Gun Control

Here Is What's Wrong With the Gun Control Bills the House Is About to Pass

Two bills dealing with background checks would criminalize innocent behavior and unjustly interfere with the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

|

SMG / Zuma Press / Newscom

This week the House of Representatives is expected to pass two bills aimed at expanding and strengthening the background checks that people undergo when they buy guns from federally licensed dealers. Although bills like these are very popular and seemingly modest, there are sound reasons for supporters of the Second Amendment to be concerned about them.

H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, would require that almost all firearm transfers be handled by licensed dealers, thereby triggering the background check requirement. The bill makes exceptions for "a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren." It also would allow temporary transfers when "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" or in the course of target shooting or hunting, provided the owner is there to supervise. Failing to comply with the bill's restrictions would be punishable by up to a year in jail and/or a maximum fine of $100,000.

Notwithstanding the exceptions, the bill would criminalize a wide range of innocent actions, including transfers between friends, neighbors, and cousins. The self-defense exception is narrowly circumscribed, lasting "only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm," and so would allow convictions in cases where people lend guns to friends who reasonably fear for their lives—a woman stalked by an ex-boyfriend, for example. More generally, the bill would impose a new expense and inconvenience on millions of Americans who want to do nothing but peacefully dispose of their own property. Finally, it would extend the reach of background checks to people who pose no threat to others but who are unjustly denied the fundamental right to armed self-defense under current federal law for various arbitrary reasons, including marijuana use and nonviolent felony records.

What are the benefits that justify these costs? Although "universal background checks" are usually touted as a response to mass shootings, The New York Times notes, "A vast majority of guns used in 19 recent mass shootings—including those in Newtown, Conn.; San Bernardino, Calif.; and Las Vegas—were bought legally and after the gunman passed a federal background check." As for ordinary criminals, they are already breaking the law by possessing guns if they've been convicted of felonies. They evade background checks by obtaining guns through straw buyers or black market dealers who are unlikely to suddenly start worrying about complying with the law once it requires background checks for private sales.

That requirement will be impossible to enforce in any meaningful way. Last year researchers who looked at what happened after Colorado, Delaware, and Washington enacted similar laws reported that "background check rates increased in Delaware, by 22%–34% depending on the type of firearm," but "no overall changes were observed in Washington and Colorado." It is hard to see how the federal government can do any better, since it does not know who owns which guns and cannot possibly monitor unrecorded transfers. If supporters of H.R. 8 are serious about making sure a background check happens every time a firearm changes hands, they will need a system of national gun registration coupled with pervasive surveillance. Given that reality, the fact that "gun control advocates" have "described the legislation as a necessary foundation for future work," as the Times puts it, is more than a little alarming for anyone who opposes such monitoring as a threat to privacy and the Second Amendment.

The other gun control bill that House Democrats are taking up this week, the Enhanced Background Checks Act (H.R. 1112), would increase the maximum amount of time allowed to complete a background check from three to 10 days. The main impetus for that change is the background check that allowed Dylann Roof to buy the handgun he used to kill nine people at a Charleston, South Carolina, church in 2015. But the facts of that case suggest that the change Congress is considering would not have prevented Roof's attack.

Then-FBI Director James Comey concluded that Roof was legally disqualified from buying a gun because he was an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance. A month and a half before the purchase, police in Columbia, South Carolina, had caught him with Suboxone, a Schedule III combination of the narcotic buprenorphine and the opioid antagonist naloxone that is legally used to treat opioid addiction. Roof had admitted that he did not have a prescription for the Suboxone, which he had obtained from a friend.

It's debatable whether that admission meant Roof was still an "unlawful user" a month and a half later. But even if it did, the relevant information did not come to light because the FBI employee who handled the background check waited two days and then mistakenly contacted the wrong police department. She did get in touch with the correct local prosector's office, which did not respond to her request for records about the case. It is not at all clear that giving the examiner more time would have made a difference. The issue seems to have been the FBI's alacrity and competence rather than an unreasonably tight deadline.

The downside of extending the deadline is that some law-abiding Americans will be forced to wait an extra week before the FBI decides whether they are entitled to own a gun. In most cases, that may be little more than an inconvenience, but it could have serious or even lethal consequences when a gun is urgently needed for self-defense.

Minimizing the burden that would be imposed by the bill, its supporters note that background checks are completed within minutes in about 90 percent of purchases. The question is how many of the rest actually require more than three days to complete, how many of those would result in refusals, how many of those refusals would involve buyers who were planning to commit a crime with the gun, and how many of those would-be buyers would have given up rather than obtaining the gun in another way. I suspect the ultimate number is very small, and certainly much smaller than the number of people unfairly frustrated in their attempts to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

106 responses to “Here Is What's Wrong With the Gun Control Bills the House Is About to Pass

  1. Me loaning you my pistol to take to the range is a “transfer” under the definition of this law. Two friends trading a guns because I am tired of my automatic and you are tired of your revolver would be a “transfer” under this law. This law criminalizes much of ordinary gun ownership. And that is the idea: keep passing laws that makes owning a gun legally incur more and more risk of criminal liability so that everyone other than criminals stops owning guns.

    Screw this bill and thank God Trump has pledged to Veto it.

    1. “”Me loaning you my pistol to take to the range is a “transfer” under the definition of this law.””

      Ah, you beat me to it.

      One year I was back in AR and went with a friend to an indoor range. We rented full auto Uzi, and MP5. Because the range was not connected to the building a member from the gun shop had to carry the weapons over himself and hang out with us while we fired, then he had to carry them back.

      So basically, what the dems want to do is treat every weapon like it’s a full auto weapon.

      1. Lefties want to get rid of guns anyway they can.

        Gangsters used machine guns during the Prohibition, so the government then sought to control automatic weapons.

        Its how Socialists get things done. The government causes a problem and then restricts the rights of all Americans to ‘solve’ the problem.

  2. Here Is What’s Wrong With the Gun Control Bills the House Is About to Pass

    They’re unconstitutional violations of the people’s right to keep and bear Arms, as protected in the 2nd Amendment.

    Background checks, gun limits, waiting periods, ammo limits, machine gun bans, or any other gun control scheme are impermissible under the 2A.

    1. Background checks, gun limits, waiting periods, ammo limits, machine gun bans, or any other gun control scheme are impermissible under the 2A.

      That’s a relief. Glad none of those things will ever happen.

      1. Right To Carry(1986 – 2018)

        Glad those unconstitutional laws are getting rolled back.

        1. That is very good. Less good is the states that are rolling out new unconstitutional laws. Would be good to see courts step in more, but I suppose there is a valid concern that they could get it very wrong, or that states could ignore rulings.

          1. Trump has nominated a bunch of non-Lefty judges in the last two years and is about to get another non-Lefty judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

            The SCOTUS just cannot handle all the cases to set the Lefty judges straight, so the Circuit Courts have been doing it and setting very bad precedent, especially in the 9th Circuit.

            There are slight roll backs to Lefty rulings, so that is good.

      2. That’s a relief. Glad none of those things will ever happen.

        Illegal /= impossible.

        1. I believe that’s the point he was sarcastically making.

          1. I don’t think it was, or at least it wasn’t the point he actually made.

            1. I can only put stuff out there, I can’t make people understand it.

              1. While you can’t make people understand it, when as many people miss it as get it, maybe you should reconsider whether you’re really all that good at this sarcasm stuff.

            2. Your failure to get it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.

            3. I don’t think it was

              Then you’re an idiot.

  3. Every time an illegal act is committed it’s proof that more laws are needed.

    1. And today’s “common sense control” is tomorrow’s loophole that must be closed.

      1. In this case that is by design; aka feature not bug

    2. And every new criminal law creates new criminal acts – the circle of life.

  4. In a world where journalism has gone mad, it’s really great to see Sullum put up another column rife with intellectual honesty and reason. I don’t always agree with him, but I’ve never questioned his integrity.

