The house passes gun control bills

[fskimospy]

Inheritances and gifts from relatives and friends are included there. I would wager that most of the sales are between friends and acquaintances where both parties know that the other owns multiple firearms already.

Yes, gifts and inheritances are covered by the one in five figure. The one in seven figure is for purchases.

Simply put, that's a loophole big enough to drift an eighteen wheeler through sideways and it should be entirely eliminated. It's millions and millions of guns. Background checks for everyone. Period.

 

[cmcartman]

Huh? Please don't engage in the usual pro-gun business where you decide that anyone who thinks firearms should be regulated more heavily does so out of a desire to crush freedoms as opposed to implement what they view as common sense regulations. (after all the research shows the average American is worse off for owning a gun)

I don't think it comes out of a desire to crush freedoms. But when you openly say you think the current laws are too harsh for those caught breaking them now when they are often not even prosecuted at all if you had even bothered to read the page I linked. I think that they should be prosecuted more often and more harshly. Instead you think that it should be harder for the average law abiding citizen to legally purchase one. You can brush it off as the usual "pro-gun business" but it doesn't make it any less accurate. I guess if the research shows the average American is worse off for owning a gun we should get rid of them all right? And you didn't even answer the question. What do you think convicted felons intend to do with those firearms?

I think white collar crime has far, far too large an advantage in relative prison sentences as it is, why on earth would we make it worse? Regardless, it's hard to see how this relates to my point. Three YEARS in prison for something like that is an incredible amount of time and it's an incredible burden on society as we have to pay for it. People who commit crimes are generally not soulless monsters bent on rape and pillage, they are often people not very different from you or me.

This is in reference to not being able to own a firearm legally after being convicted of a previous felony. The laws are probably too strict in some cases in this regard. I'm far more worried about someone who has been convicted of an assault owning a firearm than someone who was convicted of writing a bad check. I'd agree about it being a burden on society when it happens but that's a poor excuse not to prosecute them. There seems to be a lack of accountability here and you seem to agree with that. Perhaps if it was a mandatory 20 years and you were guaranteed to be prosecuted that it might actually persuade them not to have them in the first place.

 

[cmcartman]

Yes, gifts and inheritances are covered by the one in five figure. The one in seven figure is for purchases.

Simply put, that's a loophole big enough to drift an eighteen wheeler through sideways and it should be entirely eliminated. It's millions and millions of guns. Background checks for everyone. Period.

I'm sure it is, but what percentage of those would actually be illegal sales? And what percentage of those would you actually stop with what amounts to a voluntary law? The whole point is that it's a feel good law because we can't have all those illegal guns running around when in fact it's the average gun owner selling to another average gun owner. These guns were originally purchased by responsible owners through NICS and they know if it was used in a crime it can be traced back to them already.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm sure it is, but what percentage of those would actually be illegal sales? And what percentage of those would you actually stop with what amounts to a voluntary law? The whole point is that it's a feel good law because we can't have all those illegal guns running around when in fact it's the average gun owner selling to another average gun owner.

I don't think actually making background checks effective is a 'feel good' law. I think what we have now is a feel good law because it makes people think we provide meaningful checks to the illegal purchase of firearms when really they are incredibly easy to get around. Personally I would prefer we eliminate background checks entirely instead of continue with the system we have because what we have no gives the illusion of checks so it makes people think it's already taken care of.

These guns were originally purchased by responsible owners through NICS and they know if it was used in a crime it can be traced back to them already.

Good luck with that.

 

[cmcartman]

I don't think actually making background checks effective is a 'feel good' law. I think what we have now is a feel good law because it makes people think we provide meaningful checks to the illegal purchase of firearms when really they are incredibly easy to get around. Personally I would prefer we eliminate background checks entirely instead of continue with the system we have because what we have no gives the illusion of checks so it makes people think it's already taken care of.

Actually as someone who uses the system and understands that they would still be fairly easy to obtain if you are willing to do it illegally, even after such a law is in place I believe it is. And guess the 24 millons NICS checks last year didn't do a thing. We should just remove that requirement entirely. I personally think that's in idiotic idea.

Good luck with that.

That's the whole point. If they weren't traceable your new law would be just as usefull as toilet paper and you don't even understand that. The vast majority of law abiding citizens are going to at least get a valid in state ID and a bill of sale to keep in case it does occur. It's not going to stop those who would still do it if the laws were different. But then again you don't seem to think it's a good idea to prosecute people who illegally have firearms so what's the point anyway?

That all being said. If there was a free or nearly free system for private owners to use I would be all for it. But that would never happen because the goal of this legislation isn't more legal gun transfers.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually as someone who uses the system and understands that they would still be fairly easy to obtain if you are willing to do it illegally even after such a law is in place I believe it is. And guess the 24 millons NICS checks last year didn't do a thing. We should just remove that requirement entirely. I personally think that's in idiotic idea.

That's fine, you're welcome to your opinion. I want laws that prioritize real results over feeling good and that's all our current background checks are good for - feeling good. I strongly suspect once America no longer had that pretend background check law the country would demand a REAL background check law, which is my goal. I'm sure the law did something, but overall it's harmful because it prevents actually effective gun regulation from being put into place.

That's the whole point. If they weren't traceable your new law would be just as usefull as toilet paper and you don't even understand that. The vast majority of law abiding citizens are going to at least get a valid in state ID and a bill of sale to keep in case it does occur. It's not going to stop those who would still do it if the laws were different.

That all being said. If there was a free or nearly free system for private owners to use I would be all for it. But that would never happen because the goal of this legislation isn't more legal gun transfers.

First, saying that laws won't matter because the people that want to break them will do so anyway is an argument against all laws, not this law. (it's also demonstrably untrue as the deterrent value of criminal statutes is well established)

Second, I think you fundamentally misunderstand how these laws work. As it exists now it is very easy to transfer a gun to an owner who cannot own it illegally in a whole lot of states. Sure it's illegal to KNOWINGLY do so but that's yet another loophole that's big enough to drive a truck through. In many states there is no need to verify the identity of the purchaser, keep a bill of sale, or anything else. Poof. If you have a universal background check system it's a whole hell of a lot easier. A background check lets everyone know who it was sold to, if they could legally own it, when it was sold, etc. Highly useful information. It's not foolproof as people could still claim it was lost or stolen but that's another avenue for law enforcement to investigate. (why didn't you report it stolen, etc)

The goal of this legislation is to limit the number of guns in the hands of people not permitted to possess them. Like I said I think this law is also inadequate because the real goal should be zero exceptions.

But then again you don't seem to think it's a good idea to prosecute people who illegally have firearms so what's the point anyway?

Huh? Where do you think I ever said that? This is nonsense. I said that the punishments for illegally owning firearms were already very harsh so there was no need to make them even worse.

 

[Clump]

That is allowed. The transfer to the executor is to act as the intermediary for the transfer from parent to child which is also permitted.

That's not what the law says. There is no mention at all of transfer to the end user.

Is there some precedent that establishes transfer from the executor?

 

[Clump]

The goal of this legislation is to limit the number of guns in the hands of people not permitted to possess them. Like I said I think this law is also inadequate because the real goal should be zero exceptions.

How would zero exceptions be achieved? There is no way to police this. The law abiding will, for the most part, comply. Those already prohibited will break the law. Again, no real benefit.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not what the law says. There is no mention at all of transfer to the end user.

Is there some precedent that establishes transfer from the executor?

Yes, that's how it's currently handled by federal law enforcement. Despite the fact that the executor is never the owner of a firearm transferred to someone else in the will they are permitted to facilitate that transfer as part of their duties.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/t...earms-act-firearms-decedents-estates/download

 

[fskimospy]

How would zero exceptions be achieved? There is no way to police this. The law abiding will, for the most part, comply. Those already prohibited will break the law. Again, no real benefit.

You are making an argument against all laws, not this law in particular. If only the law abiding follow laws why have any at all?

There's no way to ensure 100% compliance with any law. That's irrelevant however as laws are shown to have a significant deterrent effect even if compliance isn't 100%. We don't outlaw murder because we think doing so will end murder. We do it because it means less murder.

 

[cmcartman]

Good luck with that.

First, saying that laws won't matter because the people that want to break them will do so anyway is an argument against all laws, not this law. (it's also demonstrably untrue as the deterrent value of criminal statutes is well established)

You seemed to claim that it didn't matter that they could be traced back to the original owners. I didn't claim that they would or wouldn't, only that there would be no way to enforce it if your claim was correct. Would most people follow the law, of course. Would it matter to the type of people that shouldn't have them in the first place?

Second, I think you fundamentally misunderstand how these laws work. As it exists now it is very easy to transfer a gun to an owner who cannot own it illegally in a whole lot of states. Sure it's illegal to KNOWINGLY do so but that's yet another loophole that's big enough to drive a truck through. In many states there is no need to verify the identity of the purchaser, keep a bill of sale, or anything else. Poof. If you have a universal background check system it's a whole hell of a lot easier. A background check lets everyone know who it was sold to, if they could legally own it, when it was sold, etc. Highly useful information. It's not foolproof as people could still claim it was lost or stolen but that's another avenue for law enforcement to investigate. (why didn't you report it stolen, etc)

I understand exactly how the current laws work. And I do understand in practice how typical private gun transactions occur. Something which you apparently do not. No they are generally not required to show an ID, etc... But the type of people who would follow this new law are the type that asks for that even if it's not required because they do in fact understand how they can be traced back to them. Or they are to people that are friends or acquaintances which they know already possess firearms and can legally purchase them. Those who know that they are unable to legally purchase the weapons and buying them are the real ones breaking the law yet you think they are already punished hard enough. You're also completely missing the loophole that any gun purchased before this proposed law is enacted can easily be explained away that it was sold before it went into affect.

Huh? Where do you think I ever said that? This is nonsense. I said that the punishments for illegally owning firearms were already very harsh so there was no need to make them even worse.

I'll give you that and I knew I was twisting what you had said slightly. Something which you don't seem to have a problem doing yourself.
My original point in that argument was that it is commonly not prosecuted at all and when it is it's generally not to the full extent of those "harsh" sentences that they could be.

 

[Paladin3]

...I fail to see why any of these suggestions obviates the need for closing the incredibly obvious private sale loophole.

I'm not trying to nitpick, but there is no private sale loophole. It's not a flaw in the law, but the way the law was purposely written. It was intended to exempt the occasional private sale from the background check requirement because it was felt that requiring one would put an unfair burden on the individual to involve an FFL dealer in the sale and pay those associated fees.

So, it wasn't a mistake. It was a carefully worked out compromise between pro and anti-gun folks that helped get the background check law passed. And it's very far from a universal belief that it needs to be done away with. Not all of us believe we need the government to hold our hands, or that the occasional sale by a private individual to another private individual is a problem. Innocent until found guilty via due process, remember? It's an essential, fundamental concept vital to a free society.

And it happens be be a perfect example of that darn slippery slope anti-gunners think we are silly for worrying about. The gun owners of America are constantly lied to that if we just agree to the next step of "reasonable" gun control that it will solve the problem of gun violence and we'll be left alone. Just one more law. We all know that's a lie because attacking the low hanging fruit of legal gun owners in an attempt for a magic bullet fix (pun totally intended) at the expense of our constitutional rights never works.

I, again, point out that the MOTIVATION of those who commit violent gun crimes is the real problem we need to solve. We've got plenty of laws already on the books and a perfectly fine background check system in place, if we would just dedicated sufficient resources to implement them correctly.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[Paladin3]

Three years for simply possessing a firearm illegally is an incredibly harsh sentence. Someone's life will never be the same and they will likely emerge permanently psychologically affected by the experience. I feel like Americans have really lost touch with just how insanely punitive our penalties are for crimes of all kinds.

I consider that severe. Maybe other people don't but to me that's indicative of a completely separate sickness in American society.

It is a harsh sentence, especially since incarceration in the US is largely counterproductive in actually rehabilitating a criminal. It does nothing to return them to law-abiding, self-supporting, productive member of society status.

I'm tired of America demanding we be "tough on crime" and demanding we treat criminals so very harshly. I don't want my pound of flesh. I don't want to pay for more prisons and more guards. I don't want for-profit prisons to even exist.

So, either kill 'em all and let God (that'd have to be your god, I'm agnostic) sort them out. Or, confront the real problem of why folks are marginalized in a cooperative society to the point that they won't play nice with others.

Complex problems require complex solution. "Let them rot in prison!" and "ban the guns!" sound like answers, but neither one comes even close to addressing it's respective, so very complex problem.

 

[Kwatt]

Over half of the states already allow purchases without NCIS background check at time time of purchase if the buyer has a CCW permit. That is why I got a permit so I did not have to worry about a mistake stopping me from making a purchase.

And I would like to ask also what do people think the penalty should be for violating the new law? Given that less than 1% (IIRC) are punished for violating the current background law. Is there a plan to prosecute? Or will it also go unpunished?

If it is going to be prosecuted why can't the current law be? And if it is not why bother? Unless it is to stop the people who are not going to break the law from making a purchase?

.

