Gun Control

Here Are the Problems With the Attorney General's Plan To Expand Background Checks for Gun Buyers

It would not do much to protect public safety, but it would magnify the injustice of existing restrictions on gun ownership.

|

Attorney General William Barr is reportedly floating a proposal to expand background checks for gun buyers that is similar to an unsuccessful 2013 bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) and Patrick Toomey (R–Pa.). The proposal would require background checks for "all advertised commercial sales, including gun sales at gun shows."

Manchin and Toomey's Public Safety and Second Amendment Protection Act would have required that federally licensed firearm dealers, who are already required to conduct background checks, be involved in all sales at gun shows and all transfers resulting from online or print ads. It explicitly exempted transfers "between spouses,
between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins."

Barr's proposal would do pretty much the same thing, but it also would authorize licenses for "transfer agents" to help gun owners comply with the background check requirement. The idea, presumably, is that the new category of licensees would make compliance easier by providing an alternative to firearm dealers.

This proposal is less sweeping than the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, which the House of Representatives approved last February. That bill, which was supported by 232 Democrats but only eight Republicans, would ban almost all gun transfers by people who are not licensed dealers. It applies to any sale, whether or not it happens at a gun show and whether or not the firearm was advertised.

The House bill makes an exception for "a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, including step-parents and their step-children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren." If money changes hands, in other words, a background check would be required even for transfers between relatives.

Both proposals share the same problems as any other effort to expand the reach of background checks. First, the categories of prohibited buyers are irrationally and unfairly broad, encompassing millions of people who have never shown any violent tendencies, including cannabis consumers, unauthorized U.S. residents, people who have been convicted of nonviolent felonies, and anyone who has ever undergone mandatory psychiatric treatment because he was deemed suicidal.

Second, background checks are not an effective way to prevent mass shootings, since the vast majority of people who commit those crimes do not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records. Third, background checks, even if they are notionally "universal," can be easily evaded by ordinary criminals, who can obtain weapons through straw buyers or the black market. Fourth, voluntary compliance is apt to be the exception rather than the rule, and enforcement will be difficult, if not impossible.

Since the Manchin-Toomey approach applies only to relatively conspicuous sales, enforcement would be easier, but only because unadvertised private sales would be exempt. The House bill would be mostly aspirational and symbolic, since the government has no way of knowing when guns change hands in private transactions if the sales are not advertised and do not happen at gun shows.

In a study published last year, researchers looked at what happened after Colorado, Delaware, and Washington expanded their background check requirements. They 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 private transfers.

After the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, last month, President Donald Trump signaled his support for expanded background checks. "Serious discussions are taking place between House and Senate leadership on meaningful Background Checks," he said in an August 9 tweet. "I have also been speaking to the NRA, and others, so that their very strong views can be fully represented and respected. Guns should not be placed in the hands of mentally ill or deranged people. I am the biggest Second Amendment person there is, but we all must work together for the good and safety of our Country. Common sense things can be done that are good for everyone!"

The White House, however, has not accepted ownership of Barr's idea, and most Republicans in the Senate will not support a background check bill unless Trump says he is prepared to sign it. Politico reports that "a senator who met with Barr said the attorney general made clear he had authorization from the White House." That seemed to be news to the White House. Presidential spokesman Hogan Gidley told Politico "the president has not signed off on anything yet but has been clear he wants meaningful solutions that actually protect the American people and could potentially prevent these tragedies from ever happening again."

Advertisement

NEXT: 8 Cases Everyone Should Know from the Taney and Chase Courts

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.

  1. Heh. This sounds like it’s designed to quiet the “do something!” crowd. It will not do so. The Left wants to see doors broken down and guns confiscated. They won’t be happy until they get it.

    1. A lesson that some refuse to learn.

      1. similarly as William reacted I’m flabbergasted that a housewife ready to benefit $4424 in a month on the web . unique site…

        HERE :)…… http://xurl.es/dx2hl

    2. Some doors broken down will not result in a confiscation, but in deaths.

      1. Lots will result in both.

    3. ” The Left wants to see doors broken down and guns confiscated.”

      This may be true for some on the left, but some others on the left get just as hard over their firearms as you do.

      The same is also true of the centrists.

    4. similarly as William reacted I’m flabbergasted that a housewife ready to benefit $4424 in a month on the web . unique site…

      HERE :)…… http://earny.xyz/MADcKp1e2t

  2. Barr’s proposal would do pretty much the same thing, but it also would authorize licenses for “transfer agents” to help gun owners comply with the background check requirement. The idea, presumably, is that the new category of licensees would make compliance easier by providing an alternative to firearm dealers.

    That would be neccessary as the ATF has long been seriously opposed to ‘kitchen sink dealers’ – people who would get FFL’s for the purpose of facilitating transfers.

    1. these clowns avoid the real root issue.

      Background checks are, in theory, a means to determine whether the BUYER is a prohibited person or not. A good friend I’ve known for twenty or thurty years, and know him to be an upright, moral, and honourable individual who would NEVER use a firearm to force or harm an innocent. DOES comply with the need to NOT put arms into the hands of prohibited persons. So WHY do we both need to take a trip to the FFL, wait in line, pay their fee….? I KNOW it is not putting a firearm into the hands of a prohibited person.

