The house passes gun control bills

[Paladin3]

A license style system like we discussed would accommodate this desire while also increasing the strength of the background checks. Pass a one time (per 2-3 years or so) background check, acquire a license, and purchase as many or as few guns as you want without questions or government records of purchase. We really need to sell this point to 2A people (like me). It really is a net benefit to everybody.

It's hard to tell someone it's a net benefit for them to need a license to enjoy a right already guaranteed by the 2A. And the day after such a law was passed we'd have the next round of more restrictive gun legislation being introduced. Anti-gunners are never satisfied with the "just one more reasonable gun control law" they pass, which is why some of us have decided enough is enough. I mean, murder and assault with a deadly weapon are already illegal, right?

 

[soundforbjt]

Trump already promised to veto them, so it's a non-starter.

 

[blackangst1]

Im a gun nut and I approve of these bills.

 

[fskimospy]

It's hard to tell someone it's a net benefit for them to need a license to enjoy a right already guaranteed by the 2A. And the day after such a law was passed we'd have the next round of more restrictive gun legislation being introduced. Anti-gunners are never satisfied with the "just one more reasonable gun control law" they pass, which is why some of us have decided enough is enough. I mean, murder and assault with a deadly weapon are already illegal, right?

So to be clear you're opposing what we all acknowledge to be reasonable gun control laws because at some nebulous point in the future people might try to pass an 'unreasonable' gun control law?

You require permits to have a protest of a certain size, why should guns be special and immune from licensing requirements?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Gun owners were already promised the background check would be "instant" so the government couldn't defacto deny gun sales via endless delays.

OK let's fix the delay. I'm unaware of the situation you've described ever actually happening. Have you or someone you love ever been denied a gun sale via endless delay?

And the three business day limit was established to help prevent that as well.

It is my understanding that the waiting period is designed to prevent crimes of passion or suicide.

And what the hell is a "stronger and more universal" background check?

Not sure. I don't really want to be involved in defining that. But if it becomes a political weapon then we'll have to get rid of it..."he's a republican so he's mentally ill and therefore can't buy guns" or some crap like that would obviously be unacceptable.

Either I have 2nd amendment rights or I don't. And I shouldn't have to get a licence to enjoy that right. Just leave me alone if I'm not breaking the law or a felon who has lost my 2A rights. So there must be a limit to how long the check can take, and three days is plenty of time.

Are you currently unable to buy a gun because of today's rules? What's your fear? Besides, if you like to buy more than a single gun every 2-3 years, doesn't a licensing system actually leave you alone better than the current system?

What "stronger and more universal" background check is going to decrease gun violence without being an unfair burden on the law-abiding?

The devil is in the details, but if I can get a 2-4 year license with only a single background check, that sounds better to me than what we currently have, which you and I agree sucks.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

It's hard to tell someone it's a net benefit for them to need a license to enjoy a right already guaranteed by the 2A.

It's easy to tell someone it's a net benefit for them when the license replaces unlimited, repetitive, unnecessary background checks. You still get your right, the right gets denied to a larger percent of the criminal or mentally ill (in theory at least), and we have eliminated 2 things that are important to me as a 2A advocate:
1) As mentioned above, we can reduce background checks for multiple purchases
2) If we have to have a background check for every single purchase, the government gains an idea of how many firearms we own. In my opinion, that is not their business. If we switch to a licensing system, I might buy 0 guns or I might buy 10. A license won't tell them which it is.

And the day after such a law was passed we'd have the next round of more restrictive gun legislation being introduced. Anti-gunners are never satisfied with the "just one more reasonable gun control law" they pass, which is why some of us have decided enough is enough.

I agree. There are literally people out there who think that we should ban all guns immediately and they see any restriction of gun rights as an incremental approach to achieving this goal. This legislation would not further that goal and would actually have an opposite effect, allowing multiple gun purchases to mentally fit, law abiding citizens while reducing the pain of multiple gun purchases. Just because the "other team" gets a win doesn't mean you lose.

 

[Fenixgoon]

So to be clear you're opposing what we all acknowledge to be reasonable gun control laws because at some nebulous point in the future people might try to pass an 'unreasonable' gun control law?

You require permits to have a protest of a certain size, why should guns be special and immune from licensing requirements?

If such a law passed, I can't see the courts striking it down as long as licensing requirements are reasonable. No right is unlimited, and on the flipside exercising a right can't be made so burdensome as to be prohibitive. So somewhere there is a happy middleground in that scenario

 

[Paladin3]

OK let's fix the delay. I'm unaware of the situation you've described ever actually happening. Have you or someone you love ever been denied a gun sale via endless delay?



It is my understanding that the waiting period is designed to prevent crimes of passion or suicide.



Not sure. I don't really want to be involved in defining that. But if it becomes a political weapon then we'll have to get rid of it..."he's a republican so he's mentally ill and therefore can't buy guns" or some crap like that would obviously be unacceptable.



Are you currently unable to buy a gun because of today's rules? What's your fear? Besides, if you like to buy more than a single gun every 2-3 years, doesn't a licensing system actually leave you alone better than the current system?



The devil is in the details, but if I can get a 2-4 year license with only a single background check, that sounds better to me than what we currently have, which you and I agree sucks.

If requiring someone to have a state issued ID to vote is too burdensome a requirement, then why is it so reasonable to require special licencing to purchase a gun? Isn't a simple, free background check enough? I already have to have a state issued ID for that. Are some rights more inalienable than other?

And, for the record, I agree voter fraud isn't an issue. I just disagree with the way certain rights are so sacred if you agree with the exercise of them, while others are looked on as something a law abiding citizen must jump through hoops for because you think that will somehow stop violent criminals. Go find a solution that will actually reduce gun violence without sacrificing the freedom of the law-abiding.

And, yes, I already own many guns and last year got delayed on a gun purchase of a .22 pistol that was on sale. The particular retailer opted not to sell the gun after the three business day limit the NCIS folks have to get the delay resolved, but the NCIS folks won't respond to questions about why the check was delayed. After 30 days the background check application expired with no reason why or a decline returned. I could have reapplied and been delayed again, but I was tired of being jerked around with no reason given and gave up.

If I get pulled over by a cop he will know withing 3 minutes of running my licence if there are wants or warrants out for my arrest. But the NCIS system can't do the same and gets to delay gun sales with no explanation? Fix that and then we'll talk.

And stop believing that what you think is "reasonable" gun control is universally accepted as such. It's fucking arrogant.

 

[Paladin3]

It's easy to tell someone it's a net benefit for them when the license replaces unlimited, repetitive, unnecessary background checks. You still get your right, the right gets denied to a larger percent of the criminal or mentally ill (in theory at least), and we have eliminated 2 things that are important to me as a 2A advocate:
1) As mentioned above, we can reduce background checks for multiple purchases
2) If we have to have a background check for every single purchase, the government gains an idea of how many firearms we own. In my opinion, that is not their business. If we switch to a licensing system, I might buy 0 guns or I might buy 10. A license won't tell them which it is.



I agree. There are literally people out there who think that we should ban all guns immediately and they see any restriction of gun rights as an incremental approach to achieving this goal. This legislation would not further that goal and would actually have an opposite effect, allowing multiple gun purchases to mentally fit, law abiding citizens while reducing the pain of multiple gun purchases. Just because the "other team" gets a win doesn't mean you lose.

I don't want background checks reduced. Someone can get arrested or be under indictment for a violent crime during the 2-3 years you propose a gun purchase licence be valid. You'd have to check the validity of the licence each time so it's the same damn thing as an instant background check. You don't even realize that and think the licence would be some kind of fix, when it would actually just ad an additional burden on the gun buyer since I'm absolutely positive extra requirements like classes or insurance or testing would be required. All at the expense of the guy buyer.

You can't say a $15 state ID card is too much to expect to vote, but then expect me to go get licensed to enjoy a right guaranteed to me by the 2a of the constitution. Again, I don't think voter fraud is even a thing, but I just want to point out the hypocrisy of so many calling for gun control that will only hurt the law-abiding without doing anything to stop violent crime.

 

[Clump]

I don't post here often. I see many threads turn into shouting matches that end with BECAUSE TRUMP! There's been a good dialog in this thread, so I'll add my 2 cents.

I like guns. I have several friends who like guns and my Brother REALLY likes guns. We loan each other guns from time to time to try, or perhaps something that isn't being used, but don't want to part with permanently. For example - I own a Smith and Wesson 500 Magnum that was rarely shot. It currently resides with a friend who does shoot it. I have a rifle that belongs to my Brother that I'm enjoying and he never shot.

We have all known each other for a very long time and are confident that none of these weapons will be abused, used in a crime, or cause any problem to anyone. Nothing in life is 100%, but this is as close as it gets.

My understanding of the law as passed by the House is that we would have to conduct these loans through an FFL holder. There is no benefit to anyone, except the FFL holder who would collect some fee for the transaction. There would be no impact at all on crime or "gun violence". Quite simply we would either have to go out our way and pay to enact a legal transfer or become felons. When my father died there were several guns that family members inherited. Under this law those transfers would also need to be through an FFL holder, again with no benefit except to the fee collector.

I completely agree that we need to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and people with some mental issues. Background checks are a good way to do this, but the system needs to be robust and despite HIPA concerns be fed pertinent information. I'm opposed to sweeping laws that restrict law abiding people with no benefit.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't post here often. I see many threads turn into shouting matches that end with BECAUSE TRUMP! There's been a good dialog in this thread, so I'll add my 2 cents.

I like guns. I have several friends who like guns and my Brother REALLY likes guns. We loan each other guns from time to time to try, or perhaps something that isn't being used, but don't want to part with permanently. For example - I own a Smith and Wesson 500 Magnum that was rarely shot. It currently resides with a friend who does shoot it. I have a rifle that belongs to my Brother that I'm enjoying and he never shot.

We have all known each other for a very long time and are confident that none of these weapons will be abused, used in a crime, or cause any problem to anyone. Nothing in life is 100%, but this is as close as it gets.

My understanding of the law as passed by the House is that we would have to conduct these loans through an FFL holder. There is no benefit to anyone, except the FFL holder who would collect some fee for the transaction. There would be no impact at all on crime or "gun violence". Quite simply we would either have to go out our way and pay to enact a legal transfer or become felons. When my father died there were several guns that family members inherited. Under this law those transfers would also need to be through an FFL holder, again with no benefit except to the fee collector.

I completely agree that we need to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and people with some mental issues. Background checks are a good way to do this, but the system needs to be robust and despite HIPA concerns be fed pertinent information. I'm opposed to sweeping laws that restrict law abiding people with no benefit.

While I personally believe in universal background checks for all firearms transfers regardless, you are not correct about what this law does. Can I ask where you heard your description of it?

Text of the bill here: (look at page 3 for exemptions)

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/...HR8ih-BipartisanBackgroundChecksActof2019.pdf

This bill would do nothing to impede loaning (or outright) transfer of guns between you and your brother. It would do nothing to impede transfer in your father’s will. The only part of your description that it would affect is those transfers between you and your friends, and I think most people would agree that since ‘friend’ could mean anyone the law would be pointless if it allowed that.

Does this change your mind about the legislation?

 

[Clump]

I understand the sibling exemption. The text of the death exemption exempts transfer to the executor, but not to the end recipient.

My opinion would change if (i) and (ii) were removed from (F). This would address my exact issue - allowing a temporary transfer to someone (anyone) I trust and know to not be prohibited.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand the sibling exemption. The text of the death exemption exempts transfer to the executor, but not to the end recipient.

My opinion would change if (i) and (ii) were removed from (F). This would address my exact issue - allowing a temporary transfer to someone (anyone) I trust and know to not be prohibited.

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.