 

[cmcartman]

And I would like to ask also what do people think the penalty should be for violating the new law? Given that less than 1% (IIRC) are punished for violating the current background law. Is there a plan to prosecute? Or will it also go unpunished?

If it is going to be prosecuted why can't the current law be? And if it is not why bother? Unless it is to stop the people who are not going to break the law from making a purchase?

I wouldn't expect a real answer. I already brought that up earlier and fskimospy side stepped the question.

 

[Clump]

You are making an argument against all laws, not this law in particular. If only the law abiding follow laws why have any at all?

There's no way to ensure 100% compliance with any law. That's irrelevant however as laws are shown to have a significant deterrent effect even if compliance isn't 100%. We don't outlaw murder because we think doing so will end murder. We do it because it means less murder.

That is exactly the point. By attempting to obtain a firearm a prohibited person is already breaking existing law, as is any person who knowingly facilitates the transfer. It's not much of a stretch to conclude that the illegally obtained firearm will be used for some illegal purpose. So how does this do anything beyond restricting non-criminals?

 

[fskimospy]

That is exactly the point. By attempting to obtain a firearm a prohibited person is already breaking existing law, as is any person who knowingly facilitates the transfer. It's not much of a stretch to conclude that the illegally obtained firearm will be used for some illegal purpose. So how does this do anything beyond restricting non-criminals?

I bet you there are large numbers of illegally acquired firearms in the US that have never been used for any illegal purpose.

Again though, saying that criminals won’t follow the law anyway is an argument for the abolition of the entirety of criminal law, worldwide. It is not a good argument against this particular law.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I've read that even lending a gun to someone would require a background check. I think that's kind of nuts. Though I'm perfectly fine with requiring them for private sales, just so long the process is streamlined and easy.

 

[Clump]

I bet you there are large numbers of illegally acquired firearms in the US that have never been used for any illegal purpose.

Again though, saying that criminals won’t follow the law anyway is an argument for the abolition of the entirety of criminal law, worldwide. It is not a good argument against this particular law.

I don't believe that saying criminals won't follow the law is an argument for the abolition of the entirety of criminal law. It's a simple statement of fact that an existing law is being broken and an honest question of how this restriction would do anything beyond restricting the law abiding.

All of these "common sense" restrictions come down to the basic question. Will this restriction of the law abiding have any effect on the not law abiding? If the answer isn't an unqualified yes then it's feel good and meaningless.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't believe that saying criminals won't follow the law is an argument for the abolition of the entirety of criminal law. It's a simple statement of fact that an existing law is being broken and an honest question of how this restriction would do anything beyond restricting the law abiding.

All of these "common sense" restrictions come down to the basic question. Will this restriction of the law abiding have any effect on the not law abiding? If the answer isn't an unqualified yes then it's feel good and meaningless.

What you're saying would hold true for basically every criminal law ever. Laws against drunk driving are broken every day so why bother inconveniencing law abiding people with DUI checkpoints and the like?

The deterrent effect of criminal law is well established and there's no reason to believe it magically doesn't apply to guns. Guns aren't special.

 

[Kwatt]

What you're saying would hold true for basically every criminal law ever. Laws against drunk driving are broken every day so why bother inconveniencing law abiding people with DUI checkpoints and the like?

The deterrent effect of criminal law is well established and there's no reason to believe it magically doesn't apply to guns. Guns aren't special.

Ownership of a vehicle and alcohol is not criminal. If you misuse them that is what is criminal.

Guns aren't special.

Misuse is criminal.

.

 

[fskimospy]

Ownership of a vehicle and alcohol is not criminal. If you misuse them that is what is criminal.

Misuse is criminal.

.

Irrelevant.

 

[Viper1j]

I, surprisingly, didn't see this posted yet but the house has passed two gun control bills.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/hou...kground-check-bill-trump-pledges-to-veto.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...l-idUSKCN1QH2HD?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

They appear to be minor changes and I can't imagine anyone who wouldn't support this (except for right wingers and gun nuts) including responsible gun owners.

Still Bitch McConnell won't even bring them up for a vote.

 

[Kwatt]

Irrelevant.

Yes. Comparing ownership of something to an illegal act is irrelevant.

Why did you do it?

.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes. Comparing ownership of something to an illegal act is irrelevant.

Why did you do it?

.

Because I have decent reading comprehension and logic skills? Haha.

The discussion is whether it is proper to place burdens on law abiding citizens in order to prevent unlawful behavior. The laws being compared are irrelevant.

This is not a difficult concept to understand.