BradyCampaign "Gun Show Loophole" Video

[danb]

Thinking on this while commuting home today, I believe this is where we lose ground on the argument. We say "it's already against the law to knowingly sell to a prohibited person," and antis hear "so the guy lies to you and gets a gun." Then moderates think "it's easy to lie to somebody, so background checks are a good idea to keep bad guys from lying," and then don't understand when we don't agree to more background checks. Then antis are then able to accuse us of being out of touch, heartless, or downright abusing the system. We need a way to rebut the point of felons possibly lying without sounding like we're denying that there's even a problem (yes, I know bad guys don't get their guns from gun shows, but to a suburban soccer mom that just sounds like her kids going "did not!" in an argument).

Why do we need to rebut the point that felons possibly lie? I mean, The same guy who can find you illegal prescription drugs can dig up a stolen gun to take care of the competition.

I am fine with background checks if that is the only requirement. Interstate transfers already require an FFL. If the feds want to require ID or a background check for an intrastate transfer, this becomes a states rights issue. Then let the fed force states to approve the sale conditional only ONLY a background check. That is, conditional on a background check, the states must approve the gun sale/transfer without other conditions. Period. Let the feds mandate that private citizens have access to a NICS (or similar state system) at a maximum charge of a few dollars per check. Records would be destroyed in three days with penalties for attempts to use the info for a registry.

Now, if Schumer is ok with this (which btw overrules draconian gun laws in MD, NY, and elsewhere), if they want to commit to this, then they can have their universal checks.

 

[DoesItGoBang]

Brush with a possible sting

I felt like I walked into a sting at a gun show in SC. The buyer was a vendor selling t-shirts that wanted to buy a hand gun I had for sale as a gun show attendee. He was high energy and eager to make a deal and we agree on a price. He handed over the cash and I handed him a bill of sale to fill out.

Yes I am one of the odd folks who wants in in writing that I am not breaking the law. He eagerly filled it out with name, etc and driver license number. He got defensive when I asked to see his license which he eventually produced. It was from NC not SC! I asked if he was a FFL or had a FFL that could do the paperwork to make it legal.

Long story short we parted company and found a legal buyer. I don't like it when people play fast and loose to get me in a bind. He knew well and good that it was illegal for him to buy hence his reluctance to show his drivers license. It just bothers me that I must live to a higher standard to just avoid a You Tube smear campaign. Then what really takes the cake is they have no ramifications for doing something illegal!

PS: yes I know the pistol should never been for sale but capitalism only works when stuff moves around.

 

[randian]

I am fine with background checks if that is the only requirement. Interstate transfers already require an FFL.

Which is stupid, really, there's nothing about invisible lines on the ground that makes transfers across them dangerous to the general public. I'm sure FFLs like the government protecting their business, though.

 

[Inigoes]

Thinking on this while commuting home today, I believe this is where we lose ground on the argument. We say "it's already against the law to knowingly sell to a prohibited person," and antis hear "so the guy lies to you and gets a gun." Then moderates think "it's easy to lie to somebody, so background checks are a good idea to keep bad guys from lying," and then don't understand when we don't agree to more background checks. Then antis are then able to accuse us of being out of touch, heartless, or downright abusing the system. We need a way to rebut the point of felons possibly lying without sounding like we're denying that there's even a problem (yes, I know bad guys don't get their guns from gun shows, but to a suburban soccer mom that just sounds like her kids going "did not!" in an argument).

If there was a voluntary choice of a background for a seller to use (which obama can create by EO), more people would use it for piece of mind.

Compelling a background check on a private sale is a non starter.

 

[Tyeraxus]

Why do we need to rebut the point that felons possibly lie?

Messaging and marketing. Good marketing sells a solution to a problem, but the most effective sells a problem that your product/idea (and preferably only your product/idea) can solve, and then sells your product. That's what the antis are doing - selling the problem of mass gun violence, and then selling the UBCs (among others). They're winning the argument that something ought to be done, and we don't have an alternative which leaves us looking like we're saying no just say no rather than trying to help the situation.

My own personal idea would never fly due to cost to the State - I say make Universal Background Checks really and truly universal. Anybody that applies for any form of government ID gets a background check, whether they want a gun or not. Then they either have a field on their ID or a separate card issued that shows they passed. Want to buy a gun? Anybody can check an ID. No records check done by anybody except the government, once, and on everybody so there's no registry formed. No additional cost to the buyer/seller, and all it takes is a few seconds. Since NICS checks are instant, there's no additional delay for your license unless you get flagged, in which case you get your non-ok license and they mail you a new one when the check comes back clean, again, whether you want it or not. Become a prohibited person? The state knows, and when your info goes into the NICS, they send you an updated license that says "Firearms: PROHIBITED" on it and a return envelope to send your old one back (or just swap it out for youwhile you're in custody if it's a criminal prohibition). Penalty for not turning your old one in or counterfeiting one? Minimum five years in federal lockup with no plea or early release allowed. To make it a real compromise, with both sides giving something, eliminate all restrictions on interstate handgun sales and maybe national reciprocity for CCW permits.

You look at this and say "But Ty, you've conceded that there is a problem!" Yeah, it does. But we're already losing that fight, and from a problem-solving standpoint, it's about as good of a real compromise as I can figure out at least.

EDIT: Actually, forget this post and the one before, I'm not thinking it through. Apparently there's a reason marketing was among my worst subjects in school.