HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control Reform Activism (Group) » A different path

Mon Mar 18, 2013, 01:57 PM

A different path

Rather than starting by shooting the moon, why not go for easy and build from there?

Example- an overwhelming majority of gun owners accept the 'gun show loophole' is an issue and should be rectified. Start where support will be, rather than alienating support with much more controversial, sweeping legislation.

Gun show sales requirement-All sales of guns at any gun show shall require a completion of the Federal Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473). This shall apply to sales between non-FFL, private sellers and buyers. The operator of the show shall be responsible for having a person authorized to complete ATF form 4473 and conduct NCIS checks. The authorized person will be responsible for completing and retaining forms 4473 in accordance with applicable laws. A fee may be charged for the processing, paid by buyer or seller, not to exceed $xx.

Exclusionary zone- Any sale between parties shall be considered a sale at the gun show and the above requirements apply if the sale is conducted anywhere within the building, in the case of an indoor show, or any designated show/ sale area of an outdoor venue. In addition, the entirety of the property of the venue, to include parking areas and vehicles therein and a distance of 500 feet surrounding the property of the venue, excepting the owned residence of record of the seller of a firearm, shall be excluded from unregulated sales for the published duration of the show, plus one hour prior to opening and three hours following closing. Any sale within this area that does not comply with the above requirement shall be a (felony/gross-misdemeanor) punishable by (jail term/fine) and forfeiture of any/all firearms involved in the sale.

IMO such a law would have breezed through any legislature or Congress with the full support of the vast majority of gun owners. I do not think it is too late yet, in many states.

9 replies, 2117 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to sarisataka (Original post)


Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Mon Mar 18, 2013, 02:04 PM

2. Sounds like an excellent start.

 

Something all but the most rabid gun owners could get onboard with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Mon Mar 18, 2013, 02:41 PM

3. Why not Federal Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473) for all sales?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ptah (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 18, 2013, 02:45 PM

4. Good idea.

 

I'm of the opinion that ALL firearms transactions have to go through an FFL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ptah (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 18, 2013, 02:53 PM

5. I would not object

and do support universal checks. That is a harder law to pass and enforce.
To work on shows would have been/be an immediate, easy to define and implement step that would have broad support from both sides of the issue, have a positive influence on sales, avoid claims of undue burden- as it mirrors the process of licensed dealers at the same location, and hopefully have a measurable, positive effect of criminal gun transfer and ownership which would build support for universal checks and 4473.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Mon Mar 18, 2013, 03:25 PM

6. I like this approach

I think it would stand a better chance of succeeding, even at the federal level. States such as Colorado already have similar laws on the books.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Mon Mar 18, 2013, 04:12 PM

7. Why treat a private transfer at a gun show differently than a private transfer at someone's home?

 

Trying to apply a law to just gun show transactions complicates things - You have to concisely define what constitutes a gun show (which has the unintended effect of creating a class of events that are not quite gun shows).

Just make the same requirement apply to all private sales of used firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Mon Mar 18, 2013, 06:29 PM

8. All firearm transfers (not just sales) need to have a 4473, public or private, not just gun shows.

Best way to stop the bad guys from obtaining those 'lost' or 'stolen' firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Tue Mar 19, 2013, 02:38 AM

9. I feel this legislation would have the support of most gun owners. ...

Consequently it would probably pass in Congress although the NRA might oppose it.

It would be nice if the legislation would also take some much needed steps to improve the current NICS background check system.

Mental Health Checks for Gun Buyers: Weak, Chaotic, Full of Loopholes
Federal law technically prohibits sales of firearms to the mentally ill. Here's the reality.

—By Sydney Brownstone and Erika Eichelberger | Fri Dec. 21, 2012 8:04 AM PST

The tragedy in Newtown has revived a national debate about gun control, focusing attention on the laws (and loopholes) governing gun ownership in America, and raising a host of questions about how to prevent future Newtowns (and Auroras and Columbines and Virginia Techs). Chief among them is how to keep weapons out of the hands of mentally ill people. Newtown shooter Adam Lanza, whose mother was reportedly seeking to have her son committed to a mental institution, carried out the shootings with weapons that had been legally purchased by his mom, but across the country it's frighteningly easy for people with serious psychiatric problems to purchase weapons.

It's technically against federal law to sell guns to people with a severe mental illness, but in practice the background check system is so flawed it rarely filters out those with disqualifying psychiatric problems. There are a number of roadblocks to enforcing the law. One of them is that only gun sales by federally licensed arms dealers require background checks. That means a huge chunk—40 percent—of private gun sales don't require buyers to be vetted. (This is the so-called "gun show" loophole, though currently six states have laws that close it.) The law also defines disqualifying mental illness narrowly. It only forbids gun sales to people who have been determined by a court to be seriously mentally ill, or who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. This means that the system often overlooks dangerous and disturbed people who don't have a paper trail.

But one of the biggest issues with the current background check system is that many states submit little to no mental health data to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Only 27 states authorize or require reporting pertinent mental health data to NICS, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Nearly half the states in the country submitted fewer than 100 records between 2004 and 2011. Seventeen states have submitted fewer than 10 records in total.

***snip***

There have been a couple attempts at the federal level to improve state reporting to NICS, but these efforts have done little to address the problem. After the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act, which was supposed to give states federal money to overhaul their computer systems in order to get more mental health records on file. But, as the Center for Public Integrity reports, more than three years later, only five percent of the money had been appropriated to states. That's partly because, in order to receive funding, states had to comply with a provision forced into the law by the NRA that requires states to offer the mentally ill a chance to win back their gun rights. Many states didn't like this measure and turned down funding. The Violence Policy Center, a Washington-based gun control group, says the legislation was "hijacked by the gun lobby."
...emphasis added
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mental-health-background-check-newtown-shooting-adam-lanza

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread