Good and Bad

[RPRNY]

Well, as the OP probably imagined, he's had a rough reception for his ideas. The concept of passing "good" laws at the Federal level to prevent bad ones at the State level has theoretical merit. In practice however, there are numerous problems.

First is the assumption that more laws are needed.

As you note, the founding fathers may not have envisaged the evolution of firepower that has happened. But the assertion that they were unaware of the risks of "gang violence", criminal use of firearms, etc., ignores the fact that a key reason for scrapping the Articles of Confederation and adopting the Constitution was Shay' s Rebellion, the armed revolt by western Massachusetts farmers who had sought to take the Springfield Armory, at the time the nation's only government arms manufacturer. They were absolutely aware of the risks posed by an armed populace. And having just won independence through armed insurrection against a tyrannical government, they still chose to protect the natural right of man to defend himself and his property as well as to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. As to lunatics shooting people, they already had laws against murder, so did not see the need to restrict a right viewed second only to freedom of expression to curtail that which was already forbidden. As has been eloquently stated, gun control to limit violence is like getting a vasectomy because you think the neighbors have too many children.

But, as to the evolution of firepower, the 1934 National Firearms Act addressed this and was somehow deemed by SCOTUS as compatible with 2A. Then the 1968 Gun Control Act further restricted our rights. This is difficult to understand in view of the wording of the Second Amendment whose operative clause "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" seems to leave little wiggle room for restrictions. But we have the NFA, GCA, any number of further Federal restrictions such as Lautenburg etc, and State and Local restrictions up the wazoo. So, a natural right, the mere infringement of which is specifically banned in the second right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, has already been substantially infringed and abridged, in part to address issues such as the evolution of firearms.

Yet, you and others suggest death from mass shootings merits further restrictions. Ok, how many deaths? Well, mass shootings account for up to 100 deaths a year. Murder is of course already illegal so how more laws will stop the mentally deranged from committing it I am unsure. But if drastic measures at merited to stop 100 deaths per year, then let them be merited in all such cases. Over 250 murders per year of children under 14 could be stopped by simply prohibiting anyone who uses or has used alcohol from owning or operating a motor vehicle. Why is this not an urgent need being addressed by law makers? More murders were committed in 2013 with hammers than with rifles of any kind, let alone semi automatic rifles with large "magazineclips". So why is hammer control legislation not an urgent priority?

Ah, but gun deaths in total? The US has much higher gun deaths than other civilized Western nations with very strict gun controls, so gun control must be the key. Well, here you may have a point. But it's not one that most gun control advocates and their legislative allies want to hear. The majority of gun violence in this country is urban and black. Removing urban, African-American perpetrated gun violence from our annual statistics would make the US 147th in the world for gun related deaths. So, if you really wanted to make a difference in gun related deaths, prohibiting African-Americans who live in cities of more than 50,000 people from gun ownership might hugely diminish gun violence. But you would have to ride roughshod over the 14th Amendment to do so. Since you seem willing to ignore the Second Amendment in pursuit of reasonable measures to protect society, why not the 14th?

Murder is illegal, whether committed with a gun, a car or a hammer. I see no demand for laws to seriously restrict the Constitutionally unprotected right to keep and bear either of the latter. Therefore, my suspicion is that gun control legislation is not driven by utilitarian desires for the common good.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Where? Well, he probably stole it, or got it from someone else who did.

Or he got it from someone who bought it from a dealer, or a private sale.

Yes, theft will always be an option, and there is little that can be done about that.

But, a large percentage of guns in criminal hands are never stolen… they enter the secondary market through sales that originate at a dealer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2438583/

“Licensed gun dealers are a major conduit for gun trafficking. Prior to May 1999, a single gun store sold more than half of the guns recovered from criminals in Milwaukee, WI, shortly following retail sale.”

In this case, the dealer is likely following the law, selling guns to people with the proper 4473 and everything, but those people are then immediately selling to criminals or selling to someone who sells to criminals. Regardless, they aren't all being stolen and tracking the path from dealer to criminal and arresting the last person in line will deter people from making these sales.

Or he's one of the many "not yet incarcerated" gang members and friends who already buy guns in straw purchases for their felonious pals -- KNOWING or having REASON TO KNOW that the person they're giving the gun to has a record.

And under current law, that "not yet incarcerated" gang member can continue to provide guns indefinitely.

Add UBC and traceable sales, first time one of his gang friends gets caught with one of his guns, he goes to jail. Source of guns cut off, good for everyone except the gang.

 

[steelerdude99]

...

When 'compromise' starts to mean 'give us background checks, and we'll reopen the NFA', I'll consider compromise.

I have yet to see any compromise firearm legislation in the true sense of the word compromise. The anti-gunners always want to take more rights without adding anything that gun rights supporters want. I think giving up interstate transfer parts of the CGA of 68 in exchange for a better way to do background checks would be a good place to start.

Here is an idea that I think provides added gun-rights and may stop prohibited persons from easily getting their hands on firearms via the legal supply chain. It will not stop prohibited persons from exchanging guns, but no law will. If someone wants to buy a firearm from a stranger, one can get NICS pre-check ID number. The ID number can be checked via web similar to the way I can check a FFL to see if it’s still valid, the seller would enter the ID number and the last name. They get a GREEN, YELLOW (investigation PENDING) or RED code. The ID can be used by a private citizen to buy from an FFL or another private citizen. Here is the compromise part … it would work that way anywhere in the US and would permit private non-FFL transfers even those out of the sellers state.

There can be a few dollar fee for a validated and dated check, but it helps the seller too as they don’t have to worry about losing their paperwork due to a record of payment with NICS. The validated and dated GREEN code paperwork can be attached to whatever record(s) one keeps for a bill of sale. Sellers keep the validated and dated GREEN code paperwork for their protection. No firearm serial number is involved. One can transfer one or more firearms at a time after the GREEN code. As it’s just a pre-check ID, there will be no “national registration” possible. It gives the government no more info than if an FFL purchase has been made. States that still have registration will just act as they have, it’s just the FFL will not be needed. Some states (aka NY, CA, IL, NJ and ... ) will object to such an idea, but when federal UBC was pushed earlier this year, these states were not objecting to UBC saying it's a "states rights" issue.

My worry with giving seller info would be police coming and wanting firearm serial number info if they know the seller. That would mean allowing anonymous checks without payments, but without seller protections. They can back trace from mfgr. to original buyer anyhow. If you did not want to get a validated copy of your GREEN code, just print the screen that has the date. It would also have to be illegal for government to save IP addresses of requests or force ISPs (internet service providers) to do it for them.

When an ID would not be needed? If I feel that I could sell or just transfer a firearm to my non-prohibited wife: NO ID … no problem… Sell or transfer to other non-prohibited family member or friend without an ID, no problem. If you don’t know the person well enough to be pretty darn sure they are not a prohibited person, ask for a pre-check ID and check it for yourself. The government would have to prove that you sold to a prohibited person on a certain date and you were just too lazy to check.

Its NICS’ responsibility to keep the system accurate with convictions as well as rights restored updates as well as provide a GREEN code only when a person is NOT prohibited. They would also have to be able to date trace transitions, especially GREEN to RED. That would prevent a forged GREEN. As such when you sell the firearm after a validated and dated GREEN result, you can’t be sued for what the person does with it.

Anyone see any issues or more importantly gives away too much?

chuck

 

[Pizzapinochle]

I'd like some proof for this, other than the usual 'the NRA won't support anything that allows LEOs to track gun purchases, so they're keeping LE from doing their job!'.

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

"The 1993 NEJM article received considerable media attention, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) responded by campaigning for the elimination of the center that had funded the study, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. The center itself survived, but Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) for Fiscal Year 1997 that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Referred to as the Dickey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury. Dr. Kellerman stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”

 

[Pizzapinochle]

I'd like some proof for this, other than the usual 'the NRA won't support anything that allows LEOs to track gun purchases, so they're keeping LE from doing their job!'.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661391

"Today, with almost no funding for firearm violence research, there are almost no researchers. Counting all academic disciplines together, no more than a dozen active, experienced investigators in the United States have focused their careers primarily on firearm violence. Only 2 are physicians. Only 1 has evaluated the effectiveness of an assault weapons ban.6

Why did this happen? In the early 1990s, scientists were producing evidence that might have been used to reform the nation's firearm policies. To those whose interests were threatened by such reforms, it made perfect sense to choke off the production of the evidence. This effort was led by Congressman Jay Dickey, self-described “point person for the NRA.”7 It succeeded. When rates of firearm violence were at historic highs and appeared to be increasing, the government abandoned its commitment to understanding the problem and devising evidence-based solutions."

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Dude - if you're gonna talk about something, invest the time to research it. The basic research starts here: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43

You made a VERY specific claim:

" According to the DoJ, most folk convicted of federal crimes that involved the use of a firearm were NOT PROHIBITED PERSONS when they obtained the firearm."

I have been through a lot of the BJS information and never heard that.

