Columbine dad advocates for tighter gun control re: gun shows

[Bluebear]

Augusta MAINE...It never gets easier for Tom Mauser who lost his son Daniel that day. Mauser stays connected to Daniel by walking in his shoes, into state capitols around the country, he advocates for a tighter gun control measure that might have saved his son's life. .

Tom: "I discovered that someone bought that gun and two others at a gun show from an unlicensed private dealer at a gun show to avoid having to undergo a background check."

Right now, private dealers are permitted to sell firearms at gun shows without doing background checks on customers. The bill under consideration would change that.

'If passed the bill would make gun show operators responsible for failure to do background checks. They could be fined up to 10 thousand dollars for every violation."

Opponents of gun control, who showed up in force at the hearing take issue with the bill on several counts.

Jeff: "They'd have you believe that each time you go to a show it's a gun bizarre (sic) and totally unregulated, that's not the case." They say private transactions at shows are the exception, and they say the bill is just another attempt to weaken Mainers rights to bear arms.

http://www.necn.com/Boston/New-England/2009/04/06/Father-of-Columbine-victim/1239054258.html

[Statistical]

1. private dealer? kinda an oxymoron.

It is a private sale or it is a dealer

no such thing as private dealer.

If you are going to lead a movement at least know what you are talking about and be factually honest.

<1% of all guns used in crime come from gun shows per that right wing organization knows as the Justice Department.

[Bluebear]

2. You think the dad is being dishonest?

he was on the news today up here, he seemed sincere, you think he's lying?

[Statistical]

3. Dishonest, unable to aproach the issue logically because of his loss or misled.

There is no such thing as unlicensed dealer.
There is no such thing as a private dealer.
<1% of firearms used in crime come from gunshows.

[hlthe2b]

13. Tom Mauser has been doing this for 10 years since Columbine

It is his mission in life and you can damned well be assured he knows what he is talking about. Disagree with him, if you choose, but your attitude is beyond the pale. Semantics, whether because he misspoke or the reporter "took it down incorrectly" are just that, semantics.

Talk about disingenuous.....

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL TOM MAUSER dishonest!

[aikoaiko]

30. You seem to know a lot about Tom Mauser's work so I'll ask a question.

From the article: Tom: "I discovered that someone bought that gun and two others at a gun show from an unlicensed private dealer at a gun show to avoid having to undergo a background check."

Is this person he is referring to Robyn Anderson, the 18 year old who bought long guns from a private seller. I was under the impression that she wasn't a prohibited person so she could have bought them from a FFL and passed the background check.

I'm not sure how a background check by the private seller would have prevented the sale if it wouldn't have prevented the sale from a FFL.

Can you explain why he thinks the background check would have prevented the sale to Robyn Anderson?

Perhaps my facts are wrong, is that it?

[hlthe2b]

41. I've met him a couple of times. Friends of mine raced that day

to Columbine to check on their own kids, who would have perished if the bombs had gone off in the cafeteria as Eric Harris had planned. I remained with others nearby at work transfixed by what was playing out on the tv as others were frantically calling friends and family who likewise might have been involved. I have since had occasion to work with some of the Sheriff's deputy staff that were members of the SWAT teams that day and was honored to have them share some of their very personal recollections from that horrible day. But, I did not have kids there and did not know Tom before Columbine occurred. Since then, though, I have become quite familiar with him.

As to the specifics of the guns, I have long since (purposely) forgotten the details, as I didn't want to think of Columbine for most of the past decade and I won't speak for Tom Mauser, who has researched the issues extensively. His work is out there in books and articles, testimony before Congress--multiple interviews that I expect are available if you search. I do know he is an honorable man who did not take up this cause out of naivete' nor a knee jerk response. I trust that he did his homework, whether you agree with him and his conclusons or not. He is not the kind to go off half-baked. Others here from Colorado, especially the Denver area may weigh in with the details.. The new Cullen book also likely has the facts, which is likely the end all book on Columbine by a local Denver Post reporter who was on scene that day.

[raimius]

108. It's still incorrect

Whether he is careless with definitions, dishonest, or was mislead, he is attacking a "problem" which would not have prevented his son's death and is not a significant factor in crime.

A lot of gun-control activists found their cause through a violent crime (Sarah Brady, Dianne Feinstein, Caroline McCarthy, etc). While I feel terrible that they had to experience these things, it does not give them moral superiority, more factual authority, or expert knowledge about the variety of gun-laws they advocate. Now, if they have done their homework, they may achieve these things, but the fact that they were connected to such a terrible loss does not give them any more authority or credibility.

I have a lot of sympathy for Mr. Mauser, but the laws he is advocating would not have stopped his son from being murdered and they will not stop a significant amount of crime. I don't know if Mr. Mauser buys firearms (from his advocacy, I would assume he does not), so to him, restrictions on those who follow the law are probably acceptible if even one crime is hindered. However, for those of us who do purchase or sell firearms, the benefits of a small number hindered crimes must be weighed against our interests. IMO, the interests of the majority of gun owners, in this case, outweighs the very marginal effect of the restrictions on criminals (largely due to the substitution effect--they'll get weapons from somewhere else, like 99% of their counterparts do).

[Froward69]

69. Hear Here!!!!

I for one am appaled at Tom mauser milking Columbine.

Remember he IS a republican.

[gorfle]

70. It's quite simple.

It's quite simple.

There are no such thing as "unlicensed private dealers" at gun shows.

All dealers must have a federally-issued Federal Firearms License to conduct business. This is true at a gun store, at a gun show, or at a kitchen table. All dealer sales must go through a NICS federal background check.

Private individuals may sell firearms without a background check. This is true at gun shows, swap meets, parking lots, or gun shows.

I call Tom Mauser dishonest because I believe there is a very plain motive for using words like "unlicensed private dealers". Specifically, he does not want to simply say, "individual sellers" because people would then understand that there is nothing special about private firearm sales between individuals at gun shows or anyplace else. And if you want to regulate private firearm sales at gun shows, the next step is to regulate private firearm sales anywhere. Calling private individuals "unlicensed private dealers" is intentional to divert attention away from the fact that he's really talking about private, individual transactions.

[LanternWaste]

39. self-delete

self-delete

[baldguy]

90. Of course it couldn't be that the dealer in question is just breaking the law?

Of course not.

:sarcasm:

[rl6214]

93. The person in question wasn't a dealer

but was a private individual. Any dealer that makes any trasaction MUST treat that transaction as if it were done at their store, even if they are selling one of there own personal weapons.

[HALO141]

97. No,

They're allowed a certain number of private transfers per year. (I think it's 10) But I know several FFL's personally and none of them would do so because of the possible ramifications.

[hendo]

58. he may be sincere in his intentions, but it seems like he needs to fudge the facts

to try and get his point across.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Not lying. Misinformed.

There is no such thing as an unlicensed dealer.

If you put a gun for sale in the classifieds in your newspaper, you would be doing the same thing as if you showed up at the gun show and sold a gun, to another private party.

It's a private transfer. It does not make you a dealer. If you qualify as, and are licensed as a dealer, you MUST do all the paperwork, even if you are selling a personal gun, on your own time at the show. There are no exceptions, only felonies.

[Hugabear]

4. Here come the gun-lovers, deliberately trying to obscure the facts

The OP states that you can buy guns from unlicensed dealers at gun shows without going through a background check. Whether the term you want to use is "private dealer" or "private seller", the fact is you can still go to a gun show and buy guns without any background check at all.

And YES, I know that people have been buying guns from each other for quite some time, that you can find people in the classified ads selling guns, etc. But having a gun show allows these private sellers to gather in one central place, making it so much easier for someone to come in, browse around, and buy a gun without going through the system.

Why is the gun lobby so opposed to closing this loophole? If you want to sell guns at a gun show, regardless of whether you are classified as a "dealer" or not, you should have to follow the same rules.

[sailor65]

7. Delete, posted in wrong reply......

[Statistical]

9. It isn't a loophole

1) less than 1% of felons obtained their firearm from a gunshow (per DOJ)

2) it is a states right issue to regulate private sales and some states do.

3) even if you believe private sales should involve an FFL it is dishonest to call it a gunshow loophole. Would you ONLY require a background check/FFL for sales inside a gunshow but NOT require one for all sales outside a gunshow? Doesn't make much sense does it.

Lets be honest about it. Using the term "dealer" is INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING. Dealers = FFL are required to complete a backgrond check regardless of where sale takes place (at store, at home, in an alley, at a gunshow) private individuals are not required to do so REGARDLESS OF LOCATION.

If anything it is a PRIVATE PROPERTY "LOOPHOLE" (one that results in a statistically insignificant number of weapons being used by felons.

The weapons obtained in Columbine shooting did have a background check run, as did the VT shooting, as did the recent immigration shooting. Name a single mass shooting where gunman got a single weapon from gunshow w/o completing a background check?

Just one.

[Hugabear]

17. If it takes place at a gun show, then it absolutely should require a background check.

And your last statement puts the lie to the myth that the gun lobby likes to sell, "law abiding citizens don't commit crimes with guns".

