Willravel

I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher last night, and the question of gun control was brought up, particularly pertaining to the shooting in Tucson. They touched on several things, from extended magazines to Reagan being shot to putting bar codes on ammunition to track it.

I've asked before where criminals get their gun because I was curious what could be done to limit that supply. While I did get a partial answer, I was also met with a lot of Second Amendment arguments and things about how if regular people couldn't get guns, only criminals would have them.

For a bit of information, here's an article from PBS on the subject:
frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS

What political and legal steps can be taken today to deal with the issue of criminals getting guns? Clearly locking up legally owned firearms to prevent theft could help, but as theft only represents 10-15% of guns in crimes according to the article, that would only put a small dent in the overall problem.

What can be done to deal with straw purchases and corrupt at-home dealers without violating the Second Amendment?

I'm honestly not sure. The bigger changes like putting bar codes on bullets would be fought tooth and nail by the political right and by gun culture. Small things like banning extended clips, though, are being fought, too. I'm not blaming the right and gun culture for gun crime, but I'm concerned that they're standing in the way of ALL gun control instead of just the gun control that really encroaches on their liberty to bear arms.

dc_dux

Close the gun show loophole in the Brady law....despite protestations from gun rights advocates that there is no loophole.

While the law requires licensed gun dealers to perform background checks on all buyers, unlicensed dealers and/or private sellers, particularly those set up at gun shows, are exempt.

Close the Loophole: Help Close the Gun Show Loophole. Keep Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dksuddeth

there is no gun show loophole.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Tully Mars

Private non-FFL'ed persons can not sell firearms at gun shows to other private parties? Do they need to conduct back ground checks now too? What about waiting periods?

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

Daniel_

Forgive my interuption...

As a foreign devil, I don't understand the legislative framework. I've heard people mention this controversy in the past, but not looked into it in detail.

I see that you say there is no loophole, and that dc_dux says that there is one.

What is the supposed issue, and why does it not exist?

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

Cimarron29414

Tully, they always have been (to my knowledge).

It's no different than putting an ad in a newspaper for a private firearm sale, having someone come to your location and purchase the weapon. The current law does not force (at least in my state) that private owner to check the private purchaser. So, why should the exact same transaction suddenly require a check simply because it is conducted in a public place (gun show)? It's the same transaction (private to private sale).

--edited--

And what does Tuscon have to do with it? By all accounts, this guy was checked at the store where he purchased. Whatsmore, his crime was months after the purchase. The seven day waiting period wouldn't have mattered either.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

dksuddeth

The issue is thus:

licensed FFLs must perform a NICS background check on any purchaser, whether in their shop or at a gunshow event. A single individual, selling his own personal property, can walk around this same gunshow event with a sign attached to his personal property (gun) indicating it's for sale. If someone wants to buy from that private individual, neither the seller or buyer must be subject to a background check.

There is zero constitutional authority to require any sort of background check before a person sells a piece of his own private and personal property.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

What do you make of this?

Gun Control Act of 1968 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How big are these gun shows, and do they often have out-of-staters coming to buy privately? Should there be regulations in place to ensure guns aren't crossing state borders without licensed sales?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

Gun shows can have thousands on a daily basis. who knows how many out of staters show up.

If I buy a gun in Texas, then move to Kentucky, my gun doesn't affect interstate commerce. If I buy a gun online from Illinois, then my purchase would affect interstate commerce.

The whole interstate commerce clause mutilation is what has allowed congress immense unconstitutional power, something that the framers would never have allowed.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Tucson was the topic of discussion on Bill Maher which lead to a wider discussion about gun control. I didn't intend to associate that incident directly with the topic at hand, just what inspired me to start the discussion.

Cimarron29414

bg-

Gun shows vary in size from a couple hundred square feet to a couple of acres, so you can imagine it probably happens. That isn't really the gun show loophole, as the scenario could just as easily play out in the living room of one's home.

will-

I see. Fair enough.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

samcol

There's usually anywhere from a couple hundred to a thousand people at any given time at my local show.

I'd say there's a gun show every month or so on average in my city as well, so there's no point in crossing state lines to get what i want or need. Maybe if I was looking for something super rare i might have to go online or to another state, but that becomes a huge pain in the ass because you have to ship it to a licensed dealer who takes a commission, or drive somewhere for a private sale.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Baraka_Guru

I notice the act also restricts ownership for certain categories of people. Would the framers have never allowed that as well?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

not sure i understand. can you explain 'certain categories of people' please.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Cimarron29414

Canadians, English, Socialists,...

