I'm cool with closing the gun show loophole. I don't think any of these regulatory measures will stop mass shootings but it's still probably a good idea vis-a-vis the drug war.
I think this is a waste of effort for the left. There is just too many guns in country. Even if you require background checks etc. people who want to kill people are going to find guns from their friends parents etc. A lot of people are fine until they decide to kill a bunch of people. They will pass background checks. I think we should focus all you efforts on things that can actually be implemented like healthcare or education.
no. the argument is simply that the majority may want something that is a direct violation of constitutional rights, and that we have an obligation in some/many cases to protect a minority's interests in the matter
there are already background checks. we have laws requiring background checks. The reason there is a "private transfer" exception (call it a loophole if you want) is because there is no legitimate federal interstate commerce rationale for the Federal Government to regulate the private sale of an object that stays within the confines of a single state.
Not a lawyer, but unless you can guarantee that a gun can't be transferred between states, it would seem that people wanting a gun faster/easier/for criminal purposes will simply drive across state borders (or further) to get a gun with the weakest background requirements. As a result, it seems a legitimate reason for falling under commerce clause and should have a national set of laws. Plus, it would aid law enforcement having a standard and national database to be able to share information when tracking the use of a gun in the commission of a crime.
I think a lot of gun owners would be very leery of selling to someone they didn't know. Plus it is already illegal to sell the gun to someone from out of state.
Curious, why are gun owners leery of selling to people that they don't know? Is it because they fear that the purchaser might use the gun in the commission of a crime? Seems that worry is reasonable, and that we should protect the public more that relying on a private party seller that might worry (since I suspect there would be a number that would be just as apt to want to make the sale). And why is it illegal to sell out of state? Seems that would be a violation of the second amendment? And doesn't that suggest that some limitations and controls on the sale of guns, especially across state borders, is reasonable and for good reason? Seems that would argue that an enhanced national background check and registration system would be reasonable and a good thing.
article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday about rural sheriffs https://www.wsj.com/articles/rural-sheriffs-defy-new-gun-measures-11552230000?mod=trending_now_5
That's the whole thing with the gun shows though. It's fairly well documented you can go into one in a number of states and buy a gun/ multiple guns with essentially no restrictions. The gun sellers are people trying to sell guns. They aren't necessarily going to be the most discerning and historically they aren't. The cartels get huge sums of weapons from these places.
Not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or not. You're a relatively good poster. You know and understand the private seller exception. You understand the vast majority of guns fueling the drug wars in central america come from the United States. A large number of those guns are purchased through the private seller exception and a certain % of those come from gun shows. To try to assert anything else is wrong and disingenuous in the extreme.
I disagree with the statement that one can "go into one in a number of states and buy a gun/ multiple guns with essentially no restrictions." That is simply a false assertion.
I don't understand why that is "pedantic." You are making a factual and/or otherwise empirical claim that I believe is not true.
look, I suppose I could respond by saying that you are the one making factual/empirical claims, therefore you have the burden of proof to demonstrate whether those claims are accurate or not. I do not believe they are. I will provide you with evidence/substantiation/arguments for my belief. You can then argue with what I present to you, and that would be fair, but at least then we will be talking about a disagreement over evidence. David Kopel is one of the preeminent experts in firearms policy in the U.S. Here is a piece he wrote some years ago about peoples' misconceptions about gun shows and the so-called gun show loophole. If anything, some of the data and the situation he describes from 10-20 years ago have gotten even more tightened up: The Facts about Gun Shows By David B. Kopel January 10, 2000 “Close the gun show loophole,” demands Handgun Control, Inc. The major obstacle to Congress’s complying with HCI’s wishes appears to be the desire of many Democrats to preserve gun shows as a campaign issue in the 2000 election. But if the voters learn the facts about gun shows, they will discover that there is no gun show loophole, no gun show crime problem and no reason to adopt federal legislation whose main effect would be to infringe on First and Second Amendment rights. Despite what some media commentators have claimed, existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold. Since 1938, persons selling firearms have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. If a dealer sells a gun from a storefront, from a room in his home or from a table at a gun show, the rules are exactly the same: he can get authorization from the FBI for the sale only after the FBI runs its “instant” background check (which often takes days to complete). As a result, firearms are the most severely regulated consumer product in the United States — the only product for which FBI permission is required for every single sale. Conversely, people who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms, but who sell firearms from time to time (such as a man who sells a hunting rifle to his brother-in-law), are not required to obtain the federal license required of gun dealers or to call the FBI before completing the sale. Similarly, if a gun collector dies and his widow wants to sell the guns, she does not need a federal firearms license because she is just selling off inherited property and is not “engaged in the business.” And if the widow doesn’t want to sell her deceased husband’s guns by taking out a classified ad in the newspaper, it is lawful for her to rent a table at a gun show and sell the entire collection. If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the the weekend) are the distinct minority. Yet HCI claims that “25-50 percent of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers.” That statistic is true only if one counts vendors who aren’t selling guns (e.g., vendors who are selling books, clothing or accessories) as “unlicensed dealers.” Denver congresswoman Diana DeGette says that 70 percent of guns used in crimes come from gun shows. The true figure is rather different, according to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. According to an NIJ study released in December 1997 (“Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities,” a report that covers much more than homicide), only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows. That finding is consistent with a mid-1980s study for the NIJ, which investigated the gun purchase and use habits of convicted felons in 12 state prisons. The study (later published as the book Armed and Considered Dangerous) found that gun shows were such a minor source of criminal gun acquisition that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure. At the most recent meeting of the American Society of Criminology, a study of youthful offenders in Michigan found that only 3 percent of the youths in the study had acquired their last handgun from a gun show. (Of course some criminal gun acquisition at gun shows is perpetrated by “straw purchasers” who are legal gun buyers acting as surrogates for the individual who wants the gun. Straw purchases have been federal felonies since 1968.) According to the educational arm of HCI, the group’s own survey of major-city police chiefs found only 2 out of 48 who said that guns from gun shows (both “legal and illegal sales” according to the questionnaire) were a major problem in their city. Although the horrible murders at Columbine High School have energized anti-gun activists, no proposed federal law would have made any difference. The adults who supplied the Columbine murder weapons (Robin Anderson and Mark Manes — the latter a son of a longtime HCI activist) were legal purchasers. Since every gun show takes place entirely within the boundaries of a single state, Congress has no legitimate constitutional basis, under its “interstate commerce” power, to attempt to control gun shows. Nevertheless, both houses of Congress have passed gun show legislation. The House bill does only what the gun control advocates claim to want: the imposition of federal background checks on personal sales at gun shows. The Senate version — passed 51-50 thanks to Vice President Gore — goes much further, setting the stage for gun shows to be outlawed. The Senate bill gives the secretary of the Treasury nearly unlimited power to regulate gun show sales. In the past, Treasury has abused its administrative authority over firearms to ban certain guns, so, similar treatment for gun shows can be expected. For example, the Treasury banned the import of various rifles that were popular for competitive target shooting. Although a federal statute specifically orders Treasury to allow the import of “sporting” firearms, Treasury claimed that only firearms that were recommended by hunting guides were “sporting.” The Senate version also imposes a tax on gun show promoters and allows the secretary of the Treasury unlimited power in setting the tax level. One can bet that, in this case, the power to tax really will be the power to destroy. Gun shows are huge gathering points for people who are interested in Second Amendment issues. Gun rights groups frequently set up booths at gun shows to distribute literature and recruit members. Gun shows are places where Americans properly exercise their First and Second Amendment rights, and neither gun show patrons nor vendors deserve the mean-spirited campaign of abuse to which they have been subjected. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows
