MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

Textual analysis of HR8, bill to "To require a background check for every firearm sale"

Bill about gun "sale" turns ordinary gun loans into felonies, bans handguns for young adults, and authorizes unlimited fees.

This week, U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) introduced HR8. According to the title, the bill is "To require a background check for every firearm sale." The bill does that--and a great deal more.

Summary

HR8 requires that loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a gun store. The same fees, paperwork, and permanent record-keeping apply as to buying a new gun from the store. If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon. Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.

A clever trick in HR8 effectively bans handguns for persons 18-to20.

The bill has some narrow exemptions. The exemptions do not cover stalking victims. Also excluded are farming and ranching, sharing guns on almost all public and private lands, NS storing guns with friends while on vacation. The limited exemption for family excludes first cousins and in-laws. The minuscule exemption for self-defense excludes stalking victims.

The bill authorizes unlimited fees to be imposed by regulation.

Self-defense

There is a partial exemption for immediate self-defense: "(D) a temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm".

The narrowness of the self-defense exemption endangers domestic violence victims. For example, a former domestic partner threatens a woman and her children. An attack might come in the next hour, or the next month, or never. The victim and her children cannot know. Because the attack is uncertain—and is certainly not "immediate"—the woman cannot borrow a handgun from a neighbor for her defense. Many domestic violence victims do not have several hundred spare dollars so that they can buy their own gun.

Handgun ban for young adults

Since 1968, federal law has said that gun stores may not sell handguns to persons under 21. 18 U.S.C. § 922(c)(1). Congress has not chosen to prohibit persons aged 18-20 from acquiring handguns elsewhere. The large majority of states allow handgun possession by persons 18-20.

Some legislators have forthrightly introduced bills to impose a ban on young adults. HR8 prohibits young adults from acquiring handguns, but does so with a clever subterfuge.

HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

HR8 would prohibit a 20-year-old woman who lives on her own from acquiring a handgun for self-defense in her home, such as by buying it from a relative or borrowing it from a friend.

Although HR8 allows young adults to acquire handguns by parental gift, not all young adults who are living on their own receive parental largesse.

Exorbitant fees may be imposed by regulation

''(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this sub-section with regulations."

''(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1)."

Regulators may set a minimum fee, but not "a cap on a fee." The Attorney General is allowed to require that every gun store charge a fee of $30, $50, $150, or more. Even a $20 fee can be a hard burden to a poor person.

Farming and Ranching

HR8 has a limited exemption for "hunting, trapping, or fishing"—but not for ranching or farming.

Firearms transfers at farms and ranches are part of routine operations. Some transfers might last a few hours, while others last for several weeks—as when a ranch hand takes a gun to guard a flock night and day during calving season. Under HR8, the transfer is allowed only when the farmer or rancher stays in the hand's "presence." This is impractical; often the hand needs to do work in one location, and the farmer or rancher in another.

Under HR8, for a farmer or rancher to lend a firearm to an employee, they both must travel to a gun store to process the transfer. When the employee returns the firearm, everyone must return again to the gun store.

Because few farms and ranches are located near gun stores, the process typically requires hours of travel for the loan, and hours more for the return. This takes the farmer, the rancher, and their hands away from the farm or ranch during what may be the busiest period of the year, when everyone needs to work from sunup to sundown.

Family members

You can make a "a loan or bona fide gift" to some family members. In-laws and cousins are excluded.

The family exemption vanishes if one family member pays the other in any way. If a brother trades an extra shotgun to his sister in exchange for her extra television, both of them have to go to a gun store. Their exchange will have all the fees and paperwork as if she were buying a gun from the store.

Outlawing gun sharing on public and private property

There is an exemption for sharing guns "(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting".

Not everyone has access to a "designated" target range. In rural areas with low population density, the nearest designated range may be far away. In urban areas, the waiting lists for membership in a gun club may stretch out for years. Designated public ranges exist, but in many areas, there are few or none. Those that do exist may be a long ways away, or may be crowded, with long waiting times.

Accordingly, Americans have always engage in target practice at informal ranges on public lands. Today, many of these lands are owned by the U.S. National Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, or a state or local equivalent.

Private property may be also used, with the owner's consent. The general legal rule is that shooting is lawful anywhere in rural areas, except for specified sites, such near public roads. Of course one must always obey all safety rules, which includes ensuring that there is a safe backstop to the target, such as a mound of dirt.

HR8 prohibits firearms sharing on public or private lands that have not been "designated for the purpose of target shooting."

For example: you own a 120 acre farm. Your cousins and brother-in-law come for a visit, and they want to camp outside. You want to loan them your handgun for protection. This is forbidden by HR8. Under the bill, the family must travel to a gun store to process the loan and collect the fees. Later, when your relatives want to return your handgun, there must be another trip to gun store, with the same paperwork and fees.

Under HR8, the returned of a loaned gun is treated the same as the purchase of a new gun.

Museums

There is no exemption for loaning firearms to a museum. After Washington State enacted a law similar to HR8, the law immediately caused problems for the Lynden Pioneer Museum, in Bellingham, which had a "WWII Pacific Theater" exhibit that included rifles.

Safe storage discouraged

Consider a person who will be away from home for an extended period: a member of the armed services being deployed overseas, a person going away to school, a person going on a long vacation, or a person evacuating her home due to a natural disaster. Such persons might wish to store firearms with a trusted neighbor or friend. This type of storage should be encouraged. Guns are less likely to be stolen by burglars, and then sold into the black market, if they are kept in an occupied home rather than left in a house that will be unoccupied.

But under HR8, neighbor A can only store neighbor B's guns if both persons go to a gun store, fill out extensive paperwork for each and every gun to be stored, pay per-gun fees to the government and the gun store, and then repeat the process when the firearms are returned. As a result, many fewer people will go through all the trouble. So more guns will be left in unoccupied dwellings; they will be at greater risk of being stolen and thus of being supplied to the criminal black market. Discouraging safe storage is among the ways HR8 harms public safety.

Note: This post is based in part on my article Background Checks for Firearms Sales and Loans: Law, History, and Policy, 53 Harvard Journal on Legislation 303 (2016).

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.

  • Brett Bellmore||

  • Steponsnek||

    This looks like what Trump asked for. It's still awful. But it could easily be the law under the GOP/Trump.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I don't think so. Trump might not have any instincts for the reactions of gun owners, but I'm pretty sure he does listen to the NRA, (Notably, the NRA wasn't averse to throwing bump stock owners under the bus.) and the NRA would be pretty negative about this proposal.

    Registration is a hill gun owners are willing to die on, and this proposal to route all firearms transfers through gun dealers is, aside from the intentional inconvenience and expense, meant to generate records that are the practical equivalent of gun registration. It's going nowhere.

  • Marie D||

    Bump stocks are not protected by the second amendment. Legal challenges will fail. There's always people commenting about the NRA throwing them under the bus when they think that their membership dues will pay for the billions of dollars of lobbying and Litigation that they are doing throughout the country. And many of those complaining aren't members.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I happen to be a life member since the mid 90's.

    The NRA does indeed throw inconvenient parts of the firearms owner coalition under the bus from time to time, like the way they did machine gun owners with the FOPA fiasco. I've spoken with LaPierre, and I understand their reasoning, but I think sometimes it's more a matter of Stockholm syndrome than being ruthlessly practical.

  • MikeP2||

    I think you are perceiving this too narrowly.

    NRA is focused on the core right to bear arms. Bump stocks are toys, with little redeeming value to the core right to bear arms. Bump stocks do not add any value except 'novelty', which has never been an area where the NRA spends any of its limited resources and clout defending.

    Additionally, taking the ban to court, opens a can of worms, in that a legal loss could provide a broader precedent that impacts more than just bump stocks.

    I would be more upset with the NRA if they foolishly defended bump stocks....it is a distraction at best, a potential vipers nest at worst.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Giving an inch allows Lefties to justify any "reasonable" gun control.

    Its already happened with background checks and automatic weapon restrictions.

    We're taking it all back to end ALL gun control. Including bump stocks or whatever people want to use on their weapons.

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    Brett Bellmore wrote: "The NRA does indeed throw inconvenient parts of the firearms owner coalition under the bus from time to time, like the way they did machine gun owners with the FOPA fiasco."

    Prior to corrupt New Jersey politician William Hughes sneaking in his 'Machine Gun Ban of 1986' into FOPA`86 I was an ATF licensed machine gun manufacturer, catering primarily to individual law enforcement officers who had to provide their own duty weapons. Since Colt™ would not sell their selective-fire M16® rifles and carbines to individuals I had a "cottage industry" converting semi-auto-only AR-15® rifles and carbines to selective-fire.

    Being a Life Member of the NRA, as soon as I read about Hughes' admendment I called NRA and demanded they oppose this patently-unconstitutional amendment.

    There reply? "There aren't enough machine guns and owners to warrant our getting involved."

    They ignored my reference to "camel's nose under the tent", which was proven to be foresight in 1994 when CA senator Dianne Emiel Goldman Berman Feinstein [Blum] pushed her 'Assault Weapons Ban of 1994' through the legislature ... happily signed into law by then-POTUS William Jefferson Blythe 'Billy Blow Job' Clinton.

    Did the NRA learn a lesson there.

    NOPE!

    Witness their refusal to oppose the Bump Stock Ban by ATF regulation "rethink."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Bump stocks ARE protected by the 2nd Amendment AND by the fact that the US Constitution gives no authority for government to ban any product or service. Bump stocks also being a product.

    The 2A protects the People's right to keep and bear Arms. That covers rifles, pistols, tanks, ships, canons, artillery, grenades, bombs, nukes, all ammo, all parts of those weapons....

    Even the Prohibitionists knew that they needed a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. They had no authority to ban a product without it. In that case, alcohol.

  • ||

    No, it doesn't cover ships, bombs, or nukes. It covers arms that can be "borne," in other words, arms that would be carried by infantry. The line isn't always clear (for example, a shoulder mounted missile) could be an "arm" or "ordnance," but nukes are definitely not on the protected side of the line.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    arms
    /ärmz/
    1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.
    synonyms: weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, armaments, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies, materiel
    "arms and ammunition"

    Arms is pretty much short for Armaments.

    As to your nuke comment. As low yield nuke could be concealed in a briefcase.

    The solution is to amend the constitution to prevent nukes/biological from being protected Arms.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    It's the right to keep and bear arms. This can reasonably read as not protecting private ownership of vehicle mounted and/or crew served armaments.

    As to small nukes, unless it's mounted on some kind of missile or artillery shell, it's not an armament.

    A nuke in a briefcase is not a viable/usable weapon, it's a demolition device. Trying to use it as a weapon would be suicide.

