Senators near a deal on background checks for most private gun sales


PDA






Bobk538447
February 23, 2013, 10:06 PM
Senators near a deal on background checks for most private gun sales

"A bipartisan group of senators is on the verge of a deal that would expand background checks to all private firearms sales with limited exemptions, but significant disagreements remain on the issue of keeping records of private gun sales, according to aides familiar with the talks."

"Resolution of whether to keep records of private sales is key to earning the support of one of the Republicans involved in the talks..........Democrats say that keeping records of private sales is necessary to enforce any new law and because current federal law requires licensed firearm dealers to keep records. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-near-a-deal-on-background-checks-for-most-private-gun-sales/2013/02/23/d55e5f4a-7d0c-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Senators near a deal on background checks for most private gun sales" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Cesiumsponge
February 23, 2013, 10:28 PM
So...how will this be enforced? It's as unenforceable my selling an old coffee table to a neighbor because I no longer had need for it.

jrdolall
February 23, 2013, 10:31 PM
The House will have to pass anything and that SHOULD not happen. Ifmy Senator agres to any of the new rap being proposed he will get real tired of me real fast.

mgkdrgn
February 23, 2013, 10:44 PM
Now, if they can just figure out how to increase the NICS staff by, say a factor of 10 ...

berettaprofessor
February 23, 2013, 10:53 PM
Fantastic that they can compromse on this and can't agree to a new budget in, what, 4 years now?

Cesiumsponge
February 23, 2013, 11:04 PM
This isn't a compromise. A compromise requires two sides giving something up AND gaining something in return. This is just a concession. If I take half your cookies, you won't see it as a compromise. You didn't get anything in return.

barnbwt
February 23, 2013, 11:30 PM
I just saw the article on Drudge. I thought "Huh. It made the "normal people" news--this is serious." I'm sending a letter to my senator now (Cornyn; like he needs me to tell him to vote down this garbage :rolleyes::cool:). I'm much more worried about the other bozos trading popularity now for votes from gunowners next election cycle. Any vulnerable republicans that vote for this will get hammered into oblivion for the next two years. Probably some safe ones and democrats, too.

Slightly related note: since NICS has a three-day max delay period, and they're already swamped as it is, couldn't we get the NRA or other large organization to coordinate "Flash Buys" and flood the system so bad that many transfers go through without a background check? :D It'd be a rather effective means of mass-demonstrating against NICS while demonstrating en masse that the BGC doesn't even do anything.

I think that will happen if they expand NICS checks to all private sales, anyway :D

TCB

Bobk538447
February 24, 2013, 09:03 PM
There is additional information on The Guardian.

"Both the Washington Post and the New York Times reported on Sunday that a deal between four senators two Democrats and two Republicans over extending background checks was now close, and that the aim was to present a draft bill to the judiciary committee at its hearing on Thursday."

"Schumer and other reformers want private sales, made at gun shows and through the internet, not only to be put through the FBI-maintained National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), but they also want such sales to be recorded."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/24/senate-gun-control-deal-records

theriflespeaks1863
February 24, 2013, 09:07 PM
This isn't a compromise. A compromise requires two sides giving something up AND gaining something in return. This is just a concession. If I take half your cookies, you won't see it as a compromise. You didn't get anything in return.
For sure; now the question is, how many politicians actually-

a: understand what compromise is
b: have bothered to look it up in a dictionary if they don't get it
c: actually give a rodent's *ss

Pains me to say it, but it's true. >:(

Fred Fuller
February 24, 2013, 09:07 PM
NRA ILA letter to the Senate on background checks:

http://cms.nraila.org/media/10900841/nra_letter_to_congress_2-13-13_backgroundchecks.pdf

jerkface11
February 24, 2013, 09:07 PM
What counts as a sale "thru the internet"? An auction? Or me making a craigs list post?

GoWolfpack
February 24, 2013, 09:15 PM
So...how will this be enforced? It's as unenforceable my selling an old coffee table to a neighbor because I no longer had need for it.
This will be enforced the same way most laws are. Because the vast majority of people genuinely want to follow the law, they will, even if it's stupid and senseless and won't protect anyone from anything.

I look at it the same as interstate private sales going thru FFLs. I think that's a silly law that doesn't do anything to protect anyone from actual harm, but everyone continues to follow it because it's the law. If they actually pass this, most people will follow it too.

IBEWBULL
February 24, 2013, 09:19 PM
They want our money.
Each sale and repeated trade taxed and fees associated.
If safety were the issue we would teach gun safety, fire safety , CPR, first aid and OSHA in schools.
After they bleed all the cash from us then they will come for the guns.
I have no doubt in my mind.
Adolph may be gone but his ideas are alive and well as well as ole Uncle Joe Stalin.

Bobk538447
February 24, 2013, 09:32 PM
Coburn: Bolstering background checks not a done deal

"The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, was adamant Sunday that expanded background checks would not include provisions to register gun owners, but he said that responsible Americans looking to purchase firearms shouldn't fear robust checks.

"They check to see if you told the truth, and then it's cleared out," Leahy said of the current background check system, adding later that measures to register gun owners would not be part of Senate gun control legislation.

"It's not going to be registration," he said on CNN's "State of the Union," adding that Republicans and gun advocates need to "lower the rhetoric and talk reality."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/24/coburn-bolstering-background-checks-not-a-done-deal/

k_dawg
February 24, 2013, 09:58 PM
To my knowledge, no one even attempted to negotiate some type of quid-pro-quo, rather than trying the 'no no no' campaign.

For example: tie it with national/federal standard on firearm ownership. That is, remove the ability of any state/county/city/etc from demanding a higher standard for ownership of any firearm federally legal. Then make it a federal felony for any other gov't entity to even discuss greater requirements.

