Bernie Sanders Brags About His ‘D-‘ from the NRA

[Kwatt]

I would say that's a relatively easy fix, wouldn't you?

I don't know that is why I asked.

As I understand it you have to be a licensed dealer to have access.


.

 

[michal1980]

Just what we need more government in-between two people completing a private transaction.

Just when I thought liberals wanted government out of bedrooms they want to stick there nose right back in.

 

[michal1980]

If the NRA pisses of the left, it sounds like a perfect organization to support. Maybe the NRA needs to get on the government Tit, then the left would protect them like the do PP.

 

[bozack]

Uhmm, extremely easily? If someone is stopped or charged with a weapon in their possession that is not registered to them you then go pay a visit to its registered owner. Easy.

No not the same at all. The things you sell at a yard sale are not serialized.

You realize that the only person in this thread that used the phrase 'gun show loophole' without being clear it referred to private sales was the guy complaining about the term, right? Talk about ludicrous.

And then what? they say it was lost, stolen, etc...what can you hope to do with the alleged owner?...easy what, I don't get your point...are you going to sue, fine, and or jail the original owner...what if it changed hands a few times...

Serials only matter if when changing hands they maintain records with the government.

There are plenty of politicians who use the phrase "gun show loophole" and the legislation your referring to is being touted as addressing that, so while you might not be saying it to be sly you're referring to what virtually everyone is calling that.

He was clear as have been other posters, the only one being dishonest about what is being discussed had been doc, he was the only one to bring up that term. It's odd that you failed to see this as the last two pages have been about exactly that.

In regards to private gun sales, if we can regulate when friends and families transfer vehicles to each other then we can also do it with guns.

Again, chalk this up as yet another idiotic thing....

Think for a second.....its not that difficult.

A car is driven out on public roads which are policed pretty heavily, you need to get a car registered and insured, for this you need an inspection in many states...if this doesn't happen then you can't drive it without risk of getting pulled over, car towed and impounded, and any other number of penalties...yet even with that we have folks who drive unregistered uninsured cars all of the time.

Contrast that with a private party gun sale where the items are easily concealed (when compared to a car), are transported within a vehicle (that officers would need a search warrant for if in the trunk and with that how are they going to know), and there will be no one actively checking to make sure the transfer documents were processed appropriately...its not like a car where you need to buy insurance, or get it inspected, or take it for maintenance, or drive it around on public roads...you keep it at your house, take it out occasionally, maybe bring it to the range...

Basically you're hoping that people follow the process....its the honor system

Again I live in a state with very strict gun regulations, my father passed away and he had a handgun, when searching through his items I could not find the gun, I contacted the local firearms records office and asked if they had any record of the gun being sold, their answer was no but who knows what happened to it...could have been sold, they didn't care.....

How many folks will ignore this? how many won't pay attention and still sell their guns without processing paperwork?

Also who is going to initiate the background check? the person selling the gun...so lets use that as an example, say you have a gun and list it for sale, someone wants to buy it, they approach you about buying the gun and then you as the seller have to conduct a background check on this person (who knows what information you will need from them to start the process) and then if they don't pass the background check you then will have to tell them tough beans...

Who will pay for the background check? the seller...the buyer, if its the buyer are they they ones who get the report first? and if so can't they forge a document saying they passed?...if its the seller and their buyer fails the check then I presume they have to eat the cost of it, and how many folks are going to want to bother with that?

 

[Kwatt]

Uhmm, extremely easily? If someone is stopped or charged with a weapon in their possession that is not registered to them you then go pay a visit to its registered owner. Easy.

OK, I got lost again.

I though this was about background checks,

Now that is about I see that is about National Registration Plan. I need to change the way I look at it.


.

 

[irishScott]

You can be for gun rights, and against he NRA.

The NRA needs to be dissolved.

The NRA is the primary reason we didn't see an assault weapons ban after Sandy Hook, among other useless and compromising measures. They're instrumental in organizing voters, protests, and getting people to actually write to congress (even if only in canned letters). I don't agree with everything they do or endorse, but I'd much rather have them around than not. Gun rights would be in a much worse place without them around to temper panic legislation. Their presence is the reason I feel rather comfortable voting for Bernie Sanders, that and I know for a fact Bernie has bigger fish to fry than culture wars.

 

[fskimospy]

And then what? they say it was lost, stolen, etc...what can you hope to do with the alleged owner?...easy what, I don't get your point...are you going to sue, fine, and or jail the original owner...what if it changed hands a few times...

These are similar questions that you could pose about literally any criminal investigation ever. I have no idea why you think it would be special in this case.

Serials only matter if when changing hands they maintain records with the government.

Yes. There are already states that do this, by the way. Regardless, a national gun registry is something which I also support. This was covered in earlier posts. I find the conspiracy theories where the government comes to take all your guns because of a national registry to be paranoid lunacy.

There are plenty of politicians who use the phrase "gun show loophole" and the legislation your referring to is being touted as addressing that, so while you might not be saying it to be sly you're referring to what virtually everyone is calling that.

If by 'not saying it to be sly' you mean 'explicitly and repeatedly stating that it covers private sales', well, okay. In this thread no one is calling it the 'gun show loophole' except for the people complaining about other people calling it the 'gun show loophole', which is either really ironic or really dishonest.

 

[werepossum]

OK, I got lost again.

I though this was about background checks,

Now that is about I see that is about National Registration Plan. I need to change the way I look at it.

.

It's always been about a National Registration Plan. Much easier to seize them if you know exactly where they are.

The NRA is the primary reason we didn't see an assault weapons ban after Sandy Hook, among other useless and compromising measures. They're instrumental in organizing voters, protests, and getting people to actually write to congress (even if only in canned letters). I don't agree with everything they do or endorse, but I'd much rather have them around than not. Gun rights would be in a much worse place without them around to temper panic legislation. Their presence is the reason I feel rather comfortable voting for Bernie Sanders, that and I know for a fact Bernie has bigger fish to fry than culture wars.

Well said, although it would take a lot more than the NRA to make me comfortable voting for Sanders. Nonetheless I hope he is the Democrat candidate - but only because if he is elected, I think he would do less damage than would Hillary.

 

[feralkid]

So, uhh, you'll be headed for Oregon, right?

Sure as shootin'

 

[bozack]

These are similar questions that you could pose about literally any criminal investigation ever. I have no idea why you think it would be special in this case.

Apparently I asked a question you're seemingly afraid to answer, so I will ask again...what do you think they should do if they track down the last registered owner? what if that owner says it was stolen, lost, or just misplaced....how are you proposing this legislation is enforced.

Yes. There are already states that do this, by the way. Regardless, a national gun registry is something which I also support. This was covered in earlier posts. I find the conspiracy theories where the government comes to take all your guns because of a national registry to be paranoid lunacy.

I live in one, and as I said in my experience the department tasked with maintaining this information told me that they have no way of keeping track of it a gun is sold and the new owner or the old owner doesn't report the sale.

Again, and I fail to see why this is so difficult, a national registry will only work for first time sales from a licensed gun dealer whose job is selling guns....

Also in your vision are national registries subject to FOIA requests...if so I can see why gun owners would be against this.

If by 'not saying it to be sly' you mean 'explicitly and repeatedly stating that it covers private sales', well, okay. In this thread no one is calling it the 'gun show loophole' except for the people complaining about other people calling it the 'gun show loophole', which is either really ironic or really dishonest.

Nice deflection....like I said, every politician, the media, and most when referring to what is being discussed in this thread use the phrase "Gun Show Loophole" ....just because you and a few others refuse to refer to it much like the libs shy away from Radical Islamic Terrorists doesn't mean that no one is calling it that....

The fact is what you are referring to, regardless of how you frame it, is what is commonly referred to as "The Gun Show Loophole"...like it or not.

 

[WHAMPOM]

You do know when the Black Panthers were exercising their gun rights using open carry the NRA was for restricting gun rights. Pure case of what's good for the gander is just not good for the goose.

 

[schneiderguy]

You do know when the Black Panthers were exercising their gun rights using open carry the NRA was for restricting gun rights. Pure case of what's good for the gander is just not good for the goose.

Today's NRA != NRA of the 1960s.

