General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumspipoman
(16,038 posts)for background checks on all gun purchases except those between two people who live in the same state which the seller isn't a licensed firearms dealer or "in the business of selling firearms"...every other gun sale requires a background check...just to be clear..
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Every new gun sold, every used gun sold by a dealer, every gun sold across state lines must, by federal law, have a background check. The only sales not required by federal law are, as I said above, private party sales between two residents of the same state...
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)I think every gun should have a background check,, and Find your own link.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)through private parties in your own state, or the law was broken. There are a few states which do not require people with concealed carry permits or LEOs to do checks because the ccw/LEO background check is more thorough than NICS.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)And did you buy yours illegally or from a private individual in your own state?
NewYorkTaxPayer
(27 posts)since that is where I bought my AR without a background check, and further more, why is ok for their to be any transfer of guns without a background check?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)and Every single FFL dealer at every single gun show is required to do a background check...every one..
Some shows allow people to set up and sell their collections, but LEOs watch them closely to be sure they are not buying and selling guns without a FFL.
Further, there is no mechanism to allow me as a private citizen not engaged in the gun business to do a background check, even if I wish to...maybe allowing that and enacting a mechanism to do it would be a start?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)All you've done here is disingenuously insist that background checks are required for all gun purchases, in spite of enormous amounts of evidence to the contrary - as if there's a qualitative difference between a private sale and a sale from a dealer.
30,000 gun deaths a year is a problem. Rational people in this country want to reduce that number. Why don't you?
Nobody who has read this thread could possibly come out with any of those ridiculous conclusions..FFS
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Progressive dog
(6,863 posts)Every rational person who has read this thread did come to all those "ridiculous" conclusions.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)could possibly come to any of those deceitful conclusions...
You can easily post examples I'm sure of me stating in this thread (or any thread on DU during my 8 years here),
"disingenuously insist that background checks are required for all gun purchases"
Hint: read post #1 very carefully...here, I'll help you out..
"pipoman (10,022 posts)
1. There already is a requirement
for background checks on all gun purchases except those between two people who live in the same state which the seller isn't a licensed firearms dealer or "in the business of selling firearms"...every other gun sale requires a background check...just to be clear..
So, the first statement made by baldguy is false.
Then there's this:
" as if there's a qualitative difference between a private sale and a sale from a dealer. "
There is a vast difference in the law..."private sales" are not federally required to have a background check, while "sale from a dealer" is federally required to have a background check with the penalty for a dealer not being licensed or a licensed dealer not doing a check on every sale to a non-FFL buyer are both punishable by fines and prison time.
So, the second statement made by baldguy is false[/b
"Rational people in this country want to reduce that number. Why don't you?"
This one is the most irrational of all...LOL...Read my post #25...
I have been advocating for years right here on DU for background checks on private sales to be enabled. My plan for doing this has not changed and would work, and would be in place today if anyone really wanted to have private sale checks..baldguy has spent those same years advocating the same idea over and over and over, failure after failure...that idea being what just failed again, for the 5th or 6th time and will continue to fail..doing the same thing over and over expecting different results and all..
No, people who read this and understand English know that everything stated in post #44 is a laughable lie or the ramblings of someone who doesn't understand English all that well...
Progressive dog
(6,863 posts)See the problem is not reading and comprehending English. Your English is fine, the problem is truthfulness. If I took what you have said about background checks as Gospel, I would agree with you.
Unfortunately, most people have seen how self enforcement works out in practice. The privatization people are mostly Republicans.
The sellers in gun shows are already responsible for AT LEAST checking I.D., but many don't do it. Now we are supposed to trust them to have super secret background checks done.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)As it is if a state wishes to require checks, they have to re-invent the wheel with a duplication of an already existing process (NICS) because NICS isn't open for private transfers. This requirement for them to make a new process is time consuming, costly and counter productive..counter productive in that now the state is making sure their own, new system is accurate and still not submitting to NICS so if the prohibited person moves to another state, NICS will not have the info. OTOH, if the system was enabled for private sales, states would merely have to pass a law requiring private sellers to use the existing system, and the state would be more inclined to submit to NICS so their law is accurately applied helping every other state. Is it a perfect solution? No. But it exceedes what we have now. What do you think we should do? Wait for the next tragedy and repeat the last several months with the exact same results?
bluedigger
(17,077 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)the unbelievable negligence in enforcement of existing laws. How many lives could be saved by not allowing tens of thousands of felons to walk free after illegally trying to buy a gun?
I have heard of several people busted by the BATFE for being engaged in the firearms business without a license.
sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)I doubt it.
veganlush
(2,049 posts)checks are universal, they are useless. Those with iffy backgrounds simply go to craigslist or the gun show or whatever.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)I think it failed for constitutional reasons, others think other reasons..it failed. Now what? How about enabling private sales through NICS...they are not currently..do targeted public service messages explaining the liability for selling a gun to a prohibited buyer and the risk which can be avoided by using a cheap background check. Once enabled I believe many states would enact requirements..but I'm not disillusioned..I doubt anything will happen until the next tragedy and we will repeat this again..really bewildering it is..
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)you think the Senators decided that the law was unconstitutional?? Really????? Bullcrap. They were thinking about the dollars the NRA would give them and the votes the NRA would give them.
This is an issue of normal families that want their children to be safe verses the cold-blooded gun nut cases that not give a shit how many children. May they all rot in hell.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)See post 25 for an explanation. I believe that the judiciary committee determined that the law wouldn't pass judicial review, just as they have every single other time it has come to them in a bill, just as was determined in 1994 which is why this one very specific type of sale was exempted in the first place. The pressure was on Reed was to take it to a vote. In light of it's near certain failure in the courts, it wasn't worth risking the seats of Democrats in 2014. It failed for constitutional reasons, IM(experienced)O
The answer is at the state level.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)someone makes a case and runs it thru the judicial system. Some times it takes many years. I do not believe that Congress worries about that. If they pass a law they believe in and the courts strike it down, then they did as much as they can. You are suggesting that they give the bill a "judicial review" themselves. No way.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)make a case and run it through the judicial system...and the law would receive judicial review, and would likely put the government in the position of having to appeal from the first decision..they may not worry about it as a matter of coarse, this issue is a big deal issue in many districts in the US.
Oh, they do give judicial review in a way, that is what the Senate Judiciary Committee does..
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)What.... letting the legislation just come to the floor for debate failed because of "constitutional reasons"????
Well, if it HAD actually COME TO THE FLOOR TO BE DEBATED, you wouldn't have to "think" of why it might have failed.... you'd know.... because they debated the law.
You're not very thorough in your thought process, are you?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't buy these conspiracies where you "happen" to be in the right place at the right time to do that.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)couldn't be more mislead...simply no truth at all..
KM0201
(23 posts)You have never been to a gun show. I know you guys don't want to hear it, but Pipo has been dead on with his comments on the background check system. I've bought numerous guns at gun shows (from FFL's and private sellers). FFL sales, as a requirement of them having an FFL, MUST do a background check. They cannot get around this(if they don't want to go to prison anyway).
Private sellers, the only ones I've bought from, were guys walking around w/ signs, etc.. saying they had something for sale. I find it very interesting bahrbearian claims he has bought all these guns without background checks, but will not discuss whether he legally did so.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)then you accuse me of buying them illegally do you read what you write?
veganlush
(2,049 posts)then there really are no background checks at all, at least not meaningful ones. It's like saying that in the case of minors who want to drink alcohol, we have a rule whereby bars and restaurants have to check i.d., but stores do not. Minors simply then go to store for their booze and anyone getting drinks at the bar are adults.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)to sell a gun to a minor, or to sell a gun to someone known to be a felon or domestic abuser. Private party intrastate sales are the only exemption from federal requirement for background checks. They are not federally required because the "commerce clause" does not allow Feds to regulate intrastate commerce..
FourScore
(9,704 posts)EC
(12,287 posts)Right....everyone just "knows" the person buying is okay...right?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)and if a felon or domestic abuser buys a gun they have committed a federal crime..
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)I believe there is an exemption for long guns which allows the sale to a buyer from any state but the buyer still has to have an NICS check.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Unfortunately. Of coarse background checks on all sales can be done, just nobody who matters really wants to do it..too much work..
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)That's because this is not what this type of legislation is for. No one is legislating the laws concerning murder.
What IS it about gun worshippers that you simply cannot "get it"? and always bring in straw men, red herrings and things that have nothing to do with the point.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)facts by definition aren't "strawmen" and lies, deceit, and untruths are usually strawmen. You may not wish to understand the issue as it really is in favor of believing completely false nonsense, others here may not understand the issue and wish to know the truth....the truth, unadulterated, is posted in my post #1 in this thread...post #1 is the point so many have been mislead into believing such silliness as 'there are no background checks on firearms sales at gun shows' which is a complete lie perpetuated by the completely disingenuous moniker placed on it with intent to deceive, "gun show loophole", others believe the lie that 'internet sales don't require a backgound check' which is another lie perpetuated by the same culprits as the 'gun show loophole' lie. This is really very, very simple...intentionally made complex by those who really don't want to change because without the fabled 'gun show loophole', they wouldn't have intentionally misguided people sending them money to fix the problem...
