Breaking- Church shooting in TX

[zinfamous]

OK then, so it can't be called a "loophole" because private sales are private sales, and you guys also want to extend background checks to all private sales, pretty much like everyone else.

what now? where do we go forward with this? Why is the media calling something a "loophole" such a barrier for getting done what you claim to want to get done? Again, I'm happy to call the evil liberals on my evil liberal phone and tell them to stop using the term "loophole," as long as we can all properly agree on a term that defines the extension of proper background checks on ALL sales.

How about that?

 

[woolfe9998]

It's not a "loophole" at all either.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole

In terms of legal definition, it is an ambiguity of a legal law, that allows something that was never intended to be allowed by that law.

There has NEVER been a law that prevents private sales of firearms. There has never been a law requiring background checks on private sales. Calling it a "loophole" is incorrect and is only used to incite idiots like you.

If you said you want to make a NEW LAW that requires background checks on all sales, including private sales, then that is something worth debating. Using shit fear mongering terms like "loophole" is just being a shithead.

Call it whatever you want. It's a MAJOR gap in existing law, an exception that swallows the rule. You said it yourself - you can sell a gun to anyone, any time you want, without doing the background check. Given that this is the reality, you're just quibbling over semantics. Yes, we need a NEW LAW. Democrats have been calling for it for ages. Perhaps it's best we quit arguing over whether "gun show loophole" or "loophole" are the correct terms and start discussing what form such a new law would take.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

THERE IS NO LOOPHOLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW!!!

The implication behind stating 'loophole' is that otherwise, background checks are required for all gun sales. That's flatly incorrect, and to present it as a 'gun show problem' is mostly a political tactic to smear mud over something undesirable.

It'd behoove everyone to use correct, specific language when addressing things like this, so it's perfectly clear to all parties involved. And before anyone tries to ding me for blathering about semantics, remember how much of our law is based in semantics, and how easily one can weasel their way out of a law by skirting the meaning of words (see bump stocks). Specificity is important.

 

[HumblePie]

I tend to agree that "gun show loophole" is the wrong term here. The problem is that what you are describing as an attempt to mislead may in fact be leading people to believe that the problem is less serious than it actually is. Sales from people without a permit can happen at gun shows or in many other contexts. Maybe the term is unfair to gun shows but it's also causing people to think the scope of the problem is limited only to gun shows, when clearly it is not.

There is no law restricting private sales. Never has been. There is no loophole anywhere.

Now, have some gunshows had some shady FFL dealers BREAK the law that exists? Yep. They should be punished to the full extent of the law too. If you are an FFL dealer and are selling a firearm then you are legally required to perform an NICS check on all sales. That is the law. Anyone with an FFL that doesn't do an NICS check is breaking the law. There is no loophole that allows them to legally sale a firearm as an FFL dealer without performing the NICS check.

There is no law that makes any private party, without an FFL, perform a NICS check for the sale. Many are open to making it a law, but there is no loophole because no such law currently exists.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Why is the media calling something a "loophole" such a barrier for getting done what you claim to want to get done?

Most, like myself, get prickly whenever something is represented in a seemingly disingenuous way in order to further an agenda. This puts people in a defensive position and they are disinclined to further conversation since it's started on the wrong foot. Not treating gun owners like criminals is a great start, not treating private gun sales as criminal activity or something that's as 'loopholey' as other commonly-read about loopholes (like massive tax evasion from hundred-billion dollar companies) is another great one to work on.

 

[woolfe9998]

There is no law restricting private sales. Never has been. There is no loophole anywhere.

Now, have some gunshows had some shady FFL dealers BREAK the law that exists? Yep. They should be punished to the full extent of the law too. If you are an FFL dealer and are selling a firearm then you are legally required to perform an NICS check on all sales. That is the law. Anyone with an FFL that doesn't do an NICS check is breaking the law. There is no loophole that allows them to legally sale a firearm as an FFL dealer without performing the NICS check.

There is no law that makes any private party, without an FFL, perform a NICS check for the sale. Many are open to making it a law, but there is no loophole because no such law currently exists.

I'm fully aware of the law. I'm also aware that, as I said above, you're arguing over semantics. Background checks should be required for all gun sales, not just those from licensed dealers. If we can agree to that, then there is no need for anyone to ever use this offending word "loophole." Deal?

 

[HumblePie]

Call it whatever you want. It's a MAJOR gap in existing law, an exception that swallows the rule. You said it yourself - you can sell a gun to anyone, any time you want, without doing the background check. Given that this is the reality, you're just quibbling over semantics. Yes, we need a NEW LAW. Democrats have been calling for it for ages. Perhaps it's best we quit arguing over whether "gun show loophole" or "loophole" are the correct terms and start discussing what form such a new law would take.

