(Democratic) Bill would require background check for all sales at gun shows (OH)

[jpak]

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/06/14/bill-would-require-background-check-for-all-sales-at-gun-shows.html?sid=101

Saying that even terrorists know they might not need to pass background checks to buy firearms at gun shows, a state legislator said yesterday that she is introducing legislation to require such checks.

"To not close this loophole is knowingly reckless and irresponsible to Ohioans and our region," said Rep. Tracy Maxwell Heard, D-Columbus. "With the challenges we face with gun violence, it is nothing short of negligent to not correct this situation immediately."

The proposal was heralded by Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman and City Councilwoman Michelle M. Mills, who joined Heard in a news conference held across W. Broad Street from Westland Mall, where a gun show is scheduled for this weekend.

The show's promoter branded the legislation a folly, and the Buckeye Firearms Association called it a grab at the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

<more>

[ProfessorHillbilly]

1. Good for Ohio

She is more intelligent than every republican member of congress

[Abq_Sarah]

3. Not when it comes to this issue

Legislators, posturing for votes and accolades, pass a law requiring background checks for private sales at gun shows. Private sales then move out to the parking lot and said legislators clutch their pearls and say, we need a new law! And on, and on, and on.

[damntexdem]

7. Great idea -- thank you! I love that scenario.

Even better, however, would be to require the checks for ALL sales, no matter where conducted. Do it all at once.

[Abq_Sarah]

10. Without a national registry

That tracks every single firearm in the USA, no one is going to know if you sell a friend your Taurus. And I can tell you now, they can try and pass a law requiring us to register firearms but the compliance rate will be dismal.

[rl6214]

15. Yeah and how are you going to make that happen?

[Atypical Liberal]

43. Kills anonymity.

If you require a background check for all firearm sales, you have created a de facto registry of firearm owners. This is unacceptable.

A better way would be to issue FOIDs to qualified individuals with every driver's license or state-issued ID, unless people opt out.

[iverglas]

78. duh

If you require a background check for all firearm sales, you have created a de facto registry of firearm owners. This is unacceptable.

To ... you?

Where does your constitution say you have a right to keep and bear arms anonymously?

Don't give me "register your computer", or I'll give you the broadcast regulator and licensing authority.

[Glassunion]

13. How about they simply require a background check on ALL firearms with a barrel length of

18" or less regardless of venue?

Then you legislate that it be very inexpensive and available at all FFLs and LE stations?

So if I want to sell a handgun to my neighbor, we both run down to the sheriff's dept and a deputy runs a background check on my neighbor for $2. I get a record of the sale and if the firearm is ever used in a crime, I have a paper trail to assist the police.

[Abq_Sarah]

19. Inexpensive?

I don't support the government charging individual citizens for exercising constitutional rights. Can you imagine if you had to pay a quarter to the government every time you expressed an opinion on government?

[Glassunion]

42. Is $2 too much for a background check?

In my state you cannot privately purchase a firearm at a gun show, from your neighbor or anywhere for that matter if the firearm's barrel is less than 18". The fee for the background check is $2 at any of the 3 FFLs in my area. Same goes at the sheriff's dept.

There is an administrative fee to performing the check. Someone at either the FFL or LE's office needs to stop what they are doing and perform the check.

Even on the cheapest firearm $106.00 that I ever bought, $2 is quite minimal. When I sell a firearm, I charge the buyer for the BG check.

[DissedByBush]

55. Is $2 too much to exercise your right to vote?

That's the argument often, and rightfully, used against Republican voter ID initiatives.

[Glassunion]

60. Yes. However the administrative function of registering voters is handled by

Motor vehicle administrations, volunteers and political parties all of whom absorb the cost of the process.

I know of no political party or volunteer group that would absorb the cost of running background checks. There is a cost to registering voters, however the voter does not see it.

I have no problem with having all tax payers absorbing the cost and making it free, however I feel strongly that it should not be handled on a federal level. It should be a function of the states.

Personally, I appreciate how my state handles it. With of course the exception that our state police keep an illegal record of all handgun sales. But, overall it takes me less than 10 minutes to make a purchase and costs me a whopping $2 to have an FFL run a BG check on me.

Well... I'm off to the range. It's a beautiful day out.

[Atypical Liberal]

44. Creates a de facto registry.

Your proposal creates a de facto registry of all handgun owners. This is not acceptable.

A better choice is to issue FOIDs to all qualified individuals who obtain a driver's license or state-issued ID, unless they opt out.

[Glassunion]

47. So buying a firearm through an FLL creates a defacto registry?

Or having a deputy run the background check?

[Atypical Liberal]

48. Nope.

Today we have an open-ended system.

It is true that every firearm purchased through a dealer is noted by the government.

But because private sales are not so noted, there is nothing to say that I didn't sell my firearm that I bought from a dealer to Bubba on the street corner.

So every firearm owner today has plausible deniability to owning firearms, should the government ever come looking for them.

[DanTex]

49. They're comin' ta getcha!!

So every firearm owner today has plausible deniability to owning firearms, should the government ever come looking for them.

Never mind taking down channels for illegal gun trafficking, we've got some paranoid witch hunt fantasies to cater to...

[X_Digger]

51. You mean like CA did w/r/t SKS rifles? n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

52. It's happened before.

Firearm confiscation has happened already in places like California, the UK, and Australia.

I'm not going to allow the actions of criminals to be used as an excuse to infringe on my rights. You'll have to find some other way to take down channels for illegal gun trafficking.

I'd start by looking at things that affect criminals instead of law-abiding citizens.

[DanTex]

53. Are you saying that in the event that government were to ban firearms of some kind...

...that you would resist the ban and continue to hold on to your gun illegally?

Because if not, then who cares about the registry. In the event of a gun ban, law abiding citizens would turn over their guns to the government anyway, registry or no registry.

Right?

It sounds like you are saying that the reason not to have a gun registry is to facilitate illegal gun ownership in the event of a future gun ban. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[pneutin]

58. No, he's saying that a registry makes confiscation easier.

There does not have to be a ban enacted for police to come knocking on your door to confiscate your weapon(s). See Hurricane Katrina, and other relevant instances.

Incidentally, an existing registry makes it logistically easier for legislators to justify a ban/confiscation.
"Well we already have a registry, so we might as well ban and confiscate whatever we don't like and make it look like we're tough on crime."

...is a lot easier to do than...

"Well we don't have a registry, but it doesn't matter because criminals wouldn't register their guns anyways. So let's figure out real ways to combat crime."

[Atypical Liberal]

62. Absolutely.

Are you saying that in the event that government were to ban firearms of some kind......that you would resist the ban and continue to hold on to your gun illegally?

Absolutely. Registration is my personal line in the sand. I will never comply with it.

It sounds like you are saying that the reason not to have a gun registry is to facilitate illegal gun ownership in the event of a future gun ban. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The reason we should not have a gun registry is so that the government can never confiscate firearms, because they can't know definitively who has them.

Yes, in the event of such a move by the government, a lot of people will be turned into criminals.

[pneutin]

59. California already does that, and it sounds doable on paper, but in practice...

...it's horrible. Existing dealers are burdened with processing "cheap" transactions between patrons (like me) who are there because they're required by law. So of course the dealers will place greater priority on customers who are actually there to buy something, and those of us doing private transfers often have to wait an hour or more. And since California law mandates a 10 day waiting period, the dealer has to shoulder the cost of storing a transferred weapon in a secure safe. Another feel good law that is ineffective at reducing crime.

[iverglas]

72. but huh

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598366/

Objective

To describe gun shows and assess the impact of increased regulation on characteristics linked to their importance as sources of guns used in crime.

Subjects

Data were collected at a structured sample of 28 gun shows in California, which regulates these events and prohibits undocumented private party gun sales; and in Arizona, Nevada, Texas and Florida—all leading sources of California's crime guns—where these restrictions do not exist.

Thirty percent of gun vendors both in California and elsewhere were identifiable as licensed firearm retailers. There were few differences in the types or numbers of guns offered for sale; vendors elsewhere were more likely to sell assault weapons ... . Straw purchases were more common in the comparison states (rate ratio 6.6 ... .

Conclusions

California's regulatory policies were associated with a decreased incidence of anonymous, undocumented gun sales and illegal straw purchases at gun shows. No significant adverse effects of these policies were observed.

Oh, and:

Gun shows are an important source of the guns used in these crimes in all three countries <US, Canada, Mexico>.4,5,6,7,8 During the late 1990s, cases involving gun shows and flea markets accounted for 30.7% of all trafficked guns in the US,4 with individual cases involving as many as 10 000 guns.6 Canada's Criminal Intelligence Service refers to unregulated American gun shows as a “serious threat”.9

And this was waay before the recent spot of bother at the ATF.

[Tejas]

74. Citing recipients of Joyce Foundation, here's your sign.

Conclusions

California's regulatory policies were associated with a decreased incidence of anonymous, undocumented gun sales and illegal straw purchases at gun shows. No significant adverse effects of these policies were observed.





ya thunk?

[friendly_iconoclast]

76. I might point out that 80% of guns seized in California are *from* California

So the state registration laws don't actually impede the criminal diversion of California-registered guns very much at all.
The term "beer kegs" is coming to mind...

And shouldn't that concluding quote read:

"California's regulatory policies were associated with a decreased incidence of OBSERVED anonymous, undocumented gun sales and illegal straw purchases at gun shows. No significant adverse effects of these policies were observed."?

[iverglas]

81. gosh, I guess a little enforcement sometimes helps

I might point out that 80% of guns seized in California are *from* California
So the state registration laws don't actually impede the criminal diversion of California-registered guns very much at all.

I must admit I'm not actually taking your point here ...

When the thing is traced to its last registered owner, what happens?

re: ""California's regulatory policies were associated with a decreased incidence of OBSERVED anonymous, undocumented gun sales and illegal straw purchases at gun shows."

The same methodology was used everywhere ... so again ... not actually taking your point ...

[iverglas]

77. ya seen da url for da study, did ya?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598366/#ref3

and where it was published? Familiar with the concept of "peer-reviewed"?

Maybe you even, oh, read the paper?

Given these policy differences, we expected to see fewer private party sales and fewer sales of assault weapons in California. We also hypothesized that California's regulations would adversely effect <sic> attendance and commercial activity. We expected no difference in the incidence of straw purchases, which are illegal nationwide.

If you wanna do a study hypothesizing some other "adverse effect" and test your hypothesis, or if you know of one that has done that, feel free to tell us.

[Hoyt]

61. Very good idea. Unfortunately, a lot of those who profit from private "transactions" will disagree.

[iverglas]

69. y'know, I'd never even heard the expression until last week in this forum

said legislators clutch their pearls and say ...

It sure does fit the gun militant posturing though, doesn't it?

Big old girlyman sissies, those firearms control advocates. Oh, unless you were actually talking about actual women, who of course are girly sissies by nature.


Private sales then move out to the parking lot ...

Well here's a novel idea.

Require background checks for all private sales.

Strikes me that requiring them at gun supermarkets isn't a bad start, though.

Why do I care, you ask?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=45318&mesg_id=45319
(I can only quote the passage in my post as the Toronto Star link is now dead)

... A number of U.S. states have closed the gun show loophole, including the Ontario border states of Michigan and New York. Ohio, however, is a major gun trafficking source for New York, Pennsylvania, and then to Ontario, according to ATF crime gun data.

I live in Ontario.

And for general info:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598366/

... Subjects
Data were collected at a structured sample of 28 gun shows in California, which regulates these events and prohibits undocumented private party gun sales; and in Arizona, Nevada, Texas and Florida—all leading sources of California's crime guns—where these restrictions do not exist.

... California's regulatory policies were associated with a decreased incidence of anonymous, undocumented gun sales and illegal straw purchases at gun shows. No significant adverse effects of these policies were observed.

[petronius]

6. Wake up! won’t you listen to me

Wake up! won’t you listen to me
Won’t you listen to me
Wake up! won’t you listen to me
Wake up! won’t you listen to me
Won’t you listen to me

Big brother’s watching, we watch him back
We see right through his disguise
He tries to scare us, with angry words
But we all know that they’re lies
Whole world is waiting
Just see the fear in their eyes
...

Welcome to DU! :hi: Your sig line made me think of Boingo (and the song is rather relevant to the terrorism-fear drumbeat alluded to in the OP)...

[ileus]

2. why not introduce a bill to ban all private sales?

[DonP]

4. That's a quick trip to writing the NRA a big ass check

Maybe the gun control people actually can learn from experience (but I doubt it). San Francisco, DC and Chicago have all had to write huge checks to the NRA and Alan Gura's law firm in the last few years for passing laws that clearly didn't stand constitutional muster.

I wonder if this legislator's constituents are ready to pony up checks in the form of increased property taxes to pay for her posturing, trying to get the Feds to regulate Intrastate commerce on an individual constitutional right.

