Against my better judgement, I'll indulge. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener, Smoh

                The current comprehensive background check system creates an audit trail for ~60% of guns sales. So, let's expand that system to all sales.

                I'm guessing you will say "Fine, but those sales records and that system can't be in government hands. It should be done through this or that system that keeps the government away from the records unless it has a warrant." Or some such similar idea.

                The I would say, "But, what's the problem with the existing system. It works. No guns have been taken. Everyone seems happy with it. What's the problem?"

                And you would say, "Well, Chinese hackers, black helicopters, hurricanes, locust, tyrants and the ALCU, for good measure." In so many words.

                It seems to me what's going on here is that the gun lobby is looking at the current debate as an opportunity to roll back the current background check system for 60% of sales and put in its place another less comprehensive system that makes it easier for sellers to sell and more difficult for market regulators (ie, law enforcement) to do their job. In other words, get the government bureaucrats  out of the way of the magic of the free markets.

                Am I in the ballpark?

            •  and a law will change this? If people are selling (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              noway2, Patrick Costighan, FrankRose

              out of the back of a car....do you really believe a huge portion of them are gonna care that they are "not allowed" anymore?  

              •  If it becom illegal and law enforcement runs (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Smoh, PinHole

                stings to keep them honest. Then, yes, they will think twice about it and those types of sales will decline. And, they can run stings anywhere and with a new law, they can enforce and punish.

                Gosh, what is it with the DKos gun club that dislikes law enforcement so much?

                •  Ok I sell you a gun in my living room. Who knows? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Patrick Costighan

                  If I get caught by some mysterious happenstance, then I just say I "sold it to you in 2010".  Who could prove otherwise?

                   This is just considering the people who are just uncles, friends, neighbors, etc and who private sell to each other and done so for eons.....and likely will say oh well, when there is no way to prove otherwise. This is not even including the criminals sellers who would never go and do a background check on themselves or their buds.

                   310 million weapons on the streets today, and who knows how many of those have zero paper trail.  

                  •  I would know - if am law enforcement! How do you (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Smoh

                    know I am not? For the record, I am not.

                    Undercover law enforcement - posing as regular joes and janes - would come to your living room, illegally purchase the gun and then arrest you.

                    •  People sell guns to people they know, not people (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Patrick Costighan, FrankRose

                      they don't....in the vast majority of cases.

                      •  OK. And if that's true, why should that stop (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        LilithGardener, Smoh, PinHole

                        law enforcement from trying to catch the bad guys?

                        Let me guess, because it's inconvenient for the law abiding gun owners - more paperwork, more hassle, another $10-15 for a background check.

                        Is that too much to ask to try to stop the bad guy with a gun? Apparently it is.

                        •  Let's refocus - it's inconvenient for whom? (5+ / 0-)

                          How many children must be dismembered?

                          How many women must be "accidentally" shot by their spouse who was "cleaning" a loaded gun?

                          How many teens will act on impulse - ending their lives before they had a chance to really begin?

                          How many honest citizens must be sacrificed by someone, who shoots the guys who arrive to replace the windows, when in the throes of paranoia they mistake them for an intruder.

                          How much slaughter will it take?

                          "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 Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 11:11:50 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Ok but background checks don't address this. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Patrick Costighan, FrankRose
                          •  That's Wayne LaPierre verbatim - they are false (4+ / 0-)

                            premise right? Because the bad guys aren't going to submit to a background check.

                            Yeah, and drivers don't adhere to all the rules of the road - so let's take down all the stop signs, due away with speed limits and for that matter, why should any one have to pass a drivers license test or be required to get insured?

                            Makes perfect sense.

                          •  But drunk driving rules are applied to drunk (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            drivers only.  They get caught and they go to prison.

                            We don't take away all cars from sober people or make them pass a sobriety test everyday to drive, because they might drink and drive one day.  If they do drink and drive, we are going to put them in prison.  That is the rule.

                            Same with guns, or it should be. If you get caught with a gun and you are a felon, bury them behind a jail cell. If you commit a gun crime, you should spend you remaining days behind bars and thus you can't hurt anyone else.