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)exact same way we license cars. Why are cars registered and licensed? because they can kill people, when used improperly or by the wrong people.
Guns can kill many more and faster.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)the exclusion of all else? Dreams vs. reality is where we are here..
BTW...Even the ACLU recently stated that they would oppose and fight any attempt to build a database of owners or registration...impossibility in our lifetimes...
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Australia doesn't share our Bill of Rights or Constitution, no?
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)not so long ago.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)You think we can pass a constitutional amendment when we can't pass a simple law? You do realize it took 100 years to get any semblance of equality, no? Do you wish to just hold off on any attempt to reduce guns getting in the hands of criminals for a century or so? This really is simple.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Well, la-dee-da....
But the legislation that never was allowed to come to the floor specifically bans such a thing.
Or did you fall for the RW lies?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)No... I get your hysterical (in both senses of the word) argument that there is nothing wrong with gun laws now and no need to "fix" anything (which is impossible anyway) but politicians pretend there is so they can get money.
Meh....
pipoman
(16,038 posts)I have very clearly stated in this thread the law and the facts as they are now, and my opinion of a plan which differs from the ridiculous redundant failure which has been attempted at least 6 times with the same results..when the failure occurs the gun controllers cry and whine about the NRA refusing to understand that the real impediment to the one and only type of sale which isn't federally required for the transfer of firearms, is constitutional..Go ahead an remain in the NRA, gun nut blamer, inactive complainer on the issue; or understand the issue and proactively seek a solution..your choice..
People not in the business of selling firearms can sell to a resident of their state. Unless of coarse the state requires a check, some states do..more could, but alas big gun control isn't really interested in going to the states...if this problem went away so would their donors..
BTW, I have advocated for several years right here on DU for making background checks available to private sellers which still has not happened...it is a no brainer..
Squinch
(50,774 posts)CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)It's already the law in California. We also have a 10-day waiting perion. I'm not fond of the waiting period but that's the law.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)and it would meet with people's approval. I believe strongly that the issue with a federally mandated requirement for background checks cannot pass constitutional review. The commerce clause does not allow federal jurisdiction over intrastate sales of legal to own (in this case, arguably even enumerated right) private property between residents. This is why this has been the only exemption since 1994 when the Brady Bill became law. It wasn't exempted because of some big money push...because there isn't any centralized money behind private shotgun sales between neighbors, or even some guy who bought a AR-15 and needs food worse than he needs a gun, selling it in a classified ad. What money there is, is in new guns and accessories. Accessories doesn't care. Why wouldn't gun manufacturers want used gun sales to require the same scrutiny as the sales they are making? No, it is a constitutional fight they know they can't win.
This will have to be a state issue. To improve the numbers of states requiring private sale checks the NICS has...must..be opened to private sales transfers through FFL dealers...this must happen..it is such a complete no-brainer...
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)how good of you. They need all the lapdogs they can get.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)No the truth is the truth and you don't like it.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)and delusional gun nut losers like yourself bore me.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)or is this just a hissy fit? Now what is it called when we deny the truth?
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)It is easily googled.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I know that's irritating to you, but he is describing current law.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)what we are talking about in favor of lie (gun show loophole), lie (internet sales), lie...distort, but never make it as simple as it is..No, the OP is silly and more of the same..
NoPasaran
(17,291 posts)A photo ID (which I oppose as a requirement for voting, by the way) is not a background check.
This should be banished to the Island of Strawman Memes.
veganlush
(2,049 posts)they can sure buy guns though...
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Wednesdays
(17,250 posts)If so, I agree with your reply.
If not, the OP has a point.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)a photo ID and to prove your state of residence and provide information that goes on ATF 4473.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/atf-f-4473.html
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Or if you're buying from someone who is not a professional gun dealer, some way of proving you're a resident of the same state as him.
PA Democrat
(13,225 posts)Crabby Appleton
(5,231 posts)just some strawman bullshit.
malaise
(267,846 posts)Rec
TxDemChem
(1,918 posts)I thought that same thing this morning
Initech
(99,915 posts)Cha
(295,929 posts)thanks FourScore