Definition of a straw purchaser:

[rrneck]

Somebody who knows somebody.

I don't know how to regulate that. I don't know how to make the seller of anything responsible for the unspoken motivations of the buyer or for the buyer's relationship with any third party unknown to the seller.

It appears that regulating people's motivations amounts to the creation of thought crimes. Even if it were legal and acceptable for an enlightened society, I don't think the technology for enforcement exists outside of Orwell.

Suggestions?

Edit for lack of coffee.

[slackmaster]

1. A lot of gun laws rely on a similar degree of trust

With my type 03 Federal Firearms License, I can buy curio or relic long guns from anyone in the USA without going through a background check, as long as I am doing so with the intent of enhancing my personal collection.

I can sell them to people as well, but only for the purpose of maintaining my collection.

I can buy one now, decide to sell it at some point in the future, and charge more for it than I paid for it. But I can't buy one with the intent of selling it for profit.

[rrneck]

2. I see that the CIA

has failed to implant the proper hardware in your tooth to evaluate your motivations. Please contact your local field office and schedule an installation.

Thank you.

[slackmaster]

3. Fortunately for me, I've never actually sold a firearm in my life

I gave someone a black powder weapon for Christmas last year, but that doesn't count.

[rrneck]

5. What's funny is

that I'm not really a firearms enthusiast. I own guns and get to the range once in a great while, but I'm not really into it. And I've sold more guns that you and you're a gun collector.

Just goes to show how ideology divorced from the lives of real people gets us nowhere, especially at the polls.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. Question: would you buy a gun for another person who you knew was

legally ineligible to own a weapon - say a person under a court order, or a convicted felon?

[rrneck]

30. No.

How would you prove I didn't know that? How do you prove a negative? And more importantly, how would you prove I wouldn't know that five years from the date of purchase?

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. Nevermind your baiting questions - YOU know what a real straw purchase is,

and YOU denied you would do it.

And YOU are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

A straw purchase is not buying a weapon that eventually falls into the hands of a criminal. It is buying a weapon for someone, at their request, who cannot buy one for himself.

Your straw purchase definition is a strawman argument.

[X_Digger]

33. No, that gets to the heart of the issue in the OP..

How do you differentiate, and enforce?

Your tautalogical torus of illogic isn't it.

Please explain how these two situations can be differentiated by law enforcement:

1. I buy a gun from an FFL, passing a brady background check. I bought it for myself, but don't like the way it shoots. I sell it to an acquaintance, who I have no reason to believe is a prohibited person.

1. I buy a gun from an FFL, passing a brady background check. I bought it for my acquaintance that I know has a criminal background.


Obviously, the second is a straw purchase, but how does law enforcement know that the first wasn't, too?

[RamboLiberal]

43. Selling to an acquitance - if a background check was required

in your state to sell that gun & you had to do the transaction through an FFL & you didn't & the buyer is prohibited to buy - then yes I think you should be charged.

[rrneck]

45. That takes us to the possibility

of requiring a background check for private sales, which is not a bad idea.

Even then I wonder about loaned guns, borrowed guns and shared guns. More importantly, since this thread started I have begun to wonder even more about the control of information between private citizens and how that could be regulated.

[ManiacJoe]

51. Loaned/borrowed/shared = transfered.

Gun transfers are restricted by federal and state laws. As the owner, you are responsible for complying with those laws and for paying the penalty when you break those laws.

[rrneck]

53. Does stolen equal borrowed?

If Joe's gun comes up missing and is used to commit a felony by Ed, but Ed says he gets to use Joe's gun all the time to go to the range, could Joe claim theft and avoid a penalty? If so, Ed will get more time for stealing a gun. If not, Joe will at least get a hefty fine for not knowing Ed will take the gun the way he always has and knock over a liquor store with it.

[ManiacJoe]

55. Stolen does not equal borrowed.

At the time Ed borrows Joe's gun, Ed is either legally allowed to do so or not. If Ed is not legally allowed to have the gun, Joe is in trouble for allowing the transfer.

Ed is responsible for Ed's actions while Ed possesses Joe's gun.

[rrneck]

57. Fine. But

what criteria would the authorities use to make the determination? How would they know?

[ManiacJoe]

60. How would they know what?

Make the determination of what?

[rrneck]

62. Guilt.

[ManiacJoe]

64. Guilt of what?

[rrneck]

65. Theft or failure to secure the firearm.

[ManiacJoe]

70. Theft or failure to secure the firearm will be obvious.

The gun has been recovered at the scene of a crime and traced back to the owner, who is no longer in possession of the gun.

In his defense, the owner then gets to show the police report of the earlier theft, or shows the current scene of the now-being-reported theft. Shows the damaged lock/box/safe previously securing the gun.

[rrneck]

75. From post #53.

If Joe's gun comes up missing and is used to commit a felony by Ed, but Ed says he gets to use Joe's gun all the time to go to the range, could Joe claim theft and avoid a penalty? If so, Ed will get more time for stealing a gun. If not, Joe will at least get a hefty fine for not knowing Ed will take the gun the way he always has and knock over a liquor store with it.

