How serious are the D’s about gun control?

[Impartial_Observer]

Fresh off their symbolic background check win, with the passage of HR8, I find it very interesting that an amendment to the bill that would require FFL’s to report illegal aliens to ICE that failed a NICS check. The amendment was voted down on a partly line vote with several D defectors. Illegal aliens are, with a few exceptions, prohibited possessors. It begs the question, why? André Carson and Pete Visclosky, Indiana’s on D house members both voted nay. 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Impartial_Observer

[foxbat]

12 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Fresh off their symbolic background check win, with the passage of HR8, I find it very interesting that an amendment to the bill that would require FFL’s to report illegal aliens to ICE that failed a NICS check. The amendment was voted down on a partly line vote with several D defectors. Illegal aliens are, with a few exceptions, prohibited possessors. It begs the question, why? André Carson and Pete Visclosky, Indiana’s on D house members both voted nay. 

More political than ideological would be my guess ... despite being sensible.

Similar to GOP blanket hold-ups/denials of many Obama judicial nominees.  Unfortunately, this is pretty much the world that we've bought ourselves for the foreseeable future ... or unless there's a mass cleansing of both chambers, which isn't realistic at this point.  Like a drug addict, we haven't quite gotten to the rock-bottom point where we're ready to seriously consider rehab on our own.

[Impartial_Observer]

I just find it odd, we’re willing to let a group of law breakers off the hook, in order to make life more difficult for law abiders. 

 

[Wabash82]

18 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Fresh off their symbolic background check win, with the passage of HR8, I find it very interesting that an amendment to the bill that would require FFL’s to report illegal aliens to ICE that failed a NICS check. The amendment was voted down on a partly line vote with several D defectors. Illegal aliens are, with a few exceptions, prohibited possessors. It begs the question, why? André Carson and Pete Visclosky, Indiana’s on D house members both voted nay. 

I think you have your facts wrong. The amendment you mention passed and is part of the final Act as passed by the House.  You can read the final version that passed the house Here.  The language you are referring to is in section (t)(3)(E).  The addition of this amendment to the Act was what PO'd AOC, and led to the big dustup behind closed doors among the Dem House caucus that was in the news at the end of last week. 

 

5 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I just find it odd, we’re willing to let a group of law breakers off the hook, in order to make life more difficult for law abiders. 

 

I assume you made this comment based on the erroneous impression the amendment didn't pass. But I think that it is still a mischaracterization of the position of those legislators who (unsuccessfully) voted against the amendment. The purpose of the Act was to extend background checks to prevent individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms from getting them. The focus was on preventing transfers to such folks, and the bill did not address also making sure that every prohibited possessor who was prevented from acquiring a firearm by these expanded background checks will be punished for making the attempt.  The amendment carved out a (very) specific group of prohibited possessors, illegal aliens, for that "extra" attention, for obvious political reasons.  But adding (or not adding) the amendment had no affect on "law abiders."  The 30 Dems who voted for the amendment just didn't want to be seen as "soft" on illegal immigration, so they joined the Republicans in singling out illegals for the "extra" attention. 

[foxbat]

17 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

I think you have your facts wrong. The amendment you mention passed and is part of the final Act as passed by the House.  You can read the final version that passed the house Here.  The language you are referring to is in section (t)(3)(E).  The addition of this amendment to the Act was what PO'd AOC, and led to the big dustup behind closed doors among the Dem House caucus that was in the news at the end of last week. 

 

 

I assume you made this comment based on the erroneous impression the amendment didn't pass. But I think that it is still a mischaracterization of the position of those legislators who (unsuccessfully) voted against the amendment. The purpose of the Act was to extend background checks to prevent individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms from getting them. The focus was on preventing transfers to such folks, and the bill did not address also making sure that every prohibited possessor who was prevented from acquiring a firearm by these expanded background checks will be punished for making the attempt.  The amendment carved out a (very) specific group of prohibited possessors, illegal aliens, for that "extra" attention, for obvious political reasons.  But adding (or not adding) the amendment had no affect on "law abiders."  The 30 Dems who voted for the amendment just didn't want to be seen as "soft" on illegal immigration, so they joined the Republicans in singling out illegals for the "extra" attention. 