    ENB and Robby should pay him to mark up their work for them before they publish–just to check for logical errors and statements of questionable honesty.

  5. “What are the benefits that justify these costs? ”

    The benefits to the statists is this starts us down the road towards having some politician judge whether you are worthy of exercising your 2A rights. IL wants to review your Facebook and twitter which of course will all be done completely unbiased right.

    Remember when pro-death( oops I mean choice) folks argued that their goal was never to abort fully developed babies. LMFAO. Sure it is.

    1. I defy anyone to name a single benefit to any gun control measure.

      1. WaPo/NYT demons , Tony, etc get to smirk and gloat and taunt you about their zealous lust for the power of the state having been satisfied once more. They see that as a huge positive I’m sure. Sick, sad, cynical, spiteful, prejudiced world that it is, and that’s just the left.

      2. It allows you to oppress the peasants.

        1. Yeah. You need to ask “benefits whom?”. Pretty much any law you can think of benefits someone.

      3. brings in lots of revenue to the courts, LE, the for-profit prison system, and myriad other government poohbahs sucking at the public teat.
        In other words, it grows the system that pushed to enact these things into law.

      4. brings in lots of revenue to the courts, LE, the for-profit prison system, and myriad other government poohbahs sucking at the public teat.
        In other words, it grows the system that pushed to enact these things into law.

  6. “gun control advocates” have “described the legislation as a necessary foundation for future work,”

    And don’t think for a second that “future work” won’t be universal registration and subsequent “future work” will be mandatory confiscation.

    1. Bingo. That is exactly what it is. They will never be satisfied until every legally owned gun in this country is confiscated. Then if the UK is any indication, they will move onto knives.

        1. Basic laws on knives
          It’s illegal to:
          -sell a knife to anyone under 18, unless it has a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62 cm) or less
          -carry a knife in public without good reason, unless it has a folding blade with a cutting edge 3 inches long or less

          Lock knives
          Lock knives are not classed as folding knives and are illegal to carry in public without good reason. Lock knives:
          -have blades that can be locked and refolded only by pressing a button
          -can include multi-tool knives – tools that also contain other devices such as a screwdriver or can opener

          Good to see that the vagueness and technical idiocy survives the transition. My 2.5″ pocket knife, my multi-tool, and a box cutter would be illegal because the blades all lock and refold at the press of a button but, apparently, my 3″ double-edged butterfly knife is OK (but, I’m sure, not really OK).

          Maybe there’s some language barrier issues where the British term for ‘switchblade’ is ‘lock knife’ but still the law, which should make the mechanistic (or other) distinction clear, doesn’t

          1. The irony is that a locking blade is a safety feature.

          2. It’s not on the official list (yet), but the one that really gets me are the people who want to ban kitchen knives with points in the UK.

            I do believe that they also had a specific ban for butterfly knives on the list.

          3. your butterfly knife would be illegal as the cutting edge is 6 inches (3 on each side)

            1. I’d be really surprised if they don’t also ban double edged blades.

            2. Butterfly knives don’t have a double edge, if they did just opening them would incur lacerations. They have a safe handle and a bite handle, and it is best not to mix those two up.

              1. Butterfly knives do come with double sided blades. One of the blade edges is shorter than the other side so your finger movement can use the butterfly knife without getting cut off.

                1. I have never seen one. I’ve cut myself enough with my BRS Barebones that taking away the safe handle seems like a bad idea.

          4. The “best” part of the law is that “A court will decide if you’ve got a good reason to carry a knife or a weapon if you’re charged with carrying it illegally.”

            1. “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted ? and you create a nation of law-breakers ? and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

  7. Medicare for All, Green New Deal, AND new gun control legislation, all in the first couple weeks of the sesion? These guys REALLY want to lose in 2020.

    Do you WANT to mobilize your opposition? Because this is how you mobilize your opposition.

    1. I think the core of the left is truly enamored with their own rhetoric. They can just see it [and you and me] in their grasp, and being true believers this just has to happen.

    2. They’re betting on the media having gotten on their side so completely that the election is a done deal. And I can’t really say they’re wrong about that.

      1. Except that, per one recent poll [Maris, I believe; take it for what it’s worth] only about a third of us “trust” the media.

        No point guessing who that “third” might be.

      2. Don’t most people either hate or ignore the media?

        1. The media just ignores that many Americans hate them.

  8. “That requirement will be impossible to enforce in any meaningful way”

    They already know this They’ll be coming back for universal gun registration “so they can track these transfers”.

    1. And about 100 million people will refuse to comply (or maybe slightly less, there are a lot of “the law is the law” types among gun owners). I hope I don’t get to see how interesting that would be.

      1. They will refuse to comply and it will make criminals out of everyone. And that will leave the govenrment free to selectively enforce it and engage in whatever tyranny it wants to.

        1. When everyone is a criminal, everyone is a suspect and can be managed as such.

          Which is precisely what Beria had in mind when he said “show me the man.”

          1. Quo Usque Tandem, thanks for the history lesson on Beria….I looked him up. (Seriously, not sarcasm). A great talking point and historical reference for dealing with libs.

        2. Yup. Once you force American gun owners hands to be criminals like that, the incentive to follow the government is gone.

          Most gun owners follow most of the unconstitutional gun control laws like background checks, machine gun ‘bans’, and registrations schemes because they still want to try and not be criminals.

          Once the Lefties make criminal out of every gun owner for not registering or giving up their weapons, why not just start Civil War 2.0? You’re already gonna suffer government showdown at some time, might as well pick the time and place and take some Lefties or the remaining bureaucrats with you.

        3. “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted ? and you create a nation of law-breakers ? and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

        4. That was precisely the game of New York City’s Mayor (John?) Sullivan with his handgun act of 1911. Banned all handguns, but was selectively enforced His Irish coppers would never nail another Mick, especially if he were part of the “system”. On the other hand, if your name was Guido and you were caught with the same handgun Patrick had (maybe you even BOUGHT it from him for a fiddydollah bill) it was buy bye for you.

          Proof once again that some pigs are just more equal than other pigs.

        5. That was precisely the game of New York City’s Mayor (John?) Sullivan with his handgun act of 1911. Banned all handguns, but was selectively enforced His Irish coppers would never nail another Mick, especially if he were part of the “system”. On the other hand, if your name was Guido and you were caught with the same handgun Patrick had (maybe you even BOUGHT it from him for a fiddydollah bill) it was buy bye for you.

          Proof once again that some pigs are just more equal than other pigs.

      2. In Australia, where the government ran full page ads showing inmates in a prison shower [and warning of the consequences of non compliance] the best estimates for compliance are about 20%; that is why they recently offered “another opportunity” for people to turn in their guns.

        If it comes to this here [and there are plenty of pols willing to make it so] it will be up to every gun owner to make that choice; give them up or hide them. Both genuinely suck, but as for me I will choose the lesser of two evils and whatever I can do to fight unjust laws.

        1. If it ever reaches that point you will have entire states refuse to comply and the divide in this country would then be irrepairable. These laws are being pushed by people
          who believe their view of the world is the only one and they do not care about the lives or values of people living in “backwards red states”. Unless there is a massive pushback against the progressive left, I fear within 100 yrs there will be 3-5 independent nations between the Canadian and Mexican borders

          1. Have you read any Kurt Schlitcher novels? Maybe they are prescient.

        2. There is one more choice:

          Civil War 2.0

          Democrats didnt like Civil War 1.0 and they certainly wont like 2.0

          1. Well, they liked the war while it was going well for them.

      3. there are a lot of “the law is the law” types among gun owners

        Also, for some people and their life situations, the phrase “Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.” works both ways. Rising to the occasion and dying in a hale of gunfire is pretty romantic unless your reckless romanticism gets family, friends, and neighbors killed (and your guns seized anyway). I can certainly envision situations where living to fight another day makes sense.