Ed previously had access and used that access to commit a felony. Maybe he even decided to commit the felony on the way to the range, which is likely since he didn't plan it very well and got his ass busted. Joe and Ed point fingers at each other. How do the authorities determine who committed what crime?

[ManiacJoe]

81. Tersely answered in #55, more verbosely here.

Ed is responsible for Ed's actions. Ed alone commits the robbery then Ed alone does the time for robbery, assuming no knowledge by Joe.

If Joe did not allow the transfer of the gun to Ed, then Ed stole it thus adding more jail time to Ed's sentence.

If Joe allowed the transfer of the gun to Ed ("Sure, use it any time you want."), then the transfer was either legal because Ed was not prohibited or illegal because Ed has previous felonies. If the transfer was illegal, Joe pays the price for his failure to secure the gun against unauthorized users.

Charging each with the correct charge is quite simple, as shown above. Whether the prosecutor can convince a jury that Joe's transfer was really illegal is a different story.

[rrneck]

82. So,

how would Joe know that Ed was going to rob the liquor store on the way to the range and thus avoid running afoul of the law?

[ManiacJoe]

84. Ed's act of robbery is not Joe's responsibility.

Ed wanted to borrow the gun to use at the range. Legal. Ed had no previous disqualifiers. Legal.

Ed robs the liquor store; Ed goes to jail. Joe answers a lot of uncomfortable questions. If it can be shown that Joe knew of Ed's plan, Joe goes to jail.

[rrneck]

86. How would Joe's knowledge be proven? nt

[ManiacJoe]

89. Witnesses, recordings, still holding the map for the getaway.

There is no guarantee that Joe's knowledge would be proven, if Joe really knew. Sometimes the guilty go free due to the burden of proof being on the prosecutor.

[rrneck]

91. True.

Unfortunately, I don't know any prosecutors who work for free. And the political capital required to get anything through congress ain't cheap either. Plus, any law good or bad has an impact of the rights of those who are governed. It behooves us to carefully consider the ramifications of what we demand from our citizens and the laws we put on the books that could and frequently are abused by the authorities.

People can be irrational, foolish, short sighted, jumpy and inconsiderate. But it's hard to make that shit illegal and be fair about it.

[ManiacJoe]

93. Exactly.

That is why most gun owners think the current laws are plenty good enough. When they are enforced.....

[rrneck]

99. From what I've seen

laws regarding the reporting of lost or stolen firearms require the owner to report the loss within a limited amount of time after the discovery of the loss, which makes the law meaningless and unenforceable.

[ManiacJoe]

106. It is hard to report before the discovery.

:)

[rrneck]

34. Most of the time

your interpretation is correct. Nobody with any brains would buy a gun for a criminal. But a law, or an ideology, can't just work for the easy cases. It has to work for everybody under any reasonably conceivable circumstances. Otherwise, the wrong people get locked up.

You have used the phrase "no excuse" once already in this thread.

I'll ask you again: How long after the purchase and subsequent transfer of the firearm is the purchaser responsible for the actions of the receiver of the firearm?

What legal remedy do you offer people who might fail in their responsibilities in the transfer of a firearm as you have described them? What exculpatory evidence would you allow?

[ManiacJoe]

49. I think this is the source of your confusion:

> How long after the purchase and subsequent transfer of the firearm is the purchaser
> responsible for the actions of the receiver of the firearm?

The seller is not responsible for the actions of the buyer. Once the tranfer is done, the seller has no control over anything.

The seller is responsible for his own actions, which in this case is not selling to a prohibited buyer. A dealer is required by law to use the NICS system as one of the checks he uses to confirm the buyer's eligibility; the dealer may, but it not required to, do more checks. A private seller does not have the option of directly using NICS. The law does not care what (if any) checks he does on the buyer. However, he is responsible for the illegal sale if his lack of checking results in an illegal sale. This is why private sellers often ask to see the concealed carry permits of the buyers since the permits require a background check by the state.

Since the vast majority of the citizens are eligible buyers, a private seller can opt to play the odds while not doing any checks on the buyer. However, selling to a stranger while doing no checks is a risky practice that may land the seller in jail.

[rrneck]

52. Indeed.

That's a good case for making NICS checks available for private sales. But you'll notice as the thread has progressed the issue of private storage has raised it's ugly head. I think that's because the same concerns regarding the transfer of firearms from FFL's to private citizens are not so different from the concerns regarding private sales between individuals and even access to firearms kept in homes and under what circumstances other people would have access to them.

The issue has become a pretty good test to see how one's ideology holds up under real world circumstances. It's a fine thing to declare that the owner of the firearm is responsible for its acquisition and storage, but the way people's lives are lived and more importantly the way their lives may be lived in the future make such a simple declaration problematic.