GREAT! Then stop using idiotic fear mongering terms.

State, "There is a perceived problem many of us have which allows the private sales of any firearm without a background check to happen. Can we discuss how to implement a law that makes background checks widely available to all free of charge so that everyone transferring a firearm has to legally do a background check for the transfer?"

Done. No more argument from me and many others. Seriously it is not that hard. Clinging to shit terms makes people who do so seem shitty.

 

[zinfamous]

There is no law restricting private sales. Never has been. There is no loophole anywhere.

Now, have some gunshows had some shady FFL dealers BREAK the law that exists? Yep. They should be punished to the full extent of the law too. If you are an FFL dealer and are selling a firearm then you are legally required to perform an NICS check on all sales. That is the law. Anyone with an FFL that doesn't do an NICS check is breaking the law. There is no loophole that allows them to legally sale a firearm as an FFL dealer without performing the NICS check.

There is no law that makes any private party, without an FFL, perform a NICS check for the sale. Many are open to making it a law, but there is no loophole because no such law currently exists.

Great. Are you calm now?

So, what do we do next? Do we work on passing new laws, or is this process going to be stopped again as soon as someone in the media says "loophole!" or "clip!" or something like that? Yes, I'm being serious because I think you are serious, but I think arguing the terms over this for so many years is just petty. If the media is the problem, then ignore the media. If partisan politics is the problem, then ignore that. Find some moderate, sensible repubs and dem politicians to get together and work on something meaningful, no bullshit. Seriously. How does this go forward so that everyone is happy, and no one is stalled by all the noise?

 

[K1052]

So assume half the guns are semi-auto (probably more, as you're including a huge number of pistols and rifles), that's still $30B *just* for the buyout, assume 4x the cost for overhead. We're already ripping apart the middle class for tax cuts for the top 1%, where do you think this money's going to come from, exactly?

And I'd love to see some kind of cost analysis of 'future cost savings' on a $30B semi-auto weapon buyback program.

Feels like a bargain at less than 5% of the DOD's annual funding for a one time project. As far as overhead you wouldn't need much, just staffed collection points where people take guns and hand out checks. After the first year those are gone anyway and just turn in anything to local LEOs who send them on to the Feds. After a couple years there should hardly be anything to deal with. Anyway if Republicans don't have to pay for their tax cuts I shouldn't have to pay for this...

The estimates I've seen on the costs (direct and indirect) of gun violence range between $3B-$200B. I think the high end is crazy but even if it's in the very low end a substantial reduction in gun deaths would save money long term.

 

[SMOGZINN]

To be clear, if the Air Force hadnt fucked by not having his name put on the federal felon database, when he applied for a gun he wouldnt have been arrested. He would simply be denied.

The idea I was responding do was that making something illegal does not keep them from just buying it illegally.

Im a legal gun owner, and believe in putting as many checks in place as needed to keep weapons out of the hands of people who should not have them. With that said, I have yet to see a proposal for any new law that would simply prevent gun deaths. Its a fantasy.

I'm a gun owner as well, and I agree with you about checks. Nothing we can do will prevent gun deaths. We also can't prevent bomb deaths. That does not mean we might as well let people carry bombs around. People will find ways to acquire and use guns, and bombs, if nothing else some will make their own. But the harder we make it to get guns, and the harsher the penalties for doing so, the fewer people will do so. We can't stop gun deaths, but we can reduce them, and that should be our goal. To whittle away at the number of people that have access to guns so that the number of gun deaths steadily go down over time.

Wouldn't the same thing be accomplished more effectively by making it impossible to legally buy that kind of gun? Then you weed out both the known sociopaths (few) and the incredible number of nascent sociopaths? There is jack shit that the government can do to weed out the potential mass murderers, what is the fucking problem with limiting the potential damage they can do by restricting military grade weapons? We should be attacking both sides of this issue. Do everything possible to identify the ticking time bombs AND do everything possible to lessen the body count when many of the psychos inevitably slip through the cracks.

I agree with you. Personally I would make it illegal to own anything but a six shot revolvers and a bolt action rifles.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Feels like a bargain at less than 5% of the DOD's annual funding for a one time project. As far as overhead you wouldn't need much, just staffed collection points where people take guns and hand out checks. After the first year those are gone anyway and just turn in anything to local LEOs who send them on to the Feds. After a couple years there should hardly be anything to deal with. Anyway if Republicans don't have to pay for their tax cuts I shouldn't have to pay for this...

The estimates I've seen on the costs (direct and indirect) of gun violence range between $3B-$200B. I think the high end is crazy but even if it's in the very low end a substantial reduction in gun deaths would save money long term.

