How Is This Even Remotely Controversial

I’ve gone through the President’s proposals for gun control, and for the life of me, I can not see how anything he suggested is even remotely controversial. Like this, for example:

The proposals also would require criminal background checks for all gun sales, closing the longstanding loophole that allows gun buyers to avoid such checks by purchasing their weapons at gun shows or from a private seller. The background database, in place since 1996, has stopped 1.5 million sales to felons, fugitives, convicted domestic abusers and others, but today nearly 40 percent of all gun sales are exempt from the system.

Can you imagine the reaction to this if instead of drugs, we were talking about something else- like pharmaceuticals. Can you imagine a world where there are all sorts of rules, regulations, and enforcement of drugs sold in pharmacies (to include sinus meds), but that 40% of the oxycontin and other opiates and birth control and plan B and everything else were sold in drug shows in campgrounds all over the country by overweight shady characters wearing Don’t Tread on Me t-shirts?

How long do you think that situation would last?






229 replies
  1. 1
    Forum Transmitted Disease says:

    Well, you’re talking about drugs. Drugs are bad.

  2. 2
    Disco says:

    Plan B at drug shows?

    That would be a fate worse than death to wingers. The idea that womenfolk would be allowed control of their own bodies?

    Pish-posh.

  3. 3
    Pinkamena Panic says:

    What’s that stomping sound?

  4. 4
    MikeJ says:

    The NRA always claims we don’t need new gun laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have. This sounds like exactly that. *Of course* they’ll throw a shit fit.

  5. 5
    T.R. Donoghue says:

    but that 40% of the oxycontin and other opiates and birth control and plan B and everything else were sold in drug shows in campgrounds all over the country by overweight shady characters wearing Don’t Tread on Me t-shirts?

    Sounds like Grateful Dead summer tour!

  6. 6
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    To the true gun nut, any attempt at restricting gun purchasing or usage, no matter how innocuous or how logical, is Part 1 of Secret Plan to Steal All the Guns, No For Real This Time.

  7. 7
    Keith says:

    How long do you think that situation would last?

    How long have online pharmacies been around?

  8. 8
    Roger Moore says:

    @MikeJ:
    The NRA must have very bad pronunciation, because I’m sure they really mean “we just need to stop enforcing the ones we have”. At the very least that seems to be what they’re actually trying to do.

  9. 9
    Rosalita says:

    Can you imagine the reaction to this if instead of drugs

    I think you meant guns…

  10. 10
    Calouste says:

    Don’t give the pharmaceutical industry any ideas.

    Oh, wait, they are not exempt from lawsuits like the gun makers are. Carry on.

  11. 11
    different-church-lady says:

    OMG, I would so go to a Sudafed show!

  12. 12
    Sloegin says:

    I was set to post something snarky and extremest, but realized gun advocacy has crossed into Poe’s law.

  13. 13
    Another Halocene Human says:

    John, John, it’s called “Florida”.

  14. 14
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Calouste: What do you think “tort reform” is about? The class action lawsuits have been wiping out the profits on hastily-pushed-to-market drugs. Answer? Not to stop killing people. Kill the lawsuits!

  15. 15
    Roger Moore says:

    @Another Halocene Human:

    John, John, it’s called “Florida” TJ.

    Fixt.

  16. 16
    Soonergrunt says:

    The way forward is to make AR-style guns and large capacity magazines as popular as kiddie porn.
    There was a belief among a relatively small but not insignificant part of the population that the first amendment to the US Constitution actually protected the collection and possession of child pornography for a long time. It wasn’t until the Supreme Court ruled in New York v Ferber that it was finally completely codified into law that 1A did not protect kiddie porn.
    I’m not a lawyer or a legal scholar, but I have been surprised at the number of conservative jurists and legal scholars, Judge Richard Posner among them, to hold that D.C. v Heller created new rights out of whole cloth.
    Well, we’re going to need a long term concentrated public relations campaign to equate AR-style weapons and large capacity magazines with kiddie porn and the NRA with NAMBLA.
    And no, I’m not kidding. This is what I think we should be doing, while we also work the legal track.

  17. 17
    dedc79 says:

    The gun nuts view any attempt at regulation, no matter how benign, as part of a slippery slope. A national registry/database isn’t just information to them, it’s the first step toward confiscation.

    The closest parallel I can think of is to abortion, where pro-life groups keep trying to pass restrictions that effectively make it harder and harder to get an abortion. Pro-choice groups have recognized that these laws must be opposed because they constitute an erosion of the right to an abortion that will culminate in an absolute ban if not stopped. The difference of course is that the pro-life movement actually does want to ban all abortions, while gun control proponents have no interest in getting rid of all (or even most) guns.

  18. 18
    Roger Moore says:

    @Another Halocene Human:
    “Tort reform” is about a lot more than drug lawsuits. It’s also about environmental lawsuits, defective product lawsuits, and basically any other lawsuit that involves a private citizen suing a big company.

  19. 19
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Gun nuts are nuts.

    They are not sane.

  20. 20
    Hunter Gathers says:

    I can not see how anything he suggested is even remotely controversial.

    Anything the Kenyan Usurper proposes is controversial. So sayeth the oppressed White minority. Also, according the Shriveled Genitalia Brigade that’s currently having a hissy fit all over Teh Intertoobs, unconstitutional.

  21. 21
    Nemo_N says:

    Oh noes! Now rightwing nutjobs will scream about Obama being a tyrant! Like they never had done before!

  22. 22
    Violet says:

    @different-church-lady: Yosemite National Park, brought to you by Sudafed!

  23. 23
    Roger Moore says:

    @Soonergrunt:
    Of course, replacing a few conservative justices on the Supreme Court with more liberal ones would help matters immensely. If we could only convince Thomas to retire…

  24. 24
    Matt McIrvin says:

    The meme currently going around is that Britain’s increased gun restrictions have caused a terrifying explosion in gun crime.

    Apparently it’s gotten so bad that the per capita rate is all the way up to almost 1/40 what it is in the US.

  25. 25
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Roger Moore:

    That is, any attempt by ordinary citizens to use the legal system to restrain the predatory, destructive behaviors of large corporations.

    Ironically, this is the Libertarian solution to everything. If you are wronged, go to court.

    Except that Libertarians say this, but fight against it, because it means the serfs are daring to disrespect their feudal masters.

  26. 26
    dedc79 says:

    @Soonergrunt: For the first amendment, the issue became how to define speech. If something isn’t deemed speech than it need not be protected.

    I don’t know how far we can get arguing about the scope of “arms” under the 2nd amendment, at least not with this current Supreme Court.

  27. 27
    Roger Moore says:

    I can not see how anything he suggested is even remotely controversial.

    The same way that the carcinogenic effect of tobacco, global warming, and raising the debt ceiling became controversial; there were people who ginned up controversies around them. It’s a standard Corporate/Republican tactic. Spew out a bunch of fancy sounding bullshit on an issue, claim that it proves there’s a controversy, and then use the existence of a controversy as cover for doing WTFYW.

  28. 28
    MikeJ says:

    @dedc79:

    I don’t know how far we can get arguing about the scope of “arms” under the 2nd amendment, at least not with this current Supreme Court.

    You already need special licensing to own a .50. Pretty much nobody can own a RPG. Hell, people at the farm supply place have to take your name when you buy fertilizer.

    If fertilizer is classified as an unacceptable weapon we should be able to expand that.

  29. 29
    Chet says:

    Well, ok, John, then imagine a world where unless you performed a background check on your buddy, you broke a Federal law when he said he had a headache and you tossed him a couple of aspirin. People complain about how inconvenient it is to buy Sudafed as it is. In fact, I think you were one of them. That’s the regime you’re talking about with guns – can’t give your buddy a Winchester for his birthday unless you run a Federal background on him, first, and then keep a record of the background forever. If you throw it out or lose that record? Federal charges.

    That’s the way in which it’s “remotely controversial”, I guess – regular people sell guns to each other, or give them as gifts, and it shouldn’t expose them to Federal charges if they do so without keeping up on some paperwork.

  30. 30
    Soonergrunt says:

    @dedc79: The 2A is the only one of the Bill of Rights that defines an active requirement to the right being defined.
    1A doesn’t say anything about a State need in the protections of religion, free association, or speech. 5A doesn’t outline a State need in protecting the rights of the accused against self incrimination.
    Only the 2A says WHY this particular right is granted or protected. This is something that, as Posner noted in his commentary on Heller, the conservative majority ignored in creating rights which did not exist.

    To extend–it’s not the scope of “arms” that needs to be defined. It’s the meaning “A Well Regulated Militia” that needs to be addressed, and once that is accomplished, the meaning of “arms” will be rather plain, I should think.

  31. 31
    Culture of Truth says:

    Close the Heroin Show loophole!

  32. 32
    flukebucket says:

    Boortz and Limbaugh are both hyperventilating today. I dread Hannity. He is up next.

  33. 33
    Roger Moore says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:
    Hell yes, this is the core of the Libertarian racket. Eliminate regulations, saying that things should be settled in court instead. Then turn around and undermine the ability of people to sue effectively. Each one sounds vaguely plausible by itself, but in combination they’re amazingly evil.

  34. 34
    lyford says:

    As a gun owner/buyer/seller, I have no problem with that requirement as long as it’s easy for private sellers to use the background check system.

  35. 35
    gogol's wife says:

    @Chet:

    Boo hoo. My heart is breaking. I haven’t cried so much since THOSE 20 LITTLE KIDS WERE SLAUGHTERED.

  36. 36
    aimai says:

    @dedc79:

    Well, there is a slight difference: the abortion restrictions create a de facto ban–they take the place of a legal ban by simply making it harder to get an abortion in a timely manner, when time is not on the side of the woman seeking the abortion. Or they restrict the time and place where abortions can take place in such a manner that there is no longer any local delivery system. There have been specific moves by the anti abortion crowd–especially in Kansas–to register and publicize women’s names for requesting abortions. That has something in common with the problems associated with publishing the names of concealed carry gun owners because it takes information the government has (in the case of women medical information in the case of gun owners home location information) and publishes it to a potentially dangerous social world.

    The argument against gun registration and lisencing is that its a slippery slope to confiscation but registration and lisencing itself doesn’t put any serious burden on gun ownership amounting to a ban any more than car registration prevents people from owning cars.

    You didn’t hear a peep from these libertarian assholes when states passed “24 hour waiting periods” for abortions or demanded counseling for women seeking abortions when they threw a shit fit over any kind of delay due to background checks for people seeking to buy guns.

  37. 37
    El Cid says:

    First they come for our large capacity magazines, and next they impose Shari’a law. It’s obvious.

  38. 38
    Sanjuro says:

    There you go again…assuming that there is a rationality to it.

    Same maxim about arguing with drunks applies to irrationals as well.

  39. 39
    aimai says:

    @Chet:

    Give your buddy the money for the winchester and let him buy it and have the background check performed on him. There are a whole lot of things where the giver doesn’t get to determine whether the owner is permitted to operate the vehicle in question. I can “give” my children a car but I can’t lisence them to drive it–the state does that. What’s the big deal? Why should guns be different? And guns shouldn’t be different from major pharmaceuticals–I can have percocet that was prescribed for me but I am not permitted to pass it around to my friends like tic tacs. Boo fucking hoo.

  40. 40
    Cassidy says:

    @MikeJ: Rifles in .50 cal are legal to own and buy and require no licensing. There is no Federal licensing to own firearms. The class 3 stamp (tax) applies to barrels larger than .50 cal (greater than, not greater or euqal to) and not deemed to have a sporting purpose per the ATF. Theoretically, without the sporting purpose clauase, all shotguns would be class 3.

  41. 41
    scav says:

    @Chet: So, as long as it’s gift-wrapped, it’s legal, even in the hands of a lunatic felon. I think there are some firefighters from Webster, NY on the ouija white telephone for you.

  42. 42
    PaulW says:

    We’re arguing with people who worship guns and the power of death. Forget the golden calf, the NRA crowd bows before the steel Colt.

    The NRA will defend the Second Amendment right to shoot anyone they want right to bear arms, but who speaks for my right – and the rights of 250 million fellow non-gun-owning Americans – under the First Amendment to peaceably assemble in places like schools, malls, movie theaters, city sidewalks, restaurants, parks, wineries, and other picturesque locales?