A firearm is at once personal, portable, life saving and life threatening. And its symbolic meaning inflates its importance for those who accept them and for those who are threatened by them. Only by applying our ideology to how lives are actually lived can we understand whether or not it works. A refusal to accept an ideological failure reveals an ideologue more concerned with his or her vision of the world than with the people around him.

[ManiacJoe]

59. Some clarifications are needed from you.

> It's a fine thing to declare that the owner of the firearm is responsible
> for its acquisition and storage, but the way people's lives are lived and
> more importantly the way their lives may be lived in the future make such
> a simple declaration problematic.

In what way does the owner's responsibility for acquisition and storage become problematic? Gun safes are an extremely good option. Lock boxes, if safes are too expensive or otherwise logistically not workable. Cable locks get the job done often for free.

While useful, firearms are dangerous tools. Allowing others unsupervised, easy access to them is no better than allowing children to play with chainsaws.

What is your ideology that you are having a problem applying to real life?

[rrneck]

61. All dangerous tools should be secured

but I don't see how we can regulate who has access to them without offering the owners some exculpatory remedy. The fact that they didn't maintain control of the weapon just isn't sufficient since whoever had control of it last is ultimately responsible for its use.

If there is a house full of people who, together, can only afford one gun for home defense why is the onus on the unlucky bloke who had to sign the 4473 to police all the others and all the people they know?

Edit for spelling.

[ManiacJoe]

67. If not the owner, then who?

He knows best who the unauthorized users are.

I have no problem with the "owner" being more than one person. They all share the responsibility.

If the gun-owning housemates want to invite over friends and acquaintances for a party, then the housemates need to secure the gun from unauthorized access (i.e., the friends and acquaintances and party crashers). If the securing of the gun interferes with its defensive readiness, then the housemates need to choose a "designated shooter" for the party if they deem that they need security at those levels, or choose to have the party elsewhere, or choose to not have the party at all.

[rrneck]

71. Who indeed.

Relationships extend well beyond just parties. People have friends, lovers, business associates, relatives, housesitters, babysitters, and who knows what else. And all of those people may know each other. How is the owner to control that information and how are the authorities to determine if he or she failed in their responsibility? Or if not the owner even another of who knows how many people who had rightful access to the weapon?

If we are to hold the owner legally responsible for access, we have to give him or her some exculpatory remedy. I don't know what that remedy would be. Ultimately we are left with Ed's word against Joe's, which gets us nowhere.

[ManiacJoe]

74. The owner does not control information.

The owner controls physical access to his guns. Both willful failure and unwillful failure results in the cops having the gun and asking how the owner lost possession. Willful failure gets you punished.

> People have friends, lovers, business associates, relatives, housesitters, babysitters, and who knows what else.

That is an excellent start to a list of UNauthorized users. Who they know does not matter since they should not have access in the first place. Protection against theft would suggest that these people not be told about the gun(s) since they have no need to know about them in the first place.

[rrneck]

77. The combination to a gun vault is information which controls access.

How do the cops prove willful failure?

The cohabiting lover of a truck driver who is out of town a lot is an unauthorized user? A family member of that same truck driver is an unauthorized user? What right does the state have to determine who is and who is not an authorized user? How would the state make that determination?

[ManiacJoe]

83. The combination to the safe IS access.

"Willful failure" would be the lack of effort to prevent unauthorized access, for example, "hiding" the gun.

The government has already set the low definition of ineligible owners: anyone with felonies, misdemeanor DV convictions, serious mental health problems. The owner can set more conditions on this as he sees fit.

By default, yes, the cohabitating lover is an unauthorized user. Ditto for the adult family member. Obviously, the kids.

If the owner wants to add these people to his list of authorized users, he is responsible for seeing that they at least meet the governments eligibility requirements. These newly authorized users are now responsible for their own actions with the gun and responsible for any access they grant to others.

[rrneck]

85. What right does the government have

to determine default unauthorized users and what remedy does the government offer if the owner fails to accomplish sufficient diligence in determining the fulfillment of the governments requirements for firearms ownership?

How would the government determine due diligence and prosecute failure to perform same?

[ManiacJoe]

92. The right granted by the voters.

Current eligibility is from the federal laws passed back in 1968. By and large the public seems to think Congress got it mostly right.

If the private seller makes an illegal transfer, he gets punished according to the current laws (fine, jail, or both). Assuming the government chooses to prosecute him and actually wins. The government chooses not to prosecute far too often. Why? Ask them.

While the government dictates that dealers use the NICS checks as at least one means of preventing illegal transfers, there is no dictate on "how" for the private sellers. If a private seller makes an illegal transfer, he will need to show some proof that he somehow attempted to comply with the law, else pay the penalty. Whether his proof is enough is up to the jury.

[rrneck]

96. ...there is no dictate on "how" for the private sellers...

So we have vague requirements for compliance but the consequences for non compliance can be quite severe, especially for those who are least able to suffer the consequences of adjudication to determine whether or not they have failed.

It is ironic that we are having this discussion on the cusp of an election where a lot of poor working people will be voting against their economic interests. Now we know why.

[PavePusher]

115. Firstly, terminology.

Government does not have "rights", it has delegated powers. Which the people may take back, although government reeeee-a-a-a-lllly hates to relinquish power.

Secondly, if you're going by popular vote, you'll have no issues with me buying you and your family once we repeal, or just flat legislate out of existance, that pesky Thirteenth Amendment, amiright?

[rrneck]

48. How would you prove the request was made,

and how would you prove that the buyer knew the ultimate recipient shouldn't own a gun in every instance.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. That depends upon other factors.

If he acquired the guns before he became ineligible, and was now selling them immediately after the legal judgement, then I would have no trouble buying the guns. After all, he has to get rid of them somehow.

If he became ineligible a some time ago, then I would not buy the gun.

[AtheistCrusader]

104. Hell no.

I'd tell them to get the fuck off my lawn too.

[Xmit]

4. Question #1

Of Form 4473,

"1. Are you the actual buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearms(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

Beyond that, it is up to the dealer and the powers that be, using video and paper trail audits.

[safeinOhio]

Paper trails are the key to stopping

straw sales. Every handgun used in a crime needs to be traced back to the purchase. If you buy a handgun that gets used in a crime and you have not reported it stolen or lost, you go to jail. Even if that means you have to go to the local law enforcement office and file a notice of sale with the buyers name, address and license number.

[rrneck]

7. What if you didn't know it was stolen or lost?

How do the authorities prove a negative?

[Katya Mullethov]

9. Totally beside the point

It's the thought that counts .

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Unless you can give evidence that there was no way for you to know,

it can only be assumed you did know.

If you were out of the country for a year, you might not know. If it was properly secured in a gun safe, it CAN'T disappear without you knowing. If you keep it in your glove compartment and it is stolen from your car, that is criminal negligence in securing the firearm.

Despite those who say 'a gun is just a tool', it is not a hammer that you keep in the hall closet and pull out once every year or so when you need it. It is a deadly instrument which you are required by law to keep track of. There is no excuse for a weapon being stolen and it not being reported within a week.

[rrneck]

13. How would

someone prove a lack of knowledge? How would the authorities prove a negative? How would the authorities compel an individual to not give another access to a secured area? Should they vet those with whom we may have a future relationship? Should they monitor the secured area periodically? How long should something go missing before the owner is held responsible for the actions of another?

ETA:

I'm not aware of any law that requires one to keep track of their personal property. Not saying there isn't one, I'm just not aware of it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. If you are required by law to report a stolen gun, and a gun in your possession

was NOT reported stolen, then complicity with its disappearance can be assumed.

Are you really making the claim that you would not know if one of your weapons was stolen? If so, you are too fucking irresponsible to own a weapon.

[rrneck]

15. A lot of "ifs" there.

I appreciate your ideological enthusiasm for certain laws, but can you cite an actual statute?

Again, how long should something go missing before the owner is responsible for reporting its absence?

How would we require a gun owner to police a spouse, relative, roommate or acquaintance who may have had access to a secured area and at some later date took a turn for the worse? How would we compel the owner of a gun to compel a spouse to not divulge the combination of a gun safe? How would we compel a gun owner go check the presence of their personal property and at what frequency?

How would we compel the owner of the firearm, who lawfully gave access to a spouse who then proceeded to commit felonies all over town with the weapon and then returned it to the secured area. Who would the authorities indict? The person who signed the 4473, or the spouse?

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. The gun owner's responsibility is not to police his relatives or spouse,

it is to secure the weapon. A responsible gun owner will know where his weapons are. It is that simple. There is NO excuse for not knowing where they are.

For the last question, the answer is the the criminal, of course, unless there is proof that the gun owner know what his/her spouse was doing.

And that has fuck all to do with strawman purchases. Making a strawman purchase is NOT just 'somebody knowing somebody'. It is the purchaser making a deliberate decision to break the law.

I really think you just want everyone to have guns, and nobody to have any responsibility for their misuse.

[rrneck]

22. You see

since you fail to take into consideration the way people's lives actually work, you are making them responsible for the actions of others. Ideology fail.

How would the authorities know the difference between "somebody knowing somebody" and a straw purchase?

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Simple. When that gun is used in a crime, the purchaser faces criminal

prosecution. The authorities won't know, unless the purchaser is an absolute idiot who knows nothing about the gun he's buying, until after the fact. That's why it is on the form that it is illegal to buy for someone else - a warning to the buyer that, if they are making a straw purchase, it is against the law and they WILL be prosecuted if found out.

Simple analogy - the guy who buys a sixpack of beer for the 14 year old hanging out at the Quik Stop is committing a crime. If the kid is caught and fesses up to where he got the beer, the purchaser is in deep shit. Not only that, if the seller saw the kid standing outside hassling people to buy him a sixpack, and he saw the purchaser hand it over, HE is in deep shit.

It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

[rrneck]

28. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

That phrase has been used a lot - by conservatives.

"it is against the law and they WILL be prosecuted if found out."

How would they be found out? What exculpatory evidence would the accused be able to offer in their defense?

[safeinOhio]

39. If you are driving your friends car

get pulled over and they find a pound of heroin under the seat, you are charged. You can and most likely will say it is not your car and you did not know it was there. Too bad, you were driving. No proving a negative. You are responsible and go to jail. You let your friend drive your car. He runs over someone and kills them. It was your car and you will be sued and pay damages to the family. Your sidewalk crumbles one day and someone trips, even if you didn't know it was bad, you are liable. So, your gun was used in a hold up and murder, you are responsible.

[Glassunion]

40. Good analogies, but...

Straw purchases are different. More apples to apples.

Look at it this way...

If you are driving your friends car and it gets stolen and the police recover it and they find a pound of heroin under the seat, you most likely would not be charged.

You sell your car to a guy and he runs over someone and kills them. You will in all probability not be charged.

You sell your home and later the sidewalk crumbles one day and someone trips, you are not liable.

Your gun was stolen and used in a hold up and murder, you are not responsible. However, the burden of proof would be on you to prove it was stolen.

[rrneck]

41. What's your point?

Are any of your examples fair?

[safeinOhio]

66. Yes

Having illegal drugs in the car you are driving is a good example. You are, legally, responsible for the drugs in the car you are driving. You are responsible for your firearm.

Are you suggesting that gun owners are exempt from any responsibility? Right now, if your six year old finds your gun under the bed and shoots his friend, you will be charged with negligence because you are responsible for the whereabouts of your handgun. If someone steals your gun, you are not responsible for what happens after that. You should be responsible for reporting it in a timely way. We are talking about straw sales, not stolen guns anyway. If you are a legal owner and want to sell it to a legal buyer, as I'm sure you would be, I see no problem in leaving a trail of that gun for any legal buyer or seller. It is already done with any gun you buy or sell to a FFL dealer. That does not restrict any rights. All I'm saying is that would make it harder and traceable for some crook to have his girlfriend make a straw purchase. She would know she is now going to be charged with his crimes and put pressure on her to not do it. The trail would lead right to her.

[rrneck]

73. So if someone is

an unwitting mule in drug trafficking that's OK with you? It doesn't sound fair to me.

Children are not adults. It makes no sense to hold one adult responsible for the foolish actions of another.

Lots of women like to date "bad boys". Now, any given woman's particular "bad boy" may not be a felon yet, and she buys him a gun for a gift. One week later he becomes a "badder boy". Should she be held liable for inability to predict his behavior? How long is long enough? A day? A week? A year? What did she know and when did she know it? And how would the DA make his case?

[ManiacJoe]

76. The woman is not responsible for the actions of her boyfriend.

Individual adults are responsible for their own actions, not the actions of others.

In your example, the woman legally transfered the gun to her boyfriend since he was not a prohibited receiver. A week later, "badder boy" is responsible for the illegal actions of "badder boy". The gun's paper trail confirms the timeline.

She may become an accessory to crimes after the fact due to her continued association with "badder boy", but that has nothing to do with the previous, legal gun transfer.

[rrneck]

80. So how would the cops bust her

if she knew "badder boy" was "badder boy" and lied about it? How would they know?

[ManiacJoe]

87. They would not "know". They would investigate.

If they gathered enough evidence to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that she knew the boyfriend was already a prohibited receiver, then she gets charged with the felony straw purchase or just the illegal gift transfer.

[rrneck]

90. They would actually be investigating

what she should have known, and also determine when she knew it. If she is tasked with determining who is eligible for firearms ownership, what tools are at her disposal to accomplish that task?

[ManiacJoe]

94. Now you are asking good questions!

The tools at her disposal are few.
- Concealed weapon permits will show that the state has already done a background check on the buyer.
- Using a dealer to do the transfer will allow for the NICS check but for a price determined by the gun dealer.
- Not selling to strangers betters the odds.

[rrneck]

97. If the state doesn't give her much to work with

she shouldn't be penalized for not living up to the standards set by the state.

[rrneck]

23. "There is NO excuse..."

I can't think of a law or statute of any kind that will not allow exculpatory evidence.

[one-eyed fat man]

25. When your kid gets drunk

and plows into a church bus with your car, they shouldn't even bother with a trial, just put your goat-smelling ass in jail? Right?

[ManiacJoe]

24. What is there to compel?

If the owner lawfully gave access to the firearm, then the receiver is 100% responsible for any actions done by the receiver.

If the receiver is not legally allowed to possess the firearm, the receiver is 100% responsible for the receiver's actions, and the owner is 100% responsible for the illegal transfer.

A straw purchaser is a person who purchases a firearm for the purpose of circumventing the limits on prohibited owners/buyers.

[rrneck]

27. Well, yeah.

Given our current housing based economic problems, there has been a trend away from individual home ownership and an increase in shared housing. There are lots more roommates out there and a lot more shuffling of residents in dwellings. It's not hard to imagine a house with three female roomies in a slightly dicey neighborhood with one resident gun owner who keeps her firearm in a lockbox. In the interest of personal safety, she gives the combination to the two other roomies. Fine, that's still legal. How does she keep the roomies from divulging the combination to others? If the worst should happen how would the authorities know who to prosecute if the person who used the firearm illegally was acquainted with both roomies?

And that's not to mention babysitters, house sitters, sub contractors, and the rest of people who might legitimately need access to the firearm but whose knowledge of that access cannot be controlled by the authorities.

It seems that we are talking about here is controlling the movement of information between people whose relationships cannot and should not be controlled.

[ManiacJoe]

50. You seem way too eager to give access to a "house gun"

to lots of folks who should not have it.

> babysitters, house sitters, sub contractors, and the rest of people....

As the owner, you are responsible for making sure that all who have access should have it.

[rrneck]

54. How would the authorities

determine if the owner fulfilled that responsibility? What guidelines should be followed if the penalty for failing in one's responsibility could be jail time?

[ManiacJoe]

56. The authorities will have evidence indicating a failure on your part.

You will need to produce evidence showing that their interpretation of their evidence is wrong. You need to have made a good faith effort to prohibit access by unauthorized users. Hiding the gun in your night stand does not meet that bar. Think lock boxes, cable locks, safes, etc.

For example, the cops catch a criminal with a gun. They trace its ownership to you. This suggests that you willingly gave it. You point to the police report of your home burglary showing it was stolen.

[rrneck]

58. If access were granted to someone other than the purchaser

and that person granted access to yet another that misused the firearm, the purchaser wouldn't be liable unless he or she were expected to have a crystal ball or some means to punish the the malefactor extralegally.

It seems we are still left with the problem of punishing people for transferring information about their personal property and expecting them to be responsible for the actions of others.

[ManiacJoe]

63. Who are these people you want to keep giving guns to?

The owner is responsible for making sure unauthorized others do not have access to the gun. If the "owner" ends up being a more than one person, say a married couple, each is responsible for the granting of access and allowing the transfers.

A person is not responsible for the actions of another person (under normal circumstances). If I grant you legal access to my gun and you rob a bank with it, the bank robbery is all on you, assuming no knowledge on my part.

If you share a house with someone who you know to not be trustworthy of the gun ownership responsibility, then you need to do what you must to prevent such transfers. Three of those options include (1) stop sharing the house, (2) giving up ownership while sharing the house, and (3) using a gun safe while not sharing the lock's combination.

[rrneck]

69. I don't necessarily want to give guns to anybody.

But I am aware of the reality that people are free to exchange not only property, but information about that property and I don't see how we can equitably regulate how that property and inforation thereto can be acomplished among populations of people who are free agents themselves.

In a civilized society we cede to the state the right to punish malefactors for their crimes and the state in turn assumes responsibility for determining their guilt or innocence. Given the uncounted ways that people could mingle, cohabitate, associate, and otherwise pool resources how would the state equitably prosecute someone for not sufficiently predicting the behavior of others? So in your last example how would someone really know who is or is not trustworthy with sufficient certainty so that they will not run afoul of the law while at the same time allowing them the right to self defense with a firearm? And by the same token, how would the state properly regulate the transfer of responsibility between individuals without unfairly restricting their right to access to a firearm?

If two or three or more people in a household have the combination to the gun safe, and another person gains access to the weapon and uses it to commit a felony, how would the authorities determine who is responsible for granting access?

[ManiacJoe]

72. In your example, you make the unsafe assumption

that someone granted the access. If the shooter broke in and stole the gun, the owners are not responsible since they did not grant access. If one of the owners did grant access, he is responsible for any illegality of the transfer while the shooter is responsible for the shooting (assuming no foreknowledge by the bad owner).

With the right to firearms ownership comes responsibility. If you cannot handle the responsibility due to your lifestyle or due to the company you keep, then you need to either give up the ownership or change your habits/company to account for your new responsibility.

[rrneck]

78. Who said anyone broke in?

If it is possible that more than one person granted access, how is the state to determine who that person was?

It's dismissive to simply require people to change their relationships or residence. The people who are most likely to have to defend themselves with a firearm are the least likely to be able to do that. Do you really want to open another front in the class war and find yourself on the wrong side of it?

[ManiacJoe]

95. Life is a series of choices.

Which is more important to you, your security or your fun-loving bad habits? Very few people in this world can afford both. Adding security usually requires you to trade in some of your habits.

Unfortunately quality self-defense tools cost money, though not always a lot. The government respects your right to own them, but does not assist you in the purchase of personal property. If you choose to exercise your right to arms, you get stuck with the responsibility that comes with that right. That responsibility may require you to make changes in your life. That is a choice you make.

Prosecutors like witnesses, recordings, confessions, deals with other defendants, etc. Maybe the guilty gets away with it, maybe they don't.

[rrneck]

98. Why do you assume that it is

people's "fun loving bad habits" that cause their economic condition? That's a moral judgment more suited to a fundamentalist authoritarian than a progressive.

The people who are most at risk of assault and experience the greatest difficulty in compliance with regulations regarding the ownership of anything in this country are the least able to make the choices you suggest.

Maybe the innocent gets their lives ruined by capricious adjudication or maybe they won't.

I hate to tell you, but you're already on the wrong side of the culture war.

[ManiacJoe]

110. I make no such assumptions.

With whom you choose to share a house is your decision based on whatever conditions you deem important to the decision. Economics most certainly factor in for most people.

If you choose to own a gun, you accept the responsibilities that go with that ownership. If you conclude that your housemates are not capable of sharing that responsibility with you, then you need to do what is necessary to ensure they do not share in the access to the gun. That could be as simple as not giving them keys to the gun locks. It could be as harsh as replacing them with more responsible people.

If your life style involves having guests (who are not authorized users of the gun), as most people do, it is your responsibility that the gun is secured from your guests.

All of this requires some money and effort. If home defense is important to you, you need to set priorities to get there. Maybe you give up your daily Starbucks caffeine fix for a year. Maybe you give up cable TV for a six months. Maybe you sell your BMW and get a Ford with the remaining cash. Everyone as to work within a budget. Choose your priorities and work towards your goal. There is no culture war here.

[rrneck]

112. Nope.

" I make no such assumptions."

"Which is more important to you, your security or your fun-loving bad habits? Very few people in this world can afford both. Adding security usually requires you to trade in some of your habits."

The first thing you do is vote for a progressive who will tilt the playing field away from the richest one percent of the population and achieve some economic justice.

The last thing any thinking progressive would do is lecture anybody else about their personal habits and blame, by extension, their insecurity on those habits in such a dismissive manner. That's what republicans do. Democrats that do that lose at the polls. Lecturing others and making moral judgments makes you sound like an elitist ideologue; the exact caricature that has proven so successful for the Republicans. You may think you're making a lot of sense, but there are a lot of struggling independents (and liberals) out there who will hear that attitude and think seriously about voting "R" because you sound like someone who is economically secure and oblivious to the real lives of real people.

[Glassunion]

18. Suppose if you will...

I keep my larger firearms, target pistols and collectibles in a large safe in my basement.

However I recently had a company install a security system in my home. Suppose that one of the installers knows how to bypass the system that they installed in my home and know that there is a gun safe in my basement(which they do as they did put sensors on my basement windows). Suppose that individual does decide to break into my home while I am not there, and the criminal does a good job at showing no forced entry, so I would have no reason to believe that there was anyone in my home.

How long would you say is a reasonable period of time before I notice that one firearm is missing from one of the drawers in the safe?

[RSillsbee]

21. How does that work

Without unilateral registration?

[one-eyed fat man]

17. The ATF has lost many, including machineguns

You think they should run around arresting each other? Despite being one of the smaller Federal agencies, they have lost more weapons than the FBI or DEA.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/17/national/main4454380.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[Hangingon]

19. I think I have to disagree.

I cannot take a weapon into a bar. The gun has to be left in the car. If the car is stolen, the car safe and the glove box are not much different. There is no negligence if I report the car stolen and include the weapon in the police report.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Most gun owners don't have gun safes.

In fact, very few do. Most keep them in a drawer or closest.

[PVFR]

36. When not on me

my guns are in a heavy duty safe bolted to my concrete foundation.

[rrneck]

37. As well they should be.

I often wonder about renters and roommates. Securing any kind of gun safe to rental property can get a little complicated depending on the landlord's attitude and the "handyman" skills of the renter.

[cleanhippie]

114. So much for the "innocent until proven guilty" construct, huh?

[safeinOhio]

38. That is what judges and juries are for.

[rrneck]

42. Please explain how judges and juries can prove a negative. nt

[safeinOhio]

68. Sorry, I don't get your point.

A judge or jury would decide if you were diligent in reporting a stolen or missing gun. Where is the negative to be proved? Just like a drunk driver hitting someone. The judge or jury looks at the evidence to decide if you were drunk or not.

[rrneck]

79. When the drunk hits someone, everyone will know

including the drunk.

How will the authorities know whether or not the owner of the firearm was aware of the loss? They can just claim they didn't know and that would be the end of it. How could the state prove otherwise?

[safeinOhio]

88. Just like when his

6 year old find the gun under the bed and shoots his friend. The "I didn't know the gun was there" doesn't fly. You are responsible for your guns. If your pit bull gets out of the yard and mauls the kid next door. You didn't know the dog got out, so what, you are responsible for your dog. There is no proving otherwise. You own it. You are responsible. Just saying or claiming you didn't know gets nowhere in court.

[rrneck]

100. Children and dogs

are not responsible for their actions apart from their parents, guardians or owners. Adults are responsible for their actions and also capable of deceiving others much more effectively regarding their history and intent.

If the state (at your behest) is willing to demand an individual be responsible for the subsequent actions of another adult, the state should give the individual the tools and a set of unambiguous criteria to accomplish that task.

[safeinOhio]

101. Perhaps,

Your dog is not responsible for it's actions. You the owner are. There are laws that make negligence against the law.

[rrneck]

102. Well,

when I give the dog the combination to my gun safe and he shoots the mailman, then you'll have a point.

Of course he'll have to grow thumbs first.

[ManiacJoe]

108. The state does not make such demands.

> If the state (at your behest) is willing to demand an individual be responsible for the subsequent actions of another adult...

Once you complete a legal transfer of a firearm, as the seller your responsibility has ended.

[rrneck]

109. Hence the term "if".

You're right. Could you please help explain that to safe?

[RSillsbee]

20. Sold in a private sale

is neither stolen nor lost.

[beevul]

44. I think you confuse "stopping" with "punishing".

Sure, you can do that - punish/penalize - after the fact, but "after the fact" is not "stopping" in any way shape size or form.

[Euromutt]

46. That is an excellent, and crucial, observation

The idea that imposing punishment on an activity will stop it from occurring does not stand up to scrutiny. Yes, putting the original purchaser of a crime gun behind bars (just what this country needs: more people incarcerated) may stop that particular individual from committing another straw purchase in future (I say "another" assuming that the gun was straw purchased in the first place, but note that this is by no means a given), but it's not going to stop another individual from doing the same thing in future. I think the size of the American prison population is adequate evidence of that.

[rrneck]

47. The threat of incarceration

can be a deterrent to crime, but the laws that cause incarceration have to be considered fair for that to work. Without equal justice under the law nobody will give a shit.

I suspect the number of non violent drug offenders that are currently incarcerated are there largely because the laws that landed them in jail are not necessarily a codification of popular consent.

The idea that we should "come down hard" on anyone that allows a firearm out of their control and puts the onus on the owner to see to it that the firearm is never used to commit a crime will also be viewed as unfair and well outside the realm of popular consent.

[Euromutt]

116. We have to figure the risk of capture into the equation as well

After all, nobody commits a crime thinking they won't get away with it (assuming they're in a rational state of mind). It doesn't matter how severe the penalty is if you think the cops aren't going to catch you, or even if they do, they won't be able to make the charges stick.

It occurs to me that straw purchasers can not, as a rule, be overly bright, or they have to be sodding desperate, because it's inherently a riskier offense than most, in that if a crime gun is recovered, there is a paper trail that exists that leads straight to you, and once you've relinquished control of the gun to the trafficker, you (as the straw purchaser) have zero control over how it will be used and whether the "end user" will dispose of it in a manner that the cops won't recover it.

But still people do it.

[oneshooter]

113. "Paper trails " Meaning regestration with a goverment office? n/t

[rrneck]

6. And as I recall

there's no "to the best of my knowledge" escape clause at the bottom of the form. If you're wrong, it's a felony no matter what.

But what do we do with somebody who buys a gun for home defense and a year after purchase falls in love with and marries someone who uses the weapon to commit a felony? The problem with ideologies that fail to take into account the lives of real people is that they forget that populations of people mix. We are not disparate groups of law abiding and criminal elements. We are not the mentally well balanced living in nice neighborhoods and outpatients living on the streets.

Stereotyping and bigotry are not the exclusive provence of right wing authoritarians.

[Glassunion]

8. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. nt

[DissedByBush]

10. Intent is hard to prove, but

There is a check box on the form asking you whether you are getting this gun as a gift. If you mark "no" and immediately sell it to a felon, it's a pretty tight case that you're a straw purchaser.

[rrneck]

12. How would they know you sold it?

Cash is untraceable.

[AtheistCrusader]

103. Same thing as my company store purchasing policy.

I can buy for myself.
I can buy for a gift for someone else.

I cannot buy for someone else, and receive stuff in return.


If you are buying a gun for someone else, with their money, using your identity, you are a straw purchaser. Whether you have reason to believe they are ineligible or not.

[rrneck]

105. True.

But cash is untraceable. Whose money got used? I never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but it seems to be pretty easy to come up with any number of plausible scenarios that would be impossible for the authorities to regulate.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. Standard police work.

They'll look for withdrawals, deposits, compare stories between the buyer and recipient, look for mismatches, etc.

Hard work to enforce, but where cash is concerned, not much choice.

[rrneck]

111. Yeah. And I'm not saying it's not worth the effort.

Actually I'm amazed that we're over a hundred posts in and the phrase "gun show" hasn't shown up yet. I posted the OP in sort of an offhand way but found in responding to people here that those who think there is simply no excuse for not "controlling the weapon" find out pretty quickly how difficult it is to actually come up with any sort of public policy that can make that happen in any meaningful or just way when applied to the way people actually live.

Callous dismissive ideologies make those who express them seem callous and dismissive. And that ain't no way to win an election.