Very well may work, but I've never seen a government program of any shape or form that went that simply. Anything at all, take the assumed cost and quadruple it minimum. That's completely discounting the immediate slew of lawsuits, lobbying required, as well as how to even enforce it, like actually enforce it not 'we trust everyone's behaving' enforcement.

 

[shortylickens]

Wil Weaton echos your opinions:


https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-...rayers-did-anything-texas-victims-would-still


He somehow manages to be more polite than most of you.

 

[Svnla]

Stopped is a hard thing to say. Made more aware of, sure. Like I said, he bought over 30 guns in a year. That should flag something. What the FBI does with it is beyond me. I don't know their procedure for tailing people they are think up to bad things.

Also of note - the kid who shot up the theatre in Colorado a few years ago bought 4 guns in a 8'ish week period. Somewhere there is a line of moderation where someone that has never bought a gun is now buying several in a short period. Sadly this whole thing is more of an art than a science. There's no magic algorithm to apply that detects when somebody is going to on a killing spree. But there is definitely some compromise of privacy that will be at play to track it.

Ok, prevent, make it harder, <fill in the blank>.

The point is, what crime can the FBI, ATF, law enforcement charge the multiple guns buyer(s) with?

For the sake of argument, let say the FBI came and spoke with Paddock at his house one day before he made the trip to LV. because the registry pulled an alert because he purchased so many guns within a year. Let see, check his criminal record, clean. Check his mental health, nothing. Check his social media/twitter/etc. Nope, not a darn thing about anything violence or out of ordinary. Check with his friends, family members about him, nothing. Check and see if he had anything to do with extreme groups of Muslim/White Racist/Black/Green/etc...nope, nada, zip. Check everything under the sun. Not a thing. So the FBI could hold him for 48 hours just because? Be prepare for a lawsuit.

So what the FBI or anyone can do with the registry? That's I want to know before I am ok with that idea.

Don't get me wrong. I do not want to be a negative Nancy because as a gun owner, I do not want those bastards did the deed and then the responsible gun owners will have to pay the price.for their actions.

 

[Pens1566]

So assume half the guns are semi-auto (probably more, as you're including a huge number of pistols and rifles), that's still $30B *just* for the buyout, assume 4x the cost for overhead. We're already ripping apart the middle class for tax cuts for the top 1%, where do you think this money's going to come from, exactly?

And I'd love to see some kind of cost analysis of 'future cost savings' on a $30B semi-auto weapon buyback program.

I'm sure there's some $$$ value to the lifetime of income/property/sales taxes that would be paid by people that would have otherwise been gunned down by the now collected weapons. Plus whatever contributions they make to society in general. Not saying it's a wash, but ...

 

[HumblePie]

OK then, so it can't be called a "loophole" because private sales are private sales, and you guys also want to extend background checks to all private sales, pretty much like everyone else.

what now? where do we go forward with this? Why is the media calling something a "loophole" such a barrier for getting done what you claim to want to get done? Again, I'm happy to call the evil liberals on my evil liberal phone and tell them to stop using the term "loophole," as long as we can all properly agree on a term that defines the extension of proper background checks on ALL sales.

How about that?

Because people want to argue the semantics and not let go of their fear mongering instead of actually getting down to the nitty gritty of making such a law fair, equatable, and Constitutional for all. People can't let go of their fear and allow that fear to make them go further in demands or use of hyperbole.

Want to come across as presenting "reasonable" gun legislation? Then be fucking reasonable. Smear terms do not make one sound reasonable. But that is not the directive of anti-gun politicians and their media puppet outlets. It's why the recent "bump stock" ban legislation proposals are so horrible.

Instead had the politicians and media direction been about trying to actually create new legislation to only force background checks on all sales through NICS while having it free for anyone to do so, then you'd have a TON positive responses from everywhere. Shit would get done. By-partisan work would be done. Real legislation, and not lip service would get done. But lets be real here. That is not the intent of anti-gun politicians. They aren't out for the reasonable legislation like I am advocating. They are out for the unreasonable and using fear mongering terms to try to get as much unreasonable parts of what they want into legislation instead.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Instead had the politicians and media direction been about trying to actually create new legislation to only force background checks on all sales through NICS while having it free for anyone to do so, then you'd have a TON positive responses from everywhere.

What a novel idea, actually give citizens access to these well intended (if complex) programs we already pay for.

 

[HumblePie]

Great. Are you calm now?

So, what do we do next? Do we work on passing new laws, or is this process going to be stopped again as soon as someone in the media says "loophole!" or "clip!" or something like that? Yes, I'm being serious because I think you are serious, but I think arguing the terms over this for so many years is just petty. If the media is the problem, then ignore the media. If partisan politics is the problem, then ignore that. Find some moderate, sensible repubs and dem politicians to get together and work on something meaningful, no bullshit. Seriously. How does this go forward so that everyone is happy, and no one is stalled by all the noise?

Cool. Then do it the right way. Call/write your congressman/woman. Talk to current local elected officials and those seeking to win elections in the future. Start from the bottom up. That is how these things got done in the past. Not hurling bullshit terms on message boards.

 

[K1052]

Very well may work, but I've never seen a government program of any shape or form that went that simply. Anything at all, take the assumed cost and quadruple it minimum. That's completely discounting the immediate slew of lawsuits, lobbying required, as well as how to even enforce it, like actually enforce it not 'we trust everyone's behaving' enforcement.

Some do and some don't from my experience. There should be little to actually do than simply pay people for guns they hand in so not sure what the opportunity is for a massive bureaucracy to swallow up more cash doing it.

 

[Svnla]

As you said (and I hope it to be employed, at least with FFL sellers) that there has to be more than just "filling out paperwork."

This is how things work at the gun shows I had been at.

1. You pick out a gun that you want to buy.
2. Gun seller (FFL holders) at the show (with tables/booths) will ask for your ID and you to fill out 1 page of application.
3. You fill out and the seller will check your ID against the information on the form and then he/she will check the information on that page with the FBI database via online or phone.
4. If you pass, you will pay then get the gun and be on your way. If you fail, you do not get the gun.

I can only speak for my own experience at gun shows down here (Texas, Louisiana, Miss, Oklahoma, etc.) and not other states or private sales. It is only for guns. You do not have to do anything if you want to buy ammo, supplies, accessories, etc.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

OK then, so it can't be called a "loophole" because private sales are private sales, and you guys also want to extend background checks to all private sales, pretty much like everyone else.

what now? where do we go forward with this? Why is the media calling something a "loophole" such a barrier for getting done what you claim to want to get done? Again, I'm happy to call the evil liberals on my evil liberal phone and tell them to stop using the term "loophole," as long as we can all properly agree on a term that defines the extension of proper background checks on ALL sales.

How about that?

Now you're being forthright and intellectually honest about what you actually want. Thank you.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

This is how things work at the gun shows I had been at.

1. You pick out a gun that you want to buy.
2. Gun seller (FFL holders) at the show (with tables/booths) will ask for your ID and you to fill out 1 page of application.
3. You fill out and the seller will check your ID against the information on the form and then he/she will check the information on that page with the FBI database via online or phone.
4. If you pass, you will pay then get the gun and be on your way. If you fail, you do not get the gun.

I can only speak for my own experience at gun shows down here (Texas, Louisiana, Miss, Oklahoma, etc.) and not other states or private sales. It is only for guns. You do not have to do anything if you want to buy ammo, supplies, accessories, etc.

That's pretty much identical to how it was when I was selling firearms at Walmart, was all phone at the time, but I'm sure whoever I was talking to was just looking at a computer database for a 'NOGO' flag. Only ones ever held up had names that seemed 'too central/south american' (this was in Texas), in which case it may take a few days for the callback for go/nogo. Probably similar if it was another too-foreign name.

 

[vi edit]

Ok, prevent, make it harder, <fill in the blank>.

The point is, what crime can the FBI, ATF, law enforcement charge the multiple guns buyer(s) with?

For the sake of argument, let say the FBI came and spoke with Paddock at his house one day before he made the trip to LV. because the registry pulled an alert because he purchased so many guns within a year. Let see, check his criminal record, clean. Check his mental health, nothing. Check his social media/twitter/etc. Nope, not a darn thing about anything violence or out of ordinary. Check with his friends about him, nothing. Check and see if he had anything to do with extreme groups of Muslim/White Racist/Black/Green/etc...nope, nada, zip. Check everything under the sun. Not a thing. So the FBI could hold him for 48 hours just because? Be prepare for a lawsuit.

So what the FBI or anyone can do with the registry? That's I want to know before I am ok with that idea.

Don't get me wrong. I do not want to be a negative Nancy because as a gun owner, I do not want those bastards did the deed and then the responsible gun owners will have to pay the price.for their actions.

I never said charge with a crime. Simply flagged for watching. The FBI does this every day and it's how they prevent a lot of very bad shit from happening. I've been very clear that I do not know what tools or methods they have at their disposal, but I'm certain there are a number of things available to them that could at least help monitor threats if they are alerted.

 

[jackstar7]

Ban all guns!

Because guns are the only way people can commit mass murders.

This is called losing the argument.

 

[zinfamous]

redacted

 

[Jhhnn]

How about making a law that puts an extra tax on every registered democrat to pay for making the NICS system available to everyone? If democrats are so adamant it is needed, then they would have no problem footing the bill for everyone else right? Money where your mouth is.

Needs more raving idiocy.