        1. What about attacking tbe infrastructure of civilization itself?

          Civilization has weak points.

        2. Gun owners will acquit other gun owners in criminal trials.

          The government could never successfully pull off a gun confiscation like that because the gun owners that went after government officials and survived the shootout would be acquitted.

          The government would have to murder gun owners and then, you might as well murder government officials before they murder you.

          1. Gun ownership in the USA scares the shit out of Lefty politicians.

            1. no it does not SCARE them, they just realise accurately) that as long as there are free men out here with GUNS they cannot put their evil plan into effect. No fear involved at all, but they USE fear to promote their agenda. It is a handy tool to persuade the comatose masses into seeing things their way.

          2. A hung jury only takes one person.

        3. You assume the police will enforce such laws. In states like Washington and NY police have stated publically they will not comply and enforce new gun control laws or bans. The Feds do not have the power or resources to go after a single person for not completing a background check. If you think police are going to storm a house to confiscate guns for any reason you are an idiot. Those police are also the friends and neighbors of the people they would be raiding and they still have to live in the town. Most police have no problem with law abiding citizens owning and possessing guns. The only people who object are leftist politicians and police officials who actually want a police state where the government has all the power.

  9. I’m old enough to remember when anti-gunners told us the Brady Bill was all they wanted.

    That lasted until the Brady Bill was passed.

    1. Much like feminism…

      1. First wave, second wave, third wave, fourth wave…

  10. It will only be a matter of time before one of the major supporters admits to her base that this is meant as an incremental step.

    1. Did you miss that part about “gun control advocates” have “described the legislation as a necessary foundation for future work,”

      Already done. One step at a time, and frankly I’m surprised they’re not leaping at it.

    2. Baby steps, Fist. You know, like the kind libertarians are always talking about.

    3. They already have. One of them let it slip the bill was not about reducing violence but beginning the process of introducing and getting ordinary people comfortable with forced compliance. That is the real goal here. The problem is the people pushing these laws still possess a fundamentaln lack of understanding about the culture and people living in all those “red states” they love to dismiss and denegrate. Accepting forced compliance is not something the majority would accept.

  11. “The downside of extending the deadline is that some law-abiding Americans will be forced to wait an extra week before the FBI decides whether they are entitled to own a gun.”

    From the perspective of the people pushing this, that’s the upside, not the downside. The downside is that most people would still pass the check.

  12. These softball socialists in the Politburo of the United States didn’t go far enough.
    They should vote to outlaw all private ownership of firearms in our country, the Union of Soviet Socialist Slave States entirely.
    This way the forward-thinking progressives will usher in a socialist totalitarian paradise like the Cubans and North Koreans enjoy much more quickly.
    I suggest to all our comrades in federal office to show some guts and terminate all vestiges of gun ownership completely and the sooner the better.
    (Pumps fist into the air along with a red flag with a hammer and sickle on it.)

    1. Where getting there Uncle. Any and all vestiges of duplicity are falling away.

      1. We’re, less the Rev reads this and goes off on my clinging ignorance

  13. Really, the only thing to say in favor of this bill, is that it’s one more group the Democrats have decided to piss off before, rather than after, the 2020 elections.

    1. And I for one am glad for it; unless this country has gone rotten to the core [and I do not believe it has, but then I am a flyover bumpkin and not an Upper East or West Coast urban dwelling Hilldog loving latte sipping Bill Maher watching fuckwad…] their outcome will be worse than McGovern’s in ’72.

      But I do believe violence will be in our future for those true believers who cannot accept defeat, or the Bill of Rights.

      1. I’m not at all confident about it; The media have gone all in now, they’re not even pretending to be objective anymore. And a terrifyingly large part of the population still rely on them.

        With even a 25-75 split on the media, I’m sure Trump would be a cinch to be reelected, given the state of the economy. But it’s more like a 5-95 split at this point.

        1. Then the media is the enemy.

          1. +10

        2. My worry is the fraud.

  14. The real danger of these bills is that for either to work, there must be a Federal registry. It is impossible to know if a transfer has occurred unless you know who has which guns. That is the true intent, the registry. Neither bill will pass because McConnell has already said they will not be pit up
    for a vote in the Senate but it is clear where Democrats are headed in regard to guns

  15. Here is what is wrong with all of the gun control that has passed. It depends on the bureaucrats doing their job and they don’t as we have learned form more than one event. Another short fall if that the prosecutes often plea bargain gun charges down to next to nothing just to get a conviction to add to their belt. Instead of charging a person with the full crime that they committed with the gun. Not one of them have been charged with an illegal gun charge even though none of the guns they use in the crimes that they commit. Why not? The answer is simple the D A’s wants to get a conviction as easily as possible. But the criminal gets out and then commits another gun crime again and again.

    1. You’re from Chicago, aren’t you?

  16. The intent of all these laws is tyranny; the use of vague and arbitrary laws to threaten, silence or impression your political enemies. Gun ownership is a proxy for a “certain type of person”… the political enemies of leftists.

    1. Imprision. Not impression.

  17. mantap banget jangan lupa kunjungi kami di http://id228.net

    1. Finally someone has something real to say.

  18. “Two bills dealing with background checks would criminalize innocent behavior and unjustly interfere with the exercise of Second Amendment rights.”

    your headline and subhead just summed up what is wrong with virtually every gun control or in the trendy vernacular “gun safety” bill. add in “doesn’t address the issue of violent crime, which is the main selling point”, and you’ve got the trifecta of why gun control is so completely off-base.

    1. Just like Chicago; they can go off on guns and virtue signal via legislation without actually imposing on any of their constituents who illegally possess and misuse them to commit crimes; over and over.

  19. The innocent in this country have been getting off Scott Free. The innocent must be punished. That will show them.

  20. So, the Parkland kids are rewarded by the House of Representatives considering a bill that purports to “do something” to stem gun violence in this country. The fact that it by and large won’t, and to the extent that it might will bring with it inarguable violations of personal liberty, means nothing to these young drama queens who will now have learned that the real way to accomplish things is to get on TV as much as possible and to hold their collective breath as long as possible so as to turn the deepest shade of blue possible. All liberal sobfests will now be satiated ? until the next time.

    Because someone, somewhere, somehow, will engage in some act of violence involving a gun that people will care about (unlike black-on-black or brown-on-brown gun violence in Chicago or Detroit or almost any major city you care to name, which libs don’t care about because ? racism), and the whole stupid cycle will begin again.

    The old saw remains true with one slight variation: when guns are outlawed, only outlaws AND POLICE will have guns. I guess that works for the liberal dystopia. I say: “no thanks”

    1. SOMEONE needs to take tnose Parkland Punks, grab them by the scruff, and one by one plant their faces into the steaming pile of feces that is the FACTS involving their hero the Gun Boy…. about the FOUR disqualifying actions he had committed over the couple of years before he shot up the school…. at least three, probably the four, were felony level crimes, for which he was never charged. Had he BEEN charged, as the law DEMANDS, that indictment would have been entered into the FBI database for NICS, and he could NOT have bought his guns.
      WHY was he not charged? Simple.. the school district and the local corrupt Sheriff’s Department preferred to receive the $Mn54 prize for reducing their ARREST rate amongst students, but did so my simply not charging for the CRIMES being committed. The punk had assaulted his Mother, putting her into hospital with broken bones.. always felony level offense Also, whether felony or misdemeanour, that incident was clearly an offense of domestic violence, Disqualifying Event Number Two. He had also assaulted a fellow student, inflicting injuries upon him serious enough to rise to felony level. Finally, I think, he was caught with a lethal weapon, a large knife, ON the school grounds he eventually shot up. Feloy level crime, again. FOUR disqualifying crimes for which he was not charged.. at the $Mn54 “discretion” of the local government poohbahs.