  • James Pollock||

    "A nuke in a briefcase is not a viable/usable weapon, it's a demolition device. Trying to use it as a weapon would be suicide."

    The second sentence isn't true, and even if it was, it wouldn't imply the first one. I mean, by that logic, fighter planes aren't weapons, either, because kamikazi.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "The second sentence isn't true"

    Yes, it is. If you imagine it would be possible to hand carry a briefcase nuke, deploy it on a battlefield in the middle of active combat and get out of the blast radius before it's too late you are delusional.

    "I mean, by that logic, fighter planes aren't weapons, either, because kamikazi."

    The logic would apply only to a fighter plane designed such that it's ONLY use is by kamikaze tactics.

    A bomb is not a weapon purely by virtue of being a bomb. It doesn't become a weapon until it's attached to some form of delivery system that can lob it to a location where the launch point is out of the blast radius.

    For even a briefcase nuke this would yield a vehicle mounted and/or crew served weapon.

  • James Pollock||

    "Yes, it is. If you imagine it would be possible to hand carry a briefcase nuke, deploy it on a battlefield in the middle of active combat and get out of the blast radius before it's too late you are delusional."

    Another possibility is that I know more about nukes than you do.
    The term you want to Google is "remote detonation trigger". Admittedly, it does take longer to walk out of the blast radius of a pocket nuke than that of, say, a grenade, the principle is the same.

    "A bomb is not a weapon purely by virtue of being a bomb."

    No, it's a weapon when it's used intentionally to kill or injure people or to break stuff. The rest of the time, it's just a really hazardous object.

    " It doesn't become a weapon until it's attached to some form of delivery system that can lob it to a location where the launch point is out of the blast radius."

    Weapons can be used by suicidal persons. Take, for example, the tactic of attaching bombs to people and sending them into the marketplace for detonation. Not a weapon, says you.

    In your definition, is a "weapon" involved when a car is filled with explosives, driven to a crowded area, and then left there? Does it matter if the person who sets it off is in or outside of the blast range?
    How about Trinity, in Allamagordo?

  • Chem_Geek||

    "It's the right to keep and bear arms. This can reasonably read as not protecting private ownership of vehicle mounted and/or crew served armaments."

    I disagree; the Letters of Marque and Reprisal clause is a thing and not a nullity. How does that work without vehicle mounted and/or crew-served armament?

  • LiborCon||

    Whether or not the Second Amendment covers nukes is irrelevant. No individual has the ability to manufacture a functioning nuclear weapon and no state would sell them one. So-called briefcase nukes no longer exist. That argument is a red herring.

    As for "vehicle mounted and/or crew served armaments.": Machine guns can be mounted on vehicles and also be removed and mounted on tripods or bipods. The M60 can be fired like a rifle without either. They're also crew served weapons but can be used by one person.

    Both the M60 and M2 have been available for sale to private individuals in semi-auto configurations. At 85lbs, [130lbs w/tripod], you certainly can't "bear" the M2 like other common firearms.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    A small nuke is easier to manufacture than you think. It wont be high yield but would effective for its purpose.

    getting a small amount of fissionable material to react is no this impossible task you seem to think it is.

  • James Pollock||

    " nukes are definitely not on the protected side of the line."

    So even you are behind arms control.

  • ||

    I'm behind certain arms control if the arms can't be borne and wouldn't be used by infantry.

  • apedad||

    What?!?!?

    TrueAmericanParrot is the voice of reason in this discussion?

    1. Maybe there's hope for him/her/hir.
    2. Which one of you is the RINO?

  • Chem_Geek||

    "wouldn't be used by infantry."
    What is your problem with combined-arms operations??? ;-)

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Not until grunts graduating from basic training are issued backpack nukes, anyway.

  • James Pollock||

    I didn't get my hands on a nuke until tech school. When I joined my unit in the field, they kept the nukes down in the ammunition depot.

  • Dilan Esper||

    What about a Davy Crockett (a portable nuke)? Is that protected under your schema?

    I get why gun rights advocates hate the idea of any test that turns on dangerousness. But it's unavoidable. You are never going to get courts to agree with you that dangerousness can never be considered, and courts, not the NRA, get the last word on what the Second Amendment means.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Which is why nearly ever judge needs to be impeached until the mew ones get the message.

    There are zero 'dangerous' exceptions to the 2nd Amendment. Judges have zero authority to deny a person keepimg and bearing Arms. None.

  • Junkie||

    Even disregarding the 2A aspect, they banned them the wrong way.

    An act of Congress would be the right way.

  • ||

    Yes they are.

    End of line.

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    Marie D wrote: "Bump stocks are not protected by the second amendment."

    This claim merely demonstrates your lack of knowledge of what "arms" includes, Marie.

    Under your interpretation, legislators could ban each and every component of a firearm EXCEPT the receiver itself, and still comply with the 2nd Amendment.

    Tell us, Marie, what part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do you NOT understand???

    The banning of individual components of firearms is most certainly infringement.

  • Tionico||

    bump stocks ARE indeed protected by the Second Article of Ammendment just as surely as are rifle scopes, slings, telescoping/folding stocks, bipods, night sights, butt pads, cartridge belts attaching to stocks, flashlights, picatinny rails, extra mag holders attached to stocks, muzzle brakes, flash hiders, red dots and other laser sighting aids, modified mag release levers, spare mag holders for one's belt, holsters for handguns, reloading equipment, amunitioin carry cases, adjustable cheek pieces on stocks, multi-piece handgun grips that can be adjusted, trigger kits, cleaning rods and patches, cut-finger gloves, mossy oak breakup colours on stocks, shooter's gloves, electronic ear protection,

    Firearms and ALL their attachments, accessories, equipments, etc, anything considered needful by the one owning it in a situation where it could be useful

  • James Pollock||

    "Registration is a hill gun owners are willing to die on"

    I'm willing to let you die on it.

    "Son, you don't win a war by dying for your country. You win the war by making the other SOB die for his."
    --- Robert A. Heinlein

  • ||

    You think your coalition of jihadist Muslims, limp-wristed homosexuals, single women, and unproductive blacks and Hispanics are going to make us die for ours?

  • apedad||

    I thought George C. Scott said that.

  • Craig Johnston||

    Close. George Patton, circa 1943: "No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country."

  • epsilon given||

    By "willing to die", we don't mean to die peacefully, with other people using us for target practice. We mean to take as many people down with us as possible.

    Are you willing to be one of the SOBs to die taking that hill?

  • KevinP||

    James Pollock is a coward who won't be in the assault. He'll want other people - armed with guns - to do the fighting and dying for him.

    The best way to end the threat of gun confiscation is to draft people like James Pollock into the gun confiscation squads and send them from door to door to confiscate guns.

  • ||

    That's the thing. We will let others die for it.

  • JD85||

    It's a shame, really. A straightforward law that requires a background check for anyone who purchases a gun would be a good law.

  • Marie D||

    If you read the article you will know that this legislation doesn't end there.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Gun control is unconstitutional.

    No background checks. No gnu bans. No ammo bans. No limits....

  • Jerry B.||

    Wildebeests for everyone!!

  • Sarcastr0||

    YES!

  • DjDiverDan||

    Hey, if it means that I never again have to mow my back yard, I'm all for the right to keep gnus. BUT I want a large bore gun handy just in case that wildebeest goes on a rampage through the neighborhood.

  • James Pollock||

    What about gnu taxes?

  • Ridgeway||

    Read my lips: No gnu taxes!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Guns and gnus are something Lefties hate. It makes taking over so much harder.

  • James Pollock||

    " A straightforward law that requires a background check for anyone who purchases a gun would be a good law."

    Sure. It would be great if you could just pass a law that said "no giving any deadly weapon to anyone who shouldn't have one"... if everyone agreed about what, exactly, a "deadly weapon" is, and how you identify "anyone who shouldn't have one". Oh, and also, what, exactly should happen to someone who DOES give a deadly weapon to someone who shouldn't have one? Does it matter if that transfer happened because of deliberate circumvention of the law, or a mistake?

    It turns out to be fairly difficult to write "straightforward" laws.

    I think what is needed is for civil and criminal liability to at least potentially attach if you transfer a weapon to someone who uses it in a way that harms someone. This will cause people to be just a bit more careful about who they're transferring weapons to, while still leaving the decision up to the individual.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    In the same way as you're liable if you sell a car to somebody, and they use it as a getaway vehicle, or run somebody over with it?

    Look, we're talking CIVIL RIGHT here. You're not allowed to make activities related to it more legally perilous than non-protected activities.

    It's always this, over and over: People who don't much like the right don't want to treat it in the way civil rights get treated. They want to treat it as a privilege, instead.

    Well, it's not a privilege, it's a right. And it gets the full civil right treatment.

  • James Pollock||

    "In the same way as you're liable if you sell a car to somebody, and they use it as a getaway vehicle, or run somebody over with it?"

    No, more like the way if you loan your car to somebody to use as a getaway vehicle, or run somebody over with it.
    (Actually, more like the way a bar, which sells alcohol legally to people who are adults are liable if somebody drives away from their establishment and runs over somebody.)

    "Look, we're talking CIVIL RIGHT here. You're not allowed to make activities related to it more legally perilous than non-protected activities."

    Interesting theory that you've pulled intact from between your buttocks. But you didn't support it with any evidence, so I'm going to treat it as something offered without evidence.

    "It's always this, over and over: People who don't much like the right don't want to treat it in the way civil rights get treated"

    You have me confused with someone else.

    " it gets the full civil right treatment."

    Civil rights, like all rights, find their limits where they interact with other peoples' rights.

    Since you've got such a hard-on for megaphones, I'll use one in my example. Your property rights in your megaphone (the rights to use it as you see fit) find their limits when they intersect with my right to quiet enjoyment of my backyard. My right to make you shut the fuck up is limited by your right to continue to live lead-free, and so on and so on and so on.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Notice that you keep analogizing to activities that aren't civil liberties?

    You want gun ownership treated like it isn't a civil liberty.

    Yes, my property right in a megaphone end when they intersect with your right to get a good night's sleep. And my point is, not before that. You don't get to impose licensing restrictions on megaphones predicated on the idea that law abiding people are going to use them at 3AM. You penalize using them at 3AM, instead.

    The proper analogy to laws prohibiting megaphone use at night are the normal criminal laws prohibiting misuse of firearms. But that's not what's being discussed here.

  • James Pollock||

    "Notice that you keep analogizing to activities that aren't civil liberties?"

    Ever notice that you keep avoiding addressing the actual argument that's been made?

    "The proper analogy to laws prohibiting megaphone..."

    I don't know what your fetish is for megaphones, but I'm done talking about them.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I'm addressing your arguments by pointing out that you're treating a civil liberty like activities that aren't civil liberties.

    There are two fundamental approaches to dealing with wrongful activities.

    One is to prohibit/restrict the means to those activities.

    The other is to directly prohibit/restrict the activities themselves.

    The first is generally permissible where the means restricted aren't implicated in the exercise of a civil liberty. Only the latter is appropriate where the exercise of civil liberties is implicated.

    Gun control is generally of the first sort; You want to stop mass shootings, say, but mass shootings are already illegal, so you pick something that helps people commit mass shootings, and try to ban it, and never mind that it's used far more often legally in the exercise of a civil liberty.

    Well, the truth is that the mass shootings are just a pretext, and all that's wanted is to infringe the civil liberty in any way possible. And we're not required to fail to notice that.

  • epsilon given||

    So, you're saying that if you loan your car to go a friend to go to the supermarket, and your friend goes to rob a bank instead, you should be held liable?

    I 100% agree that if you loan or sell something to someone for the *intent* of aiding them in doing something illegal, you should be held responsible for that. But the intent needs to be there. Without intent, we can hold anyone for any harm committed.

    (Which, incidentally, is what some people want to do -- there's a case before the Supreme Court right now where some lawyers are trying to hold companies accountable for asbestos, for building the *structures* that asbestos was *sprayed on*. Do we *really* want everyone held to this level of accountability?)

  • James Pollock||

    "So, you're saying that if you loan your car to go a friend to go to the supermarket, and your friend goes to rob a bank instead, you should be held liable?"

    So, you're saying that, rather than talk about the argument actually made, you'd rather offer up "my" opinions and "what I'm saying" for me so you can argue against them?

    No thanks, leave me out of it.

  • epsilon given||

    We're talking about transfers of property. You're implying that guns are generally transferred with the intent for the person receiving it to do harm -- and thus, the ones offering the gun should be held responsible for what happens after the transfer.

    I'm implying that *most* of the time, the person offering the gun doesn't know -- and indeed, *can't* know -- what the person receiving the gun is going to do with it. The VAST MAJORITY of time, the person receiving the gun doesn't do any harm with it. EVERY SO OFTEN, the person receiving the gun DOES decide to do harm with it -- but the time between the decision to do so, and the decision to receive the gun in the first place, is so large, that the person offering the gun can not reasonably predict the harm that might be caused.

    The chance of a car I sell being used as a getaway vehicle is so remote, that we don't have any regulations to prevent it. The funny thing is, the chances of a gun I sell being used in a robbery is about as remote -- yet you are defending proposed laws that treat each transfer as a near certainty that it will be used in a crime.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its why most laws should be declared unconstitutional because they are too vague and overbroad.

  • ThePublius||

    Yes, but then why doesn't the federal government now allow individuals, i.e., not dealers, to run background checks for private sales? Wouldn't that go a long way to solving this non-existent problem?

  • ||

    Because the purpose is to add inconvenience and expense to gun sales, not to reduce crime.

  • James Pollock||

    "then why doesn't the federal government now allow individuals, i.e., not dealers, to run background checks for private sales?"

    Because individuals, i.e., not dealers, don't have any sort of on-going relationship to protect. A dealer has something to lose by "accidently" overlooking red flags. A private seller doesn't.

  • Mike45||

    Background checks are already the law for all firearm sales except private, in state, face to face sales. "internet sales" have to be shipped to a local FFL who does the background check. The common sense laws are already in effect.
    The problem with universal background check proposals is that they talk about gun purchases (change of OWNERSHIP) but write the bills to apply to change of POSSESSION. this criminalizes common activities as loaning your friend a gun at the range, loaning a gun to a new hunter, and temporarily keeping a friend or relative's guns safe (My son is in the military over six years now and I am still keeping some of his guns for him). Previous bills proposed in Wisconsin would have made a criminal of a spouse if their SO went out of town more than 2 weeks.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its all unconstitutional infringement on the Peoples right to keep and bear Arms.

  • MikeP2||

    "A straightforward law that requires a background check for anyone who purchases a gun would be a good law."

    no it wouldn't. To even say something like that demonstrates that you are either an idiot, or so steeped in gun-control propaganda that you lost the ability to critically think.

    The government does not have the constitutional authority to require registration of privately owned goods purchased privately.
    Additionally, the government is specifically prohibited from infringing on the right to own and bear arms. Any registration is an inherent infringement, which has been clearly determined in courts regarding other rights, such as voting or speech.

  • ||

    I would be fine if I could confirm a buyer is not a prohibited person without any governmental tracking.

    A simple system where the buyer could run a background check on themselves, and get a confirmation number. I'd look that number up and it would say either proceed or deny.

    That system could also be used by employers and really any person (say hiring a nanny or a contractor) to confirm their person doesn't have a criminal background. That would eliminate the system being used exclusively for gun owners and with it our concern of being tracked.

  • KevinP||

    Basically a Background Check Certificate. A buyer can obtain it in advance, good for 90 days and present it to any private seller who would be the only person to retain any evidence of the sale taking place.

  • Tionico||

    but this monstrosity is not about background checks. It is about building a registration database. Friend I've known for ten years comes over and he can't use MY gun to shoot i n MY backyard without the trip, time, fees, then reversing it when he's fired his ive rounds to see if he wants to go buy one from FFL? Insane.
    If all they wanted was to prevent transfers to prohibited persons, a simple nationwide database accessible by anyone by phone or online, enter full name and date of birth and city of residence, database is searched, if no flag caller is given a confirmation code which he can record. He now KNOWS receiver is able to possess. No record of who called, who was checked, what is being transferred, or for how long. Law abiding gun owners really DO NOT want to provide guns for dangerous people.

  • Tionico||

    Of course, this would not have stopped the Parkland School shooter from buyiung his.. but neither did present NICS system becaus the Cowards of Broward County preferred to get their $54Mn prize for reducing their "arrest rates" so did not charge the dirtbag with any of the FOUR disabling crimes he had committed. So a licensed gun store sold him his guns legally. Nor would it have stopped the dirtbag who shot up the church in SUtherland SPrings Texas because at least two Air Force desk jockeys were too lazy to file the report on the shooter's THREE disabling records. But then, neither did the present NICS system prevent his buying his guns through a federally licensed dealer, either.
    Further of course, neither would this proposed uncosntitutional "law" prevent the gangbangers, MS 13, US based cartel divisions from getting THEIR guns, either... though it WILL prevent law abiding non-risk individuals from getting the guns we need to protect ourselves as we go about our daily business.
    Nope., This is gun registration, plain and simple. Go read about how that went down in the Weimar Republic of Germany, the Soviet nations as communism spread throughout Europe and Asia, and what it is now doing to the owners of the farmlands in South Africa today.

    I can think of only THREE of the known mass public shootings in the US during the past century where the shooter did NOT pass a background check to get his murder weapons. Not that he did not get one, but that he PASSED.

  • jph12||

    "the Lynden Pioneer Museum, in Bellingham"

    The good folk of Lynden mightl be a mite bit upset that you are trying to give their Pioneer Museum in Bellingham.

  • James Pollock||

    They should have thought of that BEFORE they decided to put their museum so far away from a population center.

  • Voize of Reazon||

    Lyndenites would like to be known for their museum, but they can't shake the notoriety of being the location of the only known drug smuggling tunnel on the northern border.

  • jph12||

    You mean known for having the only police force capable enough to locate and shut down a drug smuggling tunnel before it could be used.

  • Tionico||

    GOOD SHOTTT!!!!!!

  • 3ducerist||

    Just wondering how exactly this will get past the commerce clause, as it regulates intrastate commerce as well a individual commerce among private citizens.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    All they have to do is say they're doing it because the commerce in aggregate might hypothetically effect interstate commerce, and the Supreme court will roll over and play dead.

  • James Pollock||

    That's probably true.

    On the other hand, if they DO kick the blocks out from under the widely-expanded interstate commerce clause, one of the first things to go is the Controlled Substances Act, which targets people for engaging in commerce in which there is no legal market in any of the 50 states (plus one that's legal in some of them, but still illegal in most).
    Republicans may talk about hating the power the super-duper interstate commerce clause provides the federal government, but they like it too much when they actually get to run the federal government.

  • epsilon given||

    Democrats have the same problem. They may *hate* States Rights, particularly if it means that they can keep Arizona from enforcing immigration law, BUT you had better leave the States alone when they create immigration sanctuary city/state policies, because States have rights, you know!

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    I wonder what defects will show up once passed. Of course, all of them will be loopholes making it too easy to transfer guns; none will be too strict and responsible for death and injury from lack of self-defense.

  • Martinned||

    Seems sensible.

  • David Welker||

    Based on that reasoning, it would also be "sensible" for you to apply for a license and pay a fee before every comment you make here.

    It is amazing what seems "sensible" when you don't support the underlying right in question.

  • newshutz||

    Yes, we need common sense Kirkland control.

  • Martinned||

    It is amazing what seems "sensible" when you don't support the underlying right in question.

    Well, yes. That's what sensible means. The sensibility of restrictions on gun ownership/gerrymandering/the death penalty/etc. has nothing to do with the legality/constitutionality of said restrictions. Those are separate questions.

  • ||

    Actually they are intrinsically linked.

    End of line.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All gun control is unconstitutional.

  • Buddy Bizarre||

    Let's just ignore the study that found background checks had no impact on gun deaths in CA.

    https://bit.ly/2RMdChT

  • Liberty Lover||

    I am sure all criminals will comply with the new law. (sarc)

  • James Pollock||

    The point is to interrupt the chain of possession transfers while the weapon is still in the hands of people who belong to the category of "responsible adults", before the first transfer to someone in the category of "criminal". If you do that, then it doesn't matter whether criminals intend to follow the gun law(s).

    For analogy, drug addicts don't follow the directions on the bottle of pills, and they don't limit the uses of pills to their intended medical purpose. But if the pills stay with doctors and pharmacists, and they don't give the pills to addicts, it doesn't matter what addicts do with pills, because they won't have any.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The point is to get rid of all Arms.

    Never happen.

  • James Pollock||

    "The point is to get rid of all Arms."

    Stop substituting your fantasies for reality.

  • RobinGoodfellow||

    Those aren't his fantasies, they are the left's fantasies.

  • James Pollock||

    They're his (and, apparently, yours) fantasies about "the left".

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Pollock hates Libertarianism, gun rights, and freedom.

    He loves to troll both Reason and Volokh.

  • Chem_Geek||

    Do I need to dredge up the DiFi quote? It IS the left's desire.