      Further, the FOrm 4473, the platform of data being used to run the actual check, asks plenty of information about the individual buying the gun. Fine. mostly. But THEN the form goes on and demands a list of WHICH GUNS, make, model, calibre, serial number, are being purchased. Up to five.

      Go ahead and use the database that has been boinb guilt for decades…. BUT:

      list each individial being checked by the exact name as it appears on their Social Security account. Current system returns so many false ENY codes because it can confuse data between John Smith and Jonny Smythe. Use ONLY the name as registered with Social Security….. nothing else.

      Tie in date and city of birth. A return will not be given until ALL fields match.

      I KNOW individuals who always get a DELAY code…… for decades they have. Some other guy with a SIMILAR name is prohibited, but there is NO WAY they have the same DATE of birth AND city of birth….. Unless all three fields match, no code returned. This change alone would eliminate some 95% of false positive or negatives.

      NOW…. do two more things: first, make this database accessible at all times to anyone who wants to make a query. Lock the data files so the inquirer must provide all information, none can be accessed through the system. Read only and only in reponse to data submitted. Now, when Charlie wants to buy my black and ugly rifle with the shoulder thing that goes up and the optioinal million bullet magazine,and I don’t know hom well enough to make certain he’s not Prohibited, I can access the modofied NICS via landline, cell ohone, or internet. I enter full mane as recorded on social security card (any CHarlie willl KNOW what that is, even if I don’t), date and city of birth…. NO INFORMATION about what is being transferred.. remember, this is a background check on the BUYER, right? To determine whether he is lawfully able to possess a firearm? That so, what difference does it make whether he is buying a Ruger LCP or a BArret BMG Fifty Bolt Action Sniper Rifle? One would be just as illegal for me to possess s the other if it is ME who is prohibitd from owning any of them).

      So I engage the system find out CHarlie is NOT on the Prohibited list, sell him the gun, and perhaps save a PDF of the code with the data I entered, todays date, and a however many digit seems OK “Proceed” or “Deny” code,

      I have done my duty to make sure I have not provided a person disabled from owning firearms with a gun. This system culd be derinved from the present NICS, and since it needs to human on the other end would cost a fraction of today;s glitchy innaccurate system. And be trulyinstant. Either Charlie is a match for a known prohibited person or he is not. No question.

      It can be accessed 24/7/365 from any phone or internet device, no hour long trip to an FFL and pestering hIM to run a check fron which he will not make any money.

      It will be blind, no data can ever be accessed, only provided. The system then compares THAT supplied data and returns PROCEED or DENY along with a code. for my records.
      And since the guns being transferred are not listed, there cn never be an unconstitutional database of who has what derived from all the application attempts, as is done today.n

      They really don’t care a whit about selling a handful of guns to felons. Nope. They want a universal background check as a tool to build a database of who has whoat guns now, and where he lives, Don’t let them fool you.

  3. i see Colt is running scared and not going to make the AR for civilian use anymore. When the gun manufactures give up to signaling we are screwed

    1. I don’t think it has to do with signalling, I just think it has to do with the fact that Colt can’t compete in the AR market. Other than the Colt logo they really don’t have anything to justify costing twice as much as any other AR

      1. Agreed. The AR is like the Android of black rifles. Everyone has one. Hell, the Ruger AR is like $500.

        1. try closer to seven… but still cheaper. Seems to be quite the nice piece of equipment, too.

          1. The basic AR 556 is selling for just under $500 now; try the internet.

        2. It should be noted that the AR 15 is long off patent and that Colt is NOT the originator of the design. The AR 15 was originally created by Armalite (https://www.armalite.com/) The AR in AR 15 stands for Armalite Rifle, not assault rifle.

      2. Well, maybe they can’t compete, and got out of the civilian rifle (Not just AR-15!) market for that reason.

        But their history suggests virtue signaling.

        1. Colt’s own statement on why cites excess capacity in AR-15 manufacturing across the industry and that for now they are planning to concentrate on military and law enforcement orders.

          If the move was about virtue signalling, don’t you think that their own public statement on the issue would include said virtue signalling?

        2. No, their history suggests an impending bankruptcy…

          Colt has this weird theory that they can survive solely on gov’t contracts and try to charge retail purchasers the gov’t contract rate.

          Lose handgun sales to Smith & Wesson and Glock? File for bankruptcy…

          Lose rifle sales to FN? File for bankruptcy…

          If they marketed quality weapons, innovative weapons, and charged market rates, they could probably survive. But this is them saying “we’re being undercut by other manufacturers and we can’t compete.”

    2. Colt cannot make ARs at the price newer, leaner manufacturers can. And since they didn’t design the gun in the first place, they can’t make it any better. They still think people will pay big bucks just to have a dancing pony.

      1. A lot of ex military guys are just hell bent on having the same manufacturer as was issued to them in the sand box; Colt of FN. Personally I have never been willing to pay the extra money for them. There are plenty of good quality ARs for a reasonable cost, and high end ones if you want to pay more.

        1. I’d think they’d want one from the originator of the design, Armalite.

          1. If you are looking for an AR-15 made by the originators, you are looking for a rifle that’s over 55 years old and was never manufactured in large quantities. I think you’ll need a lot of cash.

            Armalite sold the AR-15 design to Colt and ceased manufacturing it themselves in the early 1960’s. It could not find a different design that could compete with that in the market, and was practically out of business ten years later, although it wasn’t official until 1983.

            The brand was revived by a new company in 1996, but there’s no connection to the designers of the AR-15 except a few dollars paid to transfer the “Armalite” trademark. They can make AR-15’s not because they owned the design, but because that patent expired long ago and no one owns the design now. Their rifles are OK, but just like all the other imitation AR-15’s. Buying from them because you liked the old Armalite is like buying a new front-wheel-drive VW “Beatle” because you’re an old hippie who loved his rear-wheel-drive 1967 VW Beatle.

  4. “he wants meaningful solutions that actually protect the American people and could potentially prevent these tragedies from ever happening again.”

    “CC reciprocity, for instance.”

    1. According to some people back in early 2016, we were supposed to have this already if Trump was elected.

      1. 2A is definitely the most disappointing part of Trump’s presidency.

      2. We were on track to deregulate suppressors before the Vegas shooter.

        1. and he did not use any suppressors. Nor did he use a bump stock….

          1. What did he use, if not a bump stock? Everything I’ve read said he used a bump stock.

            1. He had a bump stock, He also had a dozen other rifles in the hotel room without bump stocks. Everything I’ve read is that there is no positive evidence that he actually used the bump stock in the attack.

    2. he wants meaningful solutions that actually protect the American people and could potentially prevent these tragedies from ever happening again.

      Is he willing to give up his qualified immunity and expose himself to lawsuits from law abiding citizens who are prevented from obtaining a weapon in error or encounter inordinate delays and suffer damages as a result? A show of faith that he truly believes this is good for American people?

  5. “Fourth, voluntary compliance is apt to be the exception rather than the rule, and enforcement will be difficult, if not impossible.”

    That is the point. Enforcement is only (notionally) possible through mandatory registration of all firearms. That is the endgame of this phase of the gun control battle. They want the mandatory background checks so they can then demand the mandatory registration that is required to enforce. They aren’t even pretending to deny this like they pretend to deny that their ultimate goal is outlawing all firearms (outside of the government).

    1. And the reason for opposing registration is…

      (I mean for the non-paranoid firearm owner.)

      1. Registration is the necessary precursor to confiscation. They can’t take what they don’t know exists.

      2. 1) It’s impractical. Approx 400 million firearms, most not registered with the exception of a few states where compliance is already well below 100%.

        2) The only reason for registration is for future confiscation. The Swiss allow for anonymous transfers between gun owners when the buyer provides proof to the seller they are eligible thru an online check. No info on the firearms that are transferred is given to the gov’t.

        1. quote:
          with the exception of a few states where compliance is already well below 100%.

          Corrected
          with the exception of a few states where compliance is already well below 10%.

          Fixed that for ya… you’re welcome.

      3. Not being ignorant of history.

      4. nunna dey dam bidniss, dats why.

        THEY (whoever happens to be the current reighiing ‘they”) could only want registration as a means to know who has what where, as a precursor to confiscation. If they had no plans ever of confiscating, they’d have no need to know who has what where.

      5. And the reason for imposing registration is…

        (I mean for the non-paranoid anti-gunner.)

      6. Take a listen to Lizzy Warren on firearms legislation; “we’ll start here and keep coming back, and back, and back for more.” This is from a front runner in the Democratic clown car, not just the crazy furry. Registration, if attained, is a precursor to tomorrow’s “moderate” goal to require mandatory confiscation.

      7. And the reason for opposing registration is

        You are tasking the FBI to spend a trillion or so dollars up front plus a billion or so per year, and expend who-knows-how-many work hours, to make and maintain a list of a hundred million people or so who passed background checks indicating they aren’t the folks the FBI needs to track.
        Plus, in Haynes v U.S., the Supreme Court held that you can’t prosecute a felon for failure to register a firearm.

  6. “The House bill makes an exception for “a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, including step-parents and their step-children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren.” If money changes hands, in other words, a background check would be required even for transfers between relatives.”

    The secret family exception to 2nd amendment violations.

    1. Adoptions multiply like mushrooms after the rain

  7. I don’t think Mr. Sullum has presented Readership with anything more than speculation on what might be in the AG’s proposal. The AG does not strike me as the ‘gun grabber’ type. Let’s read more detail on what AG Barr is proposing.

    1. I’m certainly interested in hearing more about how these “transfer agent” licenses would work

      1. Why do I need a license to sell my property to someone else?

        1. Because 2A has been infringed.

          1. Perhaps I asked the wrong question, why SHOULD I need a license to sell my property to someone else?

            No other property I have requires me to have a license to sell it, perhaps with the exception of some controlled substances but that’s an entirely different can of worms and something I’d also argue is unconstitutional. If I’m not free to sell it to whomever I wish for whatever reasons I wish, I don’t actually own it. It would follow then that any requirements foisted upon “gun owners” wouldn’t apply.

            1. Well I’d guess at least 90% of people here don’t think you should. And the other 10% are either statists, crazy as fuck, or socks.

              So you’re not likely to get a coherent answer.

            2. “why SHOULD I need a license to sell my property to someone else?”

              Because you sell controlled substances, and prefer to be called a “pharmacist” rather than a “drug dealer”?

              (just an example)

              1. Libertarians are against that too fuckapottamus.

                Try again.

              2. Box. Rocks. You’re dumber than it.

              3. the ROOT question nunna dese here paul a tishuns will face up to is WHY is a weed anyone cnan grow, or a chunk of metal and plastic made into a certian shape, “prohibited” in the first place?

            3. I agree you shouldn’t, but the fact is in many cases you do, for example if you want to sell a gun to a resident of a different state someone with a license must be involved. If you want to buy a handgun in another state in many cases TWO licensees must be involved. Not to mention all the other crap that FFLs are required to do when they transfer a gun besides the background check

              Making the licenses more accessible and perhaps creating a system where private sellers can run their own background checks without involving a full-fledged FFL could actually increase our freedom to buy and sell property as we wish

    2. Barr was not considered particularly Second Amendment friendly prior to his nomination to AG. It doesn’t sound like he’s gotten much better.

      1. cat….I don’t think we can say with certainty that AG Barr is friendly, or unfriendly to 2A. But I note that he is not in the madding crowd demanding gun control and gun confiscation. I want to see more (and better quality) analysis of what exactly he is proposing.

        Because what Mr. Sullum is producing ain’t it = quality analysis.

        1. Yeah, it would be good to get a clearer picture: the info so far isn’t exactly reassuring on the issue. It may turn out to have been misplaced concern, but some pro-2nd groups didn’t like parts of his history before confirmation: https://gunowners.org/barr-doubles-down/

      2. Those that really support individual rights don’t want to be prosecutors in the current system.

    1. when they came for the basil i said nothing

      1. John Cleese was pissed, too.

        1. when they came for the basil i said nothing

          John Cleese was pissed, too.

          What a nice set up. Thank you both.

          … This clip has Cleese as Basil referencing Nazis.

  8. Great. Now do abortion.

    1. Still not funny. Also stupid.

      1. “Still not funny. Also stupid.”

        Thank You for telling us what is tasteful, funny, stupid, dull, and boring, etc. What would we EVER do without YOU telling us what to think, do, believe, inhale, breathe, puke up, reject, or assimilate? Good luck in assimilating us all! I look forward to becoming a part of Your Borg! What shall I think and do next, Oh Lord and Master?

        1. Do whatever the fuck you want. And if I think it’s stupid and/or not funny I might tell you.

          For instance, this Borg joke was not funny.

    2. Here is your distilled summary: Aborting your gun-ownership rights should be allowed at any time before the beginning of the third trimester. Gun-ownership credits may NOT be transferred from one state to another, if they cross inter-trimester boundaries, and all states party to the agreement have NOT completed mutual repatriation and extradition agreements that include the rights of the pre-deceased AND of the post-deceased, AND the post-diseased (axe-cluding zombies, which are considered to be entirely theoretical at this time, pending the introduction of new existential evidence). (This clause is NOT intended to be discriminatory against zombies, unless they are named “Tulpa”).

      “Gun control” shall be interpreted as hitting what you aim at, assuming minimal “collateral damage”. There is NO “bag limit” on zombies (especially on ones named “Tulpa”).

      1. Actually pretty funny till the zombies.

    3. I don’t get it. You want universal background checks for abortion?

      1. “…universal background checks for abortion?”

        Yes, that’s what the Fed-Guv secretly, REALLY wants! Abortions will be allowed ONLY for native-fartilized blastocysts (embyros etc.), because the Fed-Guv will owe them Social Security payments in their old age (if they come to term).

        Illegal sub-human-fartilized blastocysts (embyros etc.), on the other hand, that will be born on the wrong side of the border, may NOT be aborted, because they will prop up the otherwise-doddering-and-decaying, unstable Social Security system, by paying in, with NO hope of ever getting payments back out! Birth them a few yards south of the border, bring them here when they are babies, and then, later on, MILK THEM for all that they are worth! (Mexico will pay for the anti-abortion efforts here, just like they are paying for Our Glorious Walls).

        See “The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes” (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one… AKA http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/ For details about us natives mooching off of the taxes of the illegal sub-humans…

        This is also why Der TrumpfenFuhrer wants to do away with “anchor babies”, AKA, birthright citizenship… Caste system is what Der TrumpfenFuhrer REALLY wants! Der TrumpfenFuhrer loves Modi!

        1. Another example: none of this is funny.

          1. I agree!!! The Trumptatorship (and the Trumpistic scapegoating of un-Americans everywhere) is the least funny thing that I have seen… In my life, pretty much, excluding the suicides of some people close to me!

            1. I meant your post wasn’t funny.

                1. It’s funny to a point. Then the odor permeates the room an it’s not funny anymore. Kind of like his posts.

          2. Please don’t feed the troll. This one in particular is a clinger.

            1. Yes, I do try to cling to sanity!

              The Trumpistic belief that we can be “America number One; Other nations suck hind titty, and other nations will NEVER notice that we are treating them as 15th class or worse, and shit right back on us”… This belief that “karma” or “what comes around, goes around” has been utterly revoked by Der TrumpfenFuhrer (Hallopwed Be His Name)… THIS is insanity! And I will cling to the opposite of it!

              So yes, I am PROUD to be a clinger!

              1. Nothing in this post is funny. (Sorry Chuckles)

                1. Cue reference to Monty Python, with the Minister of Silly Walks wearing a german military uniform and declaring “zat’s not funny!”

                  1. I wouldn’t want the gig, but I’d be a pretty good Minister of Silly.

              2. “SQRLSY One
                September.19.2019 at 6:07 pm
                Yes, I do try to cling to sanity!”

                You failed shit eater.

                Tulpa 2 SQRAZY 0

                Also,

                “An” not “and”

                You shouldn’t need a spell check for that

                And it’s “essen” not “fressen”

  9. Consulting the NRA? Great, another gun ban or gun control feature coming our way.

  10. across the board unconstitutional?

    1. Well, yeah. So what?

      1. my answer for the $200 box

    2. Fucking pop up. Sorry I accidentally flagged this comment trying to close it.

  11. Third, background checks, even if they are notionally “universal,” can be easily evaded by ordinary criminals, who can obtain weapons through straw buyers, the black market, or, in the case of Sandy Hook, by stepping over their mother’s dead body.

    FIFY

  12. The idea, presumably, is that the new category of licensees would make compliance easier

    Let me stop you right there. Even if they said that, it is not the right presumption to make. Creating additional layers of bureaucracy is never unintentional, never faster or more efficient, never solves a problem, and most definitely never makes anything easier. This is demonstrable.

    If easier was the goal, they would remove the existing system and install a robust internet-browser accessible reporting system using 21st century technology. Dealers could type in the particulars and get an instantaneous approval. Flagged names could appeal with a simple submission over the internet and get a guaranteed response within 3 days.

    The DOJ are prosecutors. Their real intention, is…, wait for it… prosecutions.

    1. There is no way they get prosecutions unless they know who has what guns. That means they have to start keeping a database of all weapons and owners that are presented for background checks.

      It also does not solve any problems. If there are 300 million weapons currently not in the database, everyone of those weapons either has to become registered, or is impossible to track. That means another law or rule passed and non-compliance turns otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals.

      And that still doesn’t solve any problems. Real criminals still have 300 million weapons they can potentially buy off the record.

      This is not a slippery slope fallacy. Universal background checks will inevitably lead to universal registration, regardless of the administration. When the administration changes, some idiot like Beto will try to confiscate.

      This is bad.

      1. ” When the administration changes, some idiot like Beto will try to confiscate.”

        After a few would-be confiscateers get roughed up by unwilling to be confiscated from, they’ll reformulate their policy.

        1. The people that want to confiscate have no intention of doing it themselves. That’s what cops are for. They’ll be safe in their gated homes with armed guards. That’s the whole point.

          1. And the pigs get limited immunity. So no one will be held accountable.

      2. You’re absolutely correct. Enforcement of violations involving sales between private individuals is not possible with a complete and continually updated record of who owns what firearms.

    2. Actually, if the grabbers goal was *really* to have “universal background checks,” they would make the NICS open and free to every American citizen so they could check a buyer from their living room.

      But their goal isn’t to ensure “universal background checks” or safety, its to intentionally create bottle-necks in the system so that you HAVE to go through an FFL for any transfer…
      and then they’ll start denying new FFLs…
      and then old FFLs will start to lose their licenses due to some BS “non-compliance” of some stupid technicality…
      and then you’ll end up with only a few “select” people with FFLs who have a habit of never being open or charging $100 dollars to do a transfer.

  13. Develop and implement a reasonable solution to the problem, clingers, or prepare for others to address the situation in a manner gun nuts are destined to mutter bitterly about.

    I sense you have about 15 months left.

    1. Get a new schtick, bladder-boy. You are boring.

    2. Unfortunately, Art, it appears common sense gun safety measures are indeed over a year away. But in 2021 the next Democratic President will surely sign a ban on deadly military style assault weapons. In fact this country had such a ban once before. Studies show it was an enormous success, but the gun fetishists prevented it from being renewed.

      #BanAssaultWeapons
      #UnbanMichaelHihn

      1. Warren/Buttegiege will take all the rich people’s money and guns to make America quake again.

        1. “Warren/Buttegiege will take all the rich people’s money and guns to make America quake again.”

          Yes, gotcha! But note that the law-abiding peons will lose their guns under Warren/Buttegiege, while Warren/Buttegiege will have their heavily armed palace guard to protect THEM! Taxpayer-paid-for guns for THEM, NO guns for the law-abiding peons! We peons will get shot up and taken hostage and so forth, as much as the peons are, in heavily gun-controlled Mexico.

      2. You can have my bayonet lug and grenade launcher when I use one to launch the other at your fore gut.

        1. All-talk gun nuts might be my favorite stompees in the culture war.

          1. “_____ might be my favorite _____” is easily your favorite overused crutch.

            Especially since I excised “disaffected” from your vocabulary against your will.

          2. “stompees”?

            Really? This is the lamest thing in existence of nothing but lame you’ve ever posted.

            1. Well I’ve been mocking his lack of erudition forever…

              But really that’s a nice catch, wtf kind of aliterate (no, not illiterate) loser uses “stompees”

      3. How about we reauthorize it just so you fucking right-wing morons can grouse about it for the next decade?

        1. Holy shit how have you been crying about right wingers for this long? It’s been DAYS man have some god damned dignity.

        2. Because you can’t.

          Also, angry old man is not funny. You forgot which character you were there for a minute Tony.

          1. He also forgot his singular argument, “Libertarians = GOP” was already stale and lazy a decade ago when he stole it.

            1. It’s either one of two things. Either you have the ability to discern lies and bullshit at the level of the common raccoon or you’re perfectly capable of understanding what and why you are doing and just don’t fucking care. Either way is fine. I love blithering idiots *and* bullshit artists.

              1. How do you shit so often and for so long?

                You gotta see a doctor, and not just for your admitted dementia.

                1. No no, I like watching him rage at the fictional libertarians that populate his mind.

                  His tears are soothing.

              2. Either you have the ability to discern lies and bullshit at the level of the common raccoon or you’re perfectly capable of understanding what and why you are doing and just don’t fucking care

                Said the self-avowed Marxist.

              3. “Either you have the ability to discern lies and bullshit at the level of the common raccoon or you’re perfectly capable of understanding what and why you are doing and just don’t fucking care.”

                Then there’s the third option, which you fall under, and you discern things below the level of the common raccoon. Which is what you should have said in the first place. Way to fuck that one up.

                  1. I keep trying to tell him he’s bad at humor. He keeps proving me right.

                    1. NU UH he hung that shit up six months ago.

              4. Shorter Tony: either you’re as smart as a fifth grader, or you’re smarter. And I’m less smart.

    3. The alleged goal is to keep guns out of “the wrong hands”, aka the hands of “people who shouldn’t have them.” Solution: identify and get a consensus on who “the wrong hands” belong to. Then incarcerate those people. Guns in prisons don’t seem to be a problem.

      If you are too dangerous to have a gun, you are too dangerous to be out and about.

      Oh, and good luck building that consensus.

      1. Which is more cost-effective… spend all the money to accurately(?) identify all the people who shouldn’t have guns, and then either A) don’t let them buy or borrow a gun, or B) feed, clothe and house them at public expense, indefinitely?

        1. Most people who should not have guns acquire them outside the legally regulated channels of trade. You cannot safely avoid imprisoning dangerous people by imposing gun control.

          US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey on Firearms Use by Offenders
          (Sample: nationwide sample of prison inmates who possessed a firearm during the offense for which they were imprisoned)

          2004 Source of firearms by gun using offenders

          11.3% Retail Purchase or trade
          7.3 – Retail store
          2.6 – Pawnshop
          0.6 – Flea market
          0.8 – Gun show

          37.4% Family or friend
          12.2 – Purchased or traded
          14.1 – Rented or borrowed
          11.1 – Other

          40.0% Street/illegal source
          7.5 – Theft or burglary
          25.2 – Drug dealer/off street
          7.4 – Fence/black market

          11.2% Other source

          Between the survey of 1991 and 2004, the percentage reporting Retail Purchase or trade as a source of crime guns went from 21% to less than 12% due in large part to implementation of the NICS background check system.

          Wright & Rossi reporting on the first Armed and Considered Dangerous inmate survey in 1983 noted that friends and family providing guns to criminals were often criminals themselves. The friend loaning a gun to a robber might expect the gun back with a cut of the take, for instance.

          Get the 25% Drug/street dealers to do background checks? You can’t get them to ask for Rx scripts before a drug sale.

          1. “Wright & Rossi reporting on the first Armed and Considered Dangerous inmate survey in 1983 noted that friends and family providing guns to criminals were often criminals themselves.”

            So if you cut off the gun faucet, each blocked gun sale might actually be keeping two (or more!) people who shouldn’t have one from getting one. Bonus!

      2. Yes, a list of people that don’t get to have guns! Created by the government. I recommend James Comey comes out of retirement and be in charge of that list. The only thing that will happen is an end to gun violence, and it will never be used for political purposes.

    4. Exactly.

      If you don’t like Obamacare, then what’s your proposal for universal single-payer health care coverage? If you don’t like the Democrat’s plans for gun confiscation, what’s your plan for gun confiscation? If you don’t like the Democrat’s plans to turn this country in a Venezuelan-style shithole, what are your plans to turn this country into a Venezuelan-style shithole?

      For some of us, those would be snide, sarcastic rhetorical questions – but the GOP is serious as a heart attack about working up their own answers to those questions.

      1. If you don’t like my gun-control measures, you must be in favor of gun use for murder and suicide.

        If you don’t like my proposal to federalize vaccinations for children, then you are against vaccinations for the children (this one I do literally recall from the Clinton years).

        If you don’t like my proposal to federalize the production and distribution of food and clothes and shelter, you are against food and clothes and shelter!

        Oxygen and gravity too maybe?

        And so it goes…

    5. I think the fact that I reached out axroos the internet and controlled your behavior is fucking awesome. You’re so weak. I mocked your idiot ass for overusing “disaffected” and *poof* it vanished from your posts.

      I did that.

      Now, having told you I know I controlled your weak ass, you’ll try to slip it in occasionally, but we will both know it’s because you realize you’re my property and you’re trying to pretend otherwise.

      I took your favorite word from you. And you know it and hate it.

      Cling to these nuts, you sad piece of disaffected trash.

      1. Wow, Tulpa, your mind-control powers are absol-fucking-lutely AWESOME!

        PLEASE have mercy, and do NOT reach out axroos the internet and control me as well!!! PLEASE?!?!

        1. Well I drove you crazy.

          Tulpa 1 SQRAZY 0

          Also,

          “An” not “and”

          You shouldn’t need a spell check for that

          And it’s “essen” not “fressen”

          1. It really doesn’t matter if you’re having “an” episode or “and” episode… Whichever is the case (or is it both?), what is VITALLY ESSENTIAL is that you get some help, and get your meds and dosages double-checked! Thinking that you have mind-control powers over others, via the internet or your aluminum-foil hat, or anything else, is a CLEAR indication of mania! You need a mood stabilizer… Lithium, or Lamictal, for example… And stay AWAY from anti-depressants!

            https://www.helpguide.org/articles/bipolar-disorder/bipolar-medication-guide.htm
            Bipolar Medication Guide
            What you need to know about medications for bipolar disorder, including how to manage your meds and minimize side effects.

            1. Um, no one wants advice from a shit eater like you shit eater.

              And… I drove you crazy.

              Tulpa 3 SQRAZY 0

              Also,

              “An” not “and”

              You shouldn’t need a spell check for that

              And it’s “essen” not “fressen”

            2. “What you need to know about medications for bipolar disorder, including how to manage your meds and minimize side effects”

              No one cares about your regimen shit eater

              Tulpa 4 SQRAZY 0

              Also,

              “An” not “and”

              You shouldn’t need a spell check for that

              And it’s “essen” not “fressen”

            3. SQRLSY One
              September.19.2019 at 9:41 pm
              It really doesn’t matter if you’re having “an” episode or “and” episode…

              I’d be more inclined to believe that if you hadn’t been reduced to insane shit posting all day as a result of being wrong about it.

              1. So you’re saying he wants to eat his own posts?

        2. This wasn’t funny at all. I think you should give up on the humor angle and try a different approach.

    6. How about the police sweeping public housing units for contraband?

      http://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-04-08-mn-43649-story.html

      Is that reasonable enough for you?

      1. He’s at minimum on the autism spectrum, and probably deep into retard territory. So when he rocks back and forth in his chair at the computer laughing hysterically thinking about gun owners being put in cages (where he will undoubtedly be allowed to shove his dick in their mouths) he doesn’t really care about people in public housing getting caught up in it.

        1. Those are the people most likely to get caught up in it.

          1. Yeah but Kirkland lives in a group home and has a legal guardian to protect him from himself and others, so he’s still safe.

    7. Develop and implement a reasonable solution to the problem, fascist, or prepare for others to address the situation in a manner government goons are destined to mutter bitterly about.

    8. I see someone here wants to stand on the gas pedal…

  14. Sounds like another infringement.

    1. If the state doesn’t buy your guns, that’s infringement.

    2. We still have selective service, so they agree that the ‘bear arms’ part is good for Americans, as long as it’s forcibly implemented with the threat of imprisonment for refusal to do so when ordered by the government.

  15. The fairly obvious answer is civil liability for damage your weapon causes for other people, including those times when your weapon is not in your hands. (This will increase the likelihood that you will carefully consider who you’re loaning it to.)
    Insurance to cover the liability will be priced better for people who handle their weapons responsibly, and more expensive for people who don’t, again reinforcing safer practices.

    Shoot at the bad guy breaking into your house but hit the neighbor in his front yard by mistake? Oops. At least there’s money to pay his medical bills and/or funeral costs…

    1. So you want to price gun ownership out of the financial ability of lower income people?

      1. Shhh. They need poor people to vote for them. It’s for their own good. It’ll mostly just effect evil rednecks.

        1. I’m not running for office, so, no, I don’t really need anybody to vote for me.

      2. That’s how capitalism works sometimes. You prefer a different economic system, then?

        1. You are writong about a cost imposed by the state.

    2. Why limit this advanced concept to guns? — Because you hate guns.

      Why not recognize that this is already a fact of life? — Because you want to spread hatred of guns.

      If I park my car and forget to engage the parking brake and it rolls into another car or a person, are you really so dumb as to think I get away scot-free with no liability whatsoever?

      No, I doubt it. But you’d gladly trade a self-inflicted loss of reputation if it would make people afraid of guns.

      1. You don’t have a constitutional right to keep and drive a car.

  16. Republican nationalsocialism is tickled at the chance to swap 2A for Kristallnacht laws. With the bozos clueless about the law-changing power of spoiler votes and impossibility of destroying the Bill of Rights, the LP stands to gain once pragmatists realize the income tax and prohibition parties get their amendments without their politicians getting a snout in the trough. With 9% of the vote, the cleptos will heed our planks faster than Republicans toadied up to Wallace Dixiecrats in 1972.

  17. Hey baggers,

    I’m looking for a word. Oh, crap… it’s right on the top of my tongue… ok, it’s a word that describes a situation in which a political leader on, let’s call it, Team Red goes to a hypothetical country called Krania and asks the leader of Krania for information on the leading rival in Team Blue for the sake of interfering in an election. Can you guys help me? I’m having a senior moment.

    1. Fiction. The word you’re looking for is fiction.

      HTH.

    2. Can you guys help me? I’m having a senior moment.

      Ah OK you have dementia. That explains everything.

      You really should avoid getting so worked up though it’s not good for your dementia.

    3. Doubling down on humor? Look, I’m really being honest here, you’re not good at it. It doesn’t make you a bad person (other characteristics do, but let’s not digress). It just means you’re not funny.

      I’m not any good at pretending people are funny that aren’t, and that doesn’t make me a bad person either. We all have our weaknesses. You should try focusing on your strengths. Maybe go outside and spray the yard down with a hose and catch some night crawlers! I bet you could be good at that! We’d all be so proud of you, give it a try!

      And if you’re not good at that either, well, don’t worry buddy, we’ll think of something else for you to try.

      1. He’s a Marxist. He could try his hand at liquidating people..

        1. Hmm, maybe. But as I think it through, I’m picturing the people destined for the oven repeatedly outsmarting him and escaping the gulag after he gives them his car keys so they can go run some errands for him.

          Curious LeaveTrump, are you a potato chip guy, cookies and soda? Beer and cigarettes? Either way, people would find out his weaknesses and he’d keep falling for it. Then he’d end up in the oven himself eventually.

          Which really defeats the purpose of helping him get enough confidence to try something besides humor. Cuz he’s bad at it.

          1. You seem obsessed with my ability to amuse you. For the record, I hung that shit up six months ago.

            1. Still think you should give up on the jokes though.

            2. Jesus get some immodium guy, your poor colon.

              1. Starting to think he’s wearing diapers and just shits off and on throughout the day.

  18. Sometimes doing NOTHING is the correct choice. The only thing I want to hear from the ‘limited government conservative’ Republicans is this: ‘get a Constitutional Amendment’ -or- ‘pound sand!’ Your irrational fear does not warrant abrogation of our God-given rights.

    1. Even better: tell voters that they are a bunch of deplorables for wanting what they want, and then ride right into the WH! Worked so well for Hillary!

      Seriously, in a democracy with a weak constitution (which is what we live in today), you can’t tell voters to “go pound sand” because they are going to vote for whoever is going to give them what they want. Fixing that is a long, drawn out process.

  19. It would not do much to protect public safety, but it would magnify the injustice of existing restrictions on gun ownership

    It would. But it’s an imperfect world, and this is not a hill a conservative should die on. That is, it won’t affect most Republican voters, and it is moderately popular with independents. The people it will hurt most aren’t going to vote Republican anyway.

    1. Yeah, screw principles. If it doesn’t hurt me directly, who gives a damn?

      /s

  20. Another good rundown of what we know of demo/Barr’s ill conceived do-something ideas: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/awful-idea

    Calling an advertised sale between two individuals in the same state a “commercial” transaction is a bastardization of the term as usually understood, and not applied to any other similar exchange. Does selling your used Taurus on Craigslist make you a car dealer?

    If they want to have background checks on any sales inside gun shows, or that require a non face-to-face transfer (since those pretty much happen already), and we could get carry reciprocity and hearing protection in exchange, that could work. If they pass red flag laws, that’s likely to self-destruct after a steadily increasing rash of deadly mishandled incidents and lawsuits.

    1. Oh, you think “compromise” means that both sides get someting they want. LoL.

      The grabbers ONLY ever grab. Its been that way since 1934. You’ll get nothing. And you’ll like it.

      1. Probably a temporary fit of unwarranted wishcasting on my part.

  21. “First, the categories of prohibited buyers are irrationally and unfairly broad, encompassing millions of people who have never shown any violent tendencies, including cannabis consumers, unauthorized U.S. residents, people who have been convicted of nonviolent felonies, and anyone who has ever undergone mandatory psychiatric treatment because he was deemed suicidal.”

    Mind, this isn’t really a problem for the “unauthorized” residents, because, at least in theory, as soon as you identify them they should be deported, which also gets in the way of their owning guns in the US.

  22. I agree with almost all of the comments here – it would be a bad idea to have mandatory registration. Even if the paranoid fears of “registration leads to confiscation” are overblown, it’s STILL none of the government’s business how many guns I own. The government doesn’t know how many TVs or frying pans or cell phones I own, why should they know how many guns I own? And requiring a government-approved license in order to sell my TV or frying pan or cell phone to someone else is just ridiculous. Same with guns.

    I just wish more people around here would take that same near-absolutist position when it comes to ALL property rights, not just the property right of owning guns. Why should the state require that I have permission from the state before I use ANY of my property in any way that I see fit, barring of course violations of the NAP?

  23. One thing:

    these “transfer agents” would run counter to some State’s laws (like CA), which prohibit the holding of an FFL from someone who doesn’t have a storefront. And how would a collector (which includes museums), comply with the law? I need more details. Whatever — it isn’t going to make anyone “safer,” or even “feel safer,” for that matter. (like feeling “safe” is some kind of “right” the gov’t can guarantee.)

  24. Marxists who infect our government plus the media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.
    Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.
    No matter what any politician or hard-left mainstream media tells you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..
    These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family.
    Ask the six million J ews, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the N azi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.
    Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved.
    American Thinker

  25. >Hogan Gidley told Politico “the president has not signed off on anything yet but has been clear he wants meaningful solutions that actually protect the American people and could potentially prevent these tragedies from ever happening again.”

    “Ever happening again”? If true, President Trump has an insanely unrealistic goal and acting with such false hope and expectations has insanely negative costs and consequences associated with it.

    Like the great modern thinker Thomas Sowell said, “There are no solutions; there are only trade-offs.”

  26. “Second, background checks are not an effective way to prevent mass shootings, since the vast majority of people who commit those crimes do not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records.”

    there’s a flip side to this that makes it even more of a reason not to think that background checks are effective. those who have disqualifying records are not prevented by background checks from committing violent crimes because they simply do not participate in the background check. they employ a straw purchaser, black market dealer, or other mechanism to obtain the firearm. the polls are irrelevant – no matter what people think, background checks are hardly more effective than flipping a coin in preventing violent crimes.

Please to post comments