  43. 43
    Hoodie says:

    @Soonergrunt: Maybe not quite kiddie porn, but at least like porn, you know, something that should not be allowed around kids. In other words, keep it at the range, perverts. I wonder where this might go if Anderson Cooper or Oprah start interviewing the first responders from Newtown with PTSD. Or, god forbid, a crime scene photo slips out.

  44. 44
    Roger Moore says:

    @aimai:

    I can “give” my children a car but I can’t lisence them to drive it–the state does that.

    And if you want to legally give it to them rather than just allow them to operate it (leaving you open to potential liability as the owner) you have to register the transfer with the government. There isn’t a “car show” loophole that lets people sell their cars without bothering to tell the DMV.

  45. 45
    Rich2506 says:

    Can you imagine the reaction to this if instead of drugs, we were talking about something else- like pharmaceuticals.

    Erm, I suspect you meant “guns” there as opposed to drugs.

  46. 46
    Cassidy says:

    @Chet: That’s exactly the point. The “loophole” allows people to sell firearms to anyone they choose as long as they make a reasonable effort to make sure they’re legal. It’s as simple as “are you a felon? No? Good. Sign this”. That’s all you need to CYA.

    Having a background check means you go to someone who is licensed to sell and the background check gets done. It’s too easy and cost an extra $30. That’s the price of doing business and in the gun business, the market will adjust.

  47. 47
    Hoodie says:

    @Chet: Give your buddy a check and let him buy his own friggin gun. If you gave your buddy a car, you wouldn’t want him to have a freaking drivers’ license? What a moronic argument.

  48. 48
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Chet: You can’t give your friend all sorts of things that would violate the law.
    If you give your underage friend booze, you break the law. So fucking what?

  49. 49
    dedc79 says:

    @Soonergrunt: You don’t need to convince me. I’m just saying – the court has already read that language out of the amendment, so I don’t think we’ll get very far with the argument anytime soon. If Obama gets a chance to replace Thomas, Scalia or Kennedy, then that could change.

  50. 50
    Tone in DC says:

    @Hunter Gathers:

    the Shriveled Genitalia Brigade that’s currently having a hissy fit all over Teh Intertoobs

    It is VERY juvenile of a grown man to chuckle at this depiction… but I did it anyway.

    These wingnutz are behaving worse than tantrum throwing toddlers.

  51. 51
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Hoodie: ” Maybe not quite kiddie porn, but at least like porn, you know, something that should not be allowed around kids.”
    That’s ALL guns.
    But the mass killers like hi cap magazines and AR’s should be like kiddie porn. Whenever somebody tries to buy one, they get arrested and subjected to a stiff sentence and post sentencing restrictions on where they can live, whom they can associate with, and so on. Because like kiddie diddlers, the AR fanatics are likely to attempt to offend again. Unnatural urges and perverse needs, you know.

  52. 52
    jibeaux says:

    I bought OTC cold medicine for my suffering husband. I went through all the hoops with the driver’s license etc., signature, etc. to get the stuff with pseudo in it because it’s supposed to work better. I haven’t bothered since the legislation passed a couple of years ago. Anyway, when I looked at the receipt, I noticed my name had been keyed in with a “1” for my pseudo sales for the last thirty days or whatever the restriction is, and printed out for me. They’re circulating that information and they want you to know they’re tracking you. I can’t go to some sort of pharmaceutical show and escape the tracking, for pete’s sake.

  53. 53
    lyford says:

    @Roger Moore:

    Not always. If I’ve got an unregistered vehicle — perfectly legal if it stays on my own property — and sell it to someone else, I don’t have to interact with the government at all. That’s the buyers responsibility if and when he wants to register it.

  54. 54
    Soonergrunt says:

    @dedc79: This IS the same institution that gave us both Dredd Scott and Brown v. Board of Education.

  55. 55
    Soonergrunt says:

    @lyford: But the moment he does that, he’s going to have to show where it came from, and prove that he came into ownership of it legally.
    You can’t just walk into a DMV and register a car out of the blue. They’re going to ask a LOT of questions.

  56. 56
    Roger Moore says:

    @Soonergrunt:

    This IS the same institution that gave us both Dredd Scott and Brown v. Board of Education.

    There was almost a hundred years and some modifications to the Constitution in the interim. It would be most unusual for the Court to completely reverse course on Heller as quickly as we’re hoping they will.

  57. 57
    lyford says:

    @Soonergrunt:
    You’ll have a hard time equating ARs with porn while they’re the standard-issue firearm of our troops. An AR-type rifle is what the good guys use. “SEALS good! Stuff they use bad!” isn’t going to make sense for a lot of folks.

    “Why do you need it?” is a better approach than “The rifle is evil”.

  58. 58
    scav says:

    @lyford: and yet most people seem to manage the idea that there are drugs their doctors can use that shouldn’t be unleashed into the hands of everybody without restraint or limitation.

  59. 59
    Hoodie says:

    @lyford: That’s why just porn, and not kiddie porn — “naked chick with big tits good!”, but not in my kid’s morning cartoons. People have no problem regulating porn.

  60. 60
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Roger Moore: The example was meant to show that nothing is ironclad. There are, doubtless, examples of SCOTUS reversing itself in whole or in part in much shorter timeframes. Those are just the famous ones that everybody has heard of.

    @lyford: Fine. Pick some other example then.
    You cannot legally buy controlled narcotics or anesthetic agents, but your doctor who is trained and licensed can administer them. Also–when was the last time the SEALS or Delta Force operated on US soil in anything other than training mode?

  61. 61
    Chet says:

    @gogol’s wife:

    I haven’t cried so much since THOSE 20 LITTLE KIDS WERE SLAUGHTERED.

    On the other hand, the active ingredient in Tylenol kills 500 people every year, which is well in excess of the number of people killed by so-called “assault rifles.” A surprising number of those people are children. (A not-so-surprising number of those people are drug addicts.)

    I don’t even own a gun, I just want that out there. I just don’t see the point in collective punishment.

  62. 62
    Felinious Wench says:

    @Chet:

    Well, ok, John, then imagine a world where unless you performed a background check on your buddy, you broke a Federal law when he said he had a headache and you tossed him a couple of aspirin.

    Loaning a friend a gun that has passed a background check to own a gun is fine. One would assume they already own or have owned another gun in the past.

    If someone wants to borrow a gun who hasn’t been licensed to own one, and you give them the gun, that’s on you. You are responsible for what happens with your gun. If you can’t tell your buddy that is unlicensed that you’re not going to let them borrow your gun, you have a problem. Personal responsibility.

    That’s the regime you’re talking about with guns – can’t give your buddy a Winchester for his birthday unless you run a Federal background on him, first, and then keep a record of the background forever.

    Why wouldn’t you just go to the store with them and buy the gun? If you don’t want the responsibility of running a background check, have the store do it. This is not something you personally have to monitor.

    If you throw it out or lose that record? Federal charges.

    So don’t do it.

    regular people sell guns to each other, or give them as gifts, and it shouldn’t expose them to Federal charges if they do so without keeping up on some paperwork.

    I have no doubt in the ability of our free market society to set up a service-based website that will run background checks for gun purchases, flag if the person is clear or not, and store that information for you for a small fee. I am very confident in this because if no one else builds it, I will get a team together and do it myself.

    This is not buying Sudafed. It’s a completely different problem to solve. But it doesn’t mean we get to not solve it because it might inconvenience us. I think the Sudafed laws are stupid. The proposed gun control laws are not.

  63. 63
    Maude says:

    @jibeaux:
    In NJ, you are asked your age before you can buy cold medicine. I bet people buy it at the dollar store.

  64. 64
    Chet says:

    @aimai:

    I can “give” my children a car but I can’t lisence them to drive it–the state does that. What’s the big deal? Why should guns be different?

    I don’t think they should be. But it’s worth pointing out: your driver’s license isn’t a license to own a car because you don’t need a license for that, even if you are a child. It’s a license to operate a car on a public road.

    If we applied your “guns are just like cars” principle, then we’d have to get rid of state firearms ownership licenses.

  65. 65
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Chet: It’s not collective punishment. It’s societal mores changing.
    There was a time, as I noted earlier, when Child Pornography was thought protected by the First Amendment. Then, in a very short period of time, it wasn’t.

    There was a time when people in this country could legally purchase heroine and other opiates without restriction. Then, again in a rather short period of time, they couldn’t.

    It would be collective punishment if the government were to seize people’s property without reimbursement. (Note that in the CP example, there was no lawful mechanism for people to turn in the CP collections in any event. Mere possession was a crime itself.) And not that I’d have much of a problem with the government seizing ARs and high-cap magazines from anyone who had them, including my own for my .40S&W Sig P250, but forced buy-back would also not fit an idea of collective punishment. But I’ll go you one better. The President’s proposal would allow private sellers to sell their property to others, providing the buyer can pass the same background check they’d have to pass at a gun store. In my world, maybe the government wouldn’t seize your property, but would be well within their rights to prevent you from selling or giving your property to anyone, including family members. You keep it until you die and the government takes and destroys it.

  66. 66
    Chet says:

    @Soonergrunt:

    You can’t give your friend all sorts of things that would violate the law.
    If you give your underage friend booze, you break the law. So fucking what?

    Well, we’ve got that. It’s already against the law to sell or give a firearm to someone who is ineligible to own firearms. Private sale, public sale, private gift, doesn’t matter. It’s a Federal felony.

    What you’re talking about is, every time I buy a beer for my friend, now I have to not only check his ID, but produce and maintain a record of the fact that I checked his ID. Every beer, every time, and I have to keep the record forever if a Federal investigator can show an instance of beer-buying that I don’t have a record for, I could go to Federal prison, because I was acting as a “straw-purchaser”.

    I dunno, that sounds excessive. Way excessive, even though far more people are killed annually by alcohol than by firearms.

  67. 67
    lyford says:

    @Chet: Right. Some states make that distinction: there’s a clear difference in law between owning a gun in your home and carrying it in public.

    Of course a gun is easier to conceal if you decide to take it out….

  68. 68
    scav says:

    @Soonergrunt: “You keep it until you die” Hey! That satisfies their cold dead hands resolution so they can claim victory a la Norquist.

  69. 69
    Corner Stone says:

    When the hell did this turn into a conversation on drugs and porn?
    And why wasn’t I invited?!

  70. 70
    Corner Stone says:

    @Felinious Wench:

    Why wouldn’t you just go to the store with them and buy the gun?

    The store would lose its FFL if they did this and Chet would go to jail for a felony.

  71. 71
    Corner Stone says:

    @Soonergrunt:

    Also–when was the last time the SEALS or Delta Force operated on US soil in anything other than training mode?

    Oh, come on! What do you think the fire in the TX Gov residence was? That was a warning shot from Obummer to Perry not to even think of running a serious presidential campaign. It could not be clearer!

  72. 72
    Chet says:

    @Soonergrunt:

    Ok, sure. I maintain that the buyer did pass the background check that I ran.

    So, is my word good enough? Or do you need to see the receipt? Well, ok, I kept a receipt for the check but I lost it when I moved to my new apartment. Good enough? Or am I now presumptively guilty of selling a firearm without performing a background check?

    Again, the reason that asking private citizens to perform background checks – aside from the privacy issues involved in simply allowing the pretense of “selling a gun, maybe” to justify providing a complete stranger with access to your Federal background – is controversial is because you’re turning the presumption of innocence on its head. It’s one thing to ask people to do that to maintain their Federal license to deal in firearms. I’m fine with that. But now you’re talking about a situation where I have to maintain records forever, through any calamity or misfortune, or face Federal charges based on the presumption that if I don’t have a record of performing a Federal background check, I didn’t perform one.

  73. 73
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: Switzerland does this. What’s the big deal? You can’t transfer financial assets without doing paperwork (unless you’re a criminal), and guns ain’t cheap.

    And John is absolutely right. You can’t “give” your son the “extra” Vicodins you didn’t use after you had surgery 6 months ago. He will be “going” to “jail”.

  74. 74
    Chet says:

    @Another Halocene Human:

    You can’t “give” your son the “extra” Vicodins you didn’t use after you had surgery 6 months ago.

    And if there’s one thing that everybody can agree with, it’s that Federal drug policy is sane, restrained, and respects our Constitutional rights – right? Yes, I can’t see any problem at all with basing Federal firearms law on Federal drug law.

  75. 75
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @aimai: One problem is that our Constitution has none or a very weak protection of privacy (protection against illegal search and seizure, which of course is honored in the breech while gun nuts slaver about guns). What we need is some sort of balance between open access to information and privacy rights.

    And judges are going to look at the needs of the state but of course the state is going to want to hide info that hurts it (and be careless with private individuals because it really doesn’t care).

    I could see an argument for publishing, maybe not full names, but census-block-level data on gun ownership. People do need to know this info to make informed decisions. But the only interest in publishing the names of women who have abortions is harassment, shaming, even encouraging violence against them. Demographic data with no names attached could be very useful for sociologists and policy makers. But their names have no value but to the vicious.

    I don’t know what kind of test would be best. But I think we need one.

  76. 76
    Cassidy says:

    @Chet:

    So, is my word good enough? Or do you need to see the receipt?

    They have a form for that.

    Well, ok, I kept a receipt for the check but I lost it when I moved to my new apartment. Good enough? Or am I now presumptively guilty of selling a firearm without performing a background check?

    FFL holders are required to keep records of all firearms sales, BC’s, etc. for a number of years that I’m too lazy to look up right now. Thye do it to not get fined, lose their license and go to prison. If those things don’t encourage you to practice goood record keeping, you have a problem that we cannot solve for you.

    Again, the reason that asking private citizens to perform background checks – aside from the privacy issues involved in simply allowing the pretense of “selling a gun, maybe” to justify providing a complete stranger with access to your Federal background – is controversial is because you’re turning the presumption of innocence on its head. It’s one thing to ask people to do that to maintain their Federal license to deal in firearms. I’m fine with that. But now you’re talking about a situation where I have to maintain records forever, through any calamity or misfortune, or face Federal charges based on the presumption that if I don’t have a record of performing a Federal background check, I didn’t perform one.

    This is complete bullshit. It’s called a loophole for a reason. If I go to a store, I have to get checked. If I buy from a private seller off of Gunbroker, it has to be shipped FFL to FFL and I have to get a background check when I pick it up. Yet, I can walk into an auditorium, NG Armory, convention center with a wad of cash and buy all kinds of shit and the only legal requirement is that they ask me if I’m eligible to purchase firearms. If you really want to CYA you would have a bill of sale with some sort of statement on it and a copy of their license, but you don’t even have to do that.

    This is a very easy fix. If you want to seel your firearm, you meet the potential buyer at a FFL holder and make the transaction. It’s very simple.

  77. 77
    aimai says:

    @Chet:

    Its not punishment–collective or not. Regulation is not punishment. Being asked to be responsible disposing or trading or gifting something potentially dangerous is just BEING ASKED TO BE RESPONSIBLE. They put child proof lids on medicines for exactly this reason–its not a punishment, its a precaution. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

  78. 78
    Felinious Wench says:

    @Corner Stone:

    The store would lose its FFL if they did this and Chet would go to jail for a felony.

    That’s not what I meant. Why wouldn’t the friend purchase the gun (perform the transaction, including the background check) and Chet would just give them the money to pay for it?

    This has been the modus operandi for gift giving in my family for years since we all became adults. “I’m giving you cash/a gift certificate. Go buy whatever you want.” Same principle.

  79. 79
    Mike Lamb says:

    @Chet: We have a much bigger problem if people are giving guns to each other like they do a beer or aspirin…

    Or, on the other hand, maybe the comparisons are total bullshit…

  80. 80
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Cassidy: This is a very easy fix. If you want to seel your firearm, you meet the potential buyer at a FFL holder and make the transaction. It’s very simple.

    Could be a great sideline for pawn shops and online brokers.

  81. 81
    Chet says:

    @Cassidy:

    If those things don’t encourage you to practice goood record keeping, you have a problem that we cannot solve for you.

    I’m not an FFL holder. We’re not talking about laws that apply to FFL holders. We’re talking about “closing the gun show loophole”, that is, subjecting every American citizen to the same laws that apply to FFL holders, regardless of their desire to hold FFL’s. Maybe that’s a good idea! Maybe you guys have thought through all the thorny issues about allowing just anybody at all to access your Federal background based on nothing but the presumption that they’re about to sell you a firearm. Maybe you guys have thought through all the thorny issues about presuming that anyone who can’t produce a record of having performed a Federal background check didn’t, in fact, perform one.

    But based on what you guys are telling me right now, it sure doesn’t sound like you have. It sounds like you just assumed that anybody who might object to private citizens performing background checks on each other and having to maintain certain records forever or face Federal prosecution was some kind of “gun nut.” My apologies if I think that’s a tenuous basis on which to pass new Federal laws.

    Yet, I can walk into an auditorium, NG Armory, convention center with a wad of cash and buy all kinds of shit and the only legal requirement is that they ask me if I’m eligible to purchase firearms.

    That’s just not at all accurate. If you buy a firearm from an FFL dealer at a gun show, they have to background you same as if you bought from their store.

  82. 82
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Mike Lamb: Mistresses get furs, diamonds, cars, and apts.

    Brokeback laddyboys get guns and ammo?

  83. 83
    nastybrutishntall says:

    @Chet: You can’t give your buddy your car without having it get reregistered, and I’m not hearing you wetting the bed over that, so what’s with all the crying and soiled sheets about having to fill out paperwork on giving your pal a tool of mass murder?

  84. 84
    Felinious Wench says:

    @Cassidy:

    This is a very easy fix. If you want to seel your firearm, you meet the potential buyer at a FFL holder and make the transaction. It’s very simple.

    Thank you. That’s what I’ve been trying to say without knowing the right words.

  85. 85
    Mike Lamb says:

    Again, the reason that asking private citizens to perform background checks – aside from the privacy issues involved in simply allowing the pretense of “selling a gun, maybe” to justify providing a complete stranger with access to your Federal background – is controversial is because you’re turning the presumption of innocence on its head. It’s one thing to ask people to do that to maintain their Federal license to deal in firearms. I’m fine with that. But now you’re talking about a situation where I have to maintain records forever, through any calamity or misfortune, or face Federal charges based on the presumption that if I don’t have a record of performing a Federal background check, I didn’t perform one.

    Or maybe you just turn in a form that indicates you completed a background check to the state the same way you have to document a fucking car sale.

    And beyond that, tough shit. I don’t care if a private seller or purchaser is a little put out by a regulation that mandates background checks for any and all purchases. Buying a gun shouldn’t be easy.

  86. 86
    Chet says:

    @aimai:

    Being asked to be responsible disposing or trading or gifting something potentially dangerous is just BEING ASKED TO BE RESPONSIBLE.

    But are you just going to take my word that I was responsible? If I now have to prove I was responsible or face Federal charges, how do you not see that as turning the presumption of innocence on its head?

    The government should have to prove that I’m guilty of selling a firearm to someone who it’s against the law to sell to. I shouldn’t have to prove that I’m innocent of doing so.

  87. 87
    Mike Lamb says:

    @Chet: Easy fix…some type of bing pre-sale agreement that is contingent upon completing/passing a background check.

  88. 88
    Corner Stone says:

    @nastybrutishntall:

    You can’t give your buddy your car without having it get reregistered

    This isn’t true at all.
    I can give my car to my neighbor if I want to, and do absolutely no paperwork on it.

  89. 89
    Cassidy says:

    @Another Halocene Human: It already happens re: the Gunbroker scenario.

    @Chet:

    That’s just not at all accurate. If you buy a firearm from an FFL dealer at a gun show, they have to background you same as if you bought from their store.

    Actually, it’s very accurate. You should go to a gun show sometime.

    Re: what you said baout that, it sounds to me your basis is that it’s too hard. Oh well. Suck it up. If you want a gun, you have to pass a background check. It is not unreasonable to expect that people who sell firearms follow a basic set of rules. There are plenty of ways to make it happen and a few of those involve ways to help raise revenue for cash strapped cities and states. You’re imagining a nightmare scenario of red tape, when it’s really not that difficult. You fill out the proper forms, conduct the BC, and then you keep a copy of your records. Again, if you aren’t responsible enough to keep records of something that could send you to Federal prison, you 1) shouldn’t own fireamrs, and 2) have much bigger problems.

  90. 90
    lyford says:

    @aimai: I think he’s arguing with the record requirement — that the inability to produce a piece of paper 20 years after the sale would be an automatic presumption of guilt. No other private sales have that kind of requirement.

    Taking that duty off the seller could be as simple as the database logging the information when the buyer’s records are checked.

  91. 91
    Matt McIrvin says:

    Anyway, as to why any of this is controversial, it’s pretty simple. If you have any NRA-type or libertarian friends, you’ll see that they’ve got arguments with lists of sources as long as your arm about why this is all backwards and upside-down. Any attempt to regulate guns will increase crime or at best have no effect while punishing the law-abiding. Countries with strict gun laws are actually crime-ridden hellholes, and countries where everyone is armed are nice places, and we need to solve every other single social and cultural problem in the US before we touch the guns.

    As far as I can tell, the arguments are weak and the statistics are bad-to-fraudulent. But to make any headway you’d have to refute them all, and the gun guys can out-argue anybody. They won’t get tired and walk away, because they just plain care about it more than just about anyone else.

    Or at least they have, up to now.

    The situation for someone trying to argue the rational policy case for gun control is where creationism was about 20 years ago, and where global-warming denial was about 10 years ago. I think what we need is an online clearinghouse for debunkings along the lines of talkorigins.org or RealClimate, but it’s not there yet.

  92. 92
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: What you’re talking about is, every time I buy a beer for my friend, now I have to not only check his ID, but produce and maintain a record of the fact that I checked his ID.

    Hahahaha, procuring alcohol for minors is already a crime in most places. Some places allow parents to give their children alcohol in their own home, but you still can’t order a glass of wine for your kid in a restaurant. If you do so by subterfuge, often the restaurant has to show they were reasonably unaware this was going on.

    Considering all the restrictions on alcohol sales and the LIABILITY being slapped on those who sell it (for drunk driving or disorderly behavior), you should count yourself lucky that nothing anywhere NEAR as onerous is being contemplated for gun sales.

    Also, too, if I buy a computer, I fooking well keep the receipt and warranty papers. How many guns do you sell/give away in a year? How hard it is to store those forms with your other gun shit in the gun closet, or in a safe with your will and other financial records?

    I’m pretty sure the Swiss system has you filing a card with the authorities and retaining your own records. If you lost them for some reason there’s still a copy filed with the government.

    Surely Congress would not be dumb enough not to require state governments to hold onto a copy, so if you have a flood or something you can request duplicates.

  93. 93
    Chet says:

    @Mike Lamb: It’s not against the law to sell a car without updating the title. It’s stupid to do so, since it results in legal confusion about who owns the car, but it’s not against the law in most states. I’m not sure that it’s against the law in any state.

    And not having the title for your car is definitely not against the law. You’re talking about a whole new law, something we don’t apply to any other legal documentation – have this, or face Federal charges.

  94. 94
    Mike Lamb says:

    @Chet: Yes, the same way you have to “prove” financial responsibility by showing your insurance card after you get a ticket or the same way you have to “prove” your taxes were properly filed when you get audited.

    And really, the more plausible scenario: gun is involved in an incident. Assailant turns out to be someone that shouldn’t have had a gun. Assailant says he gets gun from a buddy during a gift exchange. Now, there is a presumption that buddy didn’t do a background check. Buddy now has to prove he did. Buddy didn’t keep the paperwork? Too bad.

  95. 95
    Corner Stone says:

    @Mike Lamb:

    We have a much bigger problem if people are giving guns to each other like they do a beer or aspirin

    I’ve gifted a gun before, and had more than one given to me.
    I feel so…dirty.

  96. 96
    Another Halocene Human says:

    So, Chet, none of these requirements are anywhere near as complicated as buying/selling real estate or a car, where you have to transfer title. And register with the gubmint. And pay shitloads of transfer taxes. And pay annual taxes and fees. And have your name in a database that seems to be practically open to every Tom Dick and Harry (especially in law enforcement).

    Huh.

  97. 97
    Mike Lamb says:

    @Chet: Maybe it’s not unlawful if you don’t re-register the car (and I bet without having researched it that there are laws on the books in most states that provide a specified time in which a new registration has to be completed), but if that car is involved in illicit activities, guess who better be able to prove he/she sold it.

  98. 98
    Chet says:

    @Cassidy:

    If you want a gun, you have to pass a background check.

    Who says that I want a gun? I’ve never said that I want a gun. Maybe I just don’t want to have someone perform a background check on me without my knowledge or permission. But under the system you’re creating, now anybody can assert to the Federal government that “Chet wants to buy a gun from me” and in response the Federal government will reveal my background. At the very least they’re reveal whether I’m eligible to purchase guns; they may reveal even more than that.

    Shouldn’t you have to prove that I want to buy a gun from you before you’re allowed to run a background check? Or do you believe that private citizens should just have open access to each other’s backgrounds?

  99. 99
    Mike Lamb says:

    @Corner Stone: I’m not suggesting that it doesn’t happen…but I call bullshit on the notion that gifting guns in this country is as common as giving your buddy an adult beverage.

  100. 100
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Mike Lamb: Assailant says he gets gun from a buddy during a gift exchange. Now, there is a presumption that buddy didn’t do a background check. Buddy now has to prove he did. Buddy didn’t keep the paperwork? Too bad.

    And here’s the thing: if the state government also retains a record, when the criminal investigation happens and Buddy says he got evicted and lost his papers two years ago, he can tell them what county the sale occurred in and the coppers can turn it up.

    As with not having license/registration/insurance on you in a traffic stop, you might get fined. And you might be able to get it waived later.

    They’re not sending you to prison because of an honest mistake. You have to wilfully obstruct justice or flout the law for that.

    Or not be white, I’m sure that’s possible, too. Non-white gun nuts freak out now.

  101. 101
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: Surround yourself with too many straw men like that and you might catch fire.

  102. 102
    Chet says:

    @Mike Lamb:

    Yes, the same way you have to “prove” financial responsibility by showing your insurance card after you get a ticket or the same way you have to “prove” your taxes were properly filed when you get audited.

    Sure. But neither of those situations involves a presumption of my guilt. Regardless of the state of my records, the IRS is the one that has to prove I committed tax fraud. Regardless of the state of my records, the Sheriff’s Office is the one that has to prove that I was operating a vehicle on public roads without insurance.

    You’re talking about a situation where I can be asked by the government to prove that any firearms sale I ever made happened after a Federal background check, or else I’m guilty of a crime. That’s a pretty major reversal of how it’s supposed to work.

  103. 103
    Cassidy says:

    @Chet: Well, for one, I wasn’t implying you directly, just a simple generic “if you wish to purchase a firearm you must pass a background check”, although I did leave out the part about proivate sells and gun shows, so no you don’t always need to pass a background check.

    But under the system you’re creating, now anybody can assert to the Federal government that “Chet wants to buy a gun from me” and in response the Federal government will reveal my background. At the very least they’re reveal whether I’m eligible to purchase guns; they may reveal even more than that.

    Shouldn’t you have to prove that I want to buy a gun from you before you’re allowed to run a background check? Or do you believe that private citizens should just have open access to each other’s backgrounds?

    And now you’ve completely lost the plot. If you’re really this paranoid, you might want to go speak to someone about that.

  104. 104
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: Hmm, IANAL, not even on the internet, but I would certainly caution anyone against taking Internet Lawyer Chet’s advice, lol.

  105. 105
    Chet says:

    @Cassidy:

    Well, for one, I wasn’t implying you directly, just a simple generic “if you wish to purchase a firearm you must pass a background check”

    But again, it’s not that simple is it? You’re talking about a burden being placed on the seller, not the buyer – the burden to run the check and then document that the check was run. It’s exactly the “simple, generic” “close the gun show loophole” that it’s clear you haven’t thought through in the least.

    Why should someone get to background me just because they say that I want to buy a gun? Am I the only one who thinks that’s pretty clearly an invasion of privacy? Even an employer can only background me with my permission. You’re giving gun owners a massive tool to invade people’s privacy.

    If you’re really this paranoid, you might want to go speak to someone about that.

    Oh, sure. Why, it’s exactly your average gun owner who can always be trusted never to abuse the law, right?

  106. 106
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet:

    Regardless of the state of my records, the IRS is the one that has to prove I committed tax fraud.

    Lol, this is good. The burden of proof is indeed upon you when the IRS audits you, that’s why you keep the records. Losing records won’t put you in prison, but getting fined and refusing to pay certainly will, eventually! The more you claim you don’t have to pay (rather than crying and trying to pay back really slowly), the sooner you will end up in prison. Just ask Wesley Snipes.

    Regardless of the state of my records, the Sheriff’s Office is the one that has to prove that I was operating a vehicle on public roads without insurance.

    LOLOL, come visit me, try speeding without your insurance card and see what happens. Good luck getting your fine waived. Depends on how everybody is feeling about you that day. YES, YOU CAN get fined for not having that card on you, even if you wheedle and beg the officer to just call the darn insurance co. They do NOT have to do an investigation. No tag/registration/license/insurance card on you? Ticket. Then you have to turn around and prove to the traffic court you had those at the time and they maybe, maybe, MAYBE give you a break.

    So, like, how dumb are you? Who do you expect to believe this drivel?

  107. 107
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Cassidy: I guess he won’t be renting from a landlord other than his mom any time soon.

    Or applying for a job from an employer other than his uncle.

  108. 108
    Cassidy says:

    @Chet: You should pay attention to the strawman comment from earlier. You are swimming in them.

  109. 109
    Felinious Wench says:

    @Chet:

    Maybe I just don’t want to have someone perform a background check on me without my knowledge or permission.

    A background check has been run on me for every job I’ve ever applied for, including lifeguard when I was 15 (I’m 40 now).

    We can debate the privacy issues of background checks but they get run on people all of the time by employers.

  110. 110
    Soonergrunt says:

    @Chet: “That’s just not at all accurate. If you buy a firearm from an FFL dealer at a gun show, they have to background you same as if you bought from their store.”
    It’s very accurate, actually. He wasn’t talking about buying from an FFL dealer in that passage, he was talking about buying from Murray down the street, or John from the next town over. I could meet somebody on my lunch break in the parking lot of the Mexican restaurant, tell the guy that I’m not a felon, hand him a wad of cash, and I’ve made a legal transaction.
    And I can do the same thing in a side deal at a gun show. I don’t even have to leave the floor. I can legally do that right there.

  111. 111
    Maude says:

    @Felinious Wench:
    If you work with children in this area, there’s an automatic check.

  112. 112
    Ash Can says:

    @Chet: I know you’re trying to be reasonable, but the argument that cold medicines and alcohol pose the same risks as firearms is fundamentally dishonest due to the nature of guns and the way they kill.

    As for the inconvenience factor of crossing one’s t’s and dotting one’s i’s, all you’re doing is sounding like a whiner. Per capita gun deaths of innocent people in the United States are many, many times those in other nations, and it’s due to the ease with which guns fall into the wrong hands in this country. None of us in this nation, anywhere, can avoid this heightened risk of injury or death unless restrictions are imposed upon this ease of ownership by the wrong people. Societies don’t function without rules that everyone plays by, and we all play by plenty of different rules each day. If your hobby has devolved into an instrument by which one specific group in our society can terrorize the rest of us — and make no mistake, this threat of gun violence anywhere and everywhere is by definition terrorism — then you simply need to find a different hobby. The loss of the basic right the rest of us have to feel safe in our own homes, schools, and communities isn’t worth such a hobby in its present form if we have any aspirations about maintaining a civilized society.

  113. 113
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: I don’t think they should be. But it’s worth pointing out: your driver’s license isn’t a license to own a car because you don’t need a license for that, even if you are a child. It’s a license to operate a car on a public road.

    False. In some states you do indeed need to have a driver’s license to purchase a car.

    Believe me, I know someone who had to go through shenanigans to get Daddy to sign over title because she entered a contract to purchase before converting the LP to a DL.

  114. 114
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Ash Can: If your hobby has devolved into an instrument by which one specific group in our society can terrorize the rest of us — and make no mistake, this threat of gun violence anywhere and everywhere is by definition terrorism — then you simply need to find a different hobby.

    I was going to finish that sentence “you need to accept the restrictions”.

    There are serious restrictions on the purchase, sale, disposal, and transport of radioactive materials.

    They’re used a lot in science and medicine.

    I don’t hear much whining because everybody understands the consequences.

    They’ve just tightened up disposal rules on non-radioactive chemicals, btw.

    Guns are the only dangerous tool/hobby treated lightly in this country, and only because guns have become not what they are but some sort of shibboleth.

  115. 115
    gogol's wife says:

    Chet doesn’t own any guns. He just happens to be so passionate about this issue that he’s spending the whole afternoon arguing about it here. But he doesn’t own any guns, and I’m sure he’ll tell us he doesn’t like the NRA any moment now. I’m starting to know their routines by heart.

  116. 116
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Felinious Wench: We can debate the privacy issues of background checks but they get run on people all of the time by employers.

    I can tell you now: the courts find the pre-employment checks to be permissible. However, mid-employment checks are a more hazy issue. Amalgamated Transit Union won a big lawsuit against one of those foreign paratransit operators for suddenly firing thousands of people based on background checks that cast a very wide net. (Any arrest, even if no charges were ever filed…etcet.)

    The only cases where pre-employment crap is restricted is where state laws have made it so, like the state laws banning the use of polygraph tests.

  117. 117
    Mike Lamb says:

    @Chet: What the hell do you think the presumption is in an audit?

  118. 118
    Corner Stone says:

    @gogol’s wife: Looks like you’ve got Chet nailed. What’s his real game?

  119. 119
    kindness says:

    I’ve perused the non-crazy web sites looking at comments (CNN, NPR) and they are chock full of foaming at the mouth crazies right now. I swear, I fear for my own country.

  120. 120
    Mister Harvest says:

    @Chet:

    Maybe I just don’t want to have someone perform a background check on me without my knowledge or permission.

    I can, right now, from the comfort and privacy of my office, order up a background check (including credit) on you, given a sufficient amount of information.

    I’d be breaking the law by doing so, but I can. This changes nothing.

    There are already many situations in which merely failing to maintain proper records is a crime, entirely separate from the behavior being documented.

  121. 121
    theturtlemoves says:

    So, were my rights violated horribly when they did a routine background check on me to coach AYSO soccer this fall? Were they presuming me to be a criminal and now I should feel horribly violated? Good lord. Any damn thing you do that involves volunteering with kids requires a background check, so why is it a horrible violation of my rights to have the same thing done to purchase a deadly weapon? And it isn’t the local constabulary running that check, it is youth sports organizations and schools, who I’m sure will use that check for some nefarious purpose.

  122. 122
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: On the other hand, the active ingredient in Tylenol kills 500 people every year, which is well in excess of the number of people killed by so-called “assault rifles.” A surprising number of those people are children. (A not-so-surprising number of those people are drug addicts.)

    LOLOL, dumbass, the FDA has already recommended removing paracetamol from combo drugs (no more Vicodin). It was added to reduce their use by addicts, but addicts are stupid and it was just killing them instead. Narcotics are combined with Tylenol to enhance the pain-killing effect, but dumb addicts were getting liver-killing doses in pursuit of the high.

    The other problem with Tylenol, which will require change in emergency rooms, not a change from the government, is that alcoholism changes body chemistry such that when the alcoholic dries out, normal doses of Tylenol become super liver-toxic. Tylenol is used a lot in hospitals because it’s less toxic than most of the other stuff they have on hand. ERs need to be more vigilant in ID’ing drunkaholics when they come in and NOT giving them paracetamol after they’ve dried out, which is 12-36 hrs later. (They can tolerate when they’re still liquored up.) A lot of these toxic events are occurring in hospitals because of this carelessness.

    The government is also pushing for lower doses of paracetamol per pill OTC. 325mg by itself is okay, but lots of idiots take two at a time. 650mg is already over the safe threshold.

    It’s amazing how much government time and action is being concentrated on 500 deaths a year, while thousands of gun deaths are treated as of no more consequence than the daily weather report.

    Your strawman just burned you.

  123. 123
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Mister Harvest: There are already many situations in which merely failing to maintain proper records is a crime, entirely separate from the behavior being documented.

    Good point. Chet apparently has never driven over the road, or he’d know this.

    What do you say, Chet? Trucking school will certainly show you more of the world than one-handed typing on your laptop in Mom’s basement.

  124. 124
    Ash Can says:

    @Another Halocene Human:

    I was going to finish that sentence “you need to accept the restrictions”.

    Yes, entirely fair.

    @Chet: You appear now to be arguing primarily privacy issues. You need to understand this : Ownership of a firearm doesn’t just provide protection to the owner, it presents a threat to everyone else due to the very nature of the instrument. When that firearm is kept in the hands of a responsible owner who maintains it safely, that threat is minimized to the point of being negligible. If it leaves those hands and enters into the hands of someone who’s less responsible and less safe, the threat to everyone else increases accordingly and exponentially, again due to the very nature of the firearm. It’s incumbent upon a government that’s effective in promoting and safeguarding the welfare of its citizens to mitigate that risk to the general populace through reasonable and effective regulations. You’re free to maintain your privacy and avoid any background checks at all if you refrain from engaging in activities that present a potential threat to the public at large. Otherwise, it’s in no way unreasonable to require you to prove that you do not pose, or are not posing, any undue threat by owning a firearm or engaging in a transaction involving one.

  125. 125
    Chet says:

    @Felinious Wench: Yes, but you agreed in writing to every single one. If not, they broke the law and violated your privacy.

  126. 126
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Chet: Chet, I say go ahead and transfer the gun to whomever you please. Just be aware that, down the line, when the gun is used in a crime, you will be held responsible if you sold or have it to someone who could not or did not pass a background check.

  127. 127
    Kay says:

    Policy aside, I just thought that was a great political statement/appearance.

    Thank God someone knows what they’re doing :)

    Republicans all screechy and angry and huffy and the opposition is like, “Ahem. We will now read some letters FROM CHILDREN”.

  128. 128
    Chet says:

    @Soonergrunt:

    He wasn’t talking about buying from an FFL dealer in that passage, he was talking about buying from Murray down the street, or John from the next town over.

    And I think it’s completely reasonable that Murray down the street or John from the next town over aren’t allowed to run a Federal background check on me just because they tell the clerk at the window (or the guy on the phone) that I wanted to buy a gun.

  129. 129
    Chet says:

    @Ash Can:

    You’re free to maintain your privacy and avoid any background checks at all if you refrain from engaging in activities that present a potential threat to the public at large.

    Yes, I’d like that. But again, we’re talking about a situation where, apparently, neither not owning any firearms nor lacking any desire to own them can prevent someone from running a Federal background check on me, or on you, or on anyone else that they choose.

    I dunno, that sounds really scary to me. And it sounds particularly scary that this is a power you’d knowingly surrender to someone who, perforce, owns at least one firearm.

  130. 130
    Darkrose says:

    @different-church-lady: I would be all over a Sudafed show. Especially right at the moment.

  131. 131
    Chet says:

    @theturtlemoves:

    So, were my rights violated horribly when they did a routine background check on me to coach AYSO soccer this fall?

    When they ran the background check, did they have to present your written testimony that you did want to coach AYSO soccer and therefore consented to the background check? Because if so, I think that was fine.

    If, on the other hand, they were able to secure a Federal background check on you by asserting you wanted to coach AYSO soccer regardless of your actual desire to do so, I think that was a violation of your privacy.

    Absolutely nobody above who has asserted that we need to “close the gun show loophole” has explained what burden of proof they would require from someone who wanted to access your Federal background. Several people don’t even seem to think it matters, despite the fact that if you have a gun to sell and haven’t sold it yet, you’re the owner of at least one gun.

    Allowing armed people to access your Federal background based on nothing but their own testimony that it’s for the purpose of selling you a firearm seems incredibly fucking dangerous to me. I’m all for gun control, but let’s think things through before we turn over all of our private data to gun nuts, huh?

  132. 132
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: So you’re arguing that only FFLs can broker gun sales?

    Okay.

    Of course, what you fail to mention is that the check is only going through the “can u own guns” database and not any other.

    Oh, and it’s probably illegal for someone to go snooping around for some other reason. If it’s not, making it so would assuage those concerns… wouldn’t it?

    You get credit checked when you are just looking at apt, house, car, or boat in most circumstances, even if the sale/lease doesn’t go through. Oooo, scary.

  133. 133
    ruemara says:

    @Chet: Half a moment. You’re claiming that it’s an inconvenience to ensure that you’re behaving responsibly with a potentially life destroying object? Honey, sit down and think about what you are advocating. You are responsible if you get your buddy booze and let him get behind the wheel of your car. You are responsible of you drive your buddy to the bank and he robs it. You are responsible of your buddy stays with you and just so happens to run a drug dealership out of the spare bedroom. The fact that guns do not kill as many as Tylenol (source?), in no way mitigates the fact that they are potentially lethal in the wrong hands. The inconvenience of ensuring that transferring ownership is done with as much responsibility as possible is negligible.

  134. 134
    Mister Harvest says:

    @Chet: We print up little cards saying, “I want to buy a gun. Please run a background check on me” with a little signature line at the bottom.

    If they don’t have one of those cards, and they run a background check, and you sue them, they are in trouble.

    Problem solved.

    Really, this is the argument? I was really hoping for an objection that was harder to solve than dropping $2 at Kinko’s.

  135. 135
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: Well, Chet, I think you might need to step away from the computer a bit, just a piece of friendly advice, because you’ve tangled yourself up into a knot here.

    Transferring a piece of property, like volunteering with children, is a voluntary activity. It certainly is not equivalent to ripping away what meagre privacy protection we have under US law.

    The NRA used to use “enforce the laws we have” as a talking point. Well, there are laws prohibiting certain people from owning guns. And it is not a breech of privacy to require that the buyer/recipient prove, via the no-fly no-gun list, that they’re aren’t prohibited from buying/receiving them.

    It’s funny how reputation has to be checked, every jot and tittle, when it comes to voting, but with guns we use the honor system.

    I must ask, as the PATRIOT Act backers did a decade ago, with all due irony, if Chet is doing nothing wrong, just what is he afraid of? Is he trying to sell guns to people on the no-gun list? Does he think the value of his guns (er, Mommy’s guns, he doesn’t technically “own” any guns) will go down if criminals are no longer easily able to purchase guns in the licit market?

  136. 136
    Chet says:

    @Another Halocene Human:

    Oh, and it’s probably illegal for someone to go snooping around for some other reason.

    It’s also illegal to murder people with guns. Enforcement’s kind of the bugaboo, here, now isn’t it?

  137. 137
    scav says:

    NRA still hasn’t been able to scrounge up convincing talking points so they’re going for blanket coverage and screachiness. Looking at certain polls, I can see why they’re worried. Melt-down panic as the government might regulate something with popular support is moving a few more tin haberdashery enthusiasts.

  138. 138
    DavidTC says:

    I think Chet here has gotten some advanced talking points and is trying them out, so let’s carefully defeat them one by one.

    First of all, as it has been pointed out, pretty much _anyone_ can get a background check of _anyone_. All you have to do is _assert_ you want to hire them and they gave you permission. That’s it. Anyone who is willing to lie already can run background checks on anyone they want.

    That’s not to mention that someone’s right to own a firearm…that can be determined from court records. A _court_ is what strips away the right to have a firearm, and court records are _public_. Thus a system to check just that cannot be ‘abused’ in any way. (There are things often covered under the generic term ‘background check’ that are private, like a credit check, but there’s absolutely no reason to include them under this system. And, as I said, they are only private until people feel like lying about having someone’s consent.)

    So right there, Chet is speaking complete nonsense. The fact is, if we knew his actual name, WE COULD RUN A CHECK ON HIS RIGHT TO OWN A GUN RIGHT NOW. Without even having to lie. That is COMPLETELY PUBLIC INFORMATION.

  139. 139
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @ruemara: The fact that guns do not kill as many as Tylenol (source?),

    He was cherrypicking the kind of gun and the kind of crime. Gun homicides kill ten times as many people as Tylenol in the US annually.

  140. 140
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @DavidTC: Chet must be talking to an audience of 16 year old boys who are dumber and more naive about how the world works than he is.

  141. 141
    Chet says:

    @ruemara:

    You’re claiming that it’s an inconvenience to ensure that you’re behaving responsibly with a potentially life destroying object?

    No, I’m claiming that it’s kind of a big deal to allow the Federal government to imprison people on the basis of their inability to prove innocence, instead of the government’s ability to prove guilt.

    You are responsible if you get your buddy booze and let him get behind the wheel of your car.

    Yes, and if I did that, the government would have to present positive evidence of my guilt. But the standard being advocated here is exactly the opposite: if my buddy has a gun that once was mine, now I have to prove that I ran a background check or I’m found guilty of a crime.

    But that’s exactly the opposite of how it should work. If I unlawfully sold a gun to someone who isn’t allowed to own them, the government should have to prove that’s what happened. Unless you think guns are so uniquely dangerous that we need to overturn the presumption of innocence for the greater good.

  142. 142
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: The bugaboo? Stopping the flow of guns to criminals WOULD decrease the number of effective murders and the murder rate, I would think. Certainly it would seem so if you compare data from countries that have done so.

    So we’re back to the ridiculous, “Why bother enforcing laws because someone will always break them,” crap. Blatant lie, btw.

  143. 143
    Chet says:

    @Another Halocene Human:

    And it is not a breech of privacy to require that the buyer/recipient prove, via the no-fly no-gun list, that they’re aren’t prohibited from buying/receiving them.

    Prove to whom? And again, where is the part where my potential stalker-murderer is asked to prove that I’m someone who wanted to buy a gun from him?

    And look, if the Federal no-fly list is your go-to for a reasonable security regime you’re just a total idiot. People should be allowed to move about the country or leave it, via planes or any other method, and a system by which the Federal government says “nuh-uh, not you” with zero accountability, regulation, or appeal is its own host of major civil rights issues.

  144. 144
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: No, I’m claiming that it’s kind of a big deal to allow the Federal government to imprison people on the basis of their inability to prove innocence, instead of the government’s ability to prove guilt.

    The standard here is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. You can’t cough up ANY record here when you sold a gun for cash to a family member you knew wasn’t allowed to buy guns? Oh, boo de fricking hoo. Like brother keeping his brother’s CP computer after he’s been banned from owning one.

    Again, state record keeping would mitigate this terrible fear you have of being caught with your pants down.

    All you’d have to show is that so-and-so was legal to purchase a gun at the time and you wouldn’t go to prison.

    If she wasn’t, and you transferred the gun anyway…

    Would a jury think you ran the check and ignored it? Or didn’t run a check at all?

    Either one’s illegal, right?

    So again–what is Chet afraid of here?

  145. 145
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: And again, where is the part where my potential stalker-murderer is asked to prove that I’m someone who wanted to buy a gun from him?

    Howcum your stalker/murderer already has all your personal info to check against the “no gun” database?

    HahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHA!!

  146. 146
    Chet says:

    @DavidTC:

    The fact is, if we knew his actual name, WE COULD RUN A CHECK ON HIS RIGHT TO OWN A GUN RIGHT NOW. Without even having to lie. That is COMPLETELY PUBLIC INFORMATION.

    That is absolutely not completely public information. In most states, retrieving your own firearms ownership eligibility requires photo ID, an application fee, and a notarized form with thumbprint impression.

    But, look, prove me wrong. My name is Justin Payne and I’m a resident of Maryland. Tell me if I’m eligible to own a firearm.

  147. 147
    Chet says:

    @Another Halocene Human:

    I’m sorry, I don’t argue with people who can’t do calculus. Not knowing the difference between a function and its first derivative is no way to go through life, son.

  148. 148
    scav says:

    @Another Halocene Human: Chet is afraid of the government regulating anything, especially with the approval of the majority and possibly in a competent manner. As a guess.

  149. 149
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: People should be allowed to move about the country or leave it, via planes or any other method, and a system by which the Federal government says “nuh-uh, not you” with zero accountability, regulation, or appeal is its own host of major civil rights issues.

    Intelligent arguments can be made about all of these issues, but not with someone who is so pig-ignorant that he has no notion of what sovereign states DO at borders or who thinks the government barring certain individuals from air travel (btw, that IS regulation, honey) is a ‘civil rights issue’.

    Oh, boohoohoo, the County refuses to let work-release prisoners ride public transportation, the “no-ride list”. Call Al Sharpton!

  150. 150
    DavidTC says:

    Secondly, Chet has decided to make the claim this would be very expensive and dangerous for gun sellers.

    He has decided that the legislation closing the loophole (Which has not been written yet) will require gun sellers to keep records forever, and that no system will be set up to allow them to do background checks cheaply.

    We _should_ all see the obvious flaw in that, but it amazes me how many have been sucked into Chet’s assumption-verse about legislation that does not exist yet.

    For those who do not see the obvious flaw: There is absolutely no reason to assume that the rules for private sellers would be _exactly_ the same as for FFL-registered sellers. No, saying ‘close the loophole’ is not the same as saying ‘Make everyone have to follow the exact same rules as gun stores’.

    Chet could, if he was actually arguing in good faith, be standing there _suggesting_ how such a system should work for private sellers. Perhaps some sort of government website where, for a trivial fee, you can run a background check on someone, and if it came back that they were allowed to own a gun, you then swear under perjury that as far as you can tell the person you are selling to is the person you ran the background check on, and then register the transfer there, and then you don’t have to keep any documentation at all.

    Or perhaps it would be more like car titles, where you walk into a courthouse and say ‘I wish to sell the person next to me a gun. Here is ten dollars, please check his ID and do the background check while I fill out the gun-selling form, and then I can file it and leave.’ More time consuming, but it remove all responsibility from the seller of even verifying they’re running the check on the right person, making the government check that instead.

    You know, the kind of solutions that literally take ten seconds to come up with. Unless you’re an NRA shill, of course.

  151. 151
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: You’re a right insolent punk to be calling me that, but I gotta say you make me laugh. You have no evidence on your side, none. But I do.

    Go ahead and keep flailing. It’s pretty entertaining to watch someone who can’t distinguish between a linear and non-linear function attempt to lecture me about calculus.

  152. 152
    Chet says:

    @Another Halocene Human:

    Intelligent arguments can be made about all of these issues, but not with someone… who thinks the government barring certain individuals from air travel (btw, that IS regulation, honey) is a ‘civil rights issue’.

    You mean like.. the ACLU?

    Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the ACLU’s lawsuit challenging the U.S. government’s secretive No Fly List should go forward. This decision is a true victory for our clients and all Americans.

    More than two years ago, 15 U.S. citizens and permanent residents, including four military veterans, were denied boarding on planes. None of them know why this happened. And no government authority has ever given them an explanation or a fair chance to clear their names.

    ACLU No-Fly List Blog

  153. 153
    Chet says:

    @DavidTC:

    There is absolutely no reason to assume that the rules for private sellers would be _exactly_ the same as for FFL-registered sellers.

    Except for all the people in this thread saying that the rules for private sellers should be exactly the same as for FFL-registered sellers. Except for that, no reason at all!

    Still waiting for you to tell me my gun eligibility, David. Whenever you’re ready.

  154. 154
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @DavidTC: You know, the kind of solutions that literally take ten seconds to come up with. Unless you’re an NRA shill, of course.

    I like the theory that he’s afraid it will harm the “value” of his Mom’s panic-buying OBS gun collection “investment”.

    Less buyers (in the legal market) could reduce demand. Of course, if the NRA propaganda is true, there will be zero net effect because background checks don’t work and criminals don’t buy guns, QED.

    In fact, the “value” would go up because criminals only get guns by stealing them from law-abiding citizens who don’t lock up their guns “for protection” so law-abiding citizens would have to buy… MOAR GUNZ!

    //snark

  155. 155
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: you’ve already used the equivocation fallacy multiple times in this thread.

    Old hat.

  156. 156
    Chet says:

    @Another Halocene Human: And you’ve not meaningfully responded to even a single argument. Here’s a thought – concentrate more about advocating for solutions that don’t require granting open access to government databases to armed men, and less on my mom. Just a thought.

  157. 157
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: Are we equivocating once again?! How pwecious!!

    First you said that anyone should be able to fly anywhere, but now you’ve moved the goalposts to a lawsuit over the power-drunk post-9/11 feds refusing to explain how their list works and how you can get off of it.

    Not the same thing, nah nah nah nah nah!

  158. 158
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: Maybe if you relied less on your mom, you’d know more about real life.

    Just a, you know, thought.

  159. 159
    Berial says:

    I don’t have a problem with gun owners. I even own a few myself. However, my view of the NRA is best summed up by this Futurama clip.

    http://youtu.be/vqt-6N7pPjY

  160. 160
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @DavidTC: I think the car title one works best. It assuages fears about privacy. If you are giving a gun to a friend, you tell him about the gust and then do the title transfer at your earliest convenience. Oh, and I bet that, if you live in different towns, an easy way of dealing with that can be found as well.

    Chet is trying to look on each step in this being done in the least efficient and most intrusive way possible. It doesn’t have to work like that.

  161. 161
    Chet says:

    @Another Halocene Human: Wow. I know I smacked you down something fierce with the ACLU thing, but I didn’t expect it to cause a speech impediment.

    Here, put some ice on that.

  162. 162
    Chet says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    It doesn’t have to work like that.

    No, it doesn’t, but you do actually have to think about enforcement when you propose policy. Unintended consequences – like allowing anyone with a gun full access to your Federal background info – happen when you’re all too busy patting yourself on the back about what a good idea you’ve had to think about how it might be misused. When you’re convinced that your policy is so good that it shouldn’t be “even remotely controversial”, that’s the time to take a step back and re-think it.

  163. 163
    DavidTC says:

    @Chet:

    My name is Justin Payne and I’m a resident of Maryland. Tell me if I’m eligible to own a firearm.

    Chet, do you _actually understand_ what would make someone ineligable to own a firearm? It’s listed right on the FBI’s site at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj.....fact-sheet . Let me rearrange it a bit:

    * A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
    Persons who are fugitives of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.
    * An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year
    * The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
    * A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
    * A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

    All those things are court records and, hence, are public information.

    * A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.

    That is is a court record, and hence also public information.

    * A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.

    That is also public information.

    * A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
    * A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.
    * A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.

    That is something that should be demonstrated with their ID check, and is probably not checked via background check right now, as that makes no sense. (Why would someone in the country illegally have a record in a government database?)

    Please explain the _specific_ secret information that you think gun dealers can look up about people. A single item of information that other people cannot look up in court records or by calling the military or demanding to see ID.

  164. 164
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: You wouldn’t know a smackdown if your butt hit the unfinished basement floor and dislodged your head.

    Again, you said this:

    People should be allowed to move about the country or leave it, via planes or any other method

    You stated that you have a problem with the government regulating air travel and regulating its borders. From this extremely broad claim you narrowed it to the ACLU suing over the details of the regulation that exists. And even your Mom can tell there’s a difference.

  165. 165
    Chet says:

    @DavidTC:

    All those things are court records and, hence, are public information.

    So go grab it. I’ll wait.

  166. 166
    Mike Lamb says:

    @Chet: Do you know what the term “prima facie” case means? If someone has your gun officials would have a prima facie case that the gun was transferred that would require you to prove that it was transferred lawfully or stolen. If you can’t take the time to keep the paperwork, tough shit.

    Also, your contention that this law would be written so as to allow anyone to say “Chet wants to buy a gun from me, let me see his vital information” without anything, is mind-numbingly stupid.

  167. 167
    Chet says:

    @Another Halocene Human:

    You stated that you have a problem with the government regulating air travel and regulating its borders.

    I didn’t actually state that, as it happens. On the other hand, you did state that anyone who thought the government’s No-Fly list was a civil rights issue was an idiot.

    So you’re on record as saying that the ACLU are idiots. Which is fine for you to believe, as far as it goes, but you should have the honesty to own it.

  168. 168
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet:
    @DavidTC:

    Hmm, asked and answered:

    DavidTC: Please explain the _specific_ secret information that you think gun dealers can look up about people. A single item of information that other people cannot look up in court records or by calling the military or demanding to see ID.

    Chet: Unintended consequences – like allowing anyone with a gun full access to your Federal background info

    Chet still believes in the permanent record! Chet thinks if he buys–or sells (read all his posts, he’s very confused)–a gun, anyone can find out about that time in 7th grade when he hocked a lugie at the door of the janitor’s closet and got caught by the assistant principal.

  169. 169
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: Let me sum up your argument:

    All black sheep are sheep. This black sheep is a ram. Therefore, all sheep are rams.

  170. 170
    Chet says:

    @Mike Lamb:

    Also, your contention that this law would be written so as to allow anyone to say “Chet wants to buy a gun from me, let me see his vital information” without anything, is mind-numbingly stupid.

    Is it? Not a single one of you appears to have considered that possibility until I raised it. I guess you all want to pretend that it was all so obvious from the get-go that it went without saying, except that I did say it, and about half of you said “so, what’s the problem?” and the other half thought I was talking about something else.

    If this was a known pitfall in “closing the gun show loophole” it sure took a long time for any of you to reflect any consideration of the issue at all. It’s not unreasonable to suggest that, in your haste to agree with John that demanding background checks by private gun sellers was such an uncontroversially good idea, none of you stopped to consider that there were any pitfalls at all.

  171. 171
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Mike Lamb: Also, your contention that this law would be written so as to allow anyone to say “Chet wants to buy a gun from me, let me see his vital information” without anything, is mind-numbingly stupid.

    I’ve already asked Chet how his pretend boyfriend-stalker-murderer would get all his info from a gun sale check without already having his info, but he ignored it to change the topic to something he feels more comfortable with: equivocation.

  172. 172
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: What pitfall?

  173. 173
    Chet says:

    @Another Halocene Human: I congratulate you on an unbroken streak of responding elegantly to arguments that I’m not making.

  174. 174
    Another Halocene Human says:

    Chet, weren’t you going to throw down with me about calculus? Let’s derive some non-linear functions!

  175. 175
    Chet says:

    @Another Halocene Human:

    I’ve already asked Chet how his pretend boyfriend-stalker-murderer would get all his info from a gun sale check without already having his info

    According to David, you already have all the information you need to retrieve records of any court action I was involved in, whether I was involuntarily committed or ruled mentally deficient, whether I’m a user of any controlled substance, the subject of a protective order, or any other information relevant to my eligibility to own firearms.

    Now, as it happens, David is wrong and you don’t. But you’re articulating a standard where you would. Pardon me if I find that troublesome.

  176. 176
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: What pitfall?

  177. 177
    Mike Lamb says:

    @Chet: It’s mind numbingly stupid and doesn’t bear consideration because we ALREADY HAVE LAWS THAT DICTATE WHEN A PERSON CAN LAWFULLY SEARCH VITAL RECORDS WITHOUT A PERSON’S ADVANCED CONSENT, and here’s a newsflash–none of them allow someone to say “Give me a background check because I say so.”

    It’s not a fucking pitfall because the people that write legislation, for all of their warts, aren’t so fucking stupid as to write a law that allows any yokel to walk up to a booth and order a background check on someone without some additional information…such as an SSN, signature, etc.

  178. 178
    Chet says:

    @Another Halocene Human: The one we’re talking about, stupid. The one where you can’t require that someone check a database without granting them access to it.

  179. 179
    danielx says:

    @Soonergrunt:

    All true – but I’ve been to shows and actually purchased a firearm at one, and (at least locally) only FFL dealers are permitted to have tables on the floor to sell weaponry. No FFL is required to sell other items like military surplus, knives or whatnot, but if you’re buying something from someone with a table with 150 guns on it, they’re a licensed dealer and you have to fill out the paperwork (federal form 4473) and wait while the seller calls in the application and gets approval. People can and do sell stuff outside the building on a person to person basis, and it’s perfectly legal to do so (in this state). As a practical matter, there are a relatively limited number of transactions done this way at gun shows – it’s not like a person is going to carry around twenty guns in hopes of selling them while standing in a parking lot. (The sumbitches are heavy, for one thing.) A seller who does not hold an FFL would be ill-advised to, for example, pull up in a truck or trailer in the parking lot and start telling people, hey, you wanna buy some AKs? At the very least there would be a lot of cops checking out the seller, and gun shows are usually crawling with cops anyway for reasons I’m at a total loss to explain.

    All that being said, transactions between individuals are not regulated by federal law, except that you’re not supposed to knowingly sell a gun to to a felon, drug addict, deranged person, etc etc under the terms of the Brady Act, or to sell any weapon to someone under 18 years of age or a handgun to anyone under 21 years of age.

    Here is what the law states (from the ATF web site):

    Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

    A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

    [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

    Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

    A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

    [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

    Q: May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-State source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s own State?

    A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.

    [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)]

    As the lawyers among us will note, yes, there are loopholes here sufficient to navigate the USS Enterprise though, since a private individual cannot check a person’s background, leaving aside whether they want to do such a check. (“Are you over 21 and not a felon or nutcase?” “Of course.” “Okay.”) Selling over state lines? If it’s between individuals, who’s gonna know?

    State laws vary wildly. In some states (like here), there are no laws pertaining to such sales. In others, like New Jersey there are very strict laws and reporting requirements about transfers of firearms between individuals, with severe penalties for violations. And no, it doesn’t make any sense that motor vehicle sales (of any kind) are regulated as they are at the state level while guns sales are not.

    Before the flame wars start, yes, I think laws should be more strict. It should be a pain in the ass to transfer guns between individuals – legal, like selling a car, but a pain in the ass. Civilians don’t need thirty round magazines, and civilians don’t need .50 caliber Barrett rifles that can hit someone from 1500 meters – neither do the cops for that matter. Gun laws (or the lack thereof) in this country are insane, and funding for enforcement of existing laws is (not coincidentally)…less than adequate.

    All that being said, as long as guns are legal at all, all the regulation in the world won’t prevent someone like Adams Lanza from getting his hands on guns, just like laws against drunk driving don’t prevent drunks from getting behind the wheel. BUT – better and stronger laws would make it a lot harder, which is as much as you can and should expect – again, as long as possession of guns by private citizens is legal at all. On that note – failing the Second Coming or some other cosmic event, ownership of firearms by citizens is not going to be outlawed in this country.

  180. 180
    DavidTC says:

    @Chet:

    But, look, prove me wrong. My name is Justin Payne and I’m a resident of Maryland. Tell me if I’m eligible to own a firearm.

    Let us hypothetically assume you have showed me photo ID, by which I have determined you are a US citizen and in the country legally.

    You do not appear to have convicted of any crime in Maryland. I am not going to bother with searching in all 50 states, but there are existing services on the internet that will do that. Let us assume I checked that, and you were not.

    I don’t think that search included restraining orders, but am unsure about this. Regardless of whether or not the Maryland Judiciary Case Search Results included them, they’re public information. So let us assume I checked that, and you were not.

    I have no idea how to search for whether or not you are mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle your affairs, but I’m assuming that’s _somewhere_ public. So let us assume I checked that, and you were not.

    I don’t have time to file a FIOA with the military, but, I assure you, those will indeed produce someone’s entire military record (Minus redations for personal information like phone and social security numbers), including if they were dishonorable discharged. But let’s assume I checked that, and you were not.

    …and…tada, in this hypothetical you’re eligible to own a firearm.

  181. 181
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: That is NOT the case, and you are a LIAR.

    As you know, improving the database is a major goal of what the administration has proposed.

    Now, once the buddy you sold a gun to has committed a crime, would LE have any trouble turning up all of that public data? No.

    But the current version of the database that licensed dealers is using does not have all of that data tapped in and up to date.

    Nobody is asking or requiring gun dealers to do a thorough investigation. Just check one database that needs to be accurate and up-to-date.

    I have no idea how they access your info now, but I’m sure you have to turn over more than just your name. Maybe date of birth, as that is used in court records.

    But with name and date of birth an unscrupulous person can find out all kinds of info about you that isn’t in those court documents.

    So again, LIAR, what is the pitfall here?

  182. 182
    Chet says:

    @Mike Lamb:

    ALREADY HAVE LAWS THAT DICTATE WHEN A PERSON CAN LAWFULLY SEARCH VITAL RECORDS WITHOUT A PERSON’S ADVANCED CONSENT

    Yes. And you propose adding a new law – someone can lawfully search vital records in order to meet a new legal requirement to demonstrate that they didn’t sell a firearm to someone without first determining their legal eligibility.

    And that’s all very well and good, except that you articulated no standard whatsoever for demonstrating that any given person is someone who wants to buy a firearm. Indeed, no one appears to have even considered that was something that should be demonstrated by those who wish to search those records until I brought it up. So pardon me if I don’t have a lot of faith in your ability to not turn over my government records to gun owners, because you pretty much almost did.

  183. 183
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: But I addressed this WAYYYYYY upthread.

    Trying to buy or acquire a gun is a voluntary act.

    When you try to do this, the check must be made before the transfer occurs.

    This is very simple to understand.

  184. 184
    johnny aquitard says:

    @Chet:

    it shouldn’t expose them to Federal charges if they do so without keeping up on some paperwork.

    Why yes, yes it should. That’s the fucking whole point.

    That’s the whole fucking point of closing gun show and private sales loopholes.

    Damn, dude, if someone is not responsible enough to ‘keep up on some paperwork’ to avoid Federal charges, how are they responsible enough to own a gun in the first place?

  185. 185
    Chet says:

    @DavidTC:

    Let us hypothetically assume you have showed me photo ID

    Well, no. Let us not assume that. I’ll remind you of the claim you actually made:

    The fact is, if we knew his actual name, WE COULD RUN A CHECK ON HIS RIGHT TO OWN A GUN RIGHT NOW. Without even having to lie. That is COMPLETELY PUBLIC INFORMATION.

    Ok. Well, now you know my actual name. I even gave you my state of legal residence as a freebee. So based entirely on the information you claim is “public”, determine my eligibility to own a firearm. Not my hypothetical eligibility based on your assumptions of what you’d find if you searched the databases; actually search them, based on nothing more than what I’ve already told you, and actually determine it.

  186. 186
    ruemara says:

    @Chet: Nonsense. There’s no presumption of innocence when you are handing someone a weapon. There is a demand for responsibility. And you are splitting hairs. You are still responsible if your friend goes out and commits a crime with your gun. And if you claim you sold it, the onus is on you to comply with a safe transfer of the gun. You also are still dancing between arguing about convenience and a fairly ridiculous paranoia about a background check considering you are transferring ownership of a weapon to someone who is not you.

  187. 187
    Chet says:

    @Another Halocene Human:

    Trying to buy or acquire a gun is a voluntary act.

    The point is, you’re granting access to a database of sensitive information without any legal requirement to demonstrate that the subject of that information actually committed that act.

    That’s significant. If you weren’t such an idiot you’d have thought of it yourself.

  188. 188
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: Yes. And you propose adding a new law – someone can lawfully search vital records in order to meet a new legal requirement to demonstrate that they didn’t sell a firearm to someone without first determining their legal eligibility.

    No, they did NOT, LIAR.

    They’ve proposed that the seller/giver must check the recipient in a special “no gun sales” database which is maintained by the government.

    Nowhere have you shown that this database includes any other information than who is banned from owning a gun.

    Nowhere have you shown that it provides access to identifying information beyond which the buyer would provide in order to check the database to begin with.

    It may be that you only need one piece of identifying info to check and there are more inside (like SSN), but if this is an issue, that sort of info could be stripped.

    Just remember, the less identifying info you provide to check the database, the higher the chance of a false positive. So I would assume they are using DOB, probably other info as well.

    How could a gun seller do a “no gun” database background check on you behind your back?

    Unless they already have all your info for some reason?

    Huh?

    Where’s the pitfall?

  189. 189
    Chet says:

    @ruemara:

    There is a demand for responsibility.

    But again, should meeting that responsibility, but failing to demonstrate to a court’s satisfaction, be a crime?

    Shouldn’t they have to prove that you actually failed to meet that responsibility?

  190. 190
    Mike Lamb says:

    @Chet: Oh shit…

    Let’s try this:

    1. A contingent contract from prospective buyer stating intent to buy gun that becomes a binding contract upon the passage of a background check.

    2. A document authorizing seller to run a background check signed by seller.

    3. The purchaser has to order the background check and present it to buyer and provide pertinent information to confirm identity.

    Stop talking. It’s embarassing.

  191. 191
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: What happened to your claim that any private citizen with a gun could magically access your permanent record whenever they wanted?

    Are you now arguing against your own arguments? Because it looks like it.

    So… where IS that pitfall?

  192. 192
    Chet says:

    @Another Halocene Human:

    Nowhere have you shown that this database includes any other information than who is banned from owning a gun.

    Look, think it through, stupid.

  193. 193
    Chet says:

    @Mike Lamb: Oh wow, it’s so obvious that it only took 190 posts.

    So who keeps the contract? What happens when, 20 years later, I’ve lost it? How do I prove I ever had it in the first place? If I can’t, how is that not one of your “prima facie” cases that, in this case, I’m not actually guilty of?

  194. 194
    Mike Lamb says:

    @Chet: Yes, failing to demonstrate that you met that responsibility should be a crime. It’s called a burden of proof. Not exactly a radical concept. Again, look up the meaning of prima facie.

  195. 195
    ruemara says:

    @Chet: If you don’t have a legal transfer document, you most certainly did fail that responsibility. Are you dense? The legal aspect should be a clear, legitimate background check. There is no way you should be able to put a smith & wesson into a gift box and hand it to your friend and that’s that. Enough. It is not chocolate. It is a weapon. Grow up and stop making the rest of America suffer for your gun worshipping cargo cult.

  196. 196
    Chet says:

    @Another Halocene Human:

    What happened to your claim that any private citizen with a gun could magically access your permanent record whenever they wanted?

    I never made a claim that any private citizen could magically access my permanent record whenever they wanted. David made that claim, but as I’ve showed he’s wrong. I’m the one trying to keep it so that people can’t.

    Jesus, you’re an idiot.

  197. 197
    Chet says:

    @ruemara:

    If you don’t have a legal transfer document, you most certainly did fail that responsibility.

    But I did have a legal transfer document. I just don’t have it now. Why should that be against the law?

  198. 198
    Chet says:

    @Mike Lamb:

    Yes, failing to demonstrate that you met that responsibility should be a crime. It’s called a burden of proof.

    Yes, and the burden of proof should be on the government to prove that I sold a gun to someone who shouldn’t have had one. It shouldn’t be on me to demonstrate that I didn’t.

  199. 199
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: The inside of colon is kind of sulfurous. You might want to let your head breathe from time to time.

    A. You try to buy a gun. Your background is checked. You can’t buy a gun. You don’t buy the gun.

    cue tears

    B. You try to buy a gun. Your background is checked. Yaye, you can buy a gun. Oops, your credit card doesn’t clear. You don’t buy the gun.

    cue tears

    C. You try to buy a gun. Your background is checked. Yaye, you can buy the gun. You pay the nice lady and go home.

    cue tears

    D. You don’t try to buy a gun. You piss off your next door neighbor. Your neighbor’s BIL sells guns. One day he gets access to BILs computer and looks you up in the db. He gets access to data that is already public. But by accessing the database improperly, he’s committed a crime, rather than accessing the data in a legal way. He plays this game one too many times and somebody notices, landing him and other family members in hot water.

    cue tears

    E. You don’t try to buy a gun. You piss off your next door neighbor. Next door neighbor starts looking up info on you in publicly searchable databases, and armed with this info, visits the courthouse to get more. Your neighbor finds out all about your divorce, the lien on your car, that lawsuit with the other neighbor about your dog.

    cue tears

  200. 200
    Chet says:

    I guess what I’m asking is, how long after the fact should I be required to demonstrate that I met my responsibilities? 20 years? 200 years? The government’s pleasure? What happens when the physical record simply disintegrates from age? Simply by a principle akin to the statute of limitations there should be a point at which I’m no longer required to store ancient paperwork in order to demonstrate that I’m not guilty of a crime.

  201. 201
    Felinious Wench says:

    Not sure what you’re trying to accomplish here, Chet.

    Background checks are run all of the time. As someone said above, yes, there should be written permission to get a background check. So part of the process for running a background check for gun ownership is signed authorization by the potential buyer. Just like when a bank runs a credit check or an employer runs a background check.

    Should this be required in order to buy or transfer ownership of a gun? Yes. I’d prefer we have some standards about who can own them and those requirements be validated as true before we hand someone a gun. And I DO own one.

  202. 202
    Mike Lamb says:

    @Chet: Actually, people mentioned these ideas much earlier. You just ignored them as you continued to make bullshit arguments.

    And you keep the fucking records. Or make a central clearinghouse that you file the transfer of ownership/background check paperwork so that you can obtain a duplicate if necessary (also mentioned upthread).

  203. 203
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: Yes, and the burden of proof should be on the government to prove that I sold a gun to someone who shouldn’t have had one. It shouldn’t be on me to demonstrate that I didn’t.

    Again, they’ll meet this standard when they show that the person you transferred the gun to was unable to own a gun at the time.

    Not keeping the record is a lesser charge. You prove you have the record when you, I don’t know, cough it up?

    But of course this isn’t even a problem if the state records office has a copy and can issue a duplicate if the original is lost, destroyed, or stolen.

    Isn’t if funny how that works!

  204. 204
    Chet says:

    @Another Halocene Human:

    The inside of colon is kind of sulfurous.

    You’re thinking of methane, you mewling testicle. Sulfur is eliminated via urine.

  205. 205
    Mike Lamb says:

    @Chet: Fuck…they’ve got a prima facie case the second they find a gun that was registered to someone else in the hands of someone other than the owner. Burden’s on you now.

    Just like with car insurance. Just like with audits.

  206. 206
    Chet says:

    @Felinious Wench:

    Background checks are run all of the time.

    With the permission of the subject. Nobody should be able to run a Federal background check and retrieve info derived, in part, from your medical history without your express written authorization.

    I struggle to see what is “remotely controversial” about that.

  207. 207
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: But I did have a legal transfer document. I just don’t have it now. Why should that be against the law?

    30,000 firearm deaths in 2010 alone in the USA isn’t sufficient reason for a rather trivial records retention statute?

    You’ve never run a business/managed a non-profit/worked anywhere other than under the table, have you?

  208. 208
    Felinious Wench says:

    @Another Halocene Human:

    As you know, improving the database is a major goal of what the administration has proposed.

    Exactly. But improving the database so that information is aggregated into one source and easily accessed is what Chet is concerned about.

    Chet, what is your proposal? No background checks for gun ownership?

  209. 209
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: Okay, you must be getting tired, because we’ve finally gotten to the “make shit up” phase of today’s trolling.

  210. 210
    Felinious Wench says:

    @Chet:

    Nobody should be able to run a Federal background check and retrieve info derived, in part, from your medical history without your express written authorization.

    Read what I wrote again. We agree. Which is why I said written permission should be required.

  211. 211
    ruemara says:

    @Chet: This argument is full of crap. Tell you what, go to your local city hall and have them check the records on a house built in 1890. Head to your police department and ask them if you can scan their crime archives. You’re sitting online arguing that holding on to your proof of legitimate transfer is somehow a slippery slope because the government you are registering it with will magically not have it and request it from you somewhere around 2150 AD. Utter bullshit.

  212. 212
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Felinious Wench: Exactly. But improving the database so that information is aggregated into one source and easily accessed is what Chet is concerned about.

    Actually, he said it was because a stalker could find him and kill him.

    Unless this database was set up in an ultra stupid way[note], and since it dates to the 1990s, the biggest stupid I can envision is unencrypted access to SSNs, you can’t find out more info that would help you track the buyer down than you find out when the buyer gives you the info to look them up in the first place.

    As for someone searching behind your back, the stuff that goes into the database is all public info, which, while it may be more inconvenient to come by legally, is hardly impossible to acquire.

    note: for example, if looking your name/DOB/3rd identifying item in the DB returned not a “no match/or match with standard reason/date/date the restriction will be lifted” but the full text of every adjudication complete with gory details, that could be a problem. But a DB from the 1990s wouldn’t have that just because of the speed of data transmission at the time, and most such records were not digitized. Thus, parsimony suggests that the law that created the database only provides for pretty skeletal info, much less than if stalker-killer decided to do some record rifling at the County courthouse.

  213. 213
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Chet: Not when tu quieres taco bell, compadre.

    Verily, a genius on all subjects, legal, social, and medical!

  214. 214
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @ruemara: Wait till he grows up and finds out about title insurance.

    TYRANNY!

  215. 215
    johnny aquitard says:

    @Chet:

    can’t give your buddy a Winchester for his birthday unless you run a Federal background on him, first, and then keep a record of the background forever. If you throw it out or lose that record? Federal charges.

    It’s called a responsibility, dumbass. It’s what adults have and take seriously when the choices they make can have a significant impact on theirs and others’ lives.

    You want people to be able to own things that are designed to kill and do kill people quite easily when misused or used negligently. And yet you want them to be held to account as if they were children. You want them to own things that demand adult responsibility but refuse to acknowledge that obligation.

    What, is it too much to expect an adult who gives a deadly weapon as a gift can’t be adult enough to remember to make the transfer though a licensed dealer?

    And ‘lose the paperwork’? Are you fucking serious? Are you so careless or incompetent you lose the title to your car or home?

    We are finding out just how irresponsible and immature far too many gun owners really are. They refuse to take the responsibilities that go with gun ownership seriously. To the point where I question whether they have any business owning guns.

  216. 216
    Another Halocene Human says:

    @Felinious Wench: This does raise an interesting question. Contra Wayne La Pierre, perhaps HIPAA should be expanded to shield adjudication of the mentally ill from prying eyes. If in the course of this process they are denied the right to own a gun in their state, the background check should simply return the text:

    NO. JUST NO. NO EXPIRY DATE.

    That’s all the seller (donor) needs to know.

    I have a feeling, though, that those denied would want to know why, just like those blokes on the no-fly list on whose behalf sued the ACLU. Which means the seller will now have access to meta-data: “Court of Prince Georges County ruled mentally unfit to own/purchase firearms on 2010/12/13, permanent injunction.”

    Boo-de-fricking-hoo.

    If Joe Shmoe knows he was adjudicated, he has nobody to blame but himself that Creepy Carl at Atlas Pawn now knows it. If Joe Shmoe wasn’t adjudicated, he can get a printout and go petition DA BIG BAD GUBMINT to get his records fixed.

    Cry cry cry. Cry cry cry.

    Where is the pitfall?

  217. 217
    Another Halocene Human says:

    Hm, thinking about that sulfur comment…

    Chet thinks his shit doesn’t stink.

    Must be a libertarian.

  218. 218
    Lyford says:

    @johnny aquitard: I don’t have the paperwork for every car I owned and got rid of in the past 30 years. Do you think that is irresponsible?

    FWIW, I have sold firearms through a FFL. It is cleaner that way. I did see that the new NY law appears to set a maximum transaction fee of $10 to minimize the burden.

  219. 219
    DavidTC says:

    Jesus Christ people, stop falling for Chet’s bullshit.

    Chet is standing there conflating all sort of _private_ information with _whether or not someone can own a gun_, which is determinable via public information. So he’s managed to trick people into arguing that the information (Which isn’t private) will somehow ‘remain’ private..

    The fact the phrase ‘background check’ is used for both things does not make them the same. It is not really a ‘background check’, it is a ‘have the court stripped your rights to own a firearm’ check! That’s it. It’s checking _court decisions_.

    Removing repetitions, there are essentially _four_ reasons someone cannot own a gun:

    1) They are not a citizen of the US, and aren’t here on a type of VISA that lets them own a gun. (How someone is in the country is generally agreed to be public information.)

    2) They have been convicted for a felony, or one of a few specific misdemeanors, or have a restraining order, or are declared a fugitive from justice. (Aka, a court decision.)

    3) A court has declared them mentally incompetent. (Aka, a court decision.)

    4) They have been dishonorable discharged from the military. (Aka, a military court decision.)

    That it’s. There are no ‘privacy’ implications in that in any manner whatsoever. They are all public court records that anyone with time and money can get. (Except the citizen information, which I’m not sure how to lookup offhand…but that isn’t even slightly considered ‘secret’.)

    Chet is trying to imply (Without actually saying it) that someone people’s _identifying_ information will get out…which is, uh, not how anyone would actually build a database. It’s not fucking google where you can type tiny pieces of information in and get a page of their information. There’s no reason a properly designed check would return anything more than ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Which he knows, and he knows we know, which is why he just keep _hinting_ at this instead of saying it outright.

    And, no, Chet, I will not file a fucking FIOA and get my answer back weeks later to find out if you’ve been dishonorable discharged. Because you are a _shill_ and won’t be here then to say ‘Oh, I guess you’re right then!’, even pretending the discussion is going on.

    I pointed out how I _could_ get the records. It is now your job to point out how I am _wrong_ about something, that there are other reasons that people can’t own guns, or that I can’t actually look up who is mentally incompetent or something. (I actually have left out a very important thing, let’s see if you can figure it out. Hint: It would cause me to err on the side of not selling people guns.)

  220. 220
    Chet says:

    @Felinious Wench:

    Read what I wrote again. We agree.

    Well, great I guess, except concerningly, none of these proposals require written permission from the buyer to have a background check run on him.

  221. 221
    Chet says:

    @johnny aquitard:

    Are you so careless or incompetent you lose the title to your car or home?

    I don’t own a car or a home, but you know what? People lose the titles to these things. Sometimes they’re lost in a calamity, like a hurricane or fire. But one thing they’re not subject to when they do are the police coming around, demanding records they know can’t be produced, and hauling them off to jail. And that’s because it’s actually not a crime not to have the title to your house or to your car. Especially not long, long after you no longer own the car or house. That’s a records responsibility that is passed on to the next owner. You’re talking about a responsibility you’re on the hook for – forever.

  222. 222
    trollhattan says:

    @Another Halocene Human:

    Was considering posting “Seven-trillion anaerobic bacteria on hold for you, line two” but thought better of it.

  223. 223
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Chet: Too fucking bad. The right to own a gun is not absolute. The right to transfer property is not without restrictions. Put those two together. I am sorry if you will be slightly inconvenienced.

  224. 224
    Chet says:

    @DavidTC:

    Chet is standing there conflating all sort of _private_ information with _whether or not someone can own a gun_, which is determinable via public information.

    So determine it. I’ll wait.

    So he’s managed to trick people into arguing that the information (Which isn’t private) will somehow ‘remain’ private..

    “Trick” people? Unbelievable. Yes, devious me, I’ve pulled the wool over all your eyes with my incredibly crafty and dishonest “asking questions” and “thinking things through.”

    That it’s.

    No, that’s not it. Additionally:

    5) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.

    6) Is under indictment (including sealed) for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

    One more thing you’re flat-out wrong about. But I guess I “tricked” you somehow.

    And, no, Chet, I will not file a fucking FIOA and get my answer back weeks later to find out if you’ve been dishonorable discharged.

    Oh, ok. So when you said that you could determine my eligibility “right now” from nothing but my name, you were lying. Good to know!

  225. 225
    Chet says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I am sorry if you will be slightly inconvenienced.

    Well, so which is it? When you guys thought I was complaining that getting the background check was too hard, you all said “Chet, you’re so stupid; of course it’ll be easy.” Felonious Wench said we’ll be able to do it with an iPhone or something. Once you realized I was complaining it would be too easy, you all said “Chet, you’re so stupid; of course it’ll be hard.”

    Maybe you guys could get together and figure your shit out, I dunno.

  226. 226
    scav says:

    @Chet: Ever considered the reason behind why everyone around you can’t get their shit together is because you’re full if it?

    Cournered the market you have. been fun to watch your tiny bit in the rising panic choir, all in all.

  227. 227
    Corner Stone says:

    Jesus Christ, people.

  228. 228
    Felinious Wench says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Jesus Christ, people.

    Amen, brother. Time for a drink.

  229. 229
    DavidTC says:

    5) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.

    You goddamn piece of shit liar. That is not what it says at all. It says this, which I QUOTED ABOVE:

    An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year

    People who are addicted to drugs are not magically banned. (However the hell that would work.) People who have been _convicted of drug use or possession_ have been banned. Along with people _under court supervision_ who fail a drug test. (Because those are the only circumstances where the state has their results.)

    You know where people are fucking convicted of crimes? A court. You know how private that information is? Not a single bit.

    6) Is under indictment (including sealed) for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

    Ah, yes, I love the little ‘included sealed’ bit there. Uh, no. That is not in the law. Current background checks do not return sealed indictments. That would be fucking stupid.

    Sealed indictments exist so the person named in the _indictment_ doesn’t know about it. Not so that the ‘public’ doesn’t. Sealed indictments are not for ‘privacy’ reasons, they are so that someone will not tamper with evidence or flee the country or murder a witness or something like that.

    And thus those _sealed indictments don’t show up in background checks_. Wow, would that be stupid or what? They do not bar someone from purchasing a gun, because it would mean that all people had to do was run a background check on themselves_ to find out they were under indictment. (Which sounds excessive, but there are plenty of rich criminals which would pay to do that every day, or at least before reentering the country.)

    I think you have confused sealed indictments with other forms of sealed records. A sealed indictment is, and can only be, only sealed _until the arrest_. All information in all sealed indictments is made public, usually days (Or however long it takes to arrest someone) after it is issued. The US government does not _secretly_ indict people with crimes and then hold some sort of secret trial(?!), it just sometimes doesn’t tell anyone what it’s doing until that person is safely arrested.

    So, basically, you just _lied_. Twice. You modified two specific restrictions on gun ownership to make them say something other than what they said, and what’s more, modified them completely nonsensically. How the hell would a database know if you’re a drug addict if such a determination had not been made in the court? Why the hell would we be telling people they were under sealed indictment?

Comments are closed.