If you are going to make a very specific claim, don't refer me to a site with 1000s of pages of documents and say "find it yourself."

Either back it up or withdraw your statement.

 

[mnrivrat]

However, times have changed since the Founding Fathers laid the foundations to the US Constitution

I haven't the time to read the posts at the moment but wanted to quickly address that part of the OP's statement.

When it comes to the peoples rights of basic and inaliable feedoms nothing will ever change. You are either a free man ,or a servant subject of government and its control. The time period is not relivent and neither is the technology.

It's not about the gun, it is about government infringing on your natural rights as a free man. The 2nd ( like all others placed into our constitutional Bill of Rights) was about limiting governments ability to draft laws that undermine these rights of the citizens it is suppose to serve. I will return later to read all the posts and further comment if appropriate.

 

[Krusty783]

I don't have statistics, but I do know that a significant percentage of the legislation proposed during each session goes absolutely nowhere. That's exactly where most of the newly proposed firearms bills will end up.

We don't need new laws restricting firearms. We need the federal gov't to cowboy up and fully fund the implementation of the laws in place:

Remember all the lettered questions on a 4473? There are minimal resources in place to verify the responses to all those questions other than felonies. There is also almost no enforcement against those who lie on the forms in order to obtain a firearm illegally.

The federal gov't needs to fund a system to enable & compel providers to report those who may be a danger to themselves or others. There is currently no cohesive way to do this due to HIPPA and the patchwork of states who do and don't report.

Also, it should be a law that stolen firearms be reported in a timely manner. This make sense to me because the owner would be more likely to get their property back and it would send stupid criminals to jail or to jail longer - if they get arrested for a crime and are possessing a stolen firearm.

The S/N's should then be entered into a database which all dealers must use to verify the provenance of all used guns offered for sale or trade. This database should just contain the S/N and firearm info. If a dealer gets a hit, they call the ATF who then handles the investigation. There is no need for personal information about the legal owner beyond their name on the original police report. Putting this duty on FFLs will make sure it is followed.

But, we all know that the stolen firearm database will quickly be perverted into a registration database for all firearms, so that might not be a good idea.

Personally, I think we should either revise the NFA to A) pertain only to destructive devices (who needs a grenade launcher?) or B) just do away with it completely.

I'm leaning towards A because B would free everything. While this sounds great, B would put very dangerous things in circulation and present opportunities for theft and under the table dealings and I really don't like the idea of drug rings being able to easily procure grenade launchers...

I think revising the NFA to only pertain to destructive devices would have a significant affect on crime because statistics have shown repeatedly that increased gun ownership drives down violent crime rates. The reverse is also true - look at the UK.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Actually, the DoJ studies conducted over the last handful of decades have done the unthinkable - THEY ASKED THE CRIMINALS. We, as a society, actually have a pretty dang good understanding of how firearms wind up being used in the commission of violent crimes.

I am well aware of that study, I have actually cited it in the past and been told (by pro-gun posters) it is unreliable because they asked criminals. But, I am happy to use it.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

“Inmates' retail purchase of firearms
fell between 1991 and 1997
In 1997, 14% of State inmates who had
used or possessed a firearm during
their current offense bought or traded
for it from a retail store, pawnshop, flea
market, or gun show (table 8). Nearly
40% of State inmates carrying a
firearm obtained the weapon from
family or friends. About 3 in 10
received the weapon from drug
dealers, off the street, or through the
black market. Another 1 in 10 obtained
their gun during a robbery, burglary, or
other type of theft.”

In order of frequency:

40% from family friends
30% from street dealers or black market
14% from retail, pawnshops, flea market or gun show
10% from theft

So, LAST on the list is theft, the one that is most difficult to address. #1 on the list is family and friend, THE VERY ISSUE THAT UBS AND TRACEABLE SALES WOULD ADDRESS MOST SUCCSEFULLY!

The grey area is that “30% from street dealers or black market.” We don’t know where those street dealers get the guns. It is probably a mix of 1. FFLs 2. Theft 3. Private sales. There are not more details than that.

Obviously “bought the gun from someone off armslist” is not on the list. That study was conducted in 1997, Armslist went online in 2009. If you know of a more recent study that includes FTF transaction originated online, I’d be interested in reading it.

 

[Yo Mama]

I HATE that argument, acting like general gun control had anything to do with the holocaust.

Gun restrictions for German Citizens were RELAXED under Hitler. German citizens could, and did, own guns. That was never the problem.