[Statistical]

22. So let me make sure I get this straight

less than 1% of firearms used in crime come from gun show - check
guns sold by dealers always have a NICS done regardless of location - check

You are proposing:
guns sold by private individuals at a gun show should have NICS check done
but guns sold by private individuals outside gun show don't.

You are honestly with a straight face saying that is anything more than a "feel good" law?

<1% of crimes involved gun acquired at gun show.
some % of them were previous non-felons and thus could pass a BG check.
an even smaller % bought from a private individual
an even smaller % wouldn't be smart enough to call up seller and buy gun outside gunshow
and even smaller % wouldn't acquire a gun from another source

so how much do you think that will reduce crime rate? 0.1%, 0.001%, maybe 1/100th of 1%.

Yup sounds like a do nothing "feel good" law to me, kinda like the AWB.
What was the outcome of that again?

[Hugabear]

26. You keep bringing up a red herring argument, but I stand by my argument.

AFAIC, the minute that a private individual decides to sell guns at a gun show, they're no longer merely a "private seller." They're taking advantage of the fact that they are in a commercial setting, and that there is a steady flow of potential customers walking around. Neither of those applies to someone who is sitting at home waiting for someone to respond to a classified ad, or selling a gun to a neighbor or friend.

Let me ask you this - why are YOU opposed to having someone who buys a gun at a gun show undergo a background check?

[Statistical]

27. I don't think it will end there.

Why would they stop at gunshows.

Lets say this passes:
1) do you agree it is a state issue or are you hoping for more federal expansion into states issues?

2) If it does pass honestly a year from now won't the idea hit you.....
"wait second. guns are still being sold OUTSIDE gunshows. We should require federal involvement into ALL private sales".

3) <1% of ALL guns used in crime came from gunshow. It is unlikely that would stop even 1% of crime because only a small % would find no other method to obtain a firearm.

So instead of say useful stuff like spending an extra $10B a year for a functional mental health system you want to pass a DO NOTHING LAW that makes you feel good and perpetuates the stereotype that Dems are anti-RKBA.

Not a good trade in my book.

[Hugabear]

51. It would not bother me to require a background check for ALL gun sales

Private or not. The technology is there. Why not make sure that the person you're selling a gun to isn't a prior felon with a history of violent crimes?

[rl6214]

60. How would you propose

this be enforced?

[pipoman]

65. Dems and pugs alike have ran for office for the past 15 years

promising to 'close the gun show loophole', yet it has never happened. Why? Because none have found a way to constitutionally regulate intrastate sales of privately owned personal property. Very simple. Some states require background checks on private sales, most do not.

My suggestion has been for years to make NICS available for a nominal cost (or better yet free) to anyone wanting to transfer a firearm on a voluntary basis. Then following up with a public awareness campaign. As it is now a private seller cannot access NICS for a private transfer without going through an FFL and paying as much as the FFL wants to charge, usually costs enough to discourage anyone from doing it. Afterall FFL dealers are in business to sell guns, not take potential buyers out of the market. Most private sellers do not want to sell to a prohibited buyer if for no other reason than to limit their liability. I know if this were an option for me I would use it if/when I sell a gun.

[Callisto32]

102. About making NICS free.

What a fabulous idea, providing people with vital information free of charge, after they have already paid for it with tax funds! Even better, we can allow certain portions of the gun-buying public to avoid NICS altogether. Here in PA, if you have a license to carry firearms, that means the local sheriff has done an FBI background check on you, contacted people about your background and disposition, and checked you for any commitments to psychiatric facilities. If you do anything that makes you ineligible (the same stuff that makes you unable to buy firearms) then the license is revoked. It would free up resources, and reduce operating costs if everybody with a LTCF could just show their license as proof of NICS-passing-ability and the savings could be passed on to those that don't have a license making the system more accessible to the general public and allowing for easier private checks if one wished to do them.

I am actually suggesting this sincerely, but since I am pretty sure the ensuing discussion is going to be fun to watch:


:popcorn:

[X_Digger]

104. Actually, here in TX..

You bypass the NICS check if you have a CHL.

[Callisto32]

105. Sounds good.

I'm from PA, so... I had no idea and thought that since NICS is a national system, it would be federally mandated.

[X_Digger]

106. It happens because..

FFLs don't dial directly into NICS (at least not in Texas). They dial into the DPS (Department of Public Safety) who has access to the database. DPS has ruled that a CHL is as good as NICS, since DPS revokes CHLs in a heartbeat for things that are more strict than NCIS, and strictly enforces turning in your CHL on suspension or revocation (so far as coming a-knocking on your door.)

I thought that all FFLs called into the Federal system, but I listened in on the call for my last purchase.

Depending on the willingness of state governments to act as a liaison for the NICS, the FFLs contact either the FBI or a designated state Point of Contact (POC) to initiate background checks on individuals purchasing or redeeming firearms.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Private parties are not allowed to use NICS

Because you might use it to see if so-and-so is a felon, or has some disqualifying mental health issue. An invasion of privacy. In order to use NICS, you must be a licensed dealer, with approval to use the background check system.

You could force private sellers to go through an intermediary, but that will cost them money.


Here in Washington State, Washington Arms Collectors has a partial measure in place, that I feel works pretty good. In order to enter the show, and buy or sell ANY firearm, you must be a member. Membership application includes a NICS check up front. So you know that every member is legally qualified to own a gun. Sell a gun to a non-member, and you lose your membership, and are shown the door. Some of us self-police. Some shows don't.

[gorfle]

76. Ding!

It would not bother me to require a background check for ALL gun sales Private or not. The technology is there. Why not make sure that the person you're selling a gun to isn't a prior felon with a history of violent crimes?

If you can come up with a system that allows such private background checks AND preserves anonymous firearm ownership, I'm all ears.

[G_j]

36. third time you gave that statistic, care to share a link next time? nt

[Statistical]

37. Sure. DOJ Firearm Use Statistics

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

(Rounded by me for ease of reading)
Source of firearm
-----------------
Retail 14%
Pawnshop 4%
Flea market 1%
Gun show <1%
Friend/family 40%
street/illegal 40%

[G_j]

53. thanks

links are good

[ManiacJoe]

44. You seem to be under the impression that the geographic

location of the sale is important. It is not. The same rules governing eligible buyers apply to all sales regardless of location. Gun show, church parking lot, private home, dealer's store all have the exact same rules.

The unfortunate fact is the while the NICS check is required by the dealers, it is prohibited to the private sellers. Also unfortunate is that fact that the prosecutors almost always chose not to jail the unlawful sellers and buyers.

[gorfle]

75. Nope.

And your last statement puts the lie to the myth that the gun lobby likes to sell, "law abiding citizens don't commit crimes with guns".

The correct statement is, "The vast majority of law abiding citizens don't commit crimes with guns."

Obviously everyone is law-abiding right up to the moment they decide to break the law.

No one seriously claims that no law-abiding citizen never committed a crime with a gun.

The point here is that out of 40-80 million firearm owners in this country, less than 2% are involved in firearm crimes every year. There is no reason to penalize the 98% for the sake of the 2%.

[russ1943]

62. Okay , just one.........

You’ve again, posted as fact an outright fabrication.
You posted;
“The weapons obtained in Columbine shooting did have a background check run, ……. Name a single mass shooting where gunman got a single weapon from gunshow w/o completing a background check?
Just one.”

DUH…….. How about umn ah er well ……………..Columbine.
Do you ever research anything you post? You just make shit up.
The weapons obtained in Columbine shooting did not, I repeat, did not have a background check.

[rl6214]

59. Have the government

Make the NICS system available to private sellers. Problem solved. Only problem is, they won't do it.

[gorfle]

72. Yes, that is true.

The OP states that you can buy guns from unlicensed dealers at gun shows without going through a background check. Whether the term you want to use is "private dealer" or "private seller", the fact is you can still go to a gun show and buy guns without any background check at all

Yes, that is true. But it is not the "gun-lovers" who are deliberately trying to obscure the facts. If one was being honest, one would simply say "private individual" rather than "unlicensed private dealer". The simple fact is people want to make it sound like something especially diabolical is happening at gun shows, when the simple fact is it is no different than the hunting/sporting section of your local newspaper's classified ads.

But having a gun show allows these private sellers to gather in one central place, making it so much easier for someone to come in, browse around, and buy a gun without going through the system.

I have been to several gun shows. Probably 10-15. In all that time, I have seen one private individual selling a gun at a gun show. It was a fellow with a bolt-action hunting rifle slung over his shoulder with a little flag-sign stuck out of the barrel that said "For Sale".

I very much doubt that there are very many private sales at gun shows. People go to gun shows to see all the wares laid out on tables by paying dealers who have paid money to set up shop at the show. There just aren't legions of private people walking up to people spreading open their trench coats saying, "Pssst! Hey buddy, wanna buy a gun?"

Why is the gun lobby so opposed to closing this loophole? If you want to sell guns at a gun show, regardless of whether you are classified as a "dealer" or not, you should have to follow the same rules.

For two reasons:

1) Once you start regulating private sales between private individuals at gun shows, it is not much of a stretch before such regulations will apply outside of gun shows.

2) It would be completely ineffective. All the buyer and seller would need to do would be to walk across the street and conduct their business.

[rl6214]

94. I doubt that any of us are opposed at all.

We have been SCREAMING for the ability to use the NICS system to check before sales are made but they will not give us that ability.

[Callisto32]

101. How is it a loophole?

People are bound by the same laws no matter where they are when doing a certain behavior. Seems to me like a consistent application of the law without unnecessary bureaucratic BS put in the way. You said yourself that people have other methods to acquire their firearms so what REAL purpose would making private transfers at gun shows subject to a NICS check actually accomplish? Frankly, it smacks of "feel-good" legislation to me rather than a substantive change or check on anything.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Of course there is. An individual who makes his living, or a substantial

part of his living, buying and selling guns at gun show - while NOT being a licensed gun dealer - would be a private dealer. And you know there are people who do that. They go around buying weapons from estate sales, classified ads, whatever, as private individuals, then re-sell them at gun shows.

Which is exactly what the Columbine dad is talking about.

[Statistical]

10. Someone who makes a living buying and selling weapons for pofit IS A DEALER

The BATFE requires that they obtain an FFL, maintain records and ...... <drumroll> complete a background check on EACH sale.

Failure to do so it a federal felony.

[FudaFuda]

11. The ATF, and real FFL dealers, watch like hawks for that shit.

Don't believe me, try it. Go around buying weapons here and there, then take them to gun shows to sell for a profit. You can even do it very lowscale - let's say four guns sold at each gun show you attend, but you must go to at least two gun shows a month. And considering travel expense, the whole enterprise has to be at least marginally profitable, so you can't drive from Iowa to New Hampshire. So pick three states that share borders - all of your unlicensed dealing must be done within those 3 states. Let's see how long you last before you're busted by ATF. I give you 2 months, because even if the ATF isn't onto you by that point, all the real FFL dealers who are seeing you over and over are gonna rat your ass out.

[DevonRex]

21. #1, it's ATF, not The ATF. #2, ATF wishes it had the manpower and budget to do that.

I know what I'm talking about. #3, I never once got a tip from a licensed dealer about an unlicensed dealer. Not once. Ever.

[FudaFuda]

23. You're an ATF agent? Do you agree with the content of the article?

Also, are 90% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels coming from the US civilian market?

[DevonRex]

28. I left ATF in 1997. A private citizen can indeed set up a booth at a gun show

and sell his/her own firearms. Anybody selling a firearm is expected to abide by the law. For example, a private individual can't legally sell a handgun to a child. However, private citizens don't have to do background checks when selling their guns. The buyer doesn't have to fill out any forms, either, so there is no record of the sale. And this is how guns become untraceable.

Things become even murkier when FFLs sell their private collections at gun shows. They do some transactions on the books and some transactions off the books. Most reputable dealers enter their personal weapons onto their business inventory and then use the same forms and do background checks for all purchasers, just to be on the safe side.

And might I say here that most FFLs are honest folks who bend over backward to abide by the regs. They really don't like it when unlicensed dealers mess up or try to get a corner on the market. But a significant portion of their clientele is anti-government, anti-gun control. So they tread very carefully. Most don't want to wind up in court, testifying against an unlicensed dealer, for obvious reasons.

As far as the 90% thing goes, I honestly don't know the stats on that. I worked on issues with an entirely different country, on the other side of the globe. But let me say that I wouldn't be surprised if the figure is correct. I doubt there is any real way to verify that figure, given the nature of arms trafficking.

[FudaFuda]

46. Thanks. I appreciate the reply.

Nice to hear a bit from the LE perspective. Most of us posting in gun threads are a bit polar in the position we take. Your objectivity and experience is very helpful.

[gorfle]

77. "And this is how guns become untraceable."

The untraceable nature of private firearm sales in this country is what insures anonymous firearm ownership. This is a good thing.

[slackmaster]

84. States have the power to regulate what goes on at gun shows

There are no private sales allowed at gun shows in California.

Thanks for your contribution to the thread.

[Statistical]

25. Wouldn't an agent know that it is Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives?

The name changed when it became part of DHS in 2002.
Maybe they didn't send the agents the memo.

[DevonRex]

29. That was just a silly thing to say.

[paulsby]

99. actually, you are wrong too

it's BATFE

that changed years ago

hth

if you are going to be pedantic, and correct people in a nitpicky manner, it pays to get YOUR facts straight

hth

[DevonRex]

32. Yes, there are many people who do that. They're called unlicensed dealers.

And they're hard to catch.

[Fumesucker]

6. Have you ever used the term "drug dealer"?

Same basic idea, someone selling something outside of normal retail distribution channels.

A "black market" if you will.