      1. Stuff that HoggBoyy’s face into THAT pile. And tell him until those who jig the system or fail to report disquailfying actions to NICS should receive criminal penalties for their negilgence. They are complicit in the crime.

  21. I’m going to hazard a guess:

    The main problem is that the bills are one-sided, because one side absolutely refuses to work with the other to craft a bill that works for people on both sides of the issue.

    Unless and until you get good cooperation from both sides, you’ll continue to get bills that are created to meet goals without regard to the effect on people on the other side of the issue, which causes them (surprise!) to resent the resulting bill and make it that much harder to build anything that has a chance of being broadly effective.

    1. Fuck that, get shot and die

    2. The ONLY way the background check system, either as it is now or as proposed, will work is if TWO THINGS happen:

      ALL pertinent data and records are entered into it. At least half of the “mass public shooters” had histories that SHOULD have disqualified them but did not, because their history was NOT entered into the NICS database. Most of the rest of them got their guns by “other means”, such as murdering their Mother, stealing them, from a relative who KNEW the shooter to be a convicted felon, thus disqualified, (that woman is now serving a long prison term for knowingly supplying a handgun to the convicted felon who used it to murder four cops on break, as she SHOULD BE),

      ANYONE whose responsibilities include the filing of such data with the NICS system and who FAILS to report such data within the prescribed time limits will be charged as an accessory to any crime committed by a person who acquires a gun by passing a NICS check that SHOULD have issued a DENY code but did not because of the date NOT being entered.

      There…. ALL relevant data reported to NICS in timely fashion, anyone who SHOULD but fails to do so faces serious criminal consequenses. Wanna see the NICS system get fixed? Charge the ones who are breaking it. One or two high profile indictments, suddenly NICS is so complete, accurate, reliable, etc

  22. A few years back I sold a couple of guns — a handgun and an M-1 carbine — to a friend. Someone I would consider an ideal gun-buyers: a collector, kept his guns in a safe, held an active Top Secret clearance (the highest I ever went for was Secret) and one of the most even-tempered people I have ever known.

    This is in California, which requires that _all_ sales go through a licensed gun dealer. My wife and I went to visit him. After chatting a while, we got in the car and drove to the nearest dealer who would handle the transfer. That was about a half hour trip. Then we stood around the shop because, after all, we weren’t much of a revenue source. People actually buying brand new guns provide a much higher profit margin.

    We filled out the forms. Showed our IDs. Then the guns went into the dealer’s safe for the required 10-day waiting period. And drove another half-hour back. Total time consumed: about 1-3/4 hours. To sell two perfectly legal guns to somebody who already owned several (legal) guns and hence was already on the national registry.

    And then, 10 days later, he was allowed to go back and pick up the guns. Presumably another hour or more of his time.

    This is not as trivial as the gun control advocates would have you believe.

  23. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  24. If any page has quality posts like yours then I will search for information very quickly. Please donate again
    run 3

  25. One thing I always love is how gun control zealots always report statistics in percentages rather than raw data. The example here about Deleware is a good example. First Delaware has less than 1 million residents (961,000 +/-). When I looked up the stats here is what I found. Using a number right in the middle (28%), the increase of background checks increased by 8 per 100k residents (28 to 36), For long guns, the increase was 16 (58 to 74) per 100k residents. For all “other” guns, the increase was 5 (18 to 23) per 100k Overall, the law resulted in an approximate increase of 29 checks per 100k residents or a total of 290 for entire population. When you see how tiny the actual change is, it makes you realize how worthless such a law is as well. An addition 300 checks per 1 million people is meaninless. Of course number like this is exactly why anti gun groups and Democrats always use percentages.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.