                          •  That doesn't make any sense. Speeding laws (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Smoh, PinHole

                            apply to all drivers regardless if whether they are speeding or not - police point a radar gun at ALL drivers, the law abiding and the non-law abiding.

                          •  Drunk driving laws pertain to drunk drivers and (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            their crimes.  

                          •  Again - you're not making sense. You can't cherry (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Smoh, LilithGardener

                            pick your drunk driving scenario and ignore all the other scenarios were your point doesn't hold up. And, your drunk driving scenario doesn't make all that much sense either - ever heard of a drunk driving check point? Law abiding drivers are pulled over to check to see if they have been drinking or not.

                            And just like there are many laws that apply to all gun owners, drunk driving laws are not the only laws that pertain to drivers.

                            Law abiding drivers are checked to see if they are speeding. And so should law abiding gun owners be checked to be sure they are not breaking laws.

                          •  and when they break the law....we are going to (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            do what?  

                            Same as we do now?  Ignore it?

                          •  We don't ignore drivers who have (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Smoh, LilithGardener

                            been caught drinking. They are punished. We don't ignore people who want to buy a gun but can't pass a background check - we don't let them buy the gun. That's not ignoring in my book. And, yes, let's punish them for trying - there's an area we have agreement. Why doesn't the DKos gun club rally support for this instead of wasting so much time on the message boards?

                          •  I do constantly and I am ignored every time I (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            bring it up.

                             I actually had someone tell me "what you want is a police state....what about criminal rights?? Criminals already have sentences that are too long." Kid you not!

                            I was floored at the hypocrisy. Making it as tough as we can for law abiding gun owners is apparently okay....but making criminals who actually commit gun crimes pay dearly is apparently mean and unfair.

                          •  I'm guessing it has to do with profiling. That (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Smoh, LilithGardener

                            exact point was brought up at a Senate hearing on the subject - why aren't there more prosecutions of criminals who get checked in a background check? I'm guessing it's also about money - not enough money to staff to do that. The answer given at the hearing by a police captain was "we aren't in the business of chasing paper, we chase criminals - ie, committing crimes on the streets."

                            Then the issue becomes - efficient use of resources (money) and funding, and the GOP is pretty much against funding anything when Dems are in power.

                          •  ... on second thought - it's more likely because (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            the NRA wants those people to be able to buy a gun - it's all about the $$$ for them. They've supported legislation to let people deemed mentally ill to be re-establsihed as OK to own a gun.

                          •  Good point - sort of like second hand smoke ... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            it's the unfortunate side affect of smokers puffing away in public places. Gun accidents, stolen guns used in crimes, straw purchasing, guns in the wrong hands ... it's the price we all have to pay so some gun owners can fully and completely enjoy their guns.

                          •  Many predicted the demise (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            We Shall Overcome, tytalus, Smoh

                            of the restaurant and bar sectors when smoking in them was banned in NYC.

                            Guess what actually happened?

                            Special permit cigar bars where it was permissible to smoke and drink continued a brisk business.

                            Restaurants no longer had to bear the expense of creating and staffing "non-smoking" and "smoking" sections.

                            Patrons could spend a long evening with friends eating and drinking at a bar/restaurant/music venue without their hair and clothing reeking of smoke.

                            Smokers had to excuse themselves from conversation or the next course and step outside. Smoke breaks for some became the social escape valve, a needed break, or an excuse to make a phone call.

                            Restaurant/bar/entertainment businesses flourished.

                            The new policy is an unmitigated success.

                            "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 Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 11:26:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Called 'murder'. (0+ / 0-)

                            As bare hands murder twice the numbers that all rifles combined do, perhaps we should focus on the action of the criminal.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 04:40:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  No, I am just saying that background checks won't (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          FrankRose

                          stop this.  Enforcement of the laws on the books would be a better start.

                           Do you know that of the people who fail background checks now....very, very few of them ever even get questioned must less prosecuted? This won't change with even more background checks....when it doesn't happen even now, and 60% of gun sells are done with a background check.

                          Are we all of a sudden going to have more police to follow people around, or more funds to pay more people to enforce more laws....when the ones we have aren't enforced?

                          Enforce the laws we have, make them stronger, pay more people to actually make sure they are being followed, make stronger and more strict penalties for people who commit gun crimes.

                           

                •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose

                  What's stopping LEOs from running stings today?

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

                  by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 11:22:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Weak punishment, waste of time - my guess. (0+ / 0-)

                    Get tougher more comprehensive laws (ie, more and tougher tools) and there is incentive to  enforce.

                    •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose

                      What weak punishment?

                      (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person -
                      And the penalty:
                      (2) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (o) ofsection 922 shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

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

                      by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 02:12:16 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Not more than 10 years - make it tougher, (0+ / 0-)

                        and perhaps also funding is needed to enforce.

                        •  10 years isn't "tough enough"?! (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Patrick Costighan

                          Just how 'tough' do you think would 'make it worth it'?

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 04:42:43 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Frank, where have you been, missed you buddy (0+ / 0-)

                            It says "UP TO 10 years" why not up to 20 years.

                          •  OK....so that would make it worth it for police to (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Patrick Costighan

                            enforce.

                            Much more plausible than you simply having made a bad guess.

                            Seriously, man. When you make a silly guess that is proven wrong, just own it & step away from it.

                            Honestly, do you think you have a reputation of perfection to uphold?

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 05:18:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Reputation? Didn't know I had one. As for guessing (0+ / 0-)

                            the point is make the law tougher, up to 20 years is tougher. I'm not criminologist, so, yes, I am guessing. But it doesn't take a professed 2nd Amendment defender to realize that if you want to illicit a certain result - one thing you can do is create incentives. So, if not make the sentence longer, then something else - whatever that is - will do it. We can let the professionals figure that out.

                            Hey Frank, I've thought of a nickname for you: Captain Second Amendment. I think it's fitting for a guy who claims he doesn't own a gun, yet, risks life and limb to defend the rights of, how do you put it, "innocent Americans"?

                          •  Yes....because cops are notorious for not (0+ / 0-)

                            bothering to enforce any crime that costs less than TEN YEARS IN FUCKING PRISON.

                            Great Argument.
                            Very par for your course.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 07:57:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Cap't 2A, you're not getting it - 10 years, (0+ / 0-)

                            20 years, whatever, that's not the point. Point is, if it's not being enforced (which was the point of this thread) then create an incentive to get it enforced. How the hell do I know what that is, or you for that matter - and nor should we.

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm going to regret this, especially since I don't particularly care how heavy a book you throw at the defender, but I have to ask.  How is upping the sentence an incentive to enforce the law?

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 03:24:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Let's assume the sentence is not 10 years, but (0+ / 0-)

                            is reduced for some reason during the trial - let's say 5-7 years (the law you quoted said "up to" 10 years.

                            You spend time, money, resources and opportunity cost, ie, time, money and resource could be spent elsewhere. So, if let's say you've got a chance to prosecute one person but think they will only get 5-7 years and that person will be back out, perhaps, repeating crimes, you might think it's time and money better spent to go after another person who would face a stiffer sentence - who could be locked up for 10-15 years.

                            There's only so much money and only so many staff to go after the bad guys and I am guessing law enforcement has to think and act strategically with its resources.

                            So, if you up the sentence, then they think that's better use of resources - someone off the streets for 10-15 years, and someone they would no for sure they would not be trying to catch and prosecute again, down the road.

                            Of course, the incentive would have to fit the crime.

                            That's the basic point.

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            If time and money are the limits, then how does upping the sentence do anything?  You're still dealing with the same number of incoming cases with the same amount of resources.

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

                            by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 04:27:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A) the tougher sentence is a disincentive for (0+ / 0-)

                            the person thinking about committing the crime, and B) the longer sentence keeps people in jail longer and off the streets committing other crimes.

                            That's in theory. In practice I am not sure whether a person thinking about committing a crime considers the penalties that come with that crime, but I think it's reasonable to believe some (many?) do?

                            And, I'm not sure what costs more:

                            1. to lock someone up for a longer period so that they are not on the streets able to commit crimes

                            2. Or let them go earlier only to catch them committing a crime, prosecute them and then lock them up again.

                        •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                          Okay.  I'll even give that to you for free.

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

                          by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 05:54:52 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

              •  Hey noway2, what's up? Just lurking today? (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site