[Richard Steele]

52. No, he ALWAYS refers to them as "unlicensed private pharmacists".

Because he wouldn't want to be a dishonest HYPOCRITE, doncha know. :eyes:

[mudesi]

34. Why Are You Defending This?

[mzmolly]

85. I just googled private gun dealer

and found several references.

But even though Maldonado wasn't supposed to have a weapon in his possession (because of multiple felony convictions when he was younger), Pasamonte won't face a single charge. Why's that? Because federal law states that private gun dealers are under no responsibility to do a background check when they sell their weapons. Which means they can sell almost any weapon to almost anyone at any time. No wonder, then, that the News Tribune is calling for more limits on private gun sales.

...

Here's a website dedicated to finding such a dealer: http://www.privategunsales.com/

More here: http://www.lcav.org/content/private_sales.pdf

:shrug:

[sailor65]

8. I've had background checks every time I've bought a gun...

as well as every year to referee AYSO,

every year to volunteer as a snowboarding coach for the school district,

etc., etc.

I've never had a problem with any of them, and don't see why it should be a problem every time a gun is sold..

[Junkdrawer]

12. And now there's in-state Internet private sales....

Completely legal in 33 states... In Pennsylvania, you can't sell handguns that way, but, for example, you could sell an AK-47 that way.

[RamboLiberal]

14. I just emailed the governor & my reps in PA about this

I'm a gun owner. I don't want an AWB. But I do want every gun transaction to have to go through an FFL. If gun owners want to preserve their right then we have to allow reasonable laws.

I don't like the idea of an AK-47 or an AR-15 or a 50 cal rifle being sold person-to-person without a background check.

With the internet & gun shows its a lot different than when friends sold to friends, or hunters did a sale to a fellow club member at the gun club.

[FudaFuda]

15. I somewhat agree, if ...

I agree with you there's nothing really wrong with all sales being required to go through an FFL, provided that

1) there's no change in federal law regarding record keeping after the sale, and

2) FFL's are limited as to how much they can charge for a service fee. $25 is more than enough.

[RamboLiberal]

19. That would be fine with me as well

State needs to be consistent. If you have to go through an FFL for a handgun, then you should have to go through an FFL for a rifle or shotgun. Only thing I might exempt would be antiques prior to a certain date and perhaps muzzleloaders.

[FudaFuda]

20. "Antiques" already covered by C&R FFL

A 'Curio & Relic" FFL is obtainable by just about anyone, and lets you buy qualifying firearms without going through a Class 2 FFL dealer (i.e. a gun shop or other professional dealer). I don't know a lot about the C&R FFL except that it exists, pretty much as you proposed.

[rl6214]

61. Having a C&R License

I can tell you there are guns I have bought using my C&R Lic that they want to put on the next AWB. Most notably the SKS and M1 Garand.

[Callisto32]

103. No, you can't

At least, not legitimately, without the feds knowing for all the registration and taxation hoopla.
That is a fully automatic arm subject to a LOT of regulation, not to mention exorbitant prices.
Sorry to jump down your throat, but every time I see "Ak-47" thrown around, it makes me want to scream. Media hype makes it seem like there is an AK behind every crack-dealer's door, and I am pretty sure that isn't the case. Even if it is, they aren't using them. Automatic gunfire attracts a LOT of attention. Heck, I was once approached at a range by a fellow shooter asking if I "was allowed to have that" when doing a little rapid fire with a semi-auto AK clone. Trust me, my rate of fire was nowhere near the cyclic rate of a real AK.

The real problem is

This:


Does not equal AK-47.


And most people in the media are simply not familiar enough with small arms to know that.

[raimius]

107. False.

You could NOT sell an AK-47 that way, as Ak-47s are Title II firearms under the 1934 National Firearms Act. You would have to go through an NFA eligible FFL (usually class 3), plus the buyer would have to go through the entire NFA process (background check, LEO sign off, tax stamp, etc).

[RamboLiberal]

16. One thing that always pissed me off about Columbine

was that straw purchaser Robyn Anderson never did any jail time for buying those 2 jerks the guns while Mark Manes went to jail.

Because Harris and Klebold were both underage at the time, Robyn Anderson, an 18-year-old Columbine student and old friend of Klebold's, made a straw purchase of two shotguns and Hi-Point 995 Carbine for the pair.<14> Anderson was not charged for her part in the straw purchase in exchange for her cooperation with the investigation that followed the shootings. After illegally acquiring the weapons, Harris and Klebold sawed off the barrels of the shotguns, shortening the overall length to below 25 inches, a felony under the National Firearms Act.

The shooters also possessed a TEC-DC9 semi-automatic handgun, which had a long history. The manufacturer of the TEC-DC9 first sold it to Miami-based Navegar Incorporated. It was then sold to Zander's Sporting Goods in Baldwin, Illinois in 1994. The gun was later sold to Thornton, Colorado firearms dealer Larry Russell. In violation of federal law, Russell failed to keep records of the sale, yet he determined that the purchaser of the gun was twenty-one years of age or older. He was unable to identify the pictures of Klebold, Anderson, or Harris shown to him by police after the shooting. Two men, Mark Manes and Philip Duran, were convicted of supplying weapons to the two. Early descriptions of the TEC-DC9 claimed that it was a fully automatic weapon, one that fired continuously with one pull of the trigger, although this was not the case. Their model was the closed bolt KG99-related variant, which would have proven virtually impossible to convert to fully automatic without access to firearm machining equipment and substantial expertise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Klebold

[Statistical]

24. Another couple things that defy logic

1)The buyer had no criminal background check, even if all guns sales everywhere even between 2 private individuals requires background check the buyers (both of them) would have been able to buy the guns w/ no problem

2) The shooter Eric Harris turned 18 9 days before the shooting. He had no criminal or mental health record that would have prevented him from buying the weapons. So even if all guns sales everywhere in the United States required a background check he would have passed and been able to buy the guns and commit murder 9 days later.

It is strange the father made "gun show loophole" which wouldn't have saved his son life his life's mission.

On the other hand making selling a weapon to someone you know is unlawful (under age, felon, mental health, etc a co-conspiration and thus could be charged also with murder) might actually cut down on "Straw buys" which might (although I doubt it) have prevented this tragedy.

[russ1943]

64. You can quit being PO'd

If you are at all serious then you can cease being pissed off.

Robyn Anderson neither made a straw purchase nor did she make any kind of deal to avoid prosecution (for not committing a crime). To make a straw purchase you have to lie to an FFL and/or on the form 4473.
She dealt with a private party, no straw purchase.
Wikipedia comes up short on facts regarding “not being charged for her cooperation”. Think about it, do you really think local state or federal authorities would have made any deal simply for her cooperation? She violated no local state or federal law. Mark Manes did. They were anxious to prosecute anyone and they would have, if they could have, and they eventually reluctantly said so.

[DevonRex]

71. Exactly. She did not break the law in any way. nt

[xchrom]

18. +3

[aikoaiko]

31. Simple remedy: open NICS to the public and require that an inquiry be made when transferring a gun.

I am required to make sure that my private sale is to a resident of my state so I ask to see a GA driver's license.

If I could call NICS and get a go or no response, I would do that too.

[Redneck Socialist]

56. Stop talking sense aikoaiko...

it has no place in a DU gun thread.

I find it interesting that I never see your point addressed by any of the 'close the gun show "loophole"' crowd.

[Raskolnik]

33. I'm sure this man's grief is profound, and his desire to do something to

prevent similar tragedies is genuine.

But, the facts remain that a miniscule amount of gun crime is committed using guns obtained at gun shows, the so-called gun show "loophole" is nothing of the sort, and requiring background checks from private sellers at gun shows likely wouldn't have changed the outcome at Columbine one bit.

[marmar]

35. I guess he'll get smeared by the DU gun lobby as well.....

n/t

[Bluebear]

40. The first answer here said the man is lying.

[DevonRex]

45. Some people have no heart and no sense. Thank you for the OP.

[Raskolnik]

49. And some people believe that civil rights shouldn't be limited every time someone makes

an emotional appeal, even if that emotional appeal is genuine and heartfelt.

If a 9/11 victim's family member advocates for enhanced interrogation techniques and limitation of 4th Amendment protections as counter-terrorism measures, that advocacy should be met with scrutiny, even if the motivation might be genuine and understandable grief.

[TheWraith]

38. Gun shows have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Any private seller--which means an individual person, not a dealer--can sell a gun to any other person as long as the seller doesn't have any reason to believe the buyer is disqualified from owning a gun. It has nothing to do with being at a gun show or not, and an actual gun dealer ALWAYS has to perform a background check on someone no matter where they're selling.

[onehandle]

42. All the more reason to track guns.

Registration? Puh!

I mean TRACK them. Imbed tracking devices that can be picked up by satellites. Send the owners name and list of weapons to ever law enforcement agency, neighbor, church, school near them. Send an overnight letter to their employer on every purchase.

Put a big sign on their front lawn that says, "Warning: Gun Owner."

What? You don't want people to know that you're armed?

Isn't that the point? To defend yourself? To let Bambi know that you can blow his mom away?

Or do you just want to picture yourself Dirty Harryesque?

Watch yourself late at night in the mirror.