The NRA that was OK with restricting gun rights of black people is the "good old non radicalized NRA" that libruls like so much.

 

[irishScott]

You do know when the Black Panthers were exercising their gun rights using open carry the NRA was for restricting gun rights. Pure case of what's good for the gander is just not good for the goose.

You do realize that the 1960s was over 45 years ago, right? You know, back when the Democrats were pro-segregation? Your "pure case" is kinda lacking in fundamental logic and basic research. Once upon a time the NRA supported gun registration.

You should read more history, you can start with Wikipedia. Things change in 45 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Contemporary_history

Contemporary history
The NRA formed its Legislative Affairs Division to update members with facts and analysis of upcoming bills,[20] after the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) became the first federal gun-control law passed in the U.S.[21] Karl Frederick, NRA President in 1934, during congressional NFA hearings testified "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses."[22] The NRA supported the NFA along with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which together created a system to federally license gun dealers and established restrictions on particular categories and classes of firearms.[23]

Until the middle 1970s, the NRA mainly focused on sportsmen, hunters and target shooters, and downplayed gun control issues. However, passage of the GCA galvanized a growing number of NRA gun rights activists, including Harlon Carter. In 1975, it began to focus more on politics and established its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), with Carter as director. The next year, its political action committee (PAC), the Political Victory Fund, was created in time for the 1976 elections.[24]:158 The 1977 annual convention was a defining moment for the organization and came to be known as "The Cincinnati Revolution".[25] Leadership planned to relocate NRA headquarters to Colorado and to build a $30 million recreational facility in New Mexico, but activists within the organization whose central concern was Second Amendment rights defeated the incumbents and elected Carter as executive director and Neal Knox as head of the NRA-ILA.[26][27]

Shift to politics
After 1977, the organization expanded its membership by focusing heavily on political issues and forming coalitions with conservative politicians, most of them Republicans.[28] With a goal to weaken the GCA, Knox's ILA successfully lobbied Congress to pass the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 and worked to reduce the powers of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In 1982, Knox was ousted as director of the ILA, but began mobilizing outside the NRA framework and continued to promote opposition to gun control laws.[29]

At the 1991 national convention, Knox's supporters were elected to the board and named staff lobbyist Wayne LaPierre as the executive vice president. The NRA focused its attention on the gun control policies of the Clinton Administration.[30] Knox again lost power in 1997, as he lost reelection to a coalition of moderate leaders who supported movie star Charlton Heston, despite Heston's past support of gun control legislation.[31] In 1994, the NRA unsuccessfully opposed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), but successfully lobbied for the ban's 2004 expiration.[32] Heston was elected president in 1998 and became a highly visible spokesman for the organization. In an effort to improve the NRA's image, Heston presented himself as the voice of reason in contrast to Knox.[33]:262–268

 

[zinfamous]

If the NRA pisses of the left, it sounds like a perfect organization to support. Maybe the NRA needs to get on the government Tit, then the left would protect them like the do PP.

Congress is already on the NRA tit. It's basically the actual realization of a circlejerk.

 

[glenn1]

Apparently I asked a question you're seemingly afraid to answer, so I will ask again...what do you think they should do if they track down the last registered owner? what if that owner says it was stolen, lost, or just misplaced....how are you proposing this legislation is enforced.

Bumping for an answer that seems like it's not forthcoming. I'd add in the question of why the Admin who seems so gung-ho about gun control almost never prosecutes people who illegally attempt to purchase guns and are rejected at the "waiting permit" stage. Seems like it would be a slam dunk legal case.

http://www.politifact.com/new-hamps...eople-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/

 

[fskimospy]

Apparently I asked a question you're seemingly afraid to answer, so I will ask again...what do you think they should do if they track down the last registered owner? what if that owner says it was stolen, lost, or just misplaced....how are you proposing this legislation is enforced.

Afraid to answer? It should be enforced the same way any other law is enforced. What do you do with any crime where the person says they didn't do it or offers an alibi? You assemble other evidence. Does anyone else know how person X got their gun? Are there any bank records? etc, etc.