The problem was that Hitler convinced the whole country that one minority group (the Jews) were the source of all their problems and if they would just get rid of that minority group, things would be better. Convinced of this, the whole country stripped that one minority group of ALL their rights. Yes, guns were included in that, but it wasn't a general gun control campaign for all of Germany. German citizens had guns and could have resisted the holocaust. They chose not to.

Frankly, I have heard more arguments from pro-gun people that line up with the Nazi/Hitler rhetoric than I have from anti-gun people.

Everything you just said is factually inaccurate. Also, I'm Jewish so you have no idea how far this is ingrained into our DNA. Jews are killed everywhere they have ever lived. In Germany, they were not the only class of citizen not allowed to own guns, other citizens were also targeted including the gay, mentally ill, developmentally disabled, and gypsys.

IF these groups were allowed firearms, they would not be dead.

We were registered. We were "background" checked. We were killed. You will never convince me otherwise.

 

[hso]

I agree that there's great concern for the shift to state level legislation to restrict firearms ownership. I see it as a great two fold problem. State legislators have less time and resources to develop a deep understanding of the statistics and the crime data. They serve smaller constituencies where they need to be perceived as "doing something" for the benefit of those voters at the same time having less real control or influence over what can be done to reduce crime and its causes. This leads to "feel good" legislation being proposed and voted on that they can point to in their campaigns and almost all gun control legislation falls into this trap. They can't reduce poverty or improve education or replace squalor with opportunity and they can't bring businesses to move into the areas of their districts suffering from those social ills to offset them and they can't help free those constituents to move to where those opportunities exist so they engage in bread and circuses activities and they put bandaids on gaping wounds in their communities. It unfortunately sells all too well.

That combination of limited time/understanding, pandering, micro constituencies makes state houses great targets for gun control advocates.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Actually, you're making my point. Most (as in more than half) violent crime that involves the use of a firearm is in fact the result of arguments over gang-related activies or arguments between criminal actors engaged in criminalized activities such as trafficing in sex and/or drugs.

Again, citation? You are stating many "facts," but I don't see you backing it up with any real data except a general citation to the BJS site.

Because here is the data I see around murders circumstances:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl12.xls

-Most murders are not committed as part of a felony
-The largest category is “Unknown,” followed by “Other Arguments” and “Other – not specified” - in other words we don't really know the exact circumstances around most homicides
-“Gangland killings” and “Juvenile Gang Killings” account for less than 1,000 murders each year

Nothing in that supports your claim. In fact, the only evidence you posted…

the FBI Supplemental Homocide Report in 2003 said that 10% of all homocides were committed by a known gang mamber.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vgm03.pdf

…seems to refute your claim that most crime is gang related. Ten percent is definitely not most, and a bit later in that same document:

"Victims believed the offenders were
gang members in about 12% of all
aggravated assaults that occurred
between 1993 and 2003. Offenders
were identified as gang members in
about 4% of rapes, 10% of robberies,
and 6% of simple assaults."

Your claim is that most crime is gang related. The information you posted puts the numbers BELOW 15%.

 

[rbernie]

#1 on the list is family and friend, THE VERY ISSUE THAT UBS AND TRACEABLE SALES WOULD ADDRESS MOST SUCCSEFULLY!

How? Somewhere in the chain of events, a bunch of these folk are already doing an illegal transfer. Do you think that making it 'more illegal' somehow will cause these folk to pause? What it will do is make a whole new class of criminals out of folk who otherwise would have posed no danger to society, much as our highly vaunted War On Drugs has done.

The interesting thing to ponder is that, back when I first looked into this issue in 2007, the rate at which violent criminals (or soon-to-be-criminals) turned to friends and family for access to a firearm had not statistically changed in any significant way subsequent to the institution of the 1994 NICS Instant Background Check.

Bad People find ways to be Bad People. The fact that so many of the high-profile shootings over the last handful of years have perpetrated by folk clearly NOT PROHIBITED at the time that they purchased the firearm should bear evidence that trying to regulate objects to alter human behavior is a fools errand.

" According to the DoJ, most folk convicted of federal crimes that involved the use of a firearm were NOT PROHIBITED PERSONS when they obtained the firearm."

I have been through a lot of the BJS information and never heard that.

If you are going to make a very specific claim, don't refer me to a site with 1000s of pages of documents and say "find it yourself."

Either back it up or withdraw your statement.

So much for debate tone. I'm off looking to find the cite; it was a 2007-era document from (I think) the FBI and I'm looking for it now. I'll update this post iffen I find it.

ETA - I found a BJS article from May 1995 that appears to be the original source:

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/FFRO.PDF

Among Federal offenders whose only offense was a firearms offense 47% were persons prohibited from having firearms [and] 23% violated Federal laws that govern dealing in firearms. Among Federal offenders convicted of firearms offenses and other, more serious offenses, 82% used or carried a firearm during another crime [and] 10% were persons prohibited from having firearms.

Remember that the notion of 'prohibited person' was introduced for the first time in the GCA 1968. By 1995, we had significant experience with how well that definition played against actual observed criminal population and behavior. Guess what? The vast, vast preponderance of folk convicted of Federal weapons offenses were not prohibited persons at the time that they acquired the weapon. They were Latent Bad People, if you will, not yet instantiated into Obviously Bad People in the eyes of the law. Couple that with the BJS statistics showing that most firearms used in violent crimes were NOT OBTAINED VIA INTERACTION WITH STRANGERS (e.g. gun show or Armslist or any other future scenario in which the actors are not know to each other), and I have to ask how expanding background checks across all firearm transfers can possibly materially alter the rate of crimes committed using a firearm....

It would seem that those that are known lawbreakers largely get their guns from other folk willing to break the existing laws to get them firearms, and those that aren't known lawbreakers may or may not use a gun in the future to break a law and we have no means at our disposal to determine that likelihood or prohibit them from their Constitutional right until they step out and display their bad intentions.

As I stated earlier - my mutual fund knows better than to try to predict future returns based upon past performance. Why do we seem to think that engaging in the same behavior in our criminal justice system and firearms regulations will provide any more accurate? Here's a hint - it doesn't, and we have decades of proof of that.

Your claim is that most crime is gang related. The information you posted puts the numbers BELOW 15%.

I updated my original post to indicate that I was including loose criminal association in that statistic. My point, lost in the gang reference evidently, is that most violent crime that involves the use of a firearm is perpetrated by known criminals engaged in the act of Being Bad Guys against other known criminals. The percentage of victims of violent crime who do not have prior criminal association is actually pretty low.

ETA: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf Figure 41 is of interest; an orthoganal look at the rate at which homicides have included a gun by type of circumstance.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Debate is a good thing. Entering a debate without the benefit of fact is not. Demanding that others prove you wrong without being willing to prove your own point is the hallmark of the intellectually immature.

If you are going to call someone out like this, you should probably follow your own advice.

As a review, let’s put some of your facts to the test.

“Actually, you're making my point. Most (as in more than half) violent crime that involves the use of a firearm is in fact the result of arguments over gang-related activies or arguments between criminal actors “

“the fact is that most 'prior felon' uses of firearms in the, um, Continued Execution Of Mischief falls into the gang-on-gang category”

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vgm03.pdf

and

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl12.xls

Both place the percentages of gang related criminal activity well below 50%. If you have other information you would like to cite that is different, please do so.

“Moreover, folk that *were* already felons in fact got their guns from acquaintences or via theft moreso than via any other means. The fact is that face to face sales and gun show sales represented a very small percentage of all means of acquiring a gun by a prohibited person. “

Sort of….

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Acquaintances, yes, #1 source.

Retail, pawnshops, flea market or gun show are 14%, slightly higher than theft at 10%.

If you have other information you would like to cite that is different, please do so.

“most folk convicted of federal crimes that involved the use of a firearm were NOT PROHIBITED PERSONS when they obtained the firearm”

No proof, no citation, just an unsupported claim.

“It's not common nor particlarly successful for most gang members to show up at a private FTF sale or gun show and successfully buy a gun.”

No proof, no citation, just an unsupported claim.


If there are any of my facts in dispute, let me know, because I usually remember where I found them.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Just saw your post with citation... reviewing now.

Ok, just so I am certain we are on the same page... what do you think Item #41 is saying? What claim is that supporting?

 

[rbernie]

Your assertion (in Post #37) that I attempted to address was simple - FTF transfers between strangers (via gun boards or other) was a threat vector that needed to be closed. The statistics say that you're incorrect. You cannot do a FTF between strangers if one of them is an acquaintence of the other.

You've managed to take my aside comments WRT violence between criminal associates and turn them into a jousting match. I'm certainly willing to concede that jousting match to you if it'll drive you back to the point that you made that I refuted - that FTF gun sales between strangers is a significant threat vector that needs to be closed.

Your call.

 

[Sam1911]

In this case, the dealer is likely following the law, selling guns to people with the proper 4473 and everything, but those people are then immediately selling to criminals or selling to someone who sells to criminals. Regardless, they aren't all being stolen and tracking the path from dealer to criminal and arresting the last person in line will deter people from making these sales.

If that was the case AT ALL, it would already be happening. You cannot say that the DAs cannot bring a case that Jimmie the wannabe hood sold a gun to his brother Eddie, the convicted felon, but didn't "know or have reason to know" Eddie was a prohibited person. And that's what many, many -- if not all -- of these illicit sales consist of. If a person of your acquaintance tells you he needs you to go buy a gun for him, a) that's a straw purchase and illegal on the face of it, and b) you bloody well know WHY he's asking you to do it.

So what you're arguing is that the fact that people already knowingly break multiple laws proves that we need MORE laws making the same actions double plus extra illegal.

Think this through.

 

[Sam1911]

And under current law, that "not yet incarcerated" gang member can continue to provide guns indefinitely.

Nope. The minute he's convicted of selling a gun to his known felon pal, he's done. That's law, on the books right now. Why isn't it working?

Why, in the name of JM Browning, is another law going to make it FINALLY work right?

Add UBC and traceable sales, first time one of his gang friends gets caught with one of his guns, he goes to jail. Source of guns cut off, good for everyone except the gang.

Again, think through the whole picture. His felon pal gets caught with gun. Police have gun. Police call up manufacturer and give them the serial number ... by the end of the day they know who legally purchased that gun from a dealer.

So the law is ALREADY perfectly capable of what you're demanding with your new law.

Perfectly capable, EXCEPT not capable of making a felon out of grandpa who gives a gun to uncle Jimmy or neighbor Bob for his birthday without running a background check and doing a "traceable" sale.

These laws do ONE thing -- they hurt good people.

 

[Ryanxia]

When a homemade gun can be made for about $20 with plumbing parts gun control is pointless in the name of safety.

 

[TanklessPro]

Laws are only for the people that are willing to obey them. No new law will stop someone that wants to do evil things. Example........ Murder and theft are illegal but they still happen.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

You cannot say that the DAs cannot bring a case that Jimmie the wannabe hood sold a gun to his brother Eddie, the convicted felon, but didn't "know or have reason to know" Eddie was a prohibited person.

Actually, I CAN say that…

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...-whether-straw-buyer-of-weapon-can-be/1260651

“authorities said the law still was not sufficiently clear to arrest Bishop's friend — even though, according to Gualtieri, the friend was present when a firearms dealer initially refused to sell Bishop a 12-gauge shotgun. The friend, he said, returned later with Bishop's money to buy the firearm for him.

“The sticking point, Andringa [a senior prosecutor in the State Attorney's Office] said, is the word "knowingly" in the statute. She said her office has found no cases where the statute has been invoked, and no case law to explicate how much the friend would have had to know about the specific prohibitions on Bishop's purchase of a gun.

It is not necessarily enough, she said, that the friend knew in general terms that Bishop couldn't legally buy a firearm.

Said Andringa, "How do you prove that the kid who bought the gun knew that Bishop was prohibited by state law" from owning a weapon? "We've got to prove that.”

Let me quote part of that again:

“She said her office has found no cases where the statute has been invoked, and no case law to explicate how much the friend would have had to know about the specific prohibitions on Bishop's purchase of a gun.”

Is that representative of every case everywhere? No, obviously, but it is pretty clear evidence that the “knowingly” clause in the law makes things much harder on prosecutors.

And yes, I do realize that this APPEARS to be a pretty open and shut case of a straw purchase, but I researched the case and the original buyer was never charged. It seems the current laws are pretty easy to evade.

Again, think through the whole picture. His felon pal gets caught with gun. Police have gun. Police call up manufacturer and give them the serial number ... by the end of the day they know who legally purchased that gun from a dealer.

Actually, no, that isn't what happens.

The police send a trace request to the ATF. 70% of the time, that can be linked to A buyer within 5 days, but not necessarily the last buyer/previous owner before the criminal. If any FTF sale has happened with the gun, that buyer may just be some random guy who sold a gun he bought at an FFL and it is a dead end.

Or, that buyer may have knowingly sold the gun to a criminal arms dealer who sold it to the criminal they caught. When the police come and ask the original buyer, he says (like so many on this thread suggested: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=739942&highlight=bill+of+sale)

"I sold that gun in a private sale. I checked his DL and had no reason to believe he was a prohibited person, so I met the minimum requirements of the law. I moved the gun to the "SOLD" sheet on my excel sheet."

And the cops have a dead end on locating the source of the gun and that buyer can continue to buy guns and sell them to criminal arms dealers. So no, the law is NOT perfectly capable of prosecuting people who buy guns and then sell them into the criminal market.

Contrast that to requiring UBC.

That buyer may have sold the gun to a criminal arms dealer who sold it to the criminal they caught. When the police come and ask the original buyer, the buyer is arrested for making a sale with the required background check. Source of guns cut off.

So what you're arguing is that the fact that people already knowingly break multiple laws proves that we need MORE laws making the same actions double plus extra illegal.

No, that is not what I am arguing.

First, UBC does not make the same actions double plus more illegaler.

Currently, it is illegal to knowingly sell to a criminal. Prosecution requires proving that the firearm was sold and that the seller KNEW the person was prohibited.

UBC makes it illegal to sell without a BC. The buyer doesn’t matter, your knowledge (or lack of knowledge) does not matter, the sale itself is illegal. If you sold the gun without a BC, you committed a crime.

1. "Knowingly selling to a prohibited person"
2. "Selling a gun without a BC"

These are different actions.

Second, people will break laws all day long, every day, all year if they feel little to no risk of being caught or punished.

If all it takes to avoid punishment is saying "I sold that gun in a private sale. I checked his DL and had no reason to believe he was a prohibited person, so I met the minimum requirements of the law. I moved the gun to the "SOLD" sheet on my excel sheet,” then the risk of punishment is very low and people will continue to break the law.

If you make the transfer without a BC illegal, then the risk of being caught goes up (your name attached to every gun you buy from dealer or FTF) and the risk of prosecution goes up (the sale itself is illegal, no need to prove that you “knowingly” sold to a criminal), then the law has a more effective deterrent effect.

Do you think “family and friends” that can currently sell at little to no risk would do the same if their NAME and ADDRESS were attached to the gun and they KNEW that if it was recovered by police, the police would come in arrest them and they would face years in jail?

 

[Pizzapinochle]

I'm certainly willing to concede that jousting match to you if it'll drive you back to the point that you made that I refuted - that FTF gun sales between strangers is a significant threat vector that needs to be closed.

Your call.

Definitely we can go back to that point, but you are mis-stating my position a bit by focusing on the one example I gave of using armslist. That is one example of one part of the problem.


More accurately stated:

Gun sales without a background check that allow the sale of guns to prohibited persons with little to no risk of prosecution for the seller are a significant threat vector.


Which, that 40% of guns criminals got from "friends, family, and acquaintances" all fall into that category and are the leading source of guns to criminals.

An interesting side effect of UBC would be that we could probably get rid of all the "straw sale" laws by just saying that "every transfer must go through an BC."

So, i can buy a gun on behalf of someone else, just when I transfer it to them, it has to happen with a BC. Mr. Abramski (of the current SCOTUS case) would have been in the clear, which is what I think most of us think should be the case. It would also remove all the confusion over "agency" and buying as gifts and all that ballyhoo on the 4473.

 

[rbernie]

An interesting side effect of UBC would be that we could probably get rid of all the "straw sale" laws by just saying that "every transfer must go through an BC."

Do you have any insight into what percentage of the

40% of guns [that] criminals got from "friends, family, and acquaintances"

were already illegally conducted transfers under the current laws (e.g. straw man purchases, thefts, sales to known prohibited persons)? That would seem an important data point, since we need to effectively exclude those components of the total when considering the actual likely impact of your proposed solution.

ETA: It would also seem prudent to find a means by which to account for the issue of stolen firearms being shared amongst Bad Folk :

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf

In 83% of burglaries and 85% of other property crimes that involved a stolen firearm, none of the stolen guns had been recovered at the time of the NCVS interview (table 5). Assuming these guns were not recovered later, this amounts to an annual average of at least 135,000 unrecovered guns from burglaries and 51,800 unrecovered guns from other property crimes.

 

[hso]

You won't impact straw sales since they're already a violation of federal law and the FFLs and paperwork make that fact known at the time of sale.

Straw purchasers do so knowingly and violate the law knowingly every time they falsify a 4473.

Again, UCR shows a continuous decline in violent crime and murder rate. A law already is on the books making it a crime to falsify a 4473 and make a straw purchase. Another law won't make the rate drop any faster because it doesn't address the root cause of violent crime at all.

 

[Sam1911]

You cannot say that the DAs cannot bring a case that Jimmie the wannabe hood sold a gun to his brother Eddie, the convicted felon, but didn't "know or have reason to know" Eddie was a prohibited person.

Actually, I CAN say that…

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...-whether-straw-buyer-of-weapon-can-be/1260651

“authorities said the law still was not sufficiently clear to arrest Bishop's friend — even though, according to Gualtieri, the friend was present when a firearms dealer initially refused to sell Bishop a 12-gauge shotgun. The friend, he said, returned later with Bishop's money to buy the firearm for him.

“The sticking point, Andringa [a senior prosecutor in the State Attorney's Office] said, is the word "knowingly" in the statute. She said her office has found no cases where the statute has been invoked, and no case law to explicate how much the friend would have had to know about the specific prohibitions on Bishop's purchase of a gun.

It is not necessarily enough, she said, that the friend knew in general terms that Bishop couldn't legally buy a firearm.

Ok...so that's pretty inane. But what of it? Look, you'll find examples of clear cut laws that don't get enforced by whatever agency for whatever reason. Doesn't help sustain your argument that the solution to this "problem" is ANOTHER law.

And just to be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of the existing law, either. "Prohibited persons" is a fairy tale we tell ourselves to pretend we can be safe. I'd like to see GCA '68 completely repealed. It is a red herring in the pursuit of realistic crime and law policy.

Again, think through the whole picture. His felon pal gets caught with gun. Police have gun. Police call up manufacturer and give them the serial number ... by the end of the day they know who legally purchased that gun from a dealer.

Actually, no, that isn't what happens.

The police send a trace request to the ATF. 70% of the time, that can be linked to A buyer within 5 days, but not necessarily the last buyer/previous owner before the criminal. If any FTF sale has happened with the gun, that buyer may just be some random guy who sold a gun he bought at an FFL and it is a dead end.

Yes, and that's A GOOD thing.

The links that tie buyer to seller and create the "chain of custody" SHOULD be broken whenever at all possible. But that's not a matter of criminal law policy (to which it certainly does become a, perhaps regrettable, hindrance) but of fundamental 2nd Amendment rights (an infinitely more compelling matter) -- if there are lawful remaining ways to fracture any element of government tracking of firearms owners and ownership we SHOULD be taking fullest advantage of that at every conceivable opportunity. This does, of course, broaden the discussion a lot further and perhaps diverges from the question at hand.

Or, that buyer may have knowingly sold the gun to a criminal arms dealer who sold it to the criminal they caught. When the police come and ask the original buyer, he says (like so many on this thread suggested: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=739942&highlight=bill+of+sale)

"I sold that gun in a private sale. I checked his DL and had no reason to believe he was a prohibited person, so I met the minimum requirements of the law. I moved the gun to the "SOLD" sheet on my excel sheet."

And the cops have a dead end on locating the source of the gun and that buyer can continue to buy guns and sell them to criminal arms dealers. So no, the law is NOT perfectly capable of prosecuting people who buy guns and then sell them into the criminal market.

If that buyer's name appears more than about once selling guns that show up in police custody, at the very least he can be charged with dealing in firearms without a license. Remember, the BATFE is another hammer that can be swung at people if the police want to put pressure on them.

So what you're arguing is that the fact that people already knowingly break multiple laws proves that we need MORE laws making the same actions double plus extra illegal.

No, that is not what I am arguing.

First, UBC does not make the same actions double plus more illegaler.

Currently, it is illegal to knowingly sell to a criminal. Prosecution requires proving that the firearm was sold and that the seller KNEW the person was prohibited.

UBC makes it illegal to sell without a BC. The buyer doesn’t matter, your knowledge (or lack of knowledge) does not matter, the sale itself is illegal. If you sold the gun without a BC, you committed a crime.

Ok, you're right, it puts another weight on the shoulders of the citizen in disposing of his personal property, and creates another way to hamper the free flow of firearms among citizens. I understand what you see as the benefits. They aren't worth the cost.

If you make the transfer without a BC illegal, then the risk of being caught goes up (your name attached to every gun you buy from dealer or FTF) and the risk of prosecution goes up (the sale itself is illegal, no need to prove that you “knowingly” sold to a criminal), then the law has a more effective deterrent effect.

All of which tightens down the screws on the private sales of firearms without government say-so and tracking. This is the opposite of progress.

Do you think “family and friends” that can currently sell at little to no risk would do the same if their NAME and ADDRESS were attached to the gun and they KNEW that if it was recovered by police, the police would come in arrest them and they would face years in jail?

Well, some will, but more importantly, MANY good average joe sorts WON'T. Won't sell privately at all because "what if?" What if the credentials were fake? Well, I guess we need more tracking, more control, more enforcement! See the problem? Instead of loosening up gun rights and freedom, this is clamping down tighter and tighter. Giving normal people the fear that something bad will happen to them if they don't follow the increasingly intricate system of laws governing firearms. It has to STOP. It has to REVERSE.