  • Harvey Mosley||

  • Tionico||

    reas history much? HOW did every tyrannical regime of the 20th century disarm their masses so as to better dominate and control them? HOW? First step, firearms restrictions, Next, registration, then confiscation then outright banning for everyone. Except the Only Ones. Now only government have guns. That was King George Three, the Kid King's, schtick. It didn't work for him, either.

    This bill is registration, plain and simple.

  • Krayt||

    IIRC there are certain speed-like weight loss drugs considered safe and effective in Europe, but are banned here because addicts might illegally get ahold of them, not because it is somehow bad for the intended recipient.

  • James Pollock||

    "are banned here because addicts might illegally get ahold of them"

    At first glance, that looks like a circular argument.
    These are banned because if they weren't banned, people might illegally get ahold of them. If they weren't banned, it wouldn't be illegal to get ahold of them.

  • epsilon given||

    "The point is to interrupt the chain of possession transfers while the weapon is still in the hands of people who belong to the category of "responsible adults", before the first transfer to someone in the category of "criminal"."

    That's what the current laws are supposed to do. What is it about these new laws that's going to keep any of these transfers from happening, *particularly* since most of these transfers are done either through (1) straw purchases -- a person who can legally buy a gun buys it for someone who can't buy a gun (already illegal), (2) robberies -- a person steals a gun from someone who already owns a gun (either legally or illegally), (3) by buying a gun from someone who already illegally owns a gun, and (4) by smuggling guns from outside the United States?

    Most criminals don't get their guns by going out to an informal range, borrow a gun from a friend, and then returning it to the friend afterward -- which is activity made illegal by this law.

    I can't escape the notion that this law is intended to make it as inconvenient for peaceable citizens to own guns as possible, with the aim to chip at the culture, and make full-out bans more palatable. Once that is done, we'll allegedly have the records needed (as if freedom-loving gun nuts are going to obey these laws anyway!) to gather up the guns from all the people who can be identified as owning these guns, via records.

  • epsilon given||

    And I should add a (5) that, if gun laws are onerous enough, criminals will also start manufacturing guns on their own. This isn't that hard to do -- with a few thousands dollars of equipment, you can have yourself a little factory for guns -- it's just not done because it's so much cheaper to just buy the mass-produced items. At some point, though, we will cross a threshold where it's just cheaper to make them, and then distribute them illegally!

  • BadLib||

    This could create an exciting new business opportunity. I foresee BadLIb's Machine Shop Rent To Make franchising opportunities. We will rent, by the hour and by the machine, machines at convenient shops near you. We will also sell raw materials.

    Of course, safe operation of machine tools does require training so each customer will have to take "hands on" classes in the use of the machines. Since, it turns out, our customer base is familiar with firearms, we will use manufacture of various firearms as our sample project. Of course, each person manufactures their own actual firearm with materials they own (having purchased the materials at the beginning of the class) and are free to take their sample project (a completely legal "self made" firearm) home with them.

    In phase 2 of deployment, we will have franchise opportunities for portable machine shops to cover under-served areas (so called "Machine Shop Deserts").

  • James Pollock||

    Keep in mind that firearms manufacturers are required to affix unique serial numbers, with fairly serious penalties for failure to comply, and Badlib owns the shop. You probably won't be hassled in Texas, but expect holdups on obtaining your business occupancy licenses in NY locations.

  • epsilon given||

    If I personally create a gun, I don't need to create a serial number for it, unless I'm in California -- and I wish to obey the law.

    If Badlib decided to create a shop, and someone just *happened* to decide to make a gun, without telling Badlib what's going on, how is Badlib supposed to stop it? A gun, after all, is ultimately just a piece of metal. (Unless it's made of wood -- I've seen a picture of an AR15 where the receiver -- the part that's considered a gun -- is made out of a 2x4.)

  • Harvey Mosley||

    The BATFE has ruled that renting or borrowing someone else's equipment to make your own gun actually means that the person who owns the equipment made the gun.

    Actually I just realized this could be a good thing. If I own the equipment and let someone more skilled than I am make the gun then legally I made it per BATshitcrazyFE's ruling.

  • Tionico||

    sell shares in the equipment. Then each user is an owner, and thus is using his own equipment to make his own gun. No number, no record, no BGC, no crime, no hassle.

  • James Pollock||

    "I can't escape the notion"

    That's your deficiency, not mine.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor pollock and his Lefties losing the gun battles.

    Socialism getting rolled back.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Check the various reports on criminal manufacture of firearms in Sweden, Switzerland, Eastern Europe, India, Israel, Australia, in fact the whole world.

    And the pill analogy falls apart with the cocaine black market reality.

  • ||

    Funny, those pills DON'T stay with doctors and pharmacists. Why? Because that system doesn't work.

    Thanks for proving our point that UBCs don't work!

  • Tionico||

    so this bill will magickally end housebreakings and ensuing thefts of firearms, and will forever end breakins to gun stores and the subsequent looting of the guns inside the store, right?

    READ the stats provided by the FBI relating to sources of the guns criminals are possessiing when apprehended. Gun shows are

  • MaverickNH||

    One struggles to find the good intentions behind the excess beyond simple Universal background Checks (UBCs) for all sales that presumably closes the nefarious "Gun Show Loophole" that is so often reviled as the source of crime guns. The loan provisions might have some basis in preventing Pinky from giving his gun to Leftie to whack Donny but add-on charges for subsequent crimes committed with an illegally loaned weapon hardly justify the tremendous imposition on honest, law-abiding citizens.

    If Pinkie, on the way to whack Leftie, gets pulled over for a brake light out in a state that has Constitution Carry, can he not just say that the gun was transferred to him after a UBC? Only if each and every UBC was recorded and maintained in a database, an up-to-the-minute accurate system accessible 24/7/365 by law enforcement, could the system ever detect an illegal transfer. And what if Pinkie said it was his gun? Only if all currently owned guns are registered to the owner and listed in this hypothetical database could law enforcement detect an illegally transferred gun. Would law enforcement be empowered to seize any gun until such time as legal possession were established?

    With months/years to compose a UBC bill that *could* pass, they have chosen the fail path again. Presumably as they know the data would show a simple UBC law to be ineffective. Harassment of gunowners and retribution against GOP and NRA are their primary objectives.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It's not worth the struggle, once you get past the useful idiots, there aren't any good intentions to find.

    I've been following this struggle since the 1980's, and if the presumption of good faith is rebuttable, for the gun controllers it stands rebutted. EVERY bill they propose is a trap, meant to be abusively implemented.

    The bottom line is that they loath and mean to destroy a fundamental, explicitly guaranteed constitutional right. And we treasure it and mean to defend it. It's like the fight between slavers and abolitionists, a no holds barred battle between utterly irreconcilable positions, where one side must eventually prevail.

    In the end there can't be any compromise between us.

  • James Pollock||

    "In the end there can't be any compromise between us."

    If that's your choice, that's your choice. No whining if your side isn't the one that prevails.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "No whining if your side isn't the one that prevails."

    What compromise should there be on a basic civil right?

  • James Pollock||

    Depends on the basic civil right.
    For example, the right to free speech doesn't include the right to AMPLIFIED speech, at 3am, in a residential area. So turn down that stereo, dammit, some people have to go to work in the morning. The right to travel about the country using public roadways doesn't include the right to drive the wrong way down the freeway at 100mph.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    I don't agree that it depends on the basic civil right. Any limitation on civil rights should be limited and very narrowly defined. You know, like the SC has done with the limitations on the 1A.

    This bill is neither limited or narrowly defined.

  • James Pollock||

    "I don't agree that it depends on the basic civil right. Any limitation on civil rights should be limited and very narrowly defined. You know, like the SC has done with the limitations on the 1A."

    Your third sentence contradicts your first sentence.

    "This bill is neither limited or narrowly defined."

    Perhaps you should argue this point with someone who disagrees with you.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    I don't think there's a contradiction there. All of the "basic civil rights" should be treated the same. That's what I was trying to say. The 2nd should be treated like the 1st and like the 8th, etc. The SC has been pretty good about being careful about exceptions to the 1st. Much less so, say, the 4th.

    "Perhaps you should argue this point with someone who disagrees with you."

    No. I wanna argue with you. Arguing with some of the other guys on here is like arguing with a tape recorder.

  • James Pollock||

    " All of the "basic civil rights" should be treated the same."

    Which is NOT the way the SC (or anyone else) treats the rights guaranteed in the 1A. The right to freely practice religion is not the same as the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, so they have different limitations.

  • RobinGoodfellow||

    But, as I understand it, any limits on fundamental liberties muss pass strict scrutiny.

  • James Pollock||

    "as I understand it, any limits on fundamental liberties muss pass strict scrutiny."

    YMMV. See Korematsu, for example (still not formally overruled.)

  • Brett Bellmore||

    But, James, using a megaphone at 3am in a residential area isn't handled by stringent restrictions on who can own a megaphone. It's assumed that almost everybody who owns a megaphone will not misuse it, and it's the misuse that is the subject of the law, not the capacity for misuse.

    All we're asking is that guns be treated in the same way: Recognize that the vast majority of people will not wrongfully use their firearms, and make the legitimate subject of the law the misuse, not the capacity.

    And, wow, sure enough: Wrongly shooting people is already illegal, has been for a couple of centuries. Job done, let's go home.

  • James Pollock||

    "But, James, using a megaphone at 3am in a residential area isn't handled by stringent restrictions on who can own a megaphone."

    True enough. Have you met anyone who claimed it was?

    "All we're asking is that guns be treated in the same way: Recognize that the vast majority of people will not wrongfully use their firearms"

    OK. But maybe... prepare yourself... guns are not like megaphones, and guns should be treated like guns rather than treated like megaphones. Cars are registered by the state, and user licenses required, because cars are not like megaphones. See how that works?

  • ||

    If there was a serious push to ban and confiscate cars, I'd oppose registering them as well.

  • James Pollock||

    So you're just fishing around for something to complain about? OK, there's a "serious" push to ban and confiscate straws. Now go away.

  • ||

    WTF are you talking about? When there is a serious push to ban and confiscate, then I don't want the government having a list of whom owns what.

  • James Pollock||

    "When there is a serious push to ban and confiscate, then I don't want the government having a list of whom owns what"

    You want them to just assume you have a bunch of straws, and proceed accordingly.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Guns are like megaphones in the legally relevant regard that they are instruments used to exercise a civil right. You don't get to restrict exercise of a civil right by simply depriving people of the means to exercise it.

    Cars are registered by the state, and user licenses required, if you want to use them on state owned property. If you're content to just drive around in your backyard? Don't need a license, don't need to register. You never noticed that? Maybe missed the phrase, "street legal"?

    For constitutional purposes, guns=printing presses. People have a right to own and use them, and regulation has to give way to that.

  • James Pollock||

    "Guns are like megaphones in the legally relevant regard that they are instruments used to exercise a civil right"

    But there are a whole bunch of OTHER legally relevant regards in which guns are not like megaphones.

    "For constitutional purposes, guns=printing presses."

    Good luck with that. (Hint: Printing presses are regulated, too.)

  • Junkie||

    James, what legal regulations are there on ownership of printing presses?

  • James Pollock||

    Inks are made of toxic materials, and all the regulations about storing, transporting, and using toxic materials apply to inks used in printing presses.
    Paper is a combustible material. Fire safety regulations apply to paper used in printing presses. For that matter, paper is heavy. Weight limits on bridges and ships apply to containers full of paper to be used in printing presses, too.

  • Junkie||

    So there are regulations that apply to everything and everything includes printing presses, rather than anything specifically about printing presses.

  • Tionico||

    5hen use soy based inks, which are drinkable and harmless.. Barbaque charcoal is flammable, too, as is propane. I am NOT prohibited possession of propane, nor am I required ti reguster my barbeque bottle, And propane, in case you are not aware, can be used in ways that are lethal to large quantities of people and thins, destroying them in an instant or three. Weight limits on bridges are WEIGHT limits, not limits on WHAT can be transported across them, but HOW MUCH in one load. Weight limits on ships are to assure stability at sea, and are irrespective of WHAT comprises the load.

    You are getting more ridiculous by the post.

  • Ridgeway||

    I'd analogize to computers, rather than printing presses, but the point stands.

  • Sarcastr0||

    There are some serious regulations on what you can do with computers. Especially powerful ones.

  • BadLib||

    Cars must be registered with the state when used or parked on public roads. When used or stored on private lands or transported via carrier on public roads, no registration or license is required by the state. (Have you ever seen a state license plate on an F1 race car when raced on a course in the United States and how do you think those unlicensed cars get to your local dealer?)

    So, a city law against discharging a firearm, without a license to discharge, within city limits (i.e., using a firearm) on public land except in self defense is like automobile licensing. Merely carrying a firearm in public is like transporting your unlicensed vehicle on a car carrier.

    See how that works?

  • epsilon given||

    And discharging guns in city limits is illegal unless you are either at a gun range, or have a huge property so that no one will notice anyway, or you are discharging your gun in an act of self defense.

    I fail to see how such limits should prevent me from owning guns or printing presses (including modern day "presses" as computers and phones).

  • James Pollock||

    "I fail to see how such limits should prevent me from owning guns or printing presses"

    Find someone who's arguing that you should be prevented from owning guns or printing presses, and ask them to explain what they're talking about.

  • epsilon given||

    The types of people pushing for these kinds of gun regulations are ultimately pushing for the outright banning of guns. It is a burden for you, to convince me to support this legislation, that (1) it won't further the goals of those who are working hard to ban all guns, and (2) that it will actually prevent crime, and not result in further "common sense" regulations.

    And don't bother telling me that "slippery slope" is a fallacy, because when it's an explicit goal of the advocates, it's not a fallacy -- and we're seeing the slippery slope happen before our eyes in California as we speak.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties like Pollock want a gun ban.

    Guns prevents Socialism from fully taking over.

  • Tionico||

    YOU ARE, Paco. OWNING includes the ability to buy, sell, make, modify, use, not use, store, transport, repair, etc as the OWNER desires. Just as I can OWN four cars here at MY place that the state knows naught about, and can load one into a trailer and transport it to Charlie/s house and unload it and now HE has it, so I can do the same with my rifle. I can even sell that vehicle or gun to Charlie for an agreed upon price, provided I do have ownership myself, and can thus lawfully transfer it to Charlie... in other words, the car/gun is not Pete's, but mine. The state have NO compelling interest in knowing I have possession of those four cars until such time as I want to OPERATE one or more of them on publivally owned/controlled rights of way.

  • ||

    Right, and the right to own a gun doesn't include murder.

    So we have some limited restrictions that are based on protecting other rights.

    Hence most gun control is bad.

  • Juanito_J_Ibanez||

    James Pollock wrote: "For example, the right to free speech doesn't include the right to AMPLIFIED speech, at 3am, in a residential area."

    "AMPLIFIED" free speech at 3am constitutes a Breach of the Public Peace (a/k/a Disorderly Conduct) ... which in and of itself is not a restriction of free speech.

    As to the "you cannot cry 'FIRE' in a crowded theater":

    "Shouting fire in a crowded theater"
    www.washingtonpost.com/news/vo.....d-theater/

    It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote
    www.theatlantic.com/national/a.....te/264449/

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its great that unconstitutional gun control laws are being rolled back around the USA.

  • ||

    My side will prevail, because people on it are willing to kill people on your side to defend liberty.

  • James Pollock||

    Other than being homicidal and stupid, what other characteristics define "your side"?

  • ||

    Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice

  • James Pollock||

    But extremism in the pursuit of dickishness just makes you an extreme dick.

  • Tionico||

    DOOD< its YOU been hollering about all or nothing.... YOU want all these restrictions on we who do NOT use our megaphones at oh three hundred in a residential area. Its not enough I don't wake you up with my megaphone at oh three hundred when pore lil YOO need your beauty rest to get up for work. YOU want my megaphone to be registered, just on the off chance that I MIGHT use it at 0300. Well, Imma gonna NOT tell you I have it. And imma gonna NOT register it so you KNOW I have it.

  • bernard11||

    You, and a few others, seem not only willing, but eager, to kill those who disagree with you about almost anything.

    That doesn't make you patriots, or defenders of liberty, or anything other than intolerant, violent, would-be tyrants and thugs.

  • ||

    Trying to ban guns is not a matter of "disagreeing." It's an act of evil tyranny that can morally be resisted. Just like you liberals think giving "marriage" licenses to gay men in contravention of the law at the time (that's what Newsom did in SF) is just fine.

  • Jmaie||

    Not to speak for ARWP, but I don't hear him threatening to kill anyone over a disagreement. Just if somebody wants to take his guns...

  • James Pollock||

    "Not to speak for ARWP, but I don't hear him threatening to kill anyone over a disagreement. "

    He says "his side" is willing to kill. "his side" implies that there's at least one other "side", and the fact that he's talking about killing them does at least suggest that they're disagreeing about something.

    He spends a lot of time thinking and talking about gay sex, so I'm guessing the "other side" is straight guys, or just guys who don't spend all day imagining having gay sex with Muslim immigrant welfare recipients.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Pollock and his Democratic Party. The party of slavery and gun control.

  • ||

    Your side is willing to kill too.

    Your side wants to enforce these laws at that barrel of a gun. People who did nothing wrong will resist, and they and their families will be killed.

    Just because YOU won't do the killing doesn't mean you don't want us dead.

  • Tionico||

    Remember the last time a government on this continent decided to disarm the citizens. It did not go well for that government, did it? General Gage got his hat handed to him, all bloodied with that of his own men he had sent out to disarm the COlonials. Some ten years later, the new commanding general of British forces in North America signed a piece of paper and loaded ALL his men and stuff onto some ships at Yorktown, tucked his tail betwixt hjis legs, and sailed back to England. Then the guys that won that little scuffle enacted into the Supreme Law of the Land that the right to arms would NEVER be restricted for anyone.

    If that right gets restricted again, it will be Season Two Replays..... there won't be any shooting until that happens. But if/when it does, there WILL be shooting, and plenty of it. But it will take the aggression of government or other force disarming the man on the street. This bill is one nmajor step i that direction.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    "James Pollock|1.10.19 @ 9:16AM|#

    "In the end there can't be any compromise between us."

    If that's your choice, that's your choice. No whining if your side isn't the one that prevails."

    What compromise do you think would work? Keeping in mind that "compromise" means both sides gain something, that is.

    Every "compromise" I've seen offered by hoplophobes is only a gain for them and a loss for me.

  • James Pollock||

    "If Pinkie, on the way to whack Leftie, gets pulled over for a brake light out in a state that has Constitution Carry, can he not just say that the gun was transferred to him after a UBC?"

    Sure, and everybody ever convicted of a crime can swear They Didn't Do It. Policemen (and defense attorneys) can check alibi claims by talking to witnesses. This isn't rocket surgery.

  • MaverickNH||

    Not being able to prove to law enforcement, instantly and on demand, that the gun you possess in your home or public space was obtained via a Background Check process should not lead to an arrest, an attorney, a trial, witnesses, etc.

  • James Pollock||

    If you're rightfully on the list o' bad people what shouldn't be able to possess a gun, then yes, it should be. And the person what gave you the weapon should have some 'splainin' to do.

    If you're not on the list, why would anyone be asking about it?

  • ||

    LOL! So in other words, the law will be totally unenforceable. Got it.

  • James Pollock||

    Yes, "the law will be totally unenforceable" does follow directly from "police know how to check alibis"... if you're stupid enough.

  • Jmaie||

    Well, the police are not supposed to shoot people in the back. But I hear it happens from time to time…

  • Harvey Mosley||

    The only adults who should be on that list are people who are incarcerated, on parole, on probation, or have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. If someone is too dangerous to own a gun they are too dangerous to be allowed back into society at large.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1000 Brett.

  • ||

    Yes. Fortunately, our side has more bullets than these communists have ballots

  • Gasman||

    Reading the bill and noting the terms transfer, possession, return. These are not defined within the bill, but having familiar use of these terms in the realm of real property, I'm certain that we can come up with an app that complements gunstore.com being able to affect transfer in the field.

  • Joe_dallas||

    The bill is also designed to drive Gun stores out of business.

    The administrative cost of complying with all the paperwork will likely be excessive. A $50-$100 transfer fee with only a small portion retained by the gun store to cover costs.

  • James Pollock||

    "The bill is also designed to drive Gun stores out of business."

    By driving a lot of new business into their doors?

  • epsilon given||

    That happens *before* the law is passed, yes. But afterward, we're forcing guns to provide a service that will do next to nothing at preventing gun crime, and tie up gun store clerks in useless activities that could be spent doing other things, like selling guns or helping patrons get a spot in the gun range.

    That's assuming that the law is observed or enforced, though. In States that have passed similar measures, we have sheriffs of many counties who have made it clear that they are going to do *nothing* to enforce such a law.

  • Tionico||

    gun stores are not in the business of cranking outbpaperwork. They are in the business of buying and sellling guns. when BloomingIdiotBurg crammed his background check bill down the throats of Washington people many FFL dealers refused to do the now-demanded background checks for private sales, They would only do them as part of a sale of one of their guns from inventory, like always. WHAT will happen when gun stores near-universally refuse to do NICS checks for personal sales?

    THAT is what he meant/......

  • Harvey Mosley||

    There were gun stores in California that pushed for the law requiring all private party transfers to go through FFLs because they wanted to force gun buyers into their stores. Now most if not all brick and mortar FFLs bitch about having to do private party transfers.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    All gun control is unconstitutional [period]

    Any politician that tries to pass legislation that infringes on the People's right to keep and bear Arms should be impeached for violating their oath of office.

    The only acceptable related legislation would be amending the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

  • Jerry B.||

    Doing research from public sources, I've found that around half of firearms used in crimes are provided by a straw purchaser, who can pass a background check and then pass the gun on to a person who can't legally possess a firearm. A straw purchase is a Federal felony good for up to 10 years.

    Each year the DOJ prosecutes only around 100 straw purchase cases, and this has stayed constant through the past three administrations.

    Wonder why Rep. Thompson doesn't ask for stricter enforcement of this law, if his goal is to cut down crime.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The goal is 100% gun bans.

    Not getting rid of unconstitutional federal straw gun purchase laws.

  • James Pollock||

    "The goal is 100% gun bans."

    If that's your goal, you probably won't succeed.

  • epsilon given||

    That doesn't mean that those who don't have this goal aren't going to try. And this is, indeed, another effort to get us closer to that goal.

  • James Pollock||

    Everything you do is another effort to get us closer to that goal, really.

    If only some REAL people had that as a goal, you'd sound less paranoid.

  • epsilon given||

    If there weren't politically powerful people on record for expressing their desire to ban guns, who consider every new law a "good step" towards a ban, you might have a point.

    Gun rights activists don't distrust gun control proponents out of paranoia. They distrust gun control proponents out of *experience*.

  • Alpheus W Drinkwater||

    Gun control proponents use the exact same legal tactics in this regard as anti-abortion advocates. Death by a thousand legal cuts. I don't read many commenters here complaining about unreasonable abortion restrictions. I'm guessing it's not the means you object to, but the end.

  • Tionico||

    likely because not many commenters here are in favour of the murder of millions of Americans before they are even born. I don't care WHAT anyone says, there IS no "right" to the taking of another's life "hidden in the emanations and penumbrae of the Constitution". Those clowns in black nighties were smoking something that was probably illegal when they wrote that nonsense.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    I guess DiFi isn't a real person.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties like pollock really hate discussing their goals of banning guns.

    It hits them at the ballot box.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    To be fair, prosecuting straw purchases is very difficult, because it's perfectly legal to buy a gun for somebody else, if you're buying it as a gift, and it's also perfectly legal, if you own a gun, to sell it to somebody else.

    So you don't just have to prove that Joe bought a gun, that later ended up in Robert's hands.

    You have to prove that Joe intended to sell it to Robert at the time he bought it.

    Very difficult to do outside of sting operations.

  • ||

    Or that Joe knew Robert was a prohibited person. That makes a transfer illegal no matter when it was done or when the gun was originally purchased.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Since those laws are unconstitutional, those laws are void.

  • ||

    No, they're not.

  • MaverickNH||

    The vast majority of true denials were not prosecuted as they were not considered risks, like white-collar felons, medical MJ users, etc. Criminals who might use a gun for violent crime are generally not stupid enough to get caught trying to illegally buy a gun through legitimate channels that conduct background checks.

  • Naaman Brown||

    As Wright and Rossi pointed out in the first prison inmate survey in "Armed and Considered Dangerous" 1985, criminals acquire weapons from hard to regulate sources in hard to regulate ways.

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

    2004 Source of firearms possessed by state prison inmates at time of offense

    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

    I would point out that family or friend supplying guns to criminals are often criminals too. Friends selling, renting, or loaning guns to a felon are often fellow gang members.

    It will be really hard to get them and the thieves, burglars, fences, black marketeers, drug dealers, street dealers to run background checks on criminals before supplying them with guns.

    Expecting UBC for most criminal acquisition of firearms is as absurd as expecting drug dealers to ask for prescription scripts for street drugs.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Prison inmate surveys of gun using criminals report using retail sources 11% of the time.

  • James Pollock||

    Premise #1: People who are responsible adults should be allowed to have whatever weapon(s) they find necessary or useful, and they can afford.

    Premise #2: Some people are not responsible adults.

    Given these two premises, how do you make weapons available to people who should have them, and at the same time make them unavailable to people who should not?

    HB 8 is the sort of statutes and regulations you get when one side (or both sides) utterly refuse to talk to the other side.

    "OK, we're going to sit down and write the regulations now. You guys have any concerns with the first draft?"
    (crickets)
    "OK, there being no objections to the draft, we'll go with that."
    (much whining and consternation about what was passed.)

    It is a fundamental axiom that "loyal opposition" legislators produce better legislation by pointing out mistakes and potential problems in time to get them fixed... usually, by offering suggestions about how to fix them.

    Screaming "NO! NO! NO! NO!" is how a five-year-old responds to rules they don't like.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Luckily, your side is not in charge anymore.

    Gun control is 100% unconstitutional.

    Luckily, gun control around the USA is being rolled back at the state level and federal laws like this will never pass.

  • James Pollock||

    "Luckily, your side is not in charge anymore."

    No, alas, responsible adults are not in charge anymore.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor troll.

    Hater of America and how Trump is MAGA.

  • James Pollock||

    "Hater of America and how Trump is MAGA."

    Keep fighting those imaginary monsters that only you can see.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor pollock. He gets paid in Yuan to be here and keep Americans from fighting socialism.

  • Absaroka||

    I seem to recall gun right folks being agreeable to a scheme where, essentially, NICS would be available to anyone, and individuals would be required to call in a check before selling a gun. IIRC strident objections ... on the basis that people could abuse the system by using it to tell whether random people were felons.

    Balancing inconvenience to felons with inconvenience to the law abiding - well, the two sides had different opinions on who ought to hold the short end of that stick.

    Similarly, I've seen proposals that driver's licenses get a G-for-guns endorsement, or exempting people with CCW permits from going to an FFL, etc. The objections to those from anti-gun side are sort of vague. A cynic might suspect that was because they wouldn't result in an extra trip, wouldn't involve a fee, and most importantly wouldn't result in serial numbers being recorded. They would, though, be just as effective at solving the stated problem, and they would have passed years ago.

  • James Pollock||

    " I've seen proposals that driver's licenses get a G-for-guns endorsement, or exempting people with CCW permits from going to an FFL, etc. The objections to those from anti-gun side are sort of vague."

    Here's an objection from a generally pro-gun side: Latency. Today, get a new driver's license stamped to expire in five years. Then, tomorrow, get in a road rage argument in which you shoot at, but are so mad you miss several shots, other motorists, including law enforcement. They're going to seize your weapon for THAT. Day after, still have the same driver's license. Oh, DMV will revoke it, but you still have the physical piece of plastic with that "G" on it.

    Stuff can happen that makes a carry-permit holder unfit to carry, as well. A diagnosis of acute schizophrenia with paranoia, for example, wouldn't make someone unable to pass the knowledge test OR the range-safety test.

  • Absaroka||

    " Day after, still have the same driver's license."

    I think that when you get arrested for, say, DUI, your license usually gets confiscated or punched on the spot.

    Moreover, in your scenario the shooter can still get a gun tomorrow at an FFL, the databases don't propagate overnight. He'd be breaking the law, but that's true either way.

    In any event, driver's license or CCW is only one convenient, low cost way to do it. If you don't like it, pick another cheap and easy solution - if solving the problem is actually the intent.

    Nothing is perfect. For example, with the proposed scheme in H.R. 8 there isn't anything that stops Fred Felon from getting a fake driver's license in Greg Goodguy's name and waltzing into the FFL. Or Fred Felon telling his buddy Sam Strawpurchaser to buy some guns, put them in a $99 Homak safe, and go the the mall for the afternoon while Fred 'steals' the guns. For bonus points, Sam can get reimbursed by his insurance for the 'theft'.

    In general, it's hard to hassle the law abiding enough to coerce scofflaws. See, e.g. the Sudafed wars. We have ID checks, online databases, and meth is cheaper than ever - imported now by the cartels. But hey - maybe if we add fingerprints, a fee, and a waiting period to the Sudafed check, that will finally end the scourge of meth!

  • James Pollock||

    "I think that when you get arrested for, say, DUI, your license usually gets confiscated or punched on the spot."

    If you had it. Oh, I see... people who are (insert good reason to not give a person a deadly weapon), are also conscientious about always carrying their driver's license with them.

    "Moreover, in your scenario the shooter can still get a gun tomorrow at an FFL, the databases don't propagate overnight. He'd be breaking the law, but that's true either way."

    Well, of course, if there's any flaw or oversight in any law, we might as well not have any law on the subject at all. Some murderers get away with it. Why do we still have murder laws? Too much violent imagery for you? The same is true for jaywalking.

    " If you don't like it, pick another cheap and easy solution"

    Mind pointing out where I said there ARE any cheap and easy solutions? You'll have to pick through all the times I said there weren't (and aren't), but I'm sure you can find (or make up) something to fit the bill.

    "In general, it's hard to hassle the law abiding enough to coerce scofflaws."

    Absolutely. Particularly when a good portion of the "law-abiding" are more than willing to skirt or outright ignore/violate the law.

  • Absaroka||

    There is an old saying about perfect being the enemy of good enough. Instead of saying such a system couldn't work with an acceptable error rate, why not try it and see if it's good enough?

    Oh, wait! We already did - in many states, showing a CCW bypasses the NICS check even at an FFL. Now, I'm surely open to a long parade of horribles from those states where people used revoked CCW's to buy guns and then ran amok. I haven't heard of that being a particular problem, though, which makes me leery of 'it can't possibly work' arguments.

  • James Pollock||

    " Instead of saying such a system couldn't work with an acceptable error rate, why not try it and see if it's good enough?"

    I responded to a claim that all the objections were "vague" by providing a simple, not-at-all-vague-and-highly-concrete objection.

    " which makes me leery of 'it can't possibly work' arguments."

    Given your apparent lack of ability to detect them (or the lack thereof), I'm not at all surprised by this.

  • Bruce Hayden||

    I will admit that it is nice having a CCW for that reason alone. Guy in town who has a FFL charges $25 for a transfer w/o a CCW, and $15 with a CCW. And when buying guns recently at a couple sporting goods stores, the paperwork was reduced, and approval was immediate. My previous experience, a couple days before the 2016 election, was an 8 hour wait. Funny thing was that the earlier experience was in CO, with a CO CCW, while the later experiences were in MT, with a MT CCW - based indirectly (via an AZ CCW) on the training used to qualify for the CO CCW (I went via AZ because MT requires residency for a CCW, and CO automatically revokes based on loss of residency - so technically there was no legal way to directly get a MT CCW based on a CO CCW. AZ (and I believe UT - but we have a second house in AZ) issues CCWs to nonresidents).

  • ||

    Brady compliant CCW permits exempt purchasers from the NICS check at FFLs. I haven't heard of a single instance of a person with a revoked permit (who didn't physically hand it over) using it to buy a gun that was used in a crime.

    Not a single one.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    You're not really being serious here. If you implement a system where drivers licenses have an endorsement on them proving you've passed the background check, then as part of the system, any event that would undo that approval triggers your license being confiscated or punched through the endorsement. Easy peasy, if that is you want it to work.

  • ||

    I think his argument is that the person could just claim he lost it

  • James Pollock||

    " triggers your license being confiscated or punched through the endorsement."

    Well, since in your ideal world, law enforcement is everywhere all the time, this would work. The cop standing in your bedroom when you get up just takes your license out of your wallet, punches it, and puts it back while you're in the shower.

  • ||

    Okay, let's require that a person type in the DLIC number into a web site to verify it. Should be pretty simple, right?

  • James Pollock||

    "Should be pretty simple, right?"

    If only someone hadn't demanded that all the records of background checks be destroyed after the pass/no pass determination be made, that might have worked!!

  • Naaman Brown||

    The NICS database is not destroyed after a NICS check run.

    If you are on the NICS prohibited person data base you are there whether or not you ever go to an FFL and try to buy a gun. Whether if you do or don't, the data base is not destroyed.

    What is destroyed is whether a non-prohibited person had a background check run through NICS.

  • epsilon given||

    Well, in your ideal world, every person about to transfer a gun -- whether that person be a peaceable citizen or a violent felon -- is going to go to a gun store to check the identity of the person they are about to sell the gun to.

    If we could find just *one* scenario where this isn't likely to happen, we should scrap the idea in its entirety.

  • James Pollock||

    "Well, in your ideal world, every person about to transfer a gun -- whether that person be a peaceable citizen or a violent felon -- is going to go to a gun store to check the identity of the person they are about to sell the gun to."

    If you'd like to argue both sides of the argument and ignore what I've actually said... which is pretty obviously true... go right ahead. Just leave me out of it, ok?

  • epsilon given||

    James Pollock, the point I'm trying to make, and I guess I didn't make it well, is that your demand that we cannot have a simple background check system because it's *only* going to work if "in your ideal world, law enforcement is everywhere all the time,...[t]he cop standing in your bedroom when you get up just takes your license out of your wallet, punches it, and puts it back while you're in the shower." is as applicable to *this* proposed law, as it is to the proposals you are trying to refute.

    If *this* is the standard for passing working background check laws, then we should scrap background checks in their entirety. I'm personally ok with that, by the way -- because if you *really* think about it, this is the *only* way a background check is going to work. (Assuming, of course, that the police who sneak your card out of your wallet aren't corrupt themselves -- which is a dangerous assumption in and of itself.)

  • KevinP||

    A Background Check Certificate obtained by the buyer (not the seller) could work:

    * A prospective buyer goes online, fills out a web form 4473, provides a state-issued photo ID number, and within a few hours, passes the existing NICS instant background check and can print out a certificate.
    * The certificate is good for 90 days to buy one or more than one gun.
    * The buyer presents the certificate to the seller with the same photo ID. The seller calls an automated telephone number or goes online to verify that the certificate is genuine.
    * Only the seller and buyer keep a copy of the certificate for their private records.
    * The certificate expires after 90 days and the buyer's identity is purged from all government records. Any person other than the seller who maintains records on the buyer after 90 days commits a felony.
    * The existing exemption of concealed carry holders and other licensees from background checks is maintained.
    * Temporary transfers of possession without an explicit or implicit change of ownership are specifically exempted from any background check.
    * This scheme prevents gun registration (and later confiscation) and protects the privacy of the buyer, since there is no government record that she bought any firearm using the certificate.

    IN RETURN:

    Any person with a background check certificate can buy any handgun, rifle or shotgun in any state, regardless of their state of residence. The current federal law that prohibits this is repealed.

  • ||

    "Given these two premises, how do you make weapons available to people who should have them, and at the same time make them unavailable to people who should not?"

    By putting the latter in jail. If they can't be trusted with a gun, they should be in jail.

    End of line.

  • Tionico||

    so how's about ending any concern with who HAS what, but concern about who DOES WHAT with what instead?

    WHY are so few adequately punished for the crimes they commit? WHY are so many habitual thieves in prison for a short term, then released, then go do it again? Recidivism is extremely high, and the "justice" system wholly inadequate. The prison system is more like a warehousing company. They store the goods as long as they are required to, then the goods are released, most times to return before long.

    Until RESTITUTION is made part of the punishment for crime the crime will never slow. Capital punishment MUST be restored for murder, else murders will continue to murder.

    It ain't the tool that is the problem, its what each individual DOES with the tool that is at issue. Carpenter's claw hammers are used to kill more people annually than all long guns combined. Ever had to run a background check on a Vaughn 24 ounce waffleface framing hammer? See how stupid that is? Ever have anyone tremble at the thought of a friend loaning their two pound ballpein hammer to a neighbour for a few days to "do a job"? See how ridiculous THAT sounds?

  • ||

    The fact that liberals oppose every attempt to open up the NICS to private sellers, for free, by phone or Internet, shows that they are acting in bad faith. They don't want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, they want to add burdensome processes and fees to selling or trading guns.

  • James Pollock||

    "The fact that liberals oppose every attempt to open up the NICS to private sellers, for free, by phone or Internet, shows that they are acting in bad faith"

    There you go. Demanding stuff for free. Liberal.

  • ||

    This is something you are demanding of us. We're not asking for it, nor do we want it. In other words, you're a moron.

  • James Pollock||

    "This is something you are demanding of us."

    This is what now?

    " In other words, you're a moron."

    I hate to tell you this, but "moron" doesn't mean "person who's smarter than you". Though, in your case, it's true.

  • epsilon given||

    I agree 100% that we shouldn't provide access to the NICS system for free to private sellers for free.

    We should recognize it for the ineffective boondoggle it is, and just get rid of it entirely. That way we won't have to have people access it at all!

  • Tionico||

    my tax dollars are already paying for that. So its NOT free. I'm PAYING for it alreaady why deny me access to it to assure I'm NOT selling to a prohibited person?
    For that matter, set up a database accessible by phone or internet, I want to sell my old Winchester hunting rifle to George, I get his full name, date of birth, city of residence, call or log on, enter that, system clunks and clanks, checks, he's OK, returs an eight digit proceed code which I write down, then George pays me and walks away with my gun. Provides a means to end inadvertent sales to prohibited persons, gives me proof I ran the check, no cost, part of "national security" or some such.

    No, that's not the goal, to end sales to prohibited persons. Plain and simple, its the foundation for a nationwide gun registry. And we ALL know how gun registries were used in the last century to disarm citizens of several nations......... and THAT is why I oppose any such bill as this one. King George Three tired it, and he got his arse handed him by the very ones he illegally tried to disarm.

  • Shandower||

    This is Washington State's I-594 on a federal level.

    Feel free to look up the stats for compliance, enforcement, and convictions on how that's been working out.

  • ||

    We should have a background check (for HIV) for each instance a gay man wants to engage in "marital relations" with another man. Just think of the children.

  • James Pollock||

    Maybe, but also one (for HIV) for each instance a straight man wants to engage in "marital relation" with a woman.
    Come to think of it, a test for STDs used to required to get a marriage license.

    "Just think of the children."

    If you're thinking of children while you're having marital relations...

  • ||

    No, because 75% of HIV cases occur in gay men. So hassling the other 99% of the population doesn't make sense.

  • James Pollock||

    " 75% of HIV cases occur in gay men."

    Which is your problem.
    It doesn't become MY business until it affects me, so I want to eliminate or reduce the likelihood of straight men contracting HIV.

  • ||

    No, it's all of our problem, because our health insurance premiums pay for the anti-retroviral drugs. I'd fully support putting gay men in a separate risk pool, but as it is, we all pay for their sodomy.

  • James Pollock||

    "No, it's all of our problem"

    No, it's your problem, because thinking about gay people having gay sex seems to dominate your thinking, to the point where you can't let go of it and keep bringing it up in contexts where it's just not relevant.

  • Tionico||

    so you agree that if YOU don't want to own, buy, sell a firearm that is YOUR problem, but if I want to own, buy, sell one its MY problem, right. Or if you do NOT want to own/buy/sell its STILL your problem, right>

    But then you go all shifty on us and try to convince is all that if I want to own/buy/sell a gun its YOUR problem?
    Nannie.. that's what you are. MY GUN MY BUSINESS.

  • Dilan Esper||

    I think there's a fundamental dishonesty here.

    If you don't think that there should be background checks at all, fine, call for the repeal of the current law.

    But if you think there should be background checks, then a lot of the things in the OP are obviously reasonable attempts to prevent circumvention of the background checks through private transfers.

    I mean, I could go at it a different way, with a liability rule, but that would make the NRA scream too. (A liability rule would say OK, we won't make every private transfer subject to a background check, but if you transfer to someone who uses the gun in a crime you could be civilly, or even criminally, liable.)

    If you don't want a liability rule, and you don't want to repeal background checks, however, you have to close the loopholes so the background checks will work.

  • James Pollock||

    It's a case, fundamentally, of "who should bear the costs".

    In a perfect world, the costs of misusing guns would fall squarely on people who misuse guns. People who don't even have them wouldn't have any costs, and neither would people who have them, but are responsible with them.

    We don't have a perfect world.
    So you have, generally, two sides... one side consisting largely but not exclusively of people who don't have nor want to have personal weapons, who thinks all gun possessors should bear the cost of their "hobby", and one side of people who want the weapons of their choice available to them, and don't care where the cost of that falls as long as it isn't on themselves. To people within these two groups, there seems to be a belief that there are ONLY these two groups, and no others.
    There's a broad middle area, that sees no problem with people who are responsible with their weapons, but wouldn't mind it if the "hey, watch this! Hold my beer..." crowd had a bit more difficulty obtaining weapons, which... note carefully... is still just a variation on "where do the costs fall". But the people in the middle get crap from both of the others, often at the same time. And always... ALWAYS... they get accused of being in one of the first two groups (whichever one the accuser is not, of course.)

  • ||

    Except that the left doesn't want to make it more difficult to obtain weapons for criminals. They want to make it more difficult and expensive for EVERYONE.

  • James Pollock||

    See what I mean?

  • ||

    Yes, you've proved my point.