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

samcol

To address the OP:

I'm not a felon or anything so I can easily buy a firearm, but if i had to obtain a firearm illegally it would be very easy. I could think of half dozen people who would sell me a gun this afternoon with no questions asked.

Most guns in the private sector have changed hands so many times there's no telling how many people legally or illegally have owned it.

Come to think of it I'm not sure banning private sales would have much effect on criminals getting guns. It might be slightly more difficult to openly advertise I suppose.

Drugs are illegal, but I'm sure you could get about anything you wanted with out much effort or legal risk.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Willravel

I don't think you'll get any arguments against the failure of the drug war, samcol.

What do you think about ways to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals? What do you think can be done to deal with straw purchases and corrupt at-home dealers without violating the Second Amendment?

Cimarron29414

Will,

Actually, on further review, I reinstate my question only rhetorically to Bill Maher. What does Tuscon have to do with it? This guy was legally allowed to own a firearm. The people who dropped the ball here were his parents. They knew (or should have known) he needed help and didn't do anything.

I hate to say it, but I sort of place them in the same bucket as the Columbine murderers' parents. How the flip do you NOT KNOW your kids made 20 something bombs in your attached garage???

Strawman would be really difficult to prevent. Keep in mind, it is only illegal if you are knowingly purchasing a weapon for someone who can't legally purchase. The majority of times a person purchases, they bring a friend or trusted someone to help them make a choice. In most accounts, it probably has identical appearance (passing the weapon between the two people, each person aiming it, evaluating the location of the controls, manipulating the weapon, etc) as a strawman purchase. It would really interfere with the commerce. It would also become an unfair burden on the dealer to attempt to pick apart the behavior of someone trying to purchase a gun and, on a hunch, cease the transaction as a pontential strawman...and the crooks could still do it: Person one walks in and finds the weapon they like. Person two walks in (alone) an hour later and buys it. You just can't prevent it.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Willravel

It started as a discussion about how a nut was able to get a gun, but the discussion expanded to things like extended clips. It went from Tucson to extended clips to wider gun control.

I don't know much about Loughtner's parents, so I really can't say.

Baraka_Guru

Gun Control Act of 1968 - Prohibited Persons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically, the government restricts the ownership of firearms based on certain criteria. I'm not sure the framers would have wanted that, which is why I asked. "Shall not be infringed," and all that. I ask because if we can agree that it's appropriate to bar certain categories of people from owning firearms (not sure you agree with this), then why not restrict the interstate sale of arms privately as well if we can see the benefit?

The act was implemented to regulate the interstate commerce of firearms. Would it not be relatively powerless if you had an interstate "loophole" regarding private sales?

Oh, I assure you, there are plenty of guns in Canada.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Cimarron29414

No doubt to the chagrin of our framers.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

dksuddeth

To see the logical progression of why the government implemented 'restrictions', one needs to look at prohibition. Moon shiners and runners found it easy to acquire automatic weapons, so the government tried to find a way to limit that. The 2nd Amendment prohibited them from banning guns, but a new interpretation of the commerce clause could let them tax certain guns. Ostensibly, it was thought that if certain guns became cost prohibitive, Less of them would be bought and sold. Prohibiting classes of people, like felons, from owning firearms hasn't really achieved the desired result. It's part of the reason why I feel that if you can't be trusted with a gun, then you shouldn't be out of prison. If you're out, you should have all of your rights restored to you.

The framers wrote the commerce clause to prevent the states engaging in economic wars against each other. It was never intended to regulate private individuals in their personal affairs.

---------- Post added at 02:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 PM ----------

keep criminals in prison if they can't be trusted to operate within society on a lawful basis.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Jinn

I swear I'm not trying to threadjack you Will.

I have found myself yelling at the TV as of late, and much as I like Maddow, Oldermann (well, not anymore, I guess), and Maher I think they're pressing the button on this one a little much. I don't usually yell.

I'm the black sheep liberal who owns guns and strongly believes in the 2nd Amendment, and I feel like Tucson is being used as a political tool to get gun-control pushed hrough the legislative process with Tucson fresh on the psyche - not very fair, in my opinion.

Concerns about protecting the life of humans should be the highest priority of law, but I think it's incredibly disingenuous to feel like we should do something *now* about gun violence simply because of recency.

Gun violence is not the leading cause of death of humans. 19 (Nineteen) people were shot at in Tucson that day, and as tragic as it is, if we're sloppy with the odds I'm sure more people died of heart disease and automobile-related accidents (or even starvation, worldwide) than did in Tucson.

Crazy people *will* get guns no matter what we do. Criminals *will* get guns no matter what we do. So we have to balance reasonable restriction, the time and money involved in those restrictions, against their success rate and the actual incidence of death involved.

Ban high-cap magazines IN HANDGUNS without a class III, I can support, that's reasonable. But restricting private party sale, requiring more invasive FFL backgrounding/psych eval, I'm not so sure. Techonology advances at a breakneck pace, and we will quite often invent things that somehow break the lethality barrier, and simply become too lethal to a mass of people that we limit it to trusted dealers and military members. I think high-cap (15+) in a handgun approaches the same mass-lethality barrier as a fully-automatic rifle. Certainly, my semi-automatic rifle has 30-round magazines, but I can't conceal it like I can a handgun, and I think that is a meaningful difference. If it's concealable, it should (arbitrarily, mind you) hold about half as many rounds as the maximum capacity of a unconcealed weapon, and I think that's fair.

I know it reads like one big "well these other things are worse!" but I stand by the simple assertion that we're better served pursuing reasonable restrictions and nothing more. If you could propose a reasonable, non-invasive way to keep more guns out of the hands of criminals and wackos I'm all for it, but it will never cure it, only treat it. And then we're in the land of triage; do our efforts and money really diminish it enough to justify it?

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

dksuddeth

as to the high capacity ban......what does it say when an elected official spouts off that the only reason to have these is to kill alot of people quickly, yet exempt law enforcement?

Fark that.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Cimarron29414

dk-

Do you know if he was using a "33" in his G19? It's the only logical explanation for the people with multiple wounds and the sheer number of people wounded. 9mil just doesn't that that type of penetration to explain it.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

KirStang

As is true with most other constitutionally guaranteed rights, limitations are subject to levels of scrutiny. Scrutiny usually involves a balancing of the purported state interest, the degree to which the right is infringed on, whether the right is fundamental, whether the state interest can be accomplished through other means and other factors.

Interstate sales of arms are already regulated--even between private individuals. When selling to private individuals, I have always asked to see some form of State issued ID to verify that they're from the same state the sale is taking place in. Inter-state sales cannot take place absent a transfer through a FFL.

With respect to 'interstate commerce' that clause is so bent out of shape as to become comical (anything compounded enough will affect interstate commerce). I suppose you can construct an argument that state sales of guns will affect shipments of guns flowing around and make people fearful of travelling etc. etc. to get to close the gun show loophole.

---------- Post added at 04:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

Unfortunately, Loughner did use a 33rd Glock magazine, which permitted him to shoot many, many times before reloading.

Unfortunately, many legislators are seizing on this fact to propose a new magazine capacity ban.

---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 PM ----------

My solution? Greater information sharing, especially when it comes to psychological problems. VA Tech shooter also had mental problems, and apparently so did Loughner. Too bad NCIS did not pick up on this--which is a failure of that system. NCIS should be made more robust to catch mental problems. (However, there comes up problems of say, seeking help for depression but fearing that you'll lose your guns that way).

__________________

Cimarron29414

Kirstang-

He was never treated for mental illness so no one could have known, my understanding is that his parents were notified he could not return to college without a mental health eval, but he was never evaluated. Again, these parents dropped the ball.

But, you have hit the nail on the head: There is little due process in Mental Health evaluations. Also, the state of one's mental health is rarely permanent. Can you imagine getting put on the "no guns" list for some temporary mental health issue and then going to the state to try to prove "I'm not crazy. No really, I'm not. Why am I here? So, I can buy a gun. But, I'm not crazy!" Yeah, find me a state mental health "expert" whose going to take on the liability of calling you "fit to own a firearm" again.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

dksuddeth

If I remember right, he had the 33 rounder and 2 15 rounders. He had reloaded the first 15 rd mag when it jammed, then he was tackled.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Zeraph

Bad guys can get guns almost no matter what we do. They often prefer the illegal way so its less traceable back to them if they have to shoot someone with it. So if you take away the legal ways to buy guns then that will only hurt the good gun owner people.

dc_dux

dk...i'm not going to argue semantics.

And, I have no problem with private sellers selling guns out of their home w/o background checks....I do have a problem with such sales at organized gun shows.

The fact remains that many criminals know how easy it is to get a gun at a gun show w/o fear of a background check.

Mexican drug cartels buy thousands of guns illegally at gun shows (in Texas?).

A number of states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows. The fact that the federal law does not have that requirement and everyone knows it...the shady dealers (not the honest private collectors), the criminals, the mentally ill......

Such a provision infringes on no one's rights.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

samcol

I truly believe the war on drugs is creating an environment that lends itself to more violence. Decriminalizing drugs imo would significantly reduce the number of crimes committed with firearms.

Outside of that I don't think there is an acceptable way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals without severely restricting the 2nd amendment to an unacceptable level (think Illinois). Even then I'm not sure it would be effective.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Tully Mars

I do think there is a "Gun Show Loophole" but I don't see anyway to close it without stepping on citizens 2nd Adm. rights. You're never going to pass effective gun control law in the US, just never going to happen. If it did happen a blood bath would likely follow. I sincerely believe the best way to deal with gun, or any violence for that mater, is to deal with the mental heath issues and social/economic factors behind much of the violence.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

dc_dux

According to a recent bi-partisan poll (after the Tucson shooting), there is wide spread support for closing the gun show loophole, even among gun rights advocates:
It particularly impacts the illegal interstate traffic in guns, where thousands of guns every year make their way from states with the "loophole" to other states where those guns are used to commit crimes...often by those who could not obtain a gun legally.

Presently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows...
Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I dont see how a national standard would lead to a bloodbath, particularly given the overwhelming public support.

I do see how it is a political issue that certainly wont be addressed by the current Congress.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Tully Mars

Well I lived in Oregon and I sold firearms in Oregon. I tell you that the law has little to no effect on the sale of weapons privately.

Next thing you know they'll outlaw weed and nobody will be getting high anymore. Oh, wait... yeah never mind.

As for what the polls show is or is not supported right now, wait six month. The US tends to over react to just about every thing.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

dc_dux

Earlier polls showed only marginally less support for closing the loophole (and tightening the national database), even among gun owners and gun rights advocates.

And, yeah, I know most criminals will find a way to buy a gun...but why make it so easy?

Here is a fact from a recent study of interstate transport of guns:

In 2009, just ten states (among those with the loophole) supplied nearly half – 49% – of the guns that crossed state lines before being recovered in crimes. Together, these states accounted for nearly 21,000 interstate crime guns recovered in 2009.

side note:
I do find it odd that those on the "terrorist watch list" can buy weapons, but cant board a plane...

U.S. Terror Watch List Individuals Are Allowed to Buy Guns 90 Percent of the Time, GAO Says - ABC News

...but don't get me started on the terrorist watch list.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

KirStang

Wasn't this taken from a study Commissioned by Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns organization?

__________________

dksuddeth

you're being filled with smoke and bullshit on the mexican cartels.
?Project Gunwalker? investigators: Watch for smears, focus on leads - National gun rights | Examiner.com

and there is no evidence that doing so reduces the guns in criminals hands.

it infringes on my right to buy a gun from a private individual at a public gathering.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Tully Mars

Well DC how are you going to make it more difficult without violating the 2nd?

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

dksuddeth

you seriously expect such a biased website to give any sort of an honest sampling?

something i just can't understand is how people are so intent on dragging the government in to every aspect of their lives by regulating everything they can and can't do. You don't see how it would lead to a bloodbath? try telling me i'm not allowed to sell a piece of my privately owned property without the government giving me permission. multiply that times 5 million.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dc_dux

Yes.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns....uns_report.pdf

And the data is ATF data on "Time to Crime" measures.

So you respond with bullshit from a biased site?

Fact check:

...an ATF spokesman gave us more detailed figures for how many guns had been submitted and traced during those two years. Of the guns seized in Mexico and given to ATF for tracing, the agency actually found 95 percent came from U.S. sources in fiscal 2007 and 93 percent in fiscal 2008. That comes to a total of 10,347 guns from U.S. sources for those two years, or 36 percent of what Mexican authorities say they recovered.

Counting Mexico’s Guns | FactCheck.org

The poll was a bi-partisan poll of both Democrat and Republican pollsters. In fact, most polls over the last decade or so show more than a majority of gun rights advocates support tightening the national database and/or closing the gun show loophole.

I am saying you can sell anything you want out of your home and I dont give a shit. But in a PUBLIC forum, where the majority of sales require background checks....all sales should require background checks.

With national standards for gun shows (not sales in private homes) similar to those states that closed the loophole....where there have been no challenges ever in the federal courts that that those state standards violate the Second Amendment.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire