Background check for all sales passes advances out of committee, exceptions for illegal immigrants

[boom boom]

BTW, I am not sure that an exception based on illegal immigrant status would fly based on the Equal Protection clause. That classification could very well fail even a rational basis challenge.

We should all be familiar with the A5. Then there's U.S. v. Haynes (SCOTUS, 1968), which says that you can't convict a previously-convicted felon for failing to register a handgun, because that would violate the A5. Similarly, you can't convict a previously-convicted felon for failing to fill out a 4473.

That is true for state level restrictions but not federal due to amendments to the NFA which made all people required to provide this information and register such weapons to the BATF.

The GCA of 1968 altered the law addressed in Haynes by

"First, the requirement for possessors of unregistered firearms to register was removed. Indeed, under the amended law, there is no mechanism for a possessor to register an unregistered NFA firearm already possessed by the person. Second, a provision was added to the law prohibiting the use of any information from an NFA application or registration as evidence against the person in a criminal proceeding with respect to a violation of law occurring prior to or concurrently with the filing of the application or registration." https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/atf-national-firearms-act-handbook-introduction/download

Thus, the Feds cannot use the lack of information aka failure to register to prove intent under the old std. in the NFA to prove intent of illegal possession of a firearm at issue in Haynes. But, they can punish anyone for giving false information and requiring all to provide such information via FFL sales is not considered a violation of the 5th.

The Supreme Court revisited the NFA after Congress amended the law via the GCA in 1968 in United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971) and held it constitutional as seen above in the current ATF manual.

It is a fine distinction but making a false statement to acquire a firearm is different than using a form 4473 as evidence to prove illegal possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Abramski dealt with the first instance.

 

[tarosean]

I think bump stocks were an easy low hanging fruit.

You musta forgot how many Repubs have signed anti-gunlaws.

Stock up now!

 

[Tommygunn]

You musta forgot how many Repubs have signed anti-gunlaws.

Stock up now!

Haven't forgotten a thing. With regards the bumpstocks, I never owned one, or wanted one. I think they are stupid devices that have the only advantage of tearing through $$$ ammo making people think "hey cool, man, like FULL AUTO and no tax stamp needed!!!!" You don't really even need one to bump fire, just a string, a pocket, and how to assemble.
Yea, politicians I've liked have signed gunlaws. I loved Ronald Reagan, possibly greatest president in my life .... but as governor of California, he signed a gunlaw. He also signed an amnesty on illegal aliens in 1987.
No one is perfect.
If you want the perfect man, think:

JESUS CHRIST.

Do you think he'll save us from politicians?
His followers once wanted him in charge of earthly government. He responded, "my kingdom is not of this world."
We get the government we deserve.

We need to be doing a better job of "deserving." Ejumakate yourselves on our Founders, what they believed and wanted. What philosophers and thinkers inspired them? Who were they and what did they believe, and why?
"God's work must truly be our own," said newly inaugurated President John F. Kennedy.
He was right ....and our future, and today's childrens' futures depend on the work that we do.

 

[JONWILL]

Not quite true, you can be prosecuted if you answer a form 4473 in what can be construed as false information if that false information is material to the purpose of enforcing federal firearms laws. That was one of the two charges against a defendant in a case that went all the way up to the Supreme Court. The second charge was being a straw buyer. The first was making a false statement via the form 4473. In this case, the Supreme Court interpreted federal firearms laws regarding purchases very broadly in reach.

Abramski v. U.S. (2014) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_5468.pdf

For a discussion of the issues involved,
https://legalinsurrection.com/2014/...s-narrow-reading-of-gun-straw-purchase-rules/
18 U.S. Code § 924. A1A, Penalties
(1)Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, subsection (b), (c), (f), or (p) of this section, or in section 929, whoever—

(A) knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of this chapter (form 4473 among other forms);
. . . .
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Make sure that you very carefully fill out these forms.

I remember that case. A cop was buying Glocks with the Police Discount. He was actually taking payment in advance for the firearm thus when he said he purchased is for himself he was lying

Bruce Abramski, a former police officer who offered to buy a Glock 19 handgun for his uncle, Angel Alvarez. (Abramski thought he could get the gun for a discount by showing his old police identification, though the Government contends that because he had been fired from his job two years earlier, he was no longer authorized to use that card.)

Accepting his nephew’s offer, Alvarez sent Abramski a check for $400 with “Glock 19 handgun” written on the memo line. Two days later, Abramski went to Town Police Supply, a federally licensed firearms dealer, to make the purchase. There, he filled out Form 4473, falsely checking “Yes” in reply to Question 11.a.—that is, asserting he was the “actual transferee/ buyer” when, according to the form’s clear definition, he was not.

If he had given the gun as a gift then there wouldn't have been a problem. The fact that a check for the purchase was given, especially before the gun was transferred was where he got caught.

I think Mr Abramski had done this in more than just this one case.

 

[SilentStalker]

You know there is a chance with honest to God conservative justices on the Supreme Court the 2A as an individual right could go up in smoke. The NRA may be significantly changed after an investigation follows the money. Also take a look at the numbers in the Presidential elections and the midterms.This is not left wing propaganda but a possibility.

Doesn’t matter. You going to go down like that? Population centers control the outcomes for the states and soon to be the nation. No offense, but I don’t care what NYC thinks. What right do they have to choose for me? If a woman has the right to be pro choice or whatever other crap they choose to push as an agenda then I should have the right to shoot or own firearms or hunt or do whatever I want in that regard. I am not ok with being ran over and being treated like a slave, period, end of story. If you are then please give me all of your weapons. No, we must combat this stuff at every angle. Long gone are the days of giving money to the nra and writing your reps. That’s not going to work here. Long gone are the days of saving the republic through regular channels as in times past. The corruptness is too deep.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . . . That is true for state level restrictions but not federal due to amendments to the NFA which made all people required to provide this information and register such weapons to the BATF. . . . . United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971) and held it constitutional as seen above in the current ATF manual. . . .

Thank you for the clarification. I must admit that I don't know as much about the NFA as I do about firearms law generally, a fact which I need to remedy. I'll take a look at Freed.

 

[donandmax]

They are going to close the gun show loophole, well that must be a good thing! I was so worried!

Yeah, me too.. For several years now when I purchased a gun at a gun show They ALWAYS did a background check on me. ATTENTION CONGRESS"YOU CANT BUY A GUN AT A GUN SHOW WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A BACKGROUND CHECK" Now cant or won't you get that through your heads ????

 

[doubleh]

Congress is quite aware of that. They are playing to the crowd that has no clue just like they do with internet sales and private sales. They know it isn't going to change a thing but it keeps the uninformed and gun haters voting for them so they can stay in office and continue chipping away at controlling guns sales. It's like eating an elephant or getting ice for your coke from a 50# block of ice., a little bit at a time. They see a way to eventually disarm us and then watch out for what will happen when it's done.

 

[tipoc]

Just a point, but not even in California are gun stores, or anyone, required to notify law enforcement for failure to pass the background check. That's for any reason.

Do you want the government to do that?

 

[newfalguy101]

The 4473 is an affidavit, not an action. If you check a "No" box "Yes," the cops do not spring out of the ceiling and cart the miscreant away, the form is torn up and the party asked to leave the premises. So, no crime is committed.

NICS check comes back "Deny," again, LE does not bust from the back room upon the offender. The sale is terminated, and everyone parts ways with no crime committed.

The only thing a 4473 does is carry your oath or affirmation that the information is correct and complete. The criminal act occurs if the purchase is a straw man or a Prohibited Person evades the system.

Well...not exactly...

If a box is checked wrong, the buyer strikes through the incorrect mark and initials the correction.