This was actually a question that I had when I though about the amendment.  I don't have an issue with doing the reporting of undocumented immigrants who attempt to buy a gun; however, are all folks who fail the check also reported similarly?  In other words, let's say you are a felon under probation, and you attempt to buy a handgun.  I'm assuming that, in addition to you not getting the gun, you are also reported to your parole officer, etc.  Or, if you have a mental condition, that some authority is flagged that you attempted to break the law in this case.  If it is ONLY undocumented immigrants that this part of the law would apply to, then I can see how some folks may object to it ... not because they don't agree with the idea, but instead with the application. 

[Impartial_Observer]

42 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

I think you have your facts wrong. The amendment you mention passed and is part of the final Act as passed by the House.  You can read the final version that passed the house Here.  The language you are referring to is in section (t)(3)(E).  The addition of this amendment to the Act was what PO'd AOC, and led to the big dustup behind closed doors among the Dem House caucus that was in the news at the end of last week. 

 

 

I assume you made this comment based on the erroneous impression the amendment didn't pass. But I think that it is still a mischaracterization of the position of those legislators who (unsuccessfully) voted against the amendment. The purpose of the Act was to extend background checks to prevent individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms from getting them. The focus was on preventing transfers to such folks, and the bill did not address also making sure that every prohibited possessor who was prevented from acquiring a firearm by these expanded background checks will be punished for making the attempt.  The amendment carved out a (very) specific group of prohibited possessors, illegal aliens, for that "extra" attention, for obvious political reasons.  But adding (or not adding) the amendment had no affect on "law abiders."  The 30 Dems who voted for the amendment just didn't want to be seen as "soft" on illegal immigration, so they joined the Republicans in singling out illegals for the "extra" attention. 

Apparently I was given some erroneous information. I checked the amendments that were offered and found an article stating the same thing I "thought". Apparently I was looking at the wrong info on the house website. 

As I originally stated, the bill is basically symbolic at this point there's no chance of it happening now. Not to say it won't happen in the future. 

****I have attempted to edit my original post to correct the error, but I don't have an edit option.****

 

Quote

But adding (or not adding) the amendment had no affect on "law abiders." 

W82, not this amendment per se, the entire bill makes life more difficult for law abiding citizens. Per FOPA, there can not be a national firearms registry, which this bill clearly states it does not create. How is it possible to enforce this feel good legislation without a national registry?

Edited March 3, 2019 by Impartial_Observer

[Wabash82]

12 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Apparently I was given some erroneous information. I checked the amendments that were offered and found an article stating the same thing I "thought". Apparently I was looking at the wrong info on the house website. 

As I originally stated, the bill is basically symbolic at this point there's no chance of it happening now. Not to say it won't happen in the future. 

****I have attempted to edit my original post to correct the error, but I don't have an edit option.****

 

W82, not this amendment per se, the entire bill makes life more difficult for law abiding citizens. Per FOPA, there can not be a national firearms registry, which this bill clearly states it does not create. How is it possible to enforce this feel good legislation without a national registry?

How is the current background check system enforced? Because that is what this Act relies on. It just extends that system to transfers of firearms that previously were not subject to background checks.

[Impartial_Observer]

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

How is the current background check system enforced? Because that is what this Act relies on. It just extends that system to transfers of firearms that previously were not subject to background checks.

Well, if you buy from an FFL, they lose their license if they transfer ownership without a NICS check. Contrary to popular belief, you can't just order guns online and have them shipped to your door, they have to go to an FFL, who takes possession of them, and performs a NICS check before transferring ownership to you. Also contrary to popular belief, you can't just drive over from Illinois and buy a bunch of guns and take them back to Chicago to kill people. Illinois residents can not purchase firearms from an Indiana FFL. 

What this bill addresses is the so called gun show loop hole. You see my sweet Wilson Combat Beretta FS92G and you say wow IO, I have to have that gun. And we agree to a price, you hand me cash, and I hand you the gun. This bill would require us to go to an FFL and you would have to have a NICS check before taking ownership of the gun. My point being, if this were to become law, not being interested having a felony charge on my record, I would follow the law, and you're going to have to pay an extra 25-50 bucks for whatever the FFL charges for the NICS check, i.e., more hoops for law abiding citizens to jump thru to remain law abiding citizens. In retrospect, name one shooting that this bill would have prevented? It doesn't stop Sandy Hook, it doesn't stop Pulse Nightclub, it doesn't stop Parkland, it doesn't stop Sutherland Springs, it doesn't stop Aurora, CO or IL.... It's feel good legislation, at least we did "something". I feel better, don't you?

[Wabash82]

One example of a shooting where this law potentially would have saved a life. I'm sure I could find more if I searched seriously.

This legislation would become more effective in saving lives if other sensible measures are passed, like laws that facilitate getting folks with mental health issues into the background system, which is hit-or-miss currently. 

[Wabash82]

Also, the gangs in Chicago are not buying the guns in Indiana directly themselves -- they not only have the problem of being Illinois residents, many also have the problem of being ex-felons. That is why they use strawmen purchasers who are Indiana residents without felony convictions.

[swordfish]

27 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

Also, the gangs in Chicago are not buying the guns in Indiana directly themselves -- they not only have the problem of being Illinois residents, many also have the problem of being ex-felons. That is why they use strawmen purchasers who are Indiana residents without felony convictions.

And how does the new bill correct this already illegal maneuver?  By making it MORE illegal? 

[Impartial_Observer]

39 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

One example of a shooting where this law potentially would have saved a life. I'm sure I could find more if I searched seriously.

This legislation would become more effective in saving lives if other sensible measures are passed, like laws that facilitate getting folks with mental health issues into the background system, which is hit-or-miss currently. 

It is already illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. I haven't done any research, but I'm pretty sure murder is illegal in Utah as well. 

52 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

Also, the gangs in Chicago are not buying the guns in Indiana directly themselves -- they not only have the problem of being Illinois residents, many also have the problem of being ex-felons. That is why they use strawmen purchasers who are Indiana residents without felony convictions.

Here's a thought, lets actually prosecute those individuals who make straw purchases, these are laws that are already on the books, where those found guilty walk more times than not. 

https://www.omaha.com/news/crime/woman-who-bought-gun-used-in-kerrie-orozco-slaying-sentenced/article_dcd60ace-8716-5651-9125-cb297998694e.html

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/chicago-crime-rate-soars-as-four-time-straw-purchaser-gets-probation

http://archive.jsonline.com/news/crime/milwaukee-man-to-be-sentenced-on-gun-fraud-charge-b99560011z1-322283481.html/

A large portion of guns used for violence are stolen or bought on the black market. I doubt these people are going to be bothered with universal background checks. 

https://www.thetrace.org/2018/10/stolen-guns-are-fueling-violence-in-chicago/

 

[Wabash82]

45 minutes ago, swordfish said:

And how does the new bill correct this already illegal maneuver?  By making it MORE illegal? 

I didn't say that this particular bill addresses that situation. I was just responding to IO's suggestion that it is some sort of "myth" that gangs from Chicago come to Indiana to get guns. 

 

[Wabash82]

45 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

It is already illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. I haven't done any research, but I'm pretty sure murder is illegal in Utah as well. 

 

 

You have missed the point. The purpose of the proposed law is not to make it "more illegal" for a prohibited possessors to get or use a firearm. Its purpose is to try to block prohibited possessors from getting firearms in the first place via private transfers from presumably innocent-minded transferees. In the Utah case, the friend who transferred the gun to the killer was unaware his friend was a former felon barred from possessing a firearm. If this law was in place, the presumably law abiding friend would have sought to complete the transfer by going through a licensed dealer, who upon doing the background check would have nixed the transfer to the killer due to his status as a prohibited possessor. He doesn't get the gun in the first place. 

55 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

It is already illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. I haven't done any research, but I'm pretty sure murder is illegal in Utah as well. 

Here's a thought, lets actually prosecute those individuals who make straw purchases, these are laws that are already on the books, where those found guilty walk more times than not. 

https://www.omaha.com/news/crime/woman-who-bought-gun-used-in-kerrie-orozco-slaying-sentenced/article_dcd60ace-8716-5651-9125-cb297998694e.html

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/chicago-crime-rate-soars-as-four-time-straw-purchaser-gets-probation

http://archive.jsonline.com/news/crime/milwaukee-man-to-be-sentenced-on-gun-fraud-charge-b99560011z1-322283481.html/

A large portion of guns used for violence are stolen or bought on the black market. I doubt these people are going to be bothered with universal background checks. 

https://www.thetrace.org/2018/10/stolen-guns-are-fueling-violence-in-chicago/

 

This is the same (ironically) strawman argument made by SF. The proposed law is not specifically intended to address strawman purchases (and re-sales) by criminally-minded transferrees. Its intent is to block criminally-minded prohibited possessors from using private purchases from presumably law-abiding, innocent sellers to avoid background checks in prder to illegally acquire firearms.  

I wholeheartedly agree with you that in the SEPARATE and distinct situation of a criminally-minded strawman purchaser knowingly abetting a prohibited possessor get a weapon, we should throw the boook at them.  This proposed laws would make those prosecutions a little easier, in that a strawman claiming he was just an "innocent dupe"would need to explain why he then failed to abide by the separate law requiring all private transfers to go through dealers, in order that background checks can be completed. 

[Impartial_Observer]

9 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

You have missed the point. The purpose of the proposed law is not to make it "more illegal" for a prohibited possessors to get or use a firearm. Its purpose is to try to block prohibited possessors from getting firearms in the first place via private transfers from presumably innocent-minded transferees. In the Utah case, the friend who transferred the gun to the killer was unaware his friend was a former felon barred from possessing a firearm. If this law was in place, the presumably law abiding friend would have sought to complete the transfer by going through a licensed dealer, who upon doing the background check would have nixed the transfer to the killer due to his status as a prohibited possessor. He doesn't get the gun in the first place. 

Maybe, maybe not. I have allowed other people to fire my guns  when we're together shooting. I'm not sure I'd be so generous as to "loan" someone a firearm. This whole thing sounds a little hokey to me, I need to borrow your gun because I'm teaching a friend of mine how to shoot, and neither of us have guns? My main point being, this law is self policing, and since criminals are not really in the business of following the law....

16 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

This is the same (ironically) strawman argument made by SF. The proposed law is not specifically intended to address strawman purchases (and re-sales) by criminally-minded transferrees. Its intent is to block criminally-minded prohibited possessors from using private purchases from presumably law-abiding, innocent sellers to avoid background checks in prder to illegally acquire firearms.  

I wholeheartedly agree with you that in the SEPARATE and distinct situation of a criminally-minded strawman purchaser knowingly abetting a prohibited possessor get a weapon, we should throw the boook at them.  This proposed laws would make those prosecutions a little easier, in that a strawman claiming he was just an "innocent dupe"would need to explain why he then failed to abide by the separate law requiring all private transfers to go through dealers, in order that background checks can be completed. 

I thought the whole purpose of this was to address straw purchases? Presumable after making your straw purchase, you will have a NICS check when the new purchaser purchases the gun from you, right?

As far as personal sales, when FB used to have gun sale pages, there were any number of criminal types lurking. Honestly I found it somewhat alarming thinking people would sell to these people. You didn't have to be an FBI agent to figure out who they were. 

[Muda69]

A story along this vein:  Popular Defiance Will Kneecap Gun Laws in New Mexico, As It Has in Other States: http://reason.com/archives/2019/03/04/defiance-will-kneecap-new-mexico-gun-law

Quote

New Mexico is the battleground for the latest confrontation between politicians determined to impose legal restrictions on the right to acquire and own the means of self-defense and people unwilling to obey such laws. The state's governor is publicly feuding with county-level officials who, responding to grassroots anger at the proposed gun measures, vow noncompliance if they become law.

The evidence from similar spats in other states suggests that government officials are once again poised to have their impotence demonstrated by people eager to disobey dictates from above.

Mandatory background checks for most gun transfers, court-ordered seizures of firearms, and the denial of self-defense rights to those convicted of domestic violence offenses feature in the bills moving through the state legislature. The measure requiring background checks for all gun transfers, except between close family members and cops, seems to have excited the greatest opposition.

"The gun-related measures have drawn opposition from all but a few of the state's 33 county sheriffs," the Albuquerque Journal notes. "In addition, at least 24 counties have passed 'Second Amendment sanctuary' ordinances in opposition to the legislation pending at the Roundhouse." The Quay County resolution, as an example, dedicated county officials "to support decisions by our Sheriff to not enforce any unconstitutional firearms law against any citizen."

In response, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, slapped back at what she called "rogue sheriffs throwing a childish pity party." That's probably not the sort of language likely to win over the rebellious, largely rural residents to whom county officials are catering.

Confrontations of this sort in other states—including Colorado, Washington, and even New York—resulted in the kneecapping of intrusive firearms restrictions. And comprehensive background check (CBC) laws in Colorado, Delaware, and Washington produced an increase in such checks only in Delaware, researchers from the University of California-Davis reported in a study published in 2017 in Injury Prevention.

"One plausible explanation for our findings is low compliance in our study states," the researchers wrote, continuing:

In Washington, there was a well-documented public "I will not comply" rally at the state capital, at which firearms were openly transferred between private parties without background checks. There were also gun shows where non-compliance was encouraged and public calls from profirearm organisations to not comply with the state's new CBC policy... Many county law enforcement officials in Colorado reportedly stated they would not enforce its CBC law, and some retailers were declining to process background checks for private party transfers.

In each state, noncompliance was a result of widespread local opposition to the law. Spurred by their communities, sheriffs in Washington also refused to enforce the background check requirement, and more than half have vowed to ignore new gun laws passed last year. And the rebellion among Colorado sheriffs, who are elected to office there as in most states, came in response to local sentiment of the sort that turfed-out lawmakers who supported gun restrictions.

Which is to say, the "low compliance" in both Colorado and Washington was the result of grassroots defiance, with local officials following their rebellious constituents, not leading the way.

Sheriffs in rural New York counties also responded to constituents' hostility to tightened gun laws—in their case, registration of semiautomatic rifles.

"The New York State Sheriffs Association and five individual sheriffs have joined a court effort to block enforcement of new bullet limits for magazines and firearms restrictions," the Daily Star reported in 2013. "Schoharie County Sheriff Tony Desmond said he has no intention of enforcing the law, and that his office won't do anything that would cause law-abiding citizens to turn in their weapons or arrest them for possessing firearms."

Compliance with the state's registration law topped out at about five percent, with the tiny law-abiding minority heavily concentrated in the New York City area.

Interestingly, local defiance of state and federal gun restrictions appears to reflect a desire for freedom from unpopular legislation that extends across the political spectrum. The specifics of the laws to be defied vary from place to place, but the desire to be left unmolested by other people's rules seems nearly universal.

"The 'Second Amendment sanctuary county' concept … was borrowed from activists who for several years have convinced some local governments to declare themselves 'sanctuary cities' for undocumented immigrants — meaning local law enforcement won't help federal officers arrest those whose only crime is being in the country illegally," accordingto the Santa Fe New Mexican.

Definitions of "sanctuary cities" vary, but "there are over 200 jurisdictions, including some of the largest in the country, that refuse to honor [Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] detainers," ICE Director Sarah Saldaña told Congressin 2015.

Some of us remember, with particular fondness, Norman Vroman, who served time for failing to pay income taxes before being elected, as a Libertarian, to the office of district attorney for Mendocino County, California. Because of his hands-off policy towards marijuana and guns, Vroman "was endorsed by such disparate groups as the National Rifle Assn. and the Green Party" as reported in his Los Angeles Times obituary.

Vroman's battles with state and federal officials (the feds were planning a raid on his home at the time of his death) were made possible by a local culture contemptuous of legal restrictions imposed from above—especially those on marijuana.

Restrictive laws can be unenforceable even if sentiment isn't sufficiently monolithic to drive local officials to butt heads with officeholders further up the political food chain.

In the absence of registration lists of guns and gun owners, which don't exist in most of the United States (and failed from popular defiance in New York, as mentioned above), the background checks causing so much fuss in New Mexico depend entirely on voluntary compliance. If only two people in a jurisdiction oppose such requirements, those two can safely buy and sell guns to each other so long as they conduct their transactions out of sight of law enforcement.

Expand the population of eager scofflaws and you're bound to see widespread noncompliance, as in Colorado, New York, and Washington. New Mexicans seem poised to demonstrate, once again, just how powerless politicians are over defiant people.

 

[Wabash82]

37 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Maybe, maybe not. I have allowed other people to fire my guns  when we're together shooting. I'm not sure I'd be so generous as to "loan" someone a firearm. This whole thing sounds a little hokey to me, I need to borrow your gun because I'm teaching a friend of mine how to shoot, and neither of us have guns? My main point being, this law is self policing, and since criminals are not really in the business of following the law....

I thought the whole purpose of this was to address straw purchases? Presumable after making your straw purchase, you will have a NICS check when the new purchaser purchases the gun from you, right?

As far as personal sales, when FB used to have gun sale pages, there were any number of criminal types lurking. Honestly I found it somewhat alarming thinking people would sell to these people. You didn't have to be an FBI agent to figure out who they were. 

Well, you can choose to believe or not believe the particular guy in Utah,  but assuming he is telling the truth, this law would have stopped the transfer. 

And, no, this law is not designed to stop "strawman" transactions. A strawman transaction is one in which the person buying the weapon does so for the specific purpose of reselling it to someone else, and KNOWS or has reason to know that the person he is re-selling to cannot legally buy or possess the firearm (which is why the person had the buyer get the gun for him/her in the first place.) 

Strawmen purchasers face prosecution under various existing laws -- usually the federal law that requires them to affirm in the background check docs that they are buying the weapon for themselves, or the laws that preclude any seller (even in a private transaction) from knowingly selling to someone who is a prohibited possessor. 

The new law is focused on the situation of the occasional seller at the gun show who is dealing with strangers, or a person who sells (or loans) firearms to a friend or family member. While it would be nice for all of them to have your innate spidey sense to spot who they can trust, and who are the undisclosed felons or mentally ill folks, we mere mortals have to rely on a background check system to actually verify that sort of thing with folks who are strangers, or merely "acquaintance-level" friends or family, to us.   

 

 

[Impartial_Observer]

We shall agree to disagree. 

FYI is called a straw purchase, not to be confused with a strawman argument. 

[Wabash82]

Yeah, I understand the difference. The strawman argument you made was that the Act we were discussing was designed to address strawman purchases. You mischaracterized the purpose of the proposed law in order to argue that it would not do a good job of achieving its supposed purpose.

The mischaracterization of the law's purpose was the "straw man" that you erected for the purpose of knocking it down. 

[swordfish]

On 3/4/2019 at 1:36 PM, Wabash82 said:

Well, you can choose to believe or not believe the particular guy in Utah,  but assuming he is telling the truth, this law would have stopped the transfer. 

And, no, this law is not designed to stop "strawman" transactions. A strawman transaction is one in which the person buying the weapon does so for the specific purpose of reselling it to someone else, and KNOWS or has reason to know that the person he is re-selling to cannot legally buy or possess the firearm (which is why the person had the buyer get the gun for him/her in the first place.) 

Strawmen purchasers face prosecution under various existing laws -- usually the federal law that requires them to affirm in the background check docs that they are buying the weapon for themselves, or the laws that preclude any seller (even in a private transaction) from knowingly selling to someone who is a prohibited possessor. 

The new law is focused on the situation of the occasional seller at the gun show who is dealing with strangers, or a person who sells (or loans) firearms to a friend or family member. While it would be nice for all of them to have your innate spidey sense to spot who they can trust, and who are the undisclosed felons or mentally ill folks, we mere mortals have to rely on a background check system to actually verify that sort of thing with folks who are strangers, or merely "acquaintance-level" friends or family, to us.   

 

 

According to my reading - Transfers or sales between family members are exempt from this.

So if "strawman" purchases/sales are already illegal......Wouldn't the rampant abuse of this action already be non-existent?  (being that the argument that most of the guns in Chicago are being legally purchased in Indiana or other states at gun shows.....)

Reading about the Utah incident, I don't agree the new law would have prevented the shooting, but it would give the prosecution the footing to charge the person who loaned the weapon with a crime as well as the mother who is suing him.  Either way, I am behind that guy getting anything thrown at him for what I and most gun owners would consider is negligence - you don't "loan" a gun to someone to take away from your control.

Edited March 5, 2019 by swordfish

[Wabash82]

19 minutes ago, swordfish said:

According to my reading - Transfers or sales between family members are exempt from this.

So if "strawman" purchases/sales are already illegal......Wouldn't the rampant abuse of this action already be non-existent?  (being that the argument that most of the guns in Chicago are being legally purchased in Indiana or other states at gun shows.....)

 

Depends on how close in relation the family member is -- I don't think transfers between cousins are exempt, for example.

I don't recall having heard it said that the guns in Chicago are being purchased at "gun shows" per se.  That is certainly part of the problem, because Illinois currently requires a background check even for private sales by non-dealers. Indiana does not, so a Chicago gang's affiliates in Indiana who cannot pass a background check can still buy guns for their comrades in Illinois at gun shows here.

But the problem arises where neighboring States like Indiana have less stringent laws than exist in Illinois/Chicago even when it comes to buying from a licensed dealer. So, for example, to buy a gun in Illinois, a person must have an Illinois gun owner's ID from the State Police, but there is no similar requirement in Indiana.  

The fact that straw men purchases go on despite it being illegal does not mean that the laws don't deter the activity to some degree. While there are always going to be people who are willing to engage in illegal activity,  it is impossible to know exactly how many people elected NOT to engage in that activity because it was illegal  -- you can't tally up things that didn't happen. The standard can't be 100% deterrent effect, because if it was, there literally are no effective laws. 

55 minutes ago, swordfish said:

 

Reading about the Utah incident, I don't agree the new law would have prevented the shooting, but it would give the prosecution the footing to charge the person who loaned the weapon with a crime as well as the mother who is suing him.  Either way, I am behind that guy getting anything thrown at him for what I and most gun owners would consider is negligence - you don't "loan" a gun to someone to take away from your control.

In order to believe that this proposed law would not have prevented the shooting in Utah, you have to make the assumption that the friend who loaned the killer the gun is not a law abiding person. Because if he was, and if this law had been in effect, he would have said, "Sure, you can borrow my gun this weekend. Let's get in the car and go down to Joe's Gunnery and I'll give it to Joe to run the required background check on you, so you can take it on Saturday." And that would have stopped the killer from getting that gun. 

Just like at the gun show,  where the non-licensed guy who sells occasionally is a law abiding fellow, and if this law were in force, he'd do something similar.  

[swordfish]

16 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

Depends on how close in relation the family member is -- I don't think transfers between cousins are exempt, for example.  Immediate family.

I don't recall having heard it said that the guns in Chicago are being purchased at "gun shows" per se.  That is certainly part of the problem, because Illinois currently requires a background check even for private sales by non-dealers. Indiana does not, so a Chicago gang's affiliates in Indiana who cannot pass a background check can still buy guns for their comrades in Illinois at gun shows here.  And are still (already) breaking the law by illegally transferring weapons.

But the problem arises where neighboring States like Indiana have less stringent laws than exist in Illinois/Chicago even when it comes to buying from a licensed dealer. So, for example, to buy a gun in Illinois, a person must have an Illinois gun owner's ID from the State Police, but there is no similar requirement in Indiana.  In Indiana, to buy a handgun, you must either pass the waiting period (for the background check) or have a permit.  Not sure on long guns, haven't purchased a shotgun or a rifle in a long time.

The fact that straw men purchases go on despite it being illegal does not mean that the laws don't deter the activity to some degree. While there are always going to be people who are willing to engage in illegal activity,  it is impossible to know exactly how many people elected NOT to engage in that activity because it was illegal  -- you can't tally up things that didn't happen. The standard can't be 100% deterrent effect, because if it was, there literally are no effective laws. Again, leads to the question why pass more laws that are not going to have any real impact on the problem they are trying to solve?

In order to believe that this proposed law would not have prevented the shooting in Utah, you have to make the assumption that the friend who loaned the killer the gun is not a law abiding person. Already assumed - NOBODY should let anyone (not even family) take a weapon to "teach someone how to use a weapon" without going there themselves.  Because if he was, and if this law had been in effect, he would have said, "Sure, you can borrow my gun this weekend. Let's get in the car and go down to Joe's Gunnery and I'll give it to Joe to run the required background check on you, so you can take it on Saturday." And that would have stopped the killer from getting that gun.  

Just like at the gun show,  where the non-licensed guy who sells occasionally is a law abiding fellow, and if this law were in force, he'd do something similar.  Agreed - so long as the enforcement of this law is enacted.  

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by swordfish

[Impartial_Observer]

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

 In Indiana, to buy a handgun, you must either pass the waiting period (for the background check) or have a permit.  Not sure on long guns, haven't purchased a shotgun or a rifle in a long time.

This is no waiting period in Indiana. You must pass a NICS background check. They typically take about 15 minutes after you fill out the form 4473. You do not have to have any kind of permit to purchase. You must have an Indiana License to Carry Handgun, LTCH to carry a handgun. You may transport a handgun without a permit, so long as it's not accessible to the driver, it's unloaded, and the ammo is stored separately. To purchase any long gun, you must pass a NICS background check. There is no license required to carry a long gun. There any number of groups that organize such carry events, which I can't for the life of me figure out why in the anyone would do such a thing. 

You must be 21 years old to purchase a handgun and 18 years old to purchase a long gun. 

[swordfish]

32 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

This is no waiting period in Indiana. You must pass a NICS background check. They typically take about 15 minutes after you fill out the form 4473. You do not have to have any kind of permit to purchase. You must have an Indiana License to Carry Handgun, LTCH to carry a handgun. You may transport a handgun without a permit, so long as it's not accessible to the driver, it's unloaded, and the ammo is stored separately. To purchase any long gun, you must pass a NICS background check. There is no license required to carry a long gun. There any number of groups that organize such carry events, which I can't for the life of me figure out why in the anyone would do such a thing. 

You must be 21 years old to purchase a handgun and 18 years old to purchase a long gun. 

Thanks for the clarification IO - haven't bought a weapon in a long time.