Oh yeah... That's the stuff.

[TheWraith]

47. Please tell me you don't believe any of that nonsense you just spread.

For starters, there's no way to track guns by satellite. Second, the number of people who fantasize about some kind of "make my day" situation are about the same number who imagine themselves to be a rock star, or God's gift to the opposite sex, or equally improbably scenarios. You could just as easily claim that anyone who's on DU, posting their political opinions for the whole world to see, must think that they're a statesman to rival Jefferson.

[onehandle]

78. There's no way to track guns by satellite? Sure there is. It would be expensive, but possible.

And some DUes think that they are a statesman to rival Jefferson.

[Raskolnik]

48. One of the dumber posts I've seen re: this issue, and that's saying something. n/t

[onehandle]

79. Oh, I've seen dumber. nt

[scrinmaster]

54. I wonder what other civil rights you feel the same way about.

Maybe gun owners should be forced to wear an armband.

[onehandle]

80. Imbedded sirens.

The siren imbedded in their gun (part of the satellite tracking system) would sound as a warning when ever the gun is removed from their government issued gun case. This would be a convenience to the gun owner to allow him to move freely among the unarmed, while warning the unarmed that there is an armed individual in the area.

[jmg257]

55. I think we should track the people instead, then we will know exactly who does what to whom.

Why just worry about guns, when we can get a handle on any and all incidents?

[onehandle]

82. Are you suggesting that we implant the satellite tracking devices into the people themselves?

Sorry, but that might be seen as an attack on the gun owner's 2nd amendment rights. Guns themselves have no rights. No consumer item does.

Nope. Gotta track the guns.

[paulsby]

100. case law says otherwise

a recent case, for example, requires police to get a warrant to place a GPS device on a person's car.

even if the car is used on public roadways, it still requires a warrant.

hth

[rl6214]

63. Are you sure you really want to do this?

Put a big sign on their front lawn that says, "Warning: Gun Owner."


All that will do is tell the burgalar or rapist to go next door to YOUR house.

[onehandle]

81. Hey, life is dangerous... Apparently.

My plan would be a Boon to the gun companies. They could provide the signs along a logo and an ad. "This house is armed. Are you?"

You would Not be allowed to place a sign unless you own a gun. Gun sale would soar!

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Or it will cause the burglar to wait till you leave

then break in and try to steal your guns, which are very valuable on the market.

I prefer anonymity.

[onehandle]

87. Under my plan, you would be required to carry your guns with you at all times.

Your guns would be safe, because you are Always there to defend them.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. Will you supply me with a wheelbarrow?

Cause I only have one wheelbarrow. I'm going to need like... 3

[onehandle]

89. Laws are laws.

How you haul your fetish is not my concern.

[rl6214]

96. Fetish huh?

Got to use those trigger words to try to get an emotional response huh? Can you even begin to act like an adult when debating an issue without calling names or making a jevenile accusation?

[slackmaster]

74. The bigotry of gun banners never ceases to amaze me

Put a big sign on their front lawn that says, "Warning: Gun Owner."

I'll gladly do that as soon as you put on in front of your home that says "Gun-free home".

[onehandle]

83. I got that covered. See comment #81. nt

[Howzit]

92. You sound like a recovering AK-holic...

[benEzra]

95. Thanks, you just made my day. I bookmarked your post.

I take it, then, that you do not have an engineering or science background?

[ManiacJoe]

43. No new laws needed. Just enforce the existing ones.

Surprisingly, both the buyer and the seller of the Columbine guns were prosecuted and sent to jail. Unfortunately, for most shootings that never happens.

[Sparkly]

50. K&R

:kick:

[rl6214]

57. First

Make the NICS database available to private sellers so the CAN do the background check. I don't think any gun owner has any problem with that

Second
The fact that it was at a gun show makes no difference. As a private sale, it could have been done anywhere so the gun show lookhole is a myth.

[pipoman]

66. It sound as if this man is

attacking what he believes to be a problem at the state level, which is where this type of legislation belongs. I don't agree with his semantics but it is up to opposing people to explain their position. This is the way our state legislative system works.

[slackmaster]

73. The issue isn't gun shows, it's the inability of private sellers to do background checks

The federal government does not have the authority to regulate non-commercial intrastate private sales of used guns. The states do. Making the federal background check system (NICS) available to the general public would provide a way for people to make sure that someone to whom they wish to sell a firearm is not prohibited from owning it.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tejas]

98. "wears his son's shoes"

Has a vendetta and wears his dead son's shoes, that man needs a psychological evaluation.

Reminds me of a dingbat in Long Island whose husband was shot and now wants firearms banned across the entire country.