  • James Pollock||

    In the sense that even though I wrote it all down, you jumped right in to prove how unreasonable you are, just the way I predicted you would? Yeah, you sure did that. That'll show me!

  • epsilon given||

    There are approximately 12,000 murders and 18,000 suicides committed by guns every year. Assuming that these are all legal gun owners (ha! a great majority of these murders are committed by gang bangers) who commit one murder per person (another ha!), then we are proposing to limit the rights of members of 55,000,000 households because 0.055% (that's 0.1% rounded to the nearest 10th of a percent) of the population doesn't play nice with guns.

    Why should peaceable gun owners suffer when there are literally almost no bad apples among the group?

    (And with numbers of bad apples this small, it's *very hard* to see how we could do *anything* to affect crime by passing laws to inconvenience legal gun owners!)

  • epsilon given||

    The fundamental dishonesty, though, comes from the fact that politicians are observing that the current system doesn't really do anything to prevent crime, so they identify situations that would have absolutely nothing to do with preventing crime, and then claim that crime will finally end when we enact them.

    Seriously, the "loopholes" that people complain about are already illegal. They happen anyway because the laws are unenforceable. Why should we accept even more unenforceable laws, just because the current ones don't work?

    I'm 100% in favor of ending background checks. But just because we can't get the political will to overturn the current laws, why should we roll over and accept even more useless restrictions that will do nothing?

  • Dilan Esper||

    "Seriously, the 'loopholes' that people complain about are already illegal. They happen anyway because the laws are unenforceable."

    They aren't unenforceable. They are totally enforceable! The gun lobby acts to prevent enforceable versions of the rules from being enacted.

    But go to, say, Japan, or Canada, or the United Kingdom, commit a felony or get committed for a mental health offense, and then try to purchase a gun when you get out. You won't be able to. It's very possible to enforce this.

    "I'm 100% in favor of ending background checks."

    So this means you are 100 percent in favor of even a convicted murderer or certifiably insane person obtaining a gun. If that's your position, as I said, fine. But most people at least purport to be OK with the government attempting to stop such people from obtaining weapons.

  • epsilon given||

    "But go to, say, Japan, or Canada, or the United Kingdom, commit a felony or get committed for a mental health offense, and then try to purchase a gun when you get out. You won't be able to. It's very possible to enforce this."

    You can't do this in America, either -- unless you do it privately, in the black market, which is what most criminals do.

    "So this means you are 100 percent in favor of even a convicted murderer or certifiably insane person obtaining a gun."

    Oh, I happen to be in favor of this. Or rather, I'm in favor of keeping people who are a danger to themselves or others out of normal society -- if someone is too dangerous to trust with a gun, that person is too dangerous to be in society itself. There are far more dangerous things available to all of us than guns. Gasoline is the first thing that comes to mind when it comes to doing harm to other people. Yet we don't have background checks at gasoline pumps!

  • epsilon given||

    "They are totally enforceable! The gun lobby acts to prevent enforceable versions of the rules from being enacted."

    I should also add: just what is it about the current versions of the laws that make them unenforceable? And how does this law magically *be* a version that's enforceable?

    As someone mentioned above, our experience with Washington's I-594 gives us no reason to believe that this is going to make the laws that much more enforceable.

  • juris imprudent||

    So Dilan, are our drug laws equally "totally enforceable" (absent the obliteration of the 4th and 5th Amdts)? Is it that we just lack the political will? Do you support the death penalty for dealers who's 'clients' end up dead from an OD?

  • Harvey Mosley||

    You're right. There is fundamental dishonesty here. But it's coming from the gun grabbers. Gun control doesn't work. If it did California would be safer than every other state in the Union.

  • Tionico||

    LOOPHOLES? Try these... I can think of THREE mass public shootings where the perp did NOT get his guns by passing a background check. That means, all the rest DID. Proof background checks do NOT work.

    I'd be fine with a modified check system... accessible to anyone by phone or internet. Enter full name, date of birth. city of residence. System checks for "prohibited" status, just as NICS does now. If passed, returns a Proceed code, which I keep on my records. Deal is done. I was easily and cheaply informed of the non-prohibited status of the putative buyer for my gun. No trip to FFL, no FFL doing paperwork he hates, does not incur costs. no fuss. Criminals ARE listed in the database as prohibited persons. If one tries to buy from me, I am informed. Since I hve toprovide identifying information on the putative buyer, there is no security breach, as he provides that to me. No record kept of sale in the system, as government have no compelling interest in knowing who has what when and where. THAT is registration, and illegal/not needed.

  • rsteinmetz||

    Private sales and permanent transfers should somehow be accommodated, because it it's too hard you create criminals and devalue respect for the law . Temporary loans for lawful use should be accommodated. It does not take a genius to see that while Congress routinely enacts absurdly vague laws, in the case they have drafted and absurdly precise law designed to accomplish by stealth what couldn't be accomplised in the open.

    Another interesting aspect of this "debate" is that there seems to be little information pubically availible about the origin of guns actually used in violent crime. Guns used in mass shooting mostly seem to be legally obtained.

  • ||

    Not mostly. It's basically exclusively. The current NICS checks are basically worthless for these types of incidents, and the left's only "solution" is to extend them to private sales.

  • Naaman Brown||

    As James Wright and Peter Rossi pointed out in the first prison inmate survey in "Armed and Considered Dangerous" 1985, criminals acquire weapons from hard to regulate sources in hard to regulate ways. These are repeated every 6 or 7 years.

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

    2004 Source of firearms

    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

    I would point out, as Wright & Rossi did, that family or friend supplying guns to criminals are often criminals too. Friends selling, renting, or loaning guns to a felon are often fellow gang members.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Before the requirement of NICS BG checks in Nov 1999, the percentages of criminals reporting acquiring guns from "Retail Purchase or Trade" was about 21%. Now its down to 12%.

    Now if we could just get those "25% drug/street dealers" to run UBCs.

    UBC will be a massive expensive effort to little benefit and lots of social cost, if not stopped.

    I swear. The Democrat National Party must hold stock in the black market.

  • Tionico||

    I believe John Stossel has covered this, and if my memory is accurate, only three mass public shootings have been perpetrated by shooters who did not PASS a NICS background check. ALL THE REST did pass.

  • Buddy Bizarre||

    "California's Background Check Law Had No Impact on Gun Deaths, Johns Hopkins Study Finds"

    https://bit.ly/2RMdChT

    But hey, let's do more of it so people can feel good that we've 'done something'.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Second amendment.

  • Flagger||

    To the author: Mr Kopel, Where did you find the official text? I was looking for it (including on congress.gov: https://www.congress.gov/bill/ 116th-congress/house-bill/8/ text?q={"search":["h.r.8"]}), but it was not there.
    (Note that spaces were inserted in the link to comply with "word too long" error when submitting comment.)

  • Naaman Brown||

    HR8 link is in the first line of the article.

    The html to embed long links is formatted like this (but without spaces around the < > delimiters)
    < a href="links_over_50_bytes" > highlight description < /a > blah blah blah

  • Flagger||

    I saw that link and read the text that was analyzed. My query was looking for confirmation that it was "final" and "official" text and not a working draft. From the link, it looks as if it might have come from the primary sponsor's website, but I was not sure.

    Thanks for the HTML tip.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

    HR8 would prohibit a 20-year-old woman who lives on her own from acquiring a handgun for self-defense in her home, such as by buying it from a relative or borrowing it from a friend.


    so theuir only opportunity to obtain a handgun is to join a gang.

    Are people who lawfully possess firearms more likely to commit murder than super-predator gangbangers?

    Regulators may set a minimum fee, but not "a cap on a fee." The Attorney General is allowed to require that every gun store charge a fee of $30, $50, $150, or more. Even a $20 fee can be a hard burden to a poor person.


    Have they ever heard of Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966). The Supreme Court said that wealth or fee paying has, in [their] view, no
    relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious,too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned." Harper 383 U.S. at 370

    Or will courts refuse to apply what the Supreme Court commanded in Harper?

  • Naaman Brown||

    Gun controllers will quote Dred Scott 1857 and Cruikshank 1875 which equated the civil rights of bearing arms and voting as rights that could be regulated by the states to the point of infringement.

    I don't think they will treat right to vote under Harper 1866 as equated to bearing arms after incorporation in McDonald 2010 because they believe McDonald was wrongly decided. Because guns.

  • Naaman Brown||

    ... Harper 1966 ...

    (a timed edit feature would be nice for people challenged by the [preview] before [submit] nature of this commenting system)

  • Naaman Brown||

    The Washington State UBC fee is $50 - $55. Sin tax. Meant to discourage private sales via BG check.

    Nick Leghorn, "FBI: Washington State Gun Owners Not Complying With New Background Check Law", The Truth About Guns, 26 Jan 2017.

    "Only 2% of background checks in Washington in 2015 stemmed from "private party" sales of guns, according to data in the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check – or NICS – system.

    "That number is surprising to researchers Philip Cook of Duke and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago, who study gun violence.

    "They say that their own research – and studies by others – have shown that up to 40% of gun sales nationwide are between private citizens. They're skeptical that the 2% reported to the FBI is an accurate picture of the private gun market in Washington state.

    ""I suspect…there are a lot of unreported private-market sales going on," Ludwig said in an email to KING 5."

    40% is from Cook and Ludwig's reporting on the National Survey on Private Ownership and use of Firearms (1994) a sample of uninstitutionalized adults living in homes with phones.
    60% bought from commercial sources (gun shop, pawn shop, gun show, flea market)
    19% received as gifts from family or friends (birthday, father's day, Christmas)
    13% bought used from a private party
    5% received as an inheritance
    3% swapped or traded used with another gun owner.
    19 + 13 + 5 + 3 = 40% from non commercial sources.

  • Tionico||

    I KNOW that far above two percent of all private sales in Washington are completed. I also know very well that huge numbers of temporary loans to friends are done on a daily basis across the state. "Hey, can I try a few rounds in YOUR gun?" Sure, here..... (no fifteen mile drive to gun store, wait an hour, pay fofty bucksd plus sales tax on the determined value of the gun being LOANED temporarily, go back to the range, fire twenty rounds, return to gun store, pay the fee and tax again, so the gun, always owned by Pete, but used for ten minutes by Robbie then returned, is now legally back in the possession of Pete.....

    THAT was Bloomburg's bill, and this tripe is a cookie cutter version of that same stupid law.

    As I understand it, only TWO cases were prosecuted in the entire state since that bill took effect, nearly three years now I think. One of those cases did not convict.

    When that first became the law in Washington, ALL BUT TWO sheriffs statewide openly declared they WOULD NOT ENFORCE IT. Same happened in Nevada when Blooomburg shoved that one down their throats.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online