[ileus]

5. a private sell is a private sale, why single out funshows...they care about illegal sales right?

[jpak]

8. Fuck the NRA

yup

[DonP]

9. Sure, why shouldn't the people of Ohio get to write them a big fat check?

I have a feeling they'd rather not write a check for 7 figures or so, like San Francisco, DC, Chicago and Oak Park had to.

And that whole intrastate regulation thing? I'm guessing the ACLU might have something to say about that as well as the NRA.

[Abq_Sarah]

11. Do you really believe it's just the NRA?

Seriously?

[oneshooter]

12. He believes that hangnails are caused by the NRA. n/t

[ileus]

14. no no...hangnails are caused by revolver hammers.

[rl6214]

16. Sounds like you have tourrettes

are you off your meds again

[badtoworse]

33. What an erudite post!

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[lawodevolution]

17. A proposed bill. Meanwhile pro gun bills are passing around the country

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[RSillsbee]

18. A background check is required for all gun sales at gun shows

in Colorado now.

It is honestly not all that much of an inconvenience. It takes about a half hour and you can usually get the dealer to eat the cost.

But a year or so ago the CBI ( that's who does our BGCs) refused to to any checks on a particular Sunday and shut down the biggest gun show in the state.

Not acceptable

Plus, as I have mentioned several times this had had impact on crime.

So what happens when you pass the law and nothing happens?

[DanTex]

20. So is it the case that straw purchases and unlicensed sales have just "moved to the parking lot"?

This always seemed as an unlikely argument. I mean, presumably it is illegal to find a vendor at a gun show and then tell him to meet in the parking lot in a 10 minutes in order to do the sale without a background check.

Because cutting down on unlicensed sales at gun shows, not to mention straw purchases, would seem like a good thing to me.

[X_Digger]

21. It would have no impact on straw purchases--

The whole reason that straw purchases are done is to utilize the clean background of the purchaser, because they buy from an FFL, who runs an NICS check.

In California, a state that has registration such as has been proposed for OH, 80% of the guns recovered in crimes originated in CA.

http://www.policeissues.com/Sources.pdf

[DanTex]

22. In theory...

In practice, it appears that the CA law actually does reduce the number of straw purchases at gun shows:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598366/

[eqfan592]

23. I only did a quick scan of it....

...but I can't tell if the study found any decrease in the over all number of straw purchases in the state. If all the law accomplished was to make straw purchasers not purchase at shows and instead go to other sources, such as regular stores, then what benefit was there to the law?

[X_Digger]

24. It's the Fred Phelps of gun control study..

Wintemute?

When he lies in the introduction?

all leading sources of California's crime guns

How can I take something seriously when there's a blatant lie in the first page? The CA AG and BATFE reports on the sources of guns used in crime show that yes, "Arizona, Nevada, Texas and Florida" are the primary sources outside of CA, but they represent 20%.

And how were straw purchases quantified? By observation!

Rates for straw purchases were calculated as events per hour of observation time and compared using Poisson regression.

No observational bias there, nosiree-bob.

[DanTex]

25. OK, just dismiss evidence if you don't like it...

You guys really think the entire academic community is out to get you, huh?

Meanwhile, back on earth, yes, closing the gun show loophole would indeed reduce straw purchases, as well as undocumented transactions at gun shows, which are one significant channel in the distribution system that results in criminals getting guns.

[eqfan592]

26. lol, you just can't STAND people making very valid...

...criticisms of studies you hold to be gospel, right? "Oh, you just can't accept reality!"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[X_Digger]

27. No, there are only a handful or researchers doing the same econometric modeling over and over..

No cohort studies (especially by anyone outside the little circle jerk), and variations orders of magnitudes different when the study is repeated (Yes, Kellerman, I'm looking at you- 43:1 v 2.7:1 AOR.)

Kellerman, Wintemute, Azreal, Miller, Hemenway, Branas.. Quite the little cabal regurgitating the 'guns as pathogens' / 'guns as gases in a fixed volume' study.

Seriously, though, how can I take your above quoted study seriously when it starts from a flawed premise? Ascribing intent by observation is inherently susceptible to observational bias on an unimaginable level.

It might as well be labled, "David and Arthur's trip to the gun show and wot we saw-- now wif more numbers!"

[gejohnston]

29. Now there is

Ayres that writes diet books and a Milton Friedman economist named Donahue

Together they wrote a "study" funded by the John Olin Foundation.

[gejohnston]

67. Of course, deflect legitimate criticism

of junk science paid for by the Joyce Foundation echo chamber. In other words, you can't defend it.
Do you know what a straw purchase is? I don't think so. How would closing the "gun show loophole" reduce straw purchases? What is the "gun show loophole"? If it means that FFLs do not have to do NICS checks (which is not true), then by definition there are not any straw purchases, because an unqualified person can buy one with no problems.

[petronius]

40. Something that jumps out at me:

"A gun sale was classed as a straw purchase only if the purchase was made from a licensed retailer, the required forms were completed, and there was clear evidence that the person purchasing the firearm was not the intended possessor."

I'd like to see some example of what that clear evidence was, especially since "The observer then monitored gun sales and collected anecdotal data, walking through the show in a non‐patterned manner. ... The data collection process was unobtrusive. Observations were recorded as they were made, using a cellphone and a voicemail system."

I have trouble seeing how that methodology doesn't require an untenable degree of guesswork about the character of the transaction and the ultimate destination of the firearm...

[gejohnston]

28. have to ask, how did

the undergrads that wandered the isles know a straw purchase if they saw it? Who showed them what to look for?

[aikoaiko]

30. p = .06?

Straw purchases were more common in the comparison states (rate ratio 6.6 (95% CI 0.9 to 49.1), p = 0.06).

Where I come from one does not reject the null hypothesis with a probability of 6%.

[DanTex]

31. Wow! Denialists out in full force! LOL.

Step out for like a minute, and now there's a whole swarm! No worries, I never expected the "true believers" to accept empirical evidence. It's more for the reality-based crowd that also frequents this board.

But I will say, the paranoia, denial, and cognitive dissonance I've witnessed from some on here has been remarkable. Everyone's out to get your guns. All academic studies are biased, all research is suspect. All news outlets are untrustworthy. The only people with reliable info about guns are the NRA.

I guess y'all truly are convinced that Wintemute intentionally falsified the data, because he's such a liberal elitist and he hates guns so much.

But my favorite critique is the string of laughing smilies -- oooohh!! bright colors!! animation!!

[eqfan592]

32. Wow, you really are a true zealot, aren't you?

I mean seriously, you don't even bother to try and counter the criticisms, you just go on about "true believers" and other bull shit. The only "true believer" around here is you, and what's sad is you can't even see it. Your zealotry is absolute, and absolutely astounding.

[gejohnston]

34. not because he was a liberal elitist, assuming he is even a liberal, but

because he took money from the Joyce Foundation and an "anonymous donor" to write it, and he needed to publish something. It seems odd that you would accuse a bunch of liberals of ignoring a study because the researcher is liberal, assuming he is. None of us have the slightest clue what his politics are and I really don't care. The study should stand on its own merit.
Really Grasshopper, you drag out the usual straw men, and engage is if that straw man is real even though no one is saying any of the things that fits your script. You kind of remind me of one of those toys where you pull a string to play random recorded sentences. When someone tries to discuss the merits of the study, you whine about paranoia, denial, and cognitive dissonance. You never defend the studies using any of the data or explaining why the methods used are valid.

Can you answer the specific questions and defend Wintemute or any of these other studies on their own merits? Or are you going to deflect and ask me if I finished high school again?

[DanTex]

35. Ultimately, if you think Wintemute falsified his data, then good on ya!

Really, the other "criticisms" are minor nitpicks, but the accusation that the data was collected dishonestly is potentially devastating. And I can't prove that he didn't. Yes, he could have fudged his data. Nobody will ever know except Wintemute and maybe some RAs.

And it happens, e.g. Wakefield's autism study. But it is a relatively rare occurrence. So maybe it's "elitism", or just general comfort with academic research, that leads me to believe the study was legit.

But, yes, if you think it was faked, I've got nothing. And I'm sure the kool-aid brigade will be right there with you. But, I doubt that the reality-based community will share your paranoia. People get to make up their own mind.



As for that grammatically incoherent block of words that vaguely resembles a personal attack, you probably need to relax more, maybe try some yoga or something....

[gejohnston]

36. Just calling it as I see it Grasshopper

No it was not a personal attack. How were they nitpicks? Why not explain why?

If you are so comfortable with academic research, what is your problem with Kleck and others that disagree with you? How do you know you are the one in the reality based community? Your outlook seems kind of binary. My "reality" is not black/white, nor is it shades of gray. It is techicolor.
But then, is there an objective reality? If there is, how do you know what it is?

Not really a yoga person, I am more likey to swim a few laps, go for a hike in the woods, or put the aqualung on and go play with the local manatee.

[X_Digger]

37. Doesn't even have to be intentional (bias)

Since it's observational; dependent on the attitudes, knowledge, and experience of the observer-- it's rather subjective, no matter how many numbers you wrap around it.

I assume they were Wintermute's grad students from UC Davis ('staff' is the only indication of the nature of the observers, but it's a common practice.)

On second reading, I caught something I missed- if you don't call this bias, I don't know what is..

We have grossly underestimated the incidence of straw purchases, as only 1 observer was present and such transactions may be more common on Sundays

Really? What leads them to believe they have underestimated the incidence of straw purchases, hrmm? Some preconceived notion, perhaps? Poppycock.


eta: The full passage from above..LOL!!

Our findings in this exploratory study are subject to several limitations. The shows studied were not a random sample, and events outside major metropolitan areas were excluded. The size of the study limits its statistical power. Some findings may be subject to observation bias; gun sales that were observed and licensed retailers who were identified may each have differed from those that were not. We have only imprecise measures of commercial activity. Detailed information on transactions and interviews with vendors and attendees would be helpful. We have grossly underestimated the incidence of straw purchases, as only 1 observer was present and such transactions may be more common on Sundays;7 rate ratios should be less affected. Our results will need validation by teams of observers at shows nationwide.

[petronius]

54. As much as you complain that no one wants to discuss the data and articles, you sure are quick

to avoid that conversation. This sub-thread is full of thoughtful critiques of the article, and all you come back with are insults and accusations. :shrug:

[melm00se]

38. after reviewing the study

document I see 2 major flaws:

1) the author claims that straw purchases were counted if there was "clear evidence that the person purchasing the firearm was not the intended possessor", yet provides no examples or objective measurements of what form that clear evidence is/was.

2) the author claims that he "provided training for project staff" but again does not detail the form and content of the training.

additionally, the study does not address the possibility of observational bias by the observers which should be, at least, pointed out during the discussion portion of the study where potential negative influences of the study would be addressed.

these 2 flaws alone would immediately raise significant questions in any peer review.

It is possible that all of the above were addressed in the more detailed study document but it is unclear if this exists.

based upon what the article presents and the flaws detected, I do question the validity of the data collected and the conclusions drawn by it.

[gejohnston]

66. I read this study

this is the one where the doc hires one undergrad to walk around a gun show and count the number of straw purchases he thinks he sees in a period of time. Of course how the undergrad knew what to look for, or what behavior the purchasers showed that got defined as a straw purchase is never mentioned.

[RSillsbee]

39. In Colorado if any part of a sale takes place at a gun show

a Background check must be performed. SO I can't meet you there and then go somewhere else to make the sale.

Because cutting down on unlicensed sales at gun shows, not to mention straw purchases, would seem like a good thing to me.

How many different ways can I say " This has been the law for several years and it has had zero impact on crime. " ?


All you're doing is adding extra inconvenience w/ no return. What would be the point of that?

[Atypical Liberal]

45. Absolutely.

I mean, presumably it is illegal to find a vendor at a gun show and then tell him to meet in the parking lot in a 10 minutes in order to do the sale without a background check.

But this isn't going to happen. You probably are not going to find any seller, even a private seller, at a gun show who is willing to follow you across the street somewhere to make a sale, certainly not if they have to leave their booth.

No.

What happens is people who want to buy firearms without going through a background check just don't go to gun shows, which they don't do even today in places where background checks are not required for private sales.

Instead, they buy them on the black market, or simply open up their local Penny Saver and buy one through the classified ads from a private citizen, no questions asked.

[RSillsbee]

71. In Colorado if any part of the sale takes place at a gun show

there must be a back ground check.

IOW I see you walking around the show w/ an AR for sale; I can't legally have you meet me at Denny's and sell me the gun. Well, technically I could but I'd have to do a background check first.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

46. What about sales in driveways, sidewalks, streetcorners, parking lots, or classified ads?

I once sold a 50 caliber to someone in the parking lot of a Wendy's (and also an AR15 rifle to another guy some other time). They give me cash and I give them the gun. All I have to do is make sure they're residents of Ohio and all the money is there.

Gun shows are not a problem. There is no "gun show loophole"... you can buy a gun from someone else ANYWHERE. There's no exceptions or anything magical about gunshows alone... it's not a loophole.

[DanTex]

50. It would be better to require a background check for all private sales, true.

But gun shows are a hub in the distribution system that puts guns in the hands of criminals. It's rightfully called the "gun show loophole" because de facto, gun shows are the easiest place for criminals to exploit what you might otherwise call the "private sales loophole".

A gun show (in some states) is currently like a big gun store where for much of the inventory, you don't need a background check. If you're a criminal or trafficker, it's great: you can peruse, shop around, find what you like, and then come home ready to either commit a crime or distribute to someone else who wants to commit a crime. No background check, no worries.

Consider the shooters at Columbine -- one of their purchasers said that if the gun show where she went required an IBC, she wouldn't have made the purchase.

Besides, there's no real downside to requiring IBCs at gun shows except minor inconvenience. And it would remove a channel through which guns are diverted and trafficked to criminals. It wouldn't make it impossible for criminals to get guns, of course, but it would make it more difficult, certainly.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

57. I don't believe that at all.

With gun forums, the internet, and classified ads operating everyday 24 hours... it is FAR more accesible, available, and anonymous for a buyer to do a private sale than visit a gun show. Plus there's no admission cost and you can schedule the buy for whenever you want - no waiting months for a gunshow to come around.

I go to a bunch of gun shows and also use the internet for many private sales too.It's easy to find guns from FFL dealers at gunshows, but the selection from private sellers is usually sparse and hit or miss. Buying private beats the hell out of buying from a gun show. Closing this imaginary loophole would have zero net impact on crime. Given ANY subject,not just guns, I cannot support more laws (restrictions) for no qantifiable or measurable benefit.

I would have to see some real evidence showing "gun shows are a hub in the distribution system that puts guns in the hands of criminals" beore I believe it.

[krispos42]

56. Fail

Once again, it's not a loophole, it's a talking point. The mere fact that geography is mentioned in the catch phrase falsely (and deliberately) implies that geography has something to do with the "loophole".

It doesn't. It never has and it never will.


If Tracy Maxwell wants to have all gun buyers go through NICS, then simply say "I want all firearms sales, from dealers and private sellers, to go through NICS, and I'm introducing a law that does that".


Cut the bullshit. Hell, some pro-gunners might even support such an idea, or at least not fight much against it. But don't talk about gun-show loopholes, unicorns, or other such fantasies to justify the law you want to pass.

[RightNoMore]

63. I think all CCW holders should have to be drug tested on

a random basses.

[Blown330]

64. Yeah right...

...guess everyone should be drug screened prior to voting and making public speeches. How about making gay couples pee in a cup before letting them marry?

[spin]

65. Why? Has there been a sudden rash of CCW holders using drugs ...

that I missed?

[petronius]

68. Is there really an "El Pase, TX," or did you misspell the name of your own home city?

:shrug:

[iverglas]

73. I'm always happy to see a thread I missed

but I do wonder what brought this one up ...

[Tejas]

75. I think all hardrives should be scanned weekly.

Since you're a law-abiding citizen, you've nothing to hide eh?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

80. Along with all people with Driver Licenses and People receiving aid (welfare, foodstamps, etc...)

I see your point... and nor do I want people carrying deadly weapons who abuse drugs.

And since cars are far more ubiquitous in public and cause more death... we should randomly drug test all people who hold a valid driver's license. And for good measure we ought to just all state/federal aid recipients on the pile as well... we can't people pissing other's money away on drugs.

[iverglas]

82. but I'm seeing some odd stuff ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=369864&mesg_id=369917

RightNoMore (16 posts)
Sat Jan-29-11 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
5. Gun control

needs to take place in very small, small steps. The goal should be to gain control without the other side even knowing it is happening. Remember Chess and not checkers.

Perhaps I will be forgiven if I say ... hmmmmmmm ...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

79. It's not a loophole.

Background Checks and records keeping are only an additional requirement for people who have additional licensing from the ATF (FFL). FFLs have greater access to factory-new firearms so naturally there are greater restrictions voluntarily undertaken by them for that privilege. There has never been a requirement for a private individuals to catalog and run a background check when selling personal property anywhere else in the state... so the fact that it happens at a gun show does not make it a loophole.

Maxwell's use of disingenuous wording is not worthy of support.