Texas shooter 'failed background check' but exploited loophole by buying through private sale

CapnMac · Sep 7, 2019

CoalTrain49 said:
True. It depends on how the fed sets up the UBC.

Every recently proposed Federal regulation works exactly the same.
All transactions just have to go through NICS, the how is left as a "minor detail."
At this oint the only real difference all the lame-duck House bills have is in just what is a "transfer" (they very from "all" to "most").

So, some of these cover getting the loan of a hunting rifle, out in the field, or a gift, or a give/return to repair or pawn.

Not one addresses how the NICS staff would need to be tripled just to handle the phone calls. Also never addressed is just how to to have NICS-qualified persons available. I mean=, rally, I'd probably enjoy going to the range with @dogtown tom (other than the hour drive to his side of DFW

); but having to have hime along just to be able to share arms at the range would get tiresome. (And, I fully expect, he like his "downtime" as much as the rest of us.)

CapnMac · Sep 7, 2019

CoalTrain49 said:
The ATF failed to investigate the TX shooter when he was denied.

NICS is "outside" all the investigating authorities.
It's nothing but a database listing.
With a government-level over-complicated database query front end (to ensure employment of gov't employees).
If the name comes back, that equals "deny"; if more than one name comes back, then "delay."

Some states use NICS and their own databases for BC's. In this state (POC) if I was denied I would have been investigated by state LE.

Actually, not any more; NICS kicked them to the curb for not taxing their staff resources.
Most of the POC states just use their own "blacklist" just like NICS. Some check for wants and warrants, but that's about it.

None of this even remotely resembles an actual background check--which takes weeks to do correctly.

You have to remember, this is not about anything actually effective to the stated goal. This is all about harassment of legal buyers; an infringement of the innocent. To use a single word: Theater.

FlSwampRat · Sep 7, 2019

CapnMac said:
That is not codified in either Law or Regulation. So, the US Attorney gets to decide, and the defendant gets to prove otherwise. ATF will only say that it is a number greater than one and less than infinity.

How helpful.

Not a distinction important to journos, and thus, not reported. Or, edited out to fit format by an even less-informed editor/compositor.
Go ask your dog if he speaks Sanskrit, you will get a similarly puzzled expression.

Must be easy to get into journalism nowadays, you don't have to know anything about anything.

medalguy · Sep 7, 2019

40-82 made an excellent point. Lying on a 4473 is a crime, perjury. If they prosecuted everyone who lied on a 4473 there would be a lot fewer criminals on the loose. If these cases were pursued there would be no need for UBCs. Point that out to your friends who argue for UBCs.

Texas10mm · Sep 7, 2019

danez71 said:
Thinking that part of negotiations is compromise, is a fatal flaw.

In a most simple example, bad guy tells good guy 'give me your money or you die', the BG hasn't given up or compromised anything that that BG has to the GG in exchange for the GGs money. The GG is forced into this negotiation that has no upside for him.

The Anti's negotiate in a similar way in that its from a scale of Zero guns to 100 % 2A.

When they say they want zero guns, they have not compromised anything in the negotiation.

We compromised and give up 10%

Next round, they still say they want 0 guns. Since they want 0 guns, giving back some of the 10% is not even considered.

They want 0 guns.... we compromise because we don't 0 guns and give them another 10% after a lot of whinning and hand wringing.

Now we only have 80%

Guess what... round 3 comes and they still want 0 guns. We say No Way... and back and forth and back and forth.

If their goal is zero guns, it's foolish to think they'll give up any of the 20% of their progress. There is no incentive for them to give up anything that doesn't get them closer to zero guns.

So... we are in a position of 0 guns or giving another 10%

Now we're at 70%

The frame work of this negotiations has no upside for us because they don't have anything to offer as a compromise that doesn't undermine their 0 gun goal.

Stonewalling can force compromise by the other side into the negotiations if they think can gain can more than they give up.

Now...... this is the type of negotiations that most people think of... when both side have something they have to offer that the other side wants.

Just a point on the math.

100 - 10% = 90
90 - 10% = 81
81 - 10% = 72.9

Kind of like how disabilities are calculated.

Deanimator · Sep 7, 2019

medalguy said:
40-82 made an excellent point. Lying on a 4473 is a crime, perjury. If they prosecuted everyone who lied on a 4473 there would be a lot fewer criminals on the loose. If these cases were pursued there would be no need for UBCs. Point that out to your friends who argue for UBCs.

That of course presumes that the proponents actually CARE about crime and criminals. They DON'T. If they tell you different, they're LYING:

“I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns. No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals . . . we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns. Until we can ban all of the firearms, then we might as well ban none.” - Howard Metzenbaum

CapnMac · Sep 7, 2019

FlSwampRat said:
How helpful.

When they ginned up GCA 68, fifty years ago, it was a very near thing.
The congresscritters knew the ice was thin enough that, had they specified a number, it would have been immediately challenged in court, and like get the whole thing tossed out for not being Constitutional.

The part about the only legal sellers having to be licensed by the government was pretty shaky ground. The presumption that all gun buyers were guilty until they proved their innocence on a 4473 was (and remains) equally shaky. That's why they created the whole concept of Prohibited Persons. Which was a brand new thing in the US, and had not been needful in nearly 2 centuries.

giggitygiggity · Sep 7, 2019

We always hear about these background checks. I don’t think there is a sane person on either side of the isle that will disagree that criminals (I’m talking about felons) should not have access to guns. It is completely asinine that I have to have a NICS check on me every single time I buy a gun or that I have to submit a tons of nonsense and wait for over a year for each NFA item. Delay/chilling of my 2A right is infringement in no uncertain terms.

I would like the government to prohibit states from restricting 2A rights by adding more hoops through which you have to jump such as having to obtain permits, etc.

Instead, of the current NICS and NFA process, I would like a government-issued card that lists whether you can possess firearms, NFA items, or what FFL(s) you possess. There can be an app in which private citizens and FFLs conducting a transfer can scan the card to make sure that it is current and valid. If I commit a crime, the ATF can deactivate/modify the card so if I attempt a purchase as a prohibited person, the transferor will see that I cannot purchase the item. This will eliminate months-years of waiting on NFA items, shorten the 4473/background check process to seconds, and ensure that prohibited persons cannot buy guns. If there is concern about someone using someone else’s card to make a purchase, then in the app, require that the card, a PIN/password be entered, as well as a thumbprint be scanned in order to validate that the person making the purchase is the person whose name and photo appear on the card.

Deanimator · Sep 7, 2019

CapnMac said:
When they ginned up GCA 68, fifty years ago, it was a very near thing.
The congresscritters knew the ice was thin enough that, had they specified a number, it would have been immediately challenged in court, and like get the whole thing tossed out for not being Constitutional.

The part about the only legal sellers having to be licensed by the government was pretty shaky ground. The presumption that all gun buyers were guilty until they proved their innocence on a 4473 was (and remains) equally shaky. That's why they created the whole concept of Prohibited Persons. Which was a brand new thing in the US, and had not been needful in nearly 2 centuries.

It makes you wonder why there's no "prohibited persons" concept for cars (reckless and drunk driving), travel in general (serial criminals), or computers (fraud, kiddie porn).

Of course, given the amazing parallels between the 1930s Soviet Union (the Holodomor, internal passports, etc.) and the Green New Deal (bans on air travel, meat, etc.), maybe those things are in the planning stages. Maybe they can't be imposed on people with guns...

Deanimator · Sep 7, 2019

giggitygiggity said:
We always hear about these background checks. I don’t think there is a sane person on either side of the isle that will disagree that criminals (I’m talking about felons) should not have access to guns.

Should they have access to:

cars (and the ability to travel in general)
computers
cell phones
edged cutting tools

You'd almost get the idea that it's not about reducing crime...

dogtown tom · Sep 7, 2019

CoalTrain49 said:
I think the MSM is making it perfectly clear what the issues are behind this latest shooting in TX.

I'm not exactly sure why I need to be in the business to understand that ATF/NICS is a joke.

You don't, but you do need to offer an explanation why you think "ATF/NICS is a joke"......being that the Odessa shooter WAS DENIED by NICS its apparent that the background check system worked in his case. Denials are not always due to the buyer being prohibited person.

In eleven years I've had about nine or ten denials, all but three were overturned on appeal to the FBI. That's called a clue as to why ATF/FBI don't scurry on down to my front door when a buyer gets denied.

In many states NICS is the only background check people get. The ATF failed to investigate the TX shooter when he was denied.

Again, ATF doesn't have anything to do with the FBI NICS check....that's why its called an FBI NICS check.

Some states use NICS and their own databases for BC's. In this state (POC) if I was denied I would have been investigated by state LE.

Not always true. You assume that denials are because the buyer is a prohibited person or committing a crime by attempting to purchase a firearm. That's not the only reasons for denied responses.

dogtown tom · Sep 7, 2019

CapnMac said:
….. I'd probably enjoy going to the range with @dogtown tom (other than the hour drive to his side of DFW ); but having to have hime along just to be able to share arms at the range would get tiresome. (And, I fully expect, he like his "downtime" as much as the rest of us.)

I couldn't if I wanted to.
ATF regs only allow a licensee to conduct business at his licensed premises and a gun show or special event. Now......if a dealer has a premises w/range he could do that.

CoalTrain49 · Sep 7, 2019

Again, ATF doesn't have anything to do with the FBI NICS check....that's why its called an FBI NICS check.

Really? Then why are they supposed to be dealing with denials. Are denials not a product of NICS?

Challenges. ATF and selected states reported challenges in investigating and prosecuting firearms denials. Officials from six selected ATF field divisions said that investigating the increasing number of denial cases referred to field divisions—which increased from about 5,200 in fiscal year 2011 to about 12,700 in fiscal year 2017—has been time intensive and required use of their limited resources. ATF policy provides that field divisions may send “warning notices” to denied persons in lieu of prosecution, but ATF has not assessed field divisions’ use of these notices, which could provide greater awareness of their deterrence value and inform whether any policy changes are needed. Officials from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys said that prosecuting denial cases can require significant effort and may offer little value to public safety compared to other cases involving gun violence. Selected state officials said that denial investigations can take law enforcement officials away from their core duties. State prosecutors said gathering evidence to prove individuals knew they were prohibited was a challenge.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf

Robert · Sep 7, 2019

We have beat this one to death and seem to be just going around in circles...

Texas shooter 'failed background check' but exploited loophole by buying through private sale

CapnMac

Member

CapnMac

Member

FlSwampRat

Member

medalguy

Member

Texas10mm

member

Deanimator

Member

CapnMac

Member

giggitygiggity

Member

Deanimator

Member

Deanimator

Member

dogtown tom

Member

dogtown tom

Member

CoalTrain49

Member

Robert

Administrator

Similar threads