On a deny, the FFL is required to keep the 4473 and the sale is ended, and yes, technically a crime HAS been committed, namely lying on a Federal form and signing to signify it is true and correct.... but, yeah, nothing ever seems to come of it

 

[tipoc]

So again, do folks here want the ATF and feds to keep track of this and have local or state cops rousting folks who either lie, misunderstand the question, or for whatever reason, get kicked back?

How big a list is that? How much state apparatus is involved?

 

[CapnMac]

namely lying on a Federal form and signing to signify it is true and correct.... but, yeah, nothing ever seems to come of it

If I remember the text correctly, it actually states the crime is perjury.
Which is one of the least prosecuted felonies around.

However, that perjury only becomes an issue is some other crime is identified.

It remains my understanding that ATF's enforcement position is that, unless a transfer occurs, no crime occurs--and if a crime occurs, that's for ATF to decide, and not some mere shopkeeper (from ATF's perspective).

So, in a sense, it's just "theater," set dressing for centralized command and control. And NICS is largely just a blacklist of names of Prohibited Persons. It's been sold as a "background check" and is nothing of the sort.

 

[Drail]

I have bought and sold numerous handguns and long guns at gun shows with no background check. I did some in the parking lot and I bought some from individuals inside the gunshow. And I did all of this legally. It's not a "loophole" - it's called a private sale and no amount of legislation is ever going to stop it simply because there is no way I can see to enforce it. They might as well pass legislation saying that you cannot buy a car or a house or a can of gasoline or anything else from anyone but a Federally licensed dealer. Then we'll all be felons - everyone of us. Now lock us all up. Oh, so you don't have enough prisons for all of us? I guess you'll just have to raise our taxes more so you can build more. Think of all of the jobs that would create and all of the "assets" they could "seize" and make us "forfeit". Take everything away from everyone so we can all be safer. Of course once you lock everyone up there won't be any more taxes paid so all of these politicians won't be able to get filthy rich any more. Sounds like a great plan if you love Socialism and tyranny. I don't think they've really thought through this great plan for their dream world. Oh, that's right - they're don't know how to think - they only know how to "feel". But then they can all stand around in front of the camera and say "SEE WHAT WE DID?"

 

[alsaqr]

Eleven states have universal background checks. Eight additional states have de facto universal background checks through their requirements for permits to own/purchase a gun.

http://aliengearholsters.com/blog/universal-background-checks/

i don't like the idea of universal background checks. But, believe it or not, universal background checks have overwhelming support; even among gun owners. Put to referendum. universal background checks would pass in many additional states.

 

[Drail]

The question here should be - "do these universal background checks allow for any private sales?" And if the answer is no - then it's clear to see what they are actually trying to achieve because the vast majority of sales ARE made through a licensed dealer with a background check. At this point in time they're not banning regulated firearm sales - only private ones. And they will not stop with just guns. Try to imagine buying a house but you must have the "permission" of the Govt. to buy it.

 

[AlexanderA]

One thing that bothers me with most of these UBC bills is that they require transfers to go through FFL dealers. This allows dealers to charge transfer fees (creating a new, vested "profit center" for the dealers), and increases costs to the private buyers and sellers. If you're going to require background checks for private sales, allow the individuals to access the NICS directly, without involvement by FFL's. In Virginia, the State Police are required by law to have a table at every major gun show, where private sellers can get a background check of their buyers. As it stands today, this facility is voluntary (and is seldom used). But if we must have UBC's, it would be preferable to do it this way rather than go through FFL's.

 

[GEM]

Just a heads up for the 'loophole' mantra. When you argue that the sale currently is not a loop hole in many states as it is legal and some folks don't understand that. They think any gun show sale has no check, a more sophisticated argument is that a gun show is a center of attraction for unchecked private sales at the show or in the parking lot. Cities have declared them attractive nuisances for easing illegal sales (to felons).

For example, you are in line to go into the show and have your gun checked. You intend to sell it to an FFL. However, while on line, a guy comes up and says - Hey, what you got? Oh, I'll beat the price of the dealer.

He gives you cash for the gun and walks away. You brag that you made a killing.

 

[tipoc]

The "background check" that I'm familiar with is in California. As pointed out previously it's not really a background check. It's a check against the NICS list of persons who are prohibited from owning a firearm and whose names were entered in the system for one reason or another at some time. The only thing that happens is that the legal transfer of the firearm from the seller to the new owner (including PPTs) cannot proceed if your name is on that list. No one will come to your place to arrest you (unless you have an active warrant open on you) and somehow the NICS system alerts the local cops. The store is not required to alert anyone. We all know that the NICS system has large holes in it.

Now a lot of folks call for strengthening it, including people here. "It's just "common sense" gun laws after all !", so we are told. Bottom line is that all the versions of that end up giving more power to the cops, the courts and the politicians.

 

[AlexanderA]

For example, you are in line to go into the show and have your gun checked. You intend to sell it to an FFL. However, while on line, a guy comes up and says - Hey, what you got? Oh, I'll beat the price of the dealer.

Happens all the time. If you take a gun to a gun show, you're going to get offers -- most of them ridiculous lowball offers. I've had people approach me with offers for guns I had just bought at that very show.

Probably 95% of these offers are from legit people trying to be clever traders. But the other 5% are probably either disqualified buyers (felons, addicts, domestic abusers, etc.) or gun traffickers. And they find sellers willing to accommodate them. To say that this is not a problem is burying our heads in the sand.

 

[GEM]

If an unknown guy offers you a better price than expected, that's a hint. I take a very jaundiced view of the opposition to a NICS based private sale regime as described in HR 8. Since the NICS is law of the land and transfer fees are paid for FFL transactions, saying that such a system for private sales is the end of the Constitution isn't going to convince neutral or antigun folks. That's my take on the reality of the debate. This might make you wave your arms with hair on fire but one needs realistic takes on preserving the 2nd Amend. Better to be ready with a trade for something if the UBC is going to win in the Congress. NO compromise was a good strategy for Japanese soldiers in the hills of the Philippines for 20 years after the surrender.

The immediate biggest threat is the increasing bans of weapons type at the state level. Unless SCOTUS voids them (fat chance), they will sweep the majority of the gun. As I said before, not complying and having a horde of useless guns or mags buried in the basement isn't worth squat in any practical scenario (except a civilization fall).

There are well known principles of influencing opinion, I have yet to see a convincing argument for those from the gun world for folks not in the gun world. Compensation is a reasonable point on bans - so add that as they did in Australia. That takes away some of the Constitutional arguments.

 

[Texas10mm]

But, believe it or not, universal background checks have overwhelming support; even among gun owners. Put to referendum. universal background checks would pass in many additional states.

That's not true. It was a rigged poll.

 

[Deanimator]

That's not true. It was a rigged poll.

Strangely, the polls NEVER mention that sham "universal" background checks are utterly useless without REGISTRATION.

 

[LRDGCO]

What is an "internet sale loophole"?

 

[AlexanderA]

What is an "internet sale loophole"?

Both the Internet and gun shows are venues where unregulated / unlicensed gun buyers and sellers can conveniently find each other. (In previous times, you could add newspaper classified ads to this list.) Being outside the FFL system, such transactions cannot be monitored to the extent the gun controllers would like. That's why they call these things "loopholes." Their presumption is that every gun transaction must be recorded. That's not the reality in this country (yet).

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I remember reading a statistic a couple years back the most prohibited persons don't buy their guns at gun shows. They either get a relative to do a straw purchase for them or they just buy them from the Dopeman and all the universal background checks in the world aren't going to change that.

I'm surprised nobody has brought this up in this discussion but my biggest problem with the whole concept of universal background checks is it they won't work unless guns are registered.

There are an awful lot of guns in this country that have changed hands multiple times legally without a background check. If you catch a criminal with a gun like that you can't go back to the person they bought it from because there's no record of it.

You mark my words, if Universal Background Checks are passed. The next thing they'll go for is a national registration.

And that REALLY WIILL BE the end of the Second Amendment