This is pretty basic stuff I'm surprised you even needed to ask or that glenn thought this was a relevant issue to raise. I guess we'll never catch any murderers because they all say they didn't do it! WHAT ARE WE TO DO!?

 

[glenn1]

Afraid to answer? It should be enforced the same way any other law is enforced. What do you do with any crime where the person says they didn't do it or offers an alibi? You assemble other evidence. Does anyone else know how person X got their gun? Are there any bank records? etc, etc.

This is pretty basic stuff I'm surprised you even needed to ask or that glenn thought this was a relevant issue to raise. I guess we'll never catch any murderers because they all say they didn't do it! WHAT ARE WE TO DO!?

So let's consider this from the POV of a theoretical gun seller then. I can either (A) execute a background check on a potential buyer, absorbing the cost, time, and aggravation and realizing that such check serves as legal proof I made the transfer yet doing so still doesn't limit my legal liability if the person commits a crime with the gun and some lawyer says with 20/20 hindsight "you should have known better than to sell to him, the warning signs were obvious". Or (B) avoid the whole damn thing, saving the cost and time and making the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I sold the firearm before they attempt to prosecute me using the same "you should have known better than to sell to him" logic as before.

Hmmmm, hard choices.

 

[fskimospy]

So let's consider this from the POV of a theoretical gun seller then. I can either (A) execute a background check on a potential buyer, absorbing the cost, time, and aggravation and realizing that such check serves as legal proof I made the transfer yet doing so still doesn't limit my legal liability if the person commits a crime with the gun and some lawyer says with 20/20 hindsight "you should have known better than to sell to him, the warning signs were obvious". Or (B) avoid the whole damn thing, saving the cost and time and making the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I sold the firearm before they attempt to prosecute me using the same "you should have known better than to sell to him" logic as before.

Hmmmm, hard choices.

That's true, the choice is super easy. The cost of an FBI background check looks to be about $16. Do you spend a little time and $16 or do you gamble on your ability to beat a felony charge? You would have to be a truly insane person to choose not to do a background check. This is really basic common sense stuff here.

The legal liability thing is hilarious nonsense, but nice try.

 

[glenn1]

That's true, the choice is super easy. The cost of an FBI background check looks to be about $16. Do you spend a little time and $16 or do you gamble on your ability to beat a felony charge? You would have to be a truly insane person to choose not to do a background check. This is really basic common sense stuff here.

The legal liability thing is hilarious nonsense, but nice try.

You obviously ignored my post 125 earlier in the thread where not only is this a real thing, but efforts are underway to codify it into law and remove any mens rea test for prosecution. Successfully completing a background check (or not getting a response in the 3 day window) would not necessarily be defenses to getting charged with this since the prosecutor can claim that a "reasonable person" should have done more or that it "should have been apparent" the buyer was being deceptive, etc. As I complained about earlier, there is no "safe harbor" feature in the background check. We don't do that with basically any other type of sale - if I sell a car I don't face legal liability if I didn't take "reasonable steps" to ensure he wouldn't use the car while drunk or in commission of crime for example. Once you sell anything else and the other person takes possession that's basically where your legal liability ends in basically every other transaction should they use the property to commit an illegal act.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/starex...cle_63cec654-563e-11e5-aea0-dbda5ba7c86b.html

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s2016/text

 

[fskimospy]

You obviously ignored my post 125 earlier in the thread where not only is this a real thing, but efforts are underway to codify it into law and remove any mens rea test for prosecution. Successfully completing a background check (or not getting a response in the 3 day window) would not necessarily be defenses to getting charged with this since the prosecutor can claim that a "reasonable person" should have done more or that it "should have been apparent" the buyer was being deceptive, etc. As I complained about earlier, there is no "safe harbor" feature in the background check. We don't do that with basically any other type of sale - if I sell a car I don't face legal liability if I didn't take "reasonable steps" to ensure he wouldn't use the car while drunk or in commission of crime for example. Once you sell anything else and the other person takes possession that's basically where your legal liability ends in basically every other transaction should they use the property to commit an illegal act.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/starex...cle_63cec654-563e-11e5-aea0-dbda5ba7c86b.html

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s2016/text

You know what sounds like a reasonable step to me? Conducting a background check. Now that all of your other arguments have been exposed as ridiculous you are reduced to saying that a hypothetical future bill might be used to prosecute someone. Hokay.

 

[brycejones]

Guess some people are pissed off that a politician would dare to show he hasn't been bought and paid for by a lobbying organization. Big whup.

 

[glenn1]

You know what sounds like a reasonable step to me? Conducting a background check. Now that all of your other arguments have been exposed as ridiculous you are reduced to saying that a hypothetical future bill might be used to prosecute someone. Hokay.

You're the one arguing for something that's currently not a legal requirement; generally a key means for getting something you want is hearing and acting upon the objections of others to your idea. Instead you just completely blew it off and then wonder why people won't support you. Just like with lots of other subjects, you treat your opinion as the only sensible one and ridicule those who point out flaws in it.

Secondly, you still haven't answered my earlier question - why do the very politicians who are so gung ho about new gun control laws ever use the existing ones to prosecute people who illegally attempt to purchase guns and are rejected at the "waiting permit" stage? There were 80,000 background check denials in 2012 but only 44 people were prosecuted for illegally trying to buy a gun. You're not using the tools you already have, what justification do you have for more?

http://www.politifact.com/new-hamps...eople-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/

 

[bozack]

Afraid to answer? It should be enforced the same way any other law is enforced. What do you do with any crime where the person says they didn't do it or offers an alibi? You assemble other evidence. Does anyone else know how person X got their gun? Are there any bank records? etc, etc.

This is pretty basic stuff I'm surprised you even needed to ask or that glenn thought this was a relevant issue to raise. I guess we'll never catch any murderers because they all say they didn't do it! WHAT ARE WE TO DO!?

What is the gain with laws/regulations which have no tangible mechanism for enforcement/compliance ?

Say what you suggest is what happens, that the police or whomever are investigating the crime with the alleged firearm now have to track ownership back to the last on record registered owner, they find said individual...then what? does that person get fined? do they lose their license to own a gun (if their state requires one), are they considered an accessory to the crime? are they liable for any civil suits...what if the gun changed hands a number of times and the last known person on the record of sale was well before the proposed private party sale background check.

Also we aren't talking about "murderers" but rather folks who potentially either intentionally or unintentionally subvert a hypothetical regulation.

Again I go to my first sentence in this reply...what is the point of regulations which have no mechanism for compliance? I would say I am surprised to see anyone that doesn't get why this might be an issue, but since it fits with your admitted agenda/position then to see you blindly in support with no real reason otherwise is not a shocker.

 

[fskimospy]

What is the gain with laws/regulations which have no tangible mechanism for enforcement/compliance ?

Say what you suggest is what happens, that the police or whomever are investigating the crime with the alleged firearm now have to track ownership back to the last on record registered owner, they find said individual...then what? does that person get fined? do they lose their license to own a gun (if their state requires one), are they considered an accessory to the crime? are they liable for any civil suits...what if the gun changed hands a number of times and the last known person on the record of sale was well before the proposed private party sale background check.

Yes, they would be on the hook for possible civil and criminal penalties, all of which would vary based on the circumstances just like with any other crime. If they transferred a gun before the requirement for a background check became law they of course would not be in any trouble. You can't retroactively criminalize actions.

Also we aren't talking about "murderers" but rather folks who potentially either intentionally or unintentionally subvert a hypothetical regulation.

We are talking about people breaking a law. People who break all laws usually try not to be caught. Not sure why guns are once again magical and special.

Again I go to my first sentence in this reply...what is the point of regulations which have no mechanism for compliance? I would say I am surprised to see anyone that doesn't get why this might be an issue, but since it fits with your admitted agenda/position then to see you blindly in support with no real reason otherwise is not a shocker.

Of course there is a mechanism for enforcing compliance. We have already discussed it. You seem to think if you just declare that the mechanism doesn't count that it goes away. Nope.

 

[JTsyo]

I couldn't find his official stance on his website. From the debates, his stance seems to be to require background checks at gun shows and the rest we already have. He did talk about reversing the law about immunity for gun manufactures from lawsuits after mass shootings. That just seems nuts. He voted for the law, not sure what his changed his mind now.