Gun Control

The House Just Approved Two Background Check Bills That Would Make an Unfair, Irrational Gun Policy Even Worse

One measure would require checks for nearly all firearm transfers, while the other would increase delays in completing sales.

|

The House of Representatives yesterday approved two bills that would require background checks for nearly all firearm transfers and dramatically increase the amount of time allowed to complete those checks. Both changes would impose substantial new burdens on law-abiding gun owners and unjustly deny people their Second Amendment rights without doing much of anything to frustrate criminals.

H.R. 8, a.k.a the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021, would make it a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, to complete a gun transfer unless it involves a federally licensed dealer. Under current law, such dealers are required to conduct background checks to see if would-be buyers are legally disqualified from owning guns. This bill would extend that requirement to private transfers, except for "loan[s] or "bona fide gift[s]" between close relatives when "the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee" falls into a prohibited category.

The bill, which was supported by 219 Democrats and eight Republicans, aims to "ensure [that] individuals prohibited from gun purchase or possession are not able to obtain firearms." But it assuredly would not do that, since criminals already evade background checks by buying guns on the black market or through straw purchasers, and the people who supply them are unlikely to be deterred by an additional layer of illegality.

To the extent that a uniform background check requirement actually blocks sales, it will mainly affect buyers who pose no threat to public safety. Federal law prohibits gun possession by absurdly broad categories of people, including anyone with a felony record, no matter the nature of the offense or how long ago it happened; anyone who has ever undergone involuntary psychiatric treatment, whether or not he was ever deemed a danger to others; and cannabis consumers, even in states that have legalized marijuana.

2004 report from the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General gives you a sense of the gun buyers who tend to be flagged by background checks. The report looked at what happens when people who buy guns later turn out to be disqualified.

Under current law, the FBI has three business days to process background checks—which makes the name of that program, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), something of a misnomer. After three business days, the dealer is allowed to complete the sale even without a response. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is therefore sometimes charged with retrieving guns from people who took possession of them before it was discovered that they were not allowed to own them. The inspector general found that "ATF special agents did not consider most of the prohibited persons who had obtained guns to be dangerous and therefore did not consider it a priority to retrieve the firearm promptly."

If these people are not actually dangerous, you might wonder, why were they stripped of their Second Amendment rights to begin with? Even if all gun owners complied with the inconvenient and expensive requirement that they enlist a federally licensed dealer whenever they sell their firearms (a highly doubtful proposition, given the experience in states with similar rules), the main effect would be to compound the injustice of denying people who have never demonstrated any violent tendencies the right to armed self-defense.

H.R. 1446, a.k.a. the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021, is just as poorly targeted. The bill, which was supported by 217 Democrats and two Republicans, would more than triple the amount of time allowed for a background check, from three to 10 business days. In practice, that means even legally qualified buyers could have to wait nearly two weeks—possibly longer, depending on holidays and other restrictions on government hours—before taking possession of a gun. For someone who urgently needs a gun for self-defense—say, a woman afraid of an abusive ex-boyfriend or ex-husband—that delay might prove lethal.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R–Ga.) thinks the potential delay is already too long. Yesterday Clyde introduced the Ensuring SAFE-T Act, which would change the allowance for background checks from three business days to three calendar days.

"The 'Ensuring SAFE-T Act' makes sure the government cannot drag its heels in processing NICS checks," Clyde said in a press release. "I saw first-hand during the pandemic how the closure of state government offices across the country easily infringed upon our right to keep and bear arms. With these offices closed, or purported closed, three business days can turn into weeks or even months before a firearm transfer is completed. Second Amendment rights do not pause for the whims of bureaucrats no matter the circumstances. The 'Ensuring SAFE-T Act' will make sure no law-abiding U.S. citizen will be denied their right to keep and bear arms just because a government office isn't open."

Politicians who support expanding and reinforcing the background check system, including President Joe Biden, describe those proposals as "commonsense gun law reforms." But that view assumes the current system is fair and reasonable, meaning that more of the same has to count as an improvement. That premise deserves more scrutiny than it usually gets.

NEXT: Andra Day Shines in a Confused Interpretation of The United States vs. Billie Holiday

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. “ We aren’t coming after your guns”.

    1. “…in a direct, honest fashion.

      1. I have received $17634 last month from home by working online in my part time. I am a full time student and doing this easy home based work for 3 to 4 hrs a day. q1w.This job is very simple to do and its regular earnings are much better than any other office type work.
        See detail here…………Money90

        1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much VXS better than regular office job and even FGRF a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page…..READ MORE

    2. I’m not sure all the “I told you so”s will be worth it in the end, but they’re sure fun now.

      1. I am making 70 to 60 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 400 dollar Easily ..QWa This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily….

        Click this link,…… Home Profit System

      1. mebareg586@heroGoogle pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this and working easily by open just open this website and follow instructions
        COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. http://gg.gg/onrqj

    3. dude I’m not shutting down pipelines either I don’t know where you pony soldiers get this info

    4. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My RGX work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…….. Visit……….. Visit Here

    5. Nobody’s coming after anybody’s guns. The idea that guns are often used in self-defense is pure malarkey. Many more guns are used in homicides and suicides. Very few guns, if any, are actually used in self-defense.

      1. I can make up stuff too.

    6. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work hvx didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…….. Visit……….. Visit Here

    7. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular officeVGTE job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

  2. While I would certainly like to see courts and pols take the 2nd amendment more seriously and kill more gun regulations, I think that states are also going to need to do for guns what many have done for cannabis if any of this shit actually starts to pass. Just start passing state laws that contradict the federal ones, declare “sanctuary states” for gun rights, etc.

      1. Cannabis dispensaries don’t hold up in federal court either.

        1. You should drive down Federal ave in Denver to see how that is holding up.

          1. That’s my point.

            1. Yep. Give them and inch………

        2. they’re pleasant to look at.

  3. Zzzz… tariffs! The GOP must become sane again!

  4. Ohhh, this reminds me. Guys, do this right now.

    Google: mass shootings surge

    Then click on the ‘news’ category and tell me what you see. Do it, right now. Do it.

    1. I don’t use Google. What am I missing?

      1. top hits headlines, exact text, from different news organizations:

        Mass shootings surge in Florida as nation faces record high.
        Mass shootings surge in Wisconsin as nation faces record high.
        Mass shootings surge in Tennessee as nation faces record high.
        Mass shootings surge in South Carolina as nation faces record high.
        Mass shootings surge in New York as nation faces record high.
        Mass shootings surge in Ohio as nation faces record high.

        Exact text of top listed headlines.

        1. One almost gets the impression there is some sort of coordination between the government and their lackeys in the media Ministry of Truth.

          1. It is important to note that targeting media and media locations will be much easier than targeting politicians and/or government agencies. They should really consider that fact during the upcoming gun grab. They are easy to bait into ambushes. This will be super fun to watch.

          2. Indeed, Solzhenitsyn discusses this phenomenon in Gulag Archipelago repeatedly. He recounts that every time the Soviet authorities would pass a sweeping new ordinance or prohibition, strangling the activities of regular life a bit harder, the papers would suddenly and in concert erupt with massive exposes and coverage of new waves of the precise type of criminal conduct that had just been banned.

            To create the illusion that newer, more restrictive, more repressive laws were justified, the papers always, and without exception, conjured up “proof” that society was on the brink of collapse from the exact problem the new law was designed to combat. Plots, conspiracies, epidemics, counter-revolutionary activities, etc., all came into existence within the public consciousness, summoned — as it were — with the stroke of a pen. The ink had not yet dried before the prisoners were rounded up en masse.

            1. The Russians fully understand the power of Pravda. When they were in Afghanistan, they kept out any other reporters besides theirs. They actually targeted them. They used a gunships to smoke reporters in vehicles to get their point across. Many poor Russian people only realized how bad it was in Afghanistan when coffins were showing up. Even after the coffins, the news was reporting nothing but victory. I see the same thing here.

            2. Reminds me of a great quote that’s been misattributed to him (It’s actually Elena Gorokhova’s, from A Mountain of Crumbs:

              They lie to us.
              We know they are lying to us.
              They know we know they are lying to us.
              We know they know we know they are lying.
              But they are still lying.

              1. Psaki should arrange for that quote to be engraved on her headstone.

                1. She’d have to circle back to get to that…

              2. The most telling moment in Animal Farm was when the animals came out and saw Squealer literally changing the words of one of the commandments in the middle of the night. And they went along with it.

        2. Yeah, so? What’s your point?

          1. There’s a coordinated effort to turn a discussion about the real causes of rising crime (that was predicted over a year ago) and turn it into a coordinated media effort to help Democrats pass gun control.

          2. “Yeah, so? What’s your point?”

            That your lobotomy is working as expected.

        3. Notice that they didn’t add Chicago in the top spots? 54 mass shootings (4 or more shot) last year in the city, 34 the year before.
          I’m not sure if this is relavent, but not one incident involved white people, police, or white supremacists. All shooters and victims were black.

          1. I suspect that is largely true in other places as well. If there were lots of people getting shot and it wasn’t the usual gang/criminal violence we’d probably hear a lot more about it.

        4. I think I see a pattern in the bylines: Marco della Cava and Mike StuckaUSA TODAY NETWORK

          So these dicks just cranked out identical articles for every state and these shitty papers published them. How fucking shitty of a paper do you have to be to get stories from the USA Today network?

          1. Don’t underestimate laziness. Especially if you think most of your readers won’t notice the difference.

          2. Check out who owns USA Today, and all the papers publishing the identical articles. You don’t have to “coordinate” anything when one company already owns it all

    2. saw that earlier

    3. Holy shit. Many of the articles even have identical wording and the same photo.

      1. The media routinely run gun control press releases as “news stories”, they’ve been doing it for decades.

    4. “Mass shootings surge in (insert state here) as nation faces record high”

      I see these 7 identical headlines in publications from FL, TN, WI, SC, PA, NY, and OH.

      They don’t even try to pretend any more.

  5. >>including President Joe Biden

    more could have been done to stop this.

  6. This bill would extend that requirement to private transfers, except for “loan[s] or “bona fide gift[s]” between close relatives when “the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee” falls into a prohibited category.

    “We must close, er, *eliminate* the Close Relative Loophole!”

  7. If this stuff passes the Senate, President Biden will be well on his way to unifying the nation.

    1. That’s for damned sure. But not as they would hope…

  8. “background checks to see if would-be buyers are legally disqualified from owning guns”

    How about CONSTITUTIONALLY disqualified?
    You remember, shall not be infringed?

    Oh, never mind.

    1. It should be a “felony, punishable by up to five years in prison” for elected officials to knowing violate the constitution.

  9. “The main effect would be to compound the injustice of denying people who have never demonstrated any violent tendencies the right to armed self-defense.”

    The main effect may be that it creates the conditions necessary to build a nationwide database of all gun owners–even those who didn’t buy their gun from a store.

    How do they monitor compliance with background checks if they don’t start keeping a database of everyone who complies? How do they build a database of current owners if they don’t require background checks for every transfer?

    I don’t think I’m arguing a slippery slope fallacy, here, either. The first step in creating a national database of all gun owners necessarily requires making background checks mandatory for all transfers–regardless of whether the database itself is supposedly illegal in the here and now.

    Because this is only the first step, doesn’t mean the Democrats today or in the future will stop at the first step. They can pass legislation in the future requiring a national database of all gun owners to be created so that gun owners can be relieved of their firearms under whatever criteria is stipulated in future legislation.

    1. The BX at my local military base sells guns. They lost their database and were asking people to help them recover their information on what gun they bought. Hilarious. They had names, but no gun info. Those guns are untraceable and worth ten times what they were worth.

    2. What I still don’t get is…people who fail background checks do not ever get prosecuted.

      What the fuck is the point? And how would more laws do a damned thing when there is no penalty for violating current ones?

      1. VA State Police, pre Governor Blackface, evidently loved busting people for trying to purchase a firearm while a felon. As in, having the gun store make up an excuse for the delay, the Staties show up, see the 4473, see the video, put bracelets on, and away everyone went. Probably apocryphal, but it is the state where Project Exile was so successful.

        (Program where the Feds jumped in on felons caught with weapons, and prosecuted in federal court. The Feds don’t play, or really give parole. 8.5 years a pop did wonders to persuade criminals to ply their trade elsewhere. Or start talking about stuff other crooks of their acquaintance were getting up to. Naturally, it was stopped because it had racially disproportionate effects.)

        1. Growing up, I heard the cops in Virginia used to confiscate and break radar detectors right in front of you if they caught you with one in your car.

          https://www.pilotonline.com/ask/article_88328276-48ce-11e8-8328-53ae311887d4.html

  10. I am always amazed at the logic that someone needs to buy a gun quickly for self protection. I think a better strategy would be to put some distance between you and the problem. The idea that you can go from a person who has little idea of the use and handling a gun to using it for protect in a matter of the time it takes to purchase the weapon seem absurd.

    I think the article make a good point that we have arbitrary and outdated rules for denying people access to firearms. I think rather than oppose background checks that the reasons for denial be updated. That said that I would add a few, like you can not buy if you are currently under a restraining order, you are less than 30 days from instigation of divorce proceedings, being fired from a job or have been arrested for DWI.

    Finally I have a problem with no checks on gifts. Gift givers may have an unnecessarily charitable view of the person receiving the gift.

    1. “I am always amazed at the logic that someone needs to buy a gun quickly for self protection.”

      Maybe you were too young to remember when thousands of rioters converged on Koreatown in 1992, but were you born sometime after the riots of 2020?

      1. He saw an inner-city Korean-American community that society had abandoned long before the riots started. And over those few days, he saw it standing on its last legs, getting the rug pulled out from under it.

        “In real time, [Korean-Americans] had to decide whether to take this lying down or whether they were gonna stand up for their basic rights,” he said. “Not everybody survived that process.”

        Koreatown was an epicenter of looting and violence during the riots, and Korean-Americans owned many of the businesses in South Central Los Angeles. Some in L.A.’s black and Korean communities point to the case of Soon Ja Du, a Korean-American grocer who was sentenced to probation and community service for killing black teen Latasha Harlins in 1991, as a factor in the riots and a big reason Korean shops were targeted. Korean-owned businesses suffered half of the $1 billion total in damage across the city, and the people there had to fend for themselves when the looting began, Kang said.

        “What Photographers Of The LA Riots Really Saw Behind The Lens”

        —-HuffPost

        https://www.huffpost.com/entry/photographers-los-angeles-riots_n_5902c4ffe4b02655f83b5a86

        Fair Warning: Link contains graphic photograph of Korean-Americans murdered in the street by rioters If only they’d had to wait ten days, you think maybe they wouldn’t have felt the need to defend themselves or their businesses? The rioters were murdering people for being Korean. If the police had been complicit, it could have properly been called an anti-Korean pogrom.

      2. The video of the Koreans protecting their businesses should be a model for everyone. If everyone in the cities blasted the looting scumbags, the riots would have been over before a single building was burned.

    2. >>I think a better strategy would be to put some distance between you and the problem.

      the Bacon shot that guy in the Wendy’s parking lot for doing just this

      1. Unfortunately, your crack addled mind forgot that he tried to take the taser with him.

        1. yes definitely “he tried to take the taser” justifies the holes in his back

    3. The idea that you can go from a person who has little idea of the use and handling a gun to using it for protect in a matter of the time it takes to purchase the weapon seem absurd.

      The idea that you can go from a person who has little idea of the use and handling of a knife to using it for protection in a matter of the time it takes to purchase the weapon seems absurd.

      The idea that you can go from a person who has little idea of the use and handling of a baseball bat to using for protection in a matter of the time it takes to purchase the weapon seems absurd.

      The idea that you can go from a person who has little idea of the use and handling of a pipe wrench to using for protection in a matter of the time it takes to purchase the weapon seems absurd.

      The idea that you can go from a person who has little idea of the use and handling of a pepper spray to using for protection in a matter of the time it takes to purchase the weapon seems absurd.

      The idea that you can go from a person who has little idea of the use and handling of a condom to using for protection in a matter of the time it takes to purchase the prophylactic seems absurd.

      The idea that you can go from a person who has little idea of the use and handling of a keyboard to using for protection in a matter of the time it takes to make the purchase seems absurd.

      Not very often that you see the “I’m retarded so other people should be retarded too.” argument.

      1. May I add “vehicle” to your list. I ran over a few gang bangers when I was only 15 after they mugged my Dad. Guns are a no-no in Chicago, only criminals have them so I used what was available. I had no trouble at all piloting the vehicle into them although I had not even started Drivers education classes. It was like playing “Frogger” in reverse.

        1. I’ve got to admit, this is pretty absurd. Ridiculously stupid.

        2. Not sure if serious, but that happened in kenosha within the last 2 years. A mother tried to protect her daughter from getting jumped, they started beating on the mother, the 14yo girl got into the car and ran them down.

      2. you are less than 30 days from instigation of divorce proceedings

        A battered wife should have to choose between arming herself and filing for divorce. Brilliant!

        1. Take some time to read your local newspaper. If someone looking to kill you, a gun is unlikely to help. Why, because that person will look for the opportunity to get close and catch you when you don’t suspect. The battered wife’s problem is not that she doesn’t have a gun. Her problem is that when her estranged husband comes and says he is sorry and that he will not do it again, she let him in the house or get into the car with him.

          1. LOL

            Okay. Let’s ban guns because ninjas.

            Fucking clown.

          2. Research shows more people are protected with guns each year than are killed by them dipshit.

          3. Take some time to read your local newspaper. If someone looking to kill you, a gun is unlikely to help.

            Considering the newspaper isn’t an exhaustive list of crimes and guns don’t just defend against attempted murder, this would be like trying to get a good understanding of comedy by reading the funny pages. Which seems pretty accurate for you depth of thought.

            Her problem is that when her estranged husband comes and says he is sorry and that he will not do it again, she let him in the house or get into the car with him.

            And you’ve made it harder for her to leave because, if she does, she has to figure out before she leaves and wherever she goes, is it more important for her to file for divorce or get a gun.

          4. Did you really just blame domestic abuse victims for getting killed? “Well, she let him in, so she waived her right to self defense.”

          5. “If someone looking to kill you, a gun is unlikely to help.”

            Even if what you’re saying is true, what are you trying to accomplish with that observation?

            Your qualitative preference for probable outcomes has no authoritative basis to overrule other people’s qualitative preference for autonomy.

            Even if someone is unlikely to succeed, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be free to try anyway. What makes your qualitative preferences authoritative?

      3. The only workplace shooters I can imagine who aren’t within 30 days of being fired wear badges.

    4. “I am always amazed at the logic that someone needs to buy a gun quickly for self protection.”

      Because you’re a dumb leftist shit.

    5. I do not think you are a bad person moderation, or that you are deliberately trying to spoof anyone; but you really do come here asking for it.

      1. Yes, I know. I have also been around long enough to see that things have a cyclic turn. There have been times when guns where more heavily restricted and it not just 10 or 20 years ago. You could go back a long way in our history and find gun restrictions. It could go that way again if every time people suggest solutions the solutions are rebuked.

        Lets be honest here, I am guessing that most gun owners know someone else that in their opinion, should not have a firearm.

        1. “I am guessing that most gun owners know someone else that in their opinion, should not have a firearm.”

          Well, as long as you are guessing, I suppose we should listen. Everybody knows that guessing is a great foundation for sensible policy on a national level.

        2. “It could go that way again if every time people suggest solutions the solutions are rebuked.”

          When the “solutions” proposed have nothing to do with an actual solution expect a vigorous rebuke.

      2. He also isn’t a moderate.

        1. He’s moderate if your Overton Window is hanging around Pol Pot.

      3. Moderation is actually the worst kind of person, because he believes he is righteous because of his good intentions and virtue. People like that can justify any abuse or usurpation as long as they can tell themselves they did it “for the greater good,” and never even consider that what they are doing may be evil.

        1. I’ve always found him slimey and intellectually dishonest.

    6. Fuck off, slaver.

    7. Why do you need same day registration for voting. You know the election is coming years, even decades in advance.

    8. It takes no training at all to use a revolver, especially if it has a laser on it.
      It is the ultimate point and click interface.
      1) If revolver has laser, turn on laser.
      2)Point revolver at criminal, note when red dot appears on chest.
      3) Pull trigger, hole will appear where red dot was located.

      Alternate instructions when no laser present.
      1) Point revolver at chest of criminal/Democrat/terrorist/looter/rapist.
      2) Wait until miscreant is about 10 feet away. (Sights not needed at this point blank distance)
      3) Pull trigger
      4) Point revolver at accomplice/henchman/minion/other rioter
      5) Pull trigger
      Important note! Count shots. Only 5 or 6 in most revolvers

      1. And if you’re really not confident in your accuracy, you can get a Taurus that shoots shotgun shells as well as .45

        1. Take time to look up the dispersal pattern – – – – – – – –

  11. Federal law prohibits gun possession by absurdly broad categories of people, including anyone with a felony record, no matter the nature of the offense or how long ago it happened;

    It’s not entirely clear that it is broad and does include anyone with a felony record. For instance, I suspect that if you pled guilty to a firearms conviction and, as a condition of your parole/probation, were barred from carrying a gun and then, on video, tried to shoot Kyle Rittenhouse with a gun that you claim you legally own, the ban wouldn’t apply to you.

    1. Oh, yeah. What’s up with that kid? I felt really bad for him. Probably still should.

      1. Still in hiding while awaiting trial after the AG tried and failed to dox him. Judge just granted continuance requested by both sides.

      2. As a rule the defendant’s lawyer tries to drag things out and waves the speedy trial rule. But in this case (and some other similar cases) the prosecution seems to take the position that delaying any trial allows a cooling off period (read that as BLM will get distracted by something else and not riot as much over what BLM thinks is too lenient a verdict).

        The vids all show Rittenhouse retreating while being chased by previously convicted criminals and only shooting when he was no longer able to retreat. Hard for me to see any chance for a guilty verdict. I have also seen claims that the long gun he had was legal since it never crossed state lines. Maybe it was not such good judgement to bring it to a BLM riot but it may have been legal.

        Bottom line is Rittenhouse will likely get off with little more than a slap on the wrist; if even that. Given the the BLM’s position that he should be drawn and quartered and even then they would riot it is easy to understand delaying the inevitable ‘mostly peaceful demonstration’.

        1. Well, I hope so. I saw those videos and it seemed pretty clearly self defense. It may have been foolish to be there armed as he was, but I have to say that, particularly if the police can’t or won’t protect people’s property, it is not a bad thing when other people step up and volunteer to do it themselves.

          1. It would have been foolish to be there unarmed.

        2. the prosecution seems to take the position that delaying any trial allows a cooling off period (read that as BLM will get distracted by something else and not riot as much over what BLM thinks is too lenient a verdict)

          Agreed on the defense. Unclear on the prosecution. After the AG’s ridiculous attempt to get Kyle’s location disclosed, I have no idea if they’re trying to cool off or if they’re just fishing for and compiling circumstantial evidence to fit their narrative.

          Agreed that it’s looking like a slap on the wrist. After IL, let him off because the state didn’t have standing, it is/was looking pretty good. Still a ways from dismissed/not guilty.

    2. And isn’t California serving as the model for this?

      “SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed a law that will make the state the first to allow employers, co-workers and teachers to seek gun violence restraining orders against other people.”

      https://apnews.com/article/3ca4e1f867f2490c98b042358f8bf3b3

      It certainly isn’t necessary to be convicted of a crime to be denied the exercise of your Second Amendment rights in California.

      1. Hmmm.

        What happens when a male employer sexually assaults a female employee and then uses the ensuing emotional breakdown as a basis to obtain a restraining order against her?

        “He raped me!”
        “She threatened to shoot me!”

        Let’s roll the dice. How does it play out?

        1. Believe all women.

          1. Except those who accuse democrats

  12. H.R. 8, a.k.a the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021

    The bill, which was supported by 219 Democrats and eight Republicans

    What an amazing paragon of bipartisanship!
    /sarc

  13. I don’t understand why the gun lobby doesn’t endorse certification for gun owners.

    The background checks done at the time of certification. No delays. No need to register guns as the legal owners certifications are.

    That puts the onus where it belongs, on the responsibility of people, not simply on guns.

    1. I don’t understand why the gun lobby doesn’t endorse certification for gun owners.

      I’d surmise that it’s because you’re a disingenuous shit who knows that the outcome wouldn’t be a switch from a gun registry to a person registry but an addition of registering people *and* guns.

      The gun lobby doesn’t want either one and the anti-gun lobby wouldn’t tolerate not knowing the number and type of guns even if they knew who had them.

      1. You don’t really understand problem solving, do you.

        The problem is that criminals have guns.

        If that’s what the gun lobby wants, they’re gonna lose. If it isn’t, problem solving is required.

        1. How long have you been here? And yet you still write things as ignorant as, “The problem is that criminals have guns. If that’s what the gun lobby wants, they’re gonna lose.”

          The gun lobby doesn’t want criminals to have guns. Again—and this isn’t really to convince you, but someone else reading—criminals are going to get or make them regardless of whatever the gun lobby chooses to do. The gun lobby’s been the ones asking for things like an instant background check, versus a two week one, if we have to have them at all.

          Regardless, none, zero, absolutely nothing in these proposals are intended to reduce crime. They’re intended to make the law-abiding criminals.

          1. That’s all you’ve got? Nothing can be done.

            Well I guess there’s nothing more to do here folks. Dipshit.

            Criminals choose crime because the threat of being caught and punished is less than the perceived value of the crime.

            That’s what needs to change.

            Making it an inalienable right to record what we witness increases the threat of being caught.

            Having a database of licensed gun owners would give authorities a way to identify those who aren’t for any host of reasons. Just like a drivers license.

            Bringing back the death penalty for all irrefutable murders and having long mandatory minimum sentences for illegal gun possession and use increases the threat of punishment to the threshold making crime a losing proposition.

            None of this makes innocent people guilty.

            Like you, criminals are not very smart, but they’ll get the message.

            1. having long mandatory minimum sentences for illegal gun possession

              the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

              2 irreconcilable tastes that taste great together. In the mind of the fascists.

              1. You’re advocating that criminals have the right to bear arms.

                I’m not.

        2. I think you have hit on a big problem guns in the hands of criminals. Any gun coming from a manufacturer would be legal. Then at some point some portion of legal guns move to the hands of a criminal and becomes illegal. The problem is that there seems to be a lot of effort to obfuscate that transfer.

          1. “Then at some point some portion of legal guns move to the hands of a criminal and becomes illegal. The problem is that there seems to be a lot of effort to obfuscate that transfer.”

            Therefore, we need a law that prohibits the transfer of guns to criminals that criminals cannot get around by ignoring the law.

            God you’re so fucking stupid, it hurts.

            1. When you see M4E agreeing with holocaust denier Misek, you begin to get an inkling of where this shit they peddle leads.

              1. You are peddling your bigotry.

                Have you ever refuted any of my arguments, even those presenting evidence refuting the bogeyman holocaust narrative you cherish? Of course you haven’t. Nobody has though I’ve given you plenty of opportunity to. That’s the point.

                Yours is a bigotry appealing to the brainwashing of the masses.

                If it wasn’t a crime to present evidence refuting the holocaust in every nation where it allegedly occurred, there would be no holocaust brainwashing.

          2. Criminals try to obfuscate the fact that they are committing crimes? You figure that one out all by yourself?

          3. Why do criminals want guns in Chicago? End the war on drugs and you reduce shooting in Chicago 80%! Just like Capone and prohibition..not very hard to figure out.

            1. Do you actually think criminals will pull up their socks and choose hard work and minimum wage over fast and easy bling just because they can pay more for legally taxed drugs?

        3. Illinois has had gun owner certification for over half a century, and yet every gangbanger in Chicago has a gun, but no license for it.

          If you want to solve a problem, try proposing a solution that hasn’t already failed

          1. A law without teeth is no law at all.

            Gotta give it teeth before you can claim it failed.

            1. Knowing that you deny the holocaust, it is easy to understand why you can advocate for more police power in lieu of removing the barriers that keep citizens from defending themselves.

              1. If it wasn’t a crime to present evidence refuting the holocaust in every nation where it allegedly occurred, there would be no holocaust brainwashing.

                But it is, and you are.

        4. You don’t really understand problem solving, do you.

          No, I correctly identified the problem. You’re a stupid, disingenuous dumbass.

          1. Haha.

            Thanks for demonstrating your awesome projection.

    2. A CHL/LTC does just that. At least in Texas. Doesn’t do a thing to stop crime.
      Other than to maybe turn robbery into a full-contact sport.

      Criminals don’t obey the law. They’re going to get guns, regardless of what silly little laws are passed. Like in Soviet Russia, these laws aren’t meant to stop criminals, because criminals didn’t threaten the desired social order.

      They’re aimed at us.

      1. Laws are aimed at honest people eh? Like in soviet Russia. That’s just fucking retarded.

        1. Not as retarded as being a Holocaust denier. Which’ll teach me not to simply flag your stupid ass and move on.

          You’re too fucking stupid to bother educating. Go back to whatever dark hole in the Internet you crawled out of.

          1. You’re a bigot, you have to ignore arguments that refute your wrong perspective.

            You’ll never refute them.

            That’s the hole in which you dwell.

            1. Project much? What an asshole.

              1. Ditto

        2. Go examine the regime in place in the state of NJ pertaining to buying and owning a gun and get back to us.

          1. Dipshits make bad laws and deny good ones.

  14. Who will be confiscating all the guns, the de-funded police that are openly hated by the politicians?
    The Cops will just do what they do in Chicago, they will go fetal. They will let the citizens get punished by criminals until they vote against the progressive leadership. Currently, the criminals are having a field day in wealthy, white, liberal, unprotected neighborhoods that marched to de-fund the police. Exported ghetto violence is really taking a toll on those liberal white folk. The cops are loving it. Seeing Karen the CPS supporting leftist getting carjacked daily has been priceless for them.
    “Elections have consequences” said a very prominent Chicago Politician.

    1. I’m intrigued what you post; can you provide any links to what you are describing [and I am being sincere in asking that]?

      The schadenfreude just sounds delicious.

      1. QUT, Google “Flash mob, Magnificent Mile.” It’s been a thing for awhile. All CPD does is hustle the miscreants onto Metra, and zip them back to the ‘hood with their loot.

        You used to be able to read about it at Second City Cop, but their ISP, their rules…

        1. Until they actually venture into and commit crimes in the bedroom communities of the up till now safe and virtuous voters, I don’t see anything changing on a political level. These people actually buy into wokeness, and it will take a number of literal punches to the face to get their attention.

  15. One of the first things I was taught when I was in the US Army taking the Leadership Preparation Class that has stuck with me till this day is ‘don’t ever give an order you know will not be followed’.

    I would also note technology has overtaken efforts to limit gun ownership; it is approaching being trivial to produce a working pistol and improvements in things like 3D printers will only make it easier.

    But the real problem is the silliness of these laws which will do nothing to change the crime rate. As has been pointed out endlessly criminals are already precluded from legally purchasing small arms and obtain them by extra legal means. It is hard to see how the two proposed bills will do anything to change this.

    1. As has been pointed out endlessly criminals are already precluded from legally purchasing small arms and obtain them by extra legal means.

      Do you think that perhaps the sheer number of guns that exist in private hands in this country might have something to do with the ability of criminals to get a hold of guns?

      1. To answer your question NO.

        Compared to the total number of guns in the US the number of guns used in crimes is tiny. Numerous studies have shown criminals get the huge majority of guns illegally. Either they steal them directly or buy them from peeps who have obtained them illegally.

        There was an interesting post in a different thread a while back about everyone’s favorite town Chicago. Seems it is a major rail site. It is also a major rail robbery site. There were multiple examples of a rail car full of S&W small arms being shipped nation wide. Somehow the bad guys knew which car it was and it was the only one broken into and all the small arms stolen; hundreds of other cars were ignored.

        There is also that silly 2A thing.

        1. “There is also that silly 2A thing.”

          Not any more – – – – – – – –

  16. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R–Ga.) thinks the potential delay is already too long. Yesterday Clyde introduced the Ensuring SAFE-T Act, which would change the allowance for background checks from three business days to three calendar days.

    Where’s the bill to repeal the Brady Bill and do away with background checks altogether? Or you just going to stand there with your thumb up your ass as they chip away at the 2nd Amendment, proud of the fact that you’re making them go slowly instead of allowing them to do it all in one fell swoop?

    1. Let’s get rid of GCA 1968 and NFA 1934 while we’re at it. Oh, and the ’86 import ban.

    2. “Where’s the bill to repeal the Brady Bill and do away with background checks altogether?”

      Nothing screams gun safety like allowing anyone to sell a gun to anyone else without any responsibility to find out if the buyer can legally own one. Gun rights supporters do care about gun safety, right?

      1. The simple solution is the suggestion made by an editorial writer here in Nevada.

        When a person becomes a prohibited possessor, punch a P-shaped hole through all of their official forms of ID. Then make it a crime to sell a firearm to someone who has been determined to be a prohibited possessor.

        This would encourage sellers to check ID — without the bureaucrats, the database or hoplophobes like you being involved in the process.

      2. Go read the Freakonomics guys on this, or Gary Kleck’s research if you feel daring but the TL;DR version is this:

        Criminals don’t buy guns from retailers. (Their girlfriends might, but that’s illegal too.
        Read what a “straw purchaser” is.)

        They also don’t buy guns from ordinary Joe Schmoe selling one here or one there. For one thing, Joe usually has enough civic virtue—like you or anyone else—to not want to intentionally sell to a criminal. If that doesn’t work, he usually has enough brains to not want to sell a gun that may be tied to him, to some guy going to commit a crime. So it usually doesn’t happen. Columbine shitheads and the like aside.

        What does happen? They’re straw purchased, they’re stolen. From homeowners, from businesses, from transport, like the train robbery mentioned upthread. After they’re stolen, they enter black market circulation, and become just another commodity, like drugs, merchandise, jewelry, credit card numbers, people. In Chicago, the Freakonomics guys found, gang members would ‘rent’ guns to entrepreneurs, like how you can rent tools from Home Depot.

        The point is, gun registration, bans, or any other contraband limitation scheme, isn’t going to work. Or, it’ll work about as well as all of the other contraband elimination schemes have. The War on Some Drugs will be won any day now, I can feel it.

        What does work, is locking up the violent. Locking up those that use violent weapons when committing crimes. Permanently incapacitating repeat violent offenders. We don’t want to do that anymore, for a variety of specious reasons, that no doubt sound great to the overcompassionate, silly, and naive.

      3. Voluntary contracts is at the heart of any republic. Natural rights exist outside govt control or constraints..

        Illegals have rights of citizens but rural Americans don’t if they go into a city? Really?

      4. Nothing screams gun car safety like allowing anyone to sell a gun car to anyone else without any responsibility to find out if the buyer can legally own one. Gun Car rights supporters do care about gun car safety, right?

  17. H.R. 1446… would more than triple the amount of time allowed for a background check, from three to 10 business days.

    Jacob, did you actually read it? I’m going to say not enough. Clearly you missed this interesting little tidbit:

    If a submitted background check remains incomplete after 10 business days, then the prospective purchaser may submit a petition for a final firearms eligibility determination. If an additional 10 days elapse without a final determination, then the federal firearms licensee may transfer the firearm to the prospective purchaser.

    Now let’s count. The gov’t slacks off for 10 days with thumb up butt forcing the purchaser to submit a petition for determination at which time the gov’t has another 10 days to butt thumbing before the the transfer takes place. Even if the purchaser can submit the petition in zero time we’re at 20 days or more like seven times as long and likely in excess of three weeks. Let’s call it what it is – a backdoor one purchase a month scheme.

    1. Oh right, 20 business days. That means it’s easily one month provided there are no holidays in the month. Now with two federal holidays in January and November you’re almost certainly looking at over 30 consecutive days for ten times the current wait. Just as they planned.

      Make no mistake, after the next mass media trumpeted shooting they’ll be screaming to close the 20 day loophole just like they call the current law a 3 day or “Charleston” loophole even though the FBI had about 60 days to finish the check and get the gun back – like they’re supposed to do if it ultimately comes back denied.

  18. but, but, but, but Biden PROMISED the Democrat would not come for your guns. Fools!

  19. “For someone who urgently needs a gun for self-defense—say, a woman afraid of an abusive ex-boyfriend or ex-husband—that delay might prove lethal.”

    How often would this be an issue compared to the likelihood of a gun already in the home being used by an abusive boyfriend or husband to kill a woman?

    The NRA infamously went apoplectic when a CDC research paper in 1993 suggested that the presence of a gun in the home greatly increased the risk of homicide of someone in the home (from a family member or intimate acquaintance). That backlash from gun rights groups resulted in all kinds of restrictions on using taxpayer funds to study gun violence. What does the data that has been allowed to be collected and studied have to say?

    There is inevitably going to be a trade off. Making it easy for responsible people to buy guns (whether for protection or sport) is also going to make it easier for others to get guns. Guns aren’t spontaneously generated into the black market. More gun owners in total means more legal owners that don’t keep their guns as secure from theft as they should or that won’t care enough about who they sell or give their guns to. It also means more people that will have easy access to a gun when they are drunk, high, angry, depressed, and so on.

    I am a gun owner, and I like to think that I am a responsible one. But I will not delude myself into thinking that my ability to buy and own guns is completely independent of how much gun violence exists in the country at large.

    1. Bonnie Elmasri was the first victim of the Brady Law, killed between the time that she bought a gun to defend herself and her children against her estranged husband, and the time when the government would have allowed her to actually defend herself and her children against her estranged husband.

      Abusive men generally use brute force, such as clubs, knives or bare hands, so your what-if is pretty much pointless.

    2. Yeah, you can go right ahead and go fuck yourself with your, “I’m a responsible gun owner, but…” You aren’t fooling anyone, anymore. It isn’t 1998. I’ve heard your silly, MediaMatters or Moms Demand Action tripe before, as have most of the posters here.

      Go right ahead and cite Kellermann. It merely shows you’re too lazy to google why he was completely full of shit—hilariously so, if you knew anybody from Philadelphia. It’s just all so tiresome.

      Gun violence in this country is largely a phenomenon of roughly 60 urban areas in the United States, is predominantly Black perpetrators on Black victims, and has some limited correlation with organized crime activity, though is increasingly merely a feature of a violent honor culture prevalent in that community. Again, increasingly due to the criminal justice system’s refusal to permanently incapacitate said repeat violent offenders. Though often, it was a byproduct of stringent minimum sentences for contraband activity.

    3. “The NRA infamously went apoplectic when a CDC research paper in 1993 suggested that the presence of a gun in the home greatly increased the risk of homicide of someone in the home (from a family member or intimate acquaintance). ”

      Justifiably so; The Kellerman study was a textbook example of how do do things wrong. I mean, it was embarrassingly bad. Here’s an essay going into some of the problems.

      The problem there was that the CDC had publicly announced its intention to attack gun ownership, and then began funding shit ‘studies’ to justify it. It wasn’t a research effort, it was just a PR campaign.

  20. In all of these proposals they can always find some squishy dumb RINO to back them up. The GOP really needs to clean house of the remaining open borders crowd along with the statist gun grabbers.

  21. Congratulations, Jacob! You are getting the government that you worked so hard for.

    But at least you’re not seeing any rude Twitter posts, from the POTUS who would never have signed this abomination!

  22. They’re doing it wrong.

    If a private database of official public record cannot answer that question at point-of-sale, then something’s seriously wrong.

    First, this waiting period is nothing sane. Data from one’s own state should be instantly avai!able, and data from other states and federal data should, at worst, slow down sales to out-of-state residents.

    Therefore, a private solution would be to offer gun vendors the service of names from official public records of at the very least the gun vendor”s state.

    That scenario were based on innocent until proven guilty.

    There simply ought to be an additional FBI database for out-of-staters with international felons included in the private check, plus an hot list for most significant persons who may be international felons with local credentials.

    The waiting period would more accurately be based on “guilty until proven innocent” and take into consideration all felony charges that a court of law has not yet applied. However, persons who may be seemingly a type of “guilty until proven innocent” could be those without legitimate claim to American citizenship, wanted for international crimes, such as former NAZI soldiers, no?

    Public record should be simple enough that a high schooler could do the job, but human error would probably be possible in any case.

    So, who should be walking the streets after such an arraignment to buy guns?

  23. Yeah, but at least they didn’t mean tweet it.

  24. Boy how Reason’s wokes couldn’t wait to see Biden elected.

    Gun deaths are driven by suicide and the drug wars. Mostly by handguns not long guns. Most of the drug war shootings are in predominantly black urban areas. the obvious action would be to end the war on drugs. The Dems and Media won’t offer this as they fear blowback on “legalizing” drugs an losing a group to demonize (ethnic whites/rural) to gin up their base.

    As for “long guns”..semiautos have been around for over 100 years and were first adopted by consumers (the military didn’t support semi’s as their soldiers would waste ammunition). Last, the Bill of Rights is very specific..owning a firearm even a semi is a natural right…the bolsheviks in Congress are the real threat to liberty..Schumer just can’t help it….it’s the old Russia Communist urge to keep the “peasants” in line.

    1. Do you actually think criminals will pull up their socks and choose hard work and minimum wage over fast and easy bling just because they can pay more for legally taxed drugs?

      Criminals must threaten and kill to take what others have earned.

      Laws against illegal gun possession, and use need to have enough teeth, death penalty for murder for example, to persuade criminals that the cost of crime outweighs the benefits.

      Licensing responsible gun owners front loads background checks and no more inhibits gun ownership and use that having a drivers licence inhibited the use of automobiles.

      1. A license to exercise a right, especially an enumerated one?

        Fuck that, you statist, wanna-be totalitarian. How about YOU getting a license before posting more of your authoritarian drivel ?

        1. The first line of 2a being,

          “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”

          What exactly is regulation if not licensing and certification of responsible gun ownership?

          Dipshits like you who choose to misinterpret 2a as advocating no regulations are the problem.

          1. That word doesn’t mean what you think it does there.

            “A well regulated militia” is one that’s subject to discipline.

            The Second Amendment isn’t about regulating firearms.

            1. Whoa there dipshit.

              Just because you don’t like what regulate means, you don’t just get to make shit up. Where’d you learn to do that, the cancel culture?

              There is no definition of regulate that includes the word discipline and they are not synonymous.

              Rational people know what regulate means.

              It means, “to bring order, method, or uniformity to”, like a certification or a license does.

        2. I think license serves but a popular, accessible option that does not contradict a right.

          1. I mean, more options means net gain for freedom.

      2. Licensing press is also a good idea. It will eliminate “fake news” and the like. Then, when only licensed reporters and outlets are allowed to publish, we won’t have to worry any more about fake news outlets peddling conspiracy theories.

        1. Good idea.

          Right now all you’re getting from the media is propaganda and unregulated cancel culture censorship.

          A license would spell out and criminalize irresponsible media behaviour, like the coercion of lying and violating 1a rights.

        2. the current system is better

          give Pulitzers to the most outrageous lie

          never admit it was wrong

          deplatform anyone who questions the narrative

          if people complain we can’t hear them anyway

      3. problem is Democrats are not going to prosecute local criminals for breaking these laws

        as they believe that would just lead to more racial inequity and more crime

        so in reality, these laws are only intended to prosecute otherwise law-abiding citizens

        1. If the law has no teeth, there is no law.

  25. So what? You only care about mean tweets. Gfy.

  26. Own it, Sullum.

    This is what you worked so hard for, for 4 years. Or a tiny piece of what you were working towards, anyway.

    The next 2-4 years’ march towards a totalitarian state?

    Own it, Sullum.

    1. He then wrote 2 articles a day for a month to dismiss any question of the election’s integrity.
      Good little bootlicker.

  27. I understand that the guns I own, bought in the last year, are extremely unlikely to protect me in any way shape or form in most potential violent interactions. They are locked up, inaccessible immediately. I have been doing target practice and teaching my wife and daughter how to use them, safely, at target ranges. I personally do not like shooting very much, though my wife seems to enjoy it. I limited the guns to smaller caliber, low cost, to make it reasonable to practice. (2) guns were purchased with background check’s. I was able to leave the store immediately with the gun (I had pre-acquired a state issued pistol owners card that does have some benefits.) One was purchased from a friend. Same price as the store but without having to pay tax. There is no government record that I own this 3rd gun. I am fine with that. I may be taking the other two guns boating. I truly believe that there is far less crime in my state/city because of these guns in the possession of citizens. Criminal may be stupid, but they know not to mess with those of us in relatively free gun owning areas.

    1. Amen to that.

    2. yep

      prefer the free ride myself, the kids have excellent problem-solving skills and very poor impulse control

      but thankful to those citizens who do arm up

      deterrence matters

      1. I did the free ride when the kids were smaller. Just rejoined the silent militia. Now my son asks to borrow the shotgun to go trap shooting with friends. Makes me happy to say, “sure, just don’t use all the shells.” He brought back more shells than he left with.

    3. With a current license or certification, why would anyone need to know what specific guns you own.

      You have demonstrated that you meet the regulated requirements to own them and participate in gun clubs, militias, recreational activities and responsible self defence.

  28. NICS is already taking longer than 3 days and ffls already wait for it to be complete.

    What is the constitutional authority for a federal approval on a private party intrastate sale?

  29. are we still not going to talk about DC being permanently occupied by tens of thousands of troops tasked with pretending to chase imaginary QAnon insurgents while actual rioting continues unabated elsewhere?

    1. remember, like 1A and everything else, 2A only matters if the laws are evenly applied

      as it stands now, your rights depend on the party of the DA

      ask Kyle Rittenhouse about that

  30. The only common sense approach is to designate any voter registration card as a valid federal permit to exercise ALL rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

    1. I like it. But since it makes sense it won’t be considered.

  31. Thanks for this, but is reason ever going to mention HR1?

  32. Dammit!
    What’s wrong with you people?
    Gun control works.
    Just look at Chicago.

  33. Yes, and the Democrats have the power they do because of the unfettered immigration of 85 IQ mestizos and other third worlders that YOU support.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.