Temporary transfers between friends are also allowed so long as they are in fact temporary. Loans of firearms for no specific purpose with no end date would destroy the purpose of background checks. Otherwise, couldn’t you just buy a gun and ‘loan’ it to whatever ‘friend’ you wanted? It is not unreasonable to require that if your friend wants to try out your gun he does so within the context of you guys going shooting or hunting together. Alternatively we could hold the loaner jointly responsible for any criminal activity or civil liability committed with their gun while under loan, as after all that chance would be zero, right? That would be one way to ensure that people only loaned firearms to the right people.

Again, this law is far, FAR too lax for my tastes but if you’re going to support background checks at all which stand any chance of being effective this is about the most lenient law possible.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I understand the sibling exemption. The text of the death exemption exempts transfer to the executor, but not to the end recipient.

My opinion would change if (i) and (ii) were removed from (F). This would address my exact issue - allowing a temporary transfer to someone (anyone) I trust and know to not be prohibited.

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.

Temporary transfers between friends are also allowed so long as they are in fact temporary. Loans of firearms for no specific purpose with no end date would destroy the purpose of background checks. Otherwise, couldn’t you just buy a gun and ‘loan’ it to whatever ‘friend’ you wanted? It is not unreasonable to require that if your friend wants to try out your gun he does so within the context of you guys going shooting or hunting together. Alternatively we could hold the loaner jointly responsible for any criminal activity or civil liability committed with their gun while under loan, as after all that chance would be zero, right? That would be one way to ensure that people only loaned firearms to the right people.

Again, this law is far, FAR too lax for my tastes but if you’re going to support background checks at all which stand any chance of being effective this is about the most lenient law possible.

Why quibble over something that doesn’t happen all that often?

 

[fskimospy]

Why quibble over something that doesn’t happen all that often?

Once you create exceptions where you can loan a gun to anyone you want for an indefinite period and without a specific purpose you’ve rendered the entire background check process pointless. I’m a firearms seller who doesn’t want to comply with the regulations? Great, now I’m a for-profit firearms loaner who just made a boatload of new ‘friends’.

Personally I find family exemptions similarly destructive. The purpose of universal background checks is that they are universal. No exceptions.

 

[Paladin3]

Once you create exceptions where you can loan a gun to anyone you want for an indefinite period and without a specific purpose you’ve rendered the entire background check process pointless. I’m a firearms seller who doesn’t want to comply with the regulations? Great, now I’m a for-profit firearms loaner who just made a boatload of new ‘friends’.

Personally I find family exemptions similarly destructive. The purpose of universal background checks is that they are universal. No exceptions.

If you've lost your 2A rights you can't live in a home with guns. You can't borrow a gun or be gifted a gun, and just because you call it a loan doesn't mean it isn't an illegal straw purchase. You can't use your relatives gun, access or be around a person with a gun in any way, shape or form. So the family exemption doesn't make it legal to provide someone who's gun rights have been revoked with access to one.

A background check doesn't measure if you are fit to own a gun in any way. It's not a psych eval or test of gun handling skills. It only checks to see if you've lost your 2A rights or not. And those are rights that every citizen of proper age has by default via the Second Amendment unless they do something to lose them. Remember due process and innocent until proven guilty?

We do have a gun access problem, but our current background check system would be about as effective as any system will ever be if we dedicated sufficient resources to it and forced agencies to communicate better. Unfortunately, we have agencies that have historically competed for funding that don't cooperate like they should.

That sill leaves us with a huge problem of MOTIVATION. Why are folks motivated to commit gun violence? We could absolutely do a better job with background checks, via the steps I've listed, but until we decide to address the much larger problem of mental health and the MOTIVATION of the folks committing these crimes we will never make a dent in the gun violence problem.

Which is why I'm loath to support any additional any new gun control that only puts additional burden on the already law-abiding. I shouldn't have to get a license and jump through your hoops to enjoy my constitutional rights since I've done nothing to lose them.

 

[cmcartman]

So to be clear you're opposing what we all acknowledge to be reasonable gun control laws because at some nebulous point in the future people might try to pass an 'unreasonable' gun control law?

You require permits to have a protest of a certain size, why should guns be special and immune from licensing requirements?

Again, this law is far, FAR too lax for my tastes but if you’re going to support background checks at all which stand any chance of being effective this is about the most lenient law possible.

You seem to have made his point.

Why not work on prosecuting felons who are caught with firearms more aggressively instead of giving them slaps on the wrist?

There's absolutely no reason in this age that 3 days isn't enough time to reasonably decide if a person is fit to purchase a firearm or not. In most cases the information wasn't in the database to begin with, changing the time allowed isn't going to affect that. Policing agencies need to be held accountable when the information isn't passed on to the system.

Why aren't felons who are denied a sale more aggressively pursued? I don't have the numbers offhand but it's something less than one percent that are even looked at after the fact.

If you want background checks on private gun sales provide a system that everyone can use to do that instead of forcing you to use an FFL that charges anywhere from $25-$50 to do it.

 

[fskimospy]

You seem to have made his point.

Why not work on prosecuting felons who are caught with firearms more aggressively instead of giving them slaps on the wrist?

Illegal firearm charges are already pretty severe in plenty of states.

There's absolutely no reason in this age that 3 days isn't enough time to reasonably decide if a person is fit to purchase a firearm or not. In most cases the information wasn't in the database to begin with, changing the time allowed isn't going to affect that. Policing agencies need to be held accountable when the information isn't passed on to the system.

The cooling off period is in part there to prevent suicides and crimes of passion.

Yes though, police agencies need to be held accountable.

Why aren't felons who are denied a sale more aggressively pursued? I don't have the numbers offhand but it's something less than one percent that are even looked at after the fact.

If you want background checks on private gun sales provide a system that everyone can use to do that instead of forcing you to use an FFL that charges anywhere from $25-$50 to do it.

I’m fine with making the system easier to use.

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

 

[cmcartman]

Illegal firearm charges are already pretty severe in plenty of states.

https://fox6now.com/2016/10/27/ther...still-dodge-minimum-sentence-despite-new-law/

"Four out of five felons (82%) convicted of gun possession in Milwaukee County still don't get three years or more in prison."

I could go on forever on how wrong you are and how often they aren't prosecuted or don't even serve the minimum sentence when they are.

 

[cmcartman]

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

Because the "loophole" is a lot smaller than it's made out to be. You can't buy guns online without having them shipped to a FFL. You can't walk into a gun show and buy a gun from a dealer without a NICS check. It's mostly a boogieman made to make it seem like it's easy to legally obtain a firearm when in fact it isn't.

 

[fskimospy]

https://fox6now.com/2016/10/27/ther...still-dodge-minimum-sentence-despite-new-law/

"Four out of five felons (82%) convicted of gun possession in Milwaukee County still don't get three years or more in prison."

I could go on forever on how wrong you are and how often they aren't prosecuted or don't even serve the minimum sentence when they are.

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.

 

[fskimospy]

Because the "loophole" is a lot smaller than it's made out to be. You can't buy guns online without having them shipped to a FFL. You can't walk into a gun show and buy a gun from a dealer without a NICS check. It's mostly a boogieman made to make it seem like it's easy to legally obtain a firearm when in fact it isn't.

According to recent research roughly one in five guns are obtained without a background check and about one in seven are purchased without a background check.

That's a shitload of guns.

 

[cmcartman]

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.

What do you actually think they intend to do with these firearms? You're more concerned with trampling on law abiding citizens rights then with someone who has shown they have no intention of following the laws as they are now. I can see an argument where less serious or white collar felonies are involved but I can't even begin to understand your thought process here. I guess we should worry about too harsh of penalties for those that have already shown they don't give a crap about other citizens well being, property, and very lives.

 

[cmcartman]

According to recent research roughly one in five guns are obtained without a background check and about one in seven are purchased without a background check.

That's a shitload of guns.

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.

 

[fskimospy]

What do you actually think they intend to do with these firearms? You're more concerned with trampling on law abiding citizens rights then with someone who has shown they have no intention of following the laws as they are now.

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 can see an argument where less serious or white collar felonies are involved but I can't even begin to understand your thought process here. I guess we should worry about too harsh of penalties for those that have already shown they don't give a crap about other citizens well being, property, and very lives.

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.