Not a single one, that I have heard, have pointed out the unequality of rights to members of Chicago, NYC, DC etc. None have even mentioned we do not even have 'seperate but equal', but completely 'unequal'.

If they demanded the standard be applied equally, then we would stand a far better chance of nothing being passed. But at least if something is passed, to help out tens of millions of people.

Instead, they are giving away rights with zero effective effort as making an improvement in other areas.

alsaqr
February 24, 2013, 11:13 PM
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, was adamant Sunday that expanded background checks would not include provisions to register gun owners, but he said that responsible Americans looking to purchase firearms shouldn't fear robust checks.

i'm don't trust any senator whos rated F by the GOA.

Senator Coburn:

"I don't think we're that close to a deal," the Oklahoma Republican said on "Fox News Sunday." "There absolutely will not be record-keeping on legitimate, law-abiding gun owners in this country. If they want to eliminate the benefits of actually trying to prevent the sales to people who are mentally ill and to criminals, all they have to do is to create a record-keeping. That will kill this bill."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/24/coburn-bolstering-background-checks-not-a-done-deal/

MachIVshooter
February 24, 2013, 11:21 PM
This will be enforced the same way most laws are. Because the vast majority of people genuinely want to follow the law, they will, even if it's stupid and senseless and won't protect anyone from anything.

I look at it the same as interstate private sales going thru FFLs. I think that's a silly law that doesn't do anything to protect anyone from actual harm, but everyone continues to follow it because it's the law. If they actually pass this, most people will follow it too.

The greater inconvenience of this law, combined with the lower risk of being caught, is going to lead to massive non-compliance.

Interstate sales generally require shipping anyway, so what's the difference on the seller's end if he ships to an FFL?

Intrastate sales are usually face-to-face, and exchanges between parties who trust each other are highly unlikely to be done through an FFL, regardless of the law. Just look at how many people skip title on a car, drive on the previous owners plates, borrow tags from another vehicle, etc.

Unlawful interstate or intrastate sales by criminals will continue uninhibited.

This is only going to ensnare a few people who are unfamiliar with the law, or misunderstood the exemptions, thus self-incriminate because they thought they were within the law.

T Slothrop
February 24, 2013, 11:38 PM
Intrastate sales are usually face-to-face, and exchanges between parties who trust each other are highly unlikely to be done through an FFL, regardless of the law.

Exactly.

On a related and (to me) somewhat amusing note, a couple of years back not too long after I started posting here I suggested that most North Carolinians who engaged in face-to-face intrastate handgun transfers did not bother getting pistol purchase permits from the local sheriff as was technically required by law.

I was smacked down almost immediately by a mod (not from NC by the way) and taken to task for daring to even suggest that such a thing might occur. Funny how the times change.

fanchisimo
February 25, 2013, 02:19 AM
More Republican support is anticipated in part because the four senators involved in the talks have agreed that any new background check program would exempt private transactions between family members or people who completed a background check in order to obtain a concealed-carry permit, according to aides.

So those with a CCW don't have to do a BGC? That's the way I read this statement.

Pinkbunny
February 25, 2013, 02:32 AM
Exactly.

On a related and (to me) somewhat amusing note, a couple of years back not too long after I started posting here I suggested that most North Carolinians who engaged in face-to-face intrastate handgun transfers did not bother getting pistol purchase permits from the local sheriff as was technically required by law.

I was smacked down almost immediately by a mod (not from NC by the way) and taken to task for daring to even suggest that such a thing might occur. Funny how the times change.
I bet you're one of them daredevil's from Rowan county, right? =p

rondog
February 25, 2013, 02:38 AM
So, if me and Joe-Bob wanna do a FTF gun deal, instead of meeting someplace, we'll have to go to an FFL, fill out 4473's, wait for God knows how long, possibly pay a "background check fee" each, plus transfer fees each?

Yeah, that's gonna be real popular. Granted, stolen guns being sold and prohibited persons buying guns IS a problem, and I have no answers to offer. But the vast majority of my collection came from FTF sales. Legal guns from honest people, even a few from LEO's, one from an FBI agent.

thorazine
February 25, 2013, 05:10 AM
Also this is very inconvenient...

A vast majority of my face to face private transactions have taken place after routine business hours for most store fronts -- when my local dealers were closed for the day.

To be honest we (seller / buyer) both have jobs and busy schedules and usually a later in the day (early evening) meetup time has always worked out best for the both of us.

Now this is going to force some people to work their schedules around typical business hours of their local licensed dealers when they already might have a full schedule during their typical work day.

razorback2003
February 25, 2013, 11:27 AM
Keep putting pressure on the House to not have a floor vote on this issue. It is best to not have a floor vote than to have a stupid floor vote to call out politicians and get a bad law. Getting bad laws repealed is hard. About the only bad gun law that has been repealed was the 1994 AWB that sunsetted in 2004. If it didn't sunset, we would have been stuck with that one.

HankR
February 25, 2013, 12:30 PM
So those with a CCW don't have to do a BGC?

They'll clean up that "loophole" next time. Compromise (we give,they take), any concessions they make (that is, any taking of less then everything) becomes the "loophole" to rile the troops next time around.

Ryanxia
February 25, 2013, 05:18 PM
Also this is very inconvenient...

A vast majority of my face to face private transactions have taken place after routine business hours for most store fronts -- when my local dealers were closed for the day.

To be honest we (seller / buyer) both have jobs and busy schedules and usually a later in the day (early evening) meetup time has always worked out best for the both of us.

Now this is going to force some people to work their schedules around typical business hours of their local licensed dealers when they already might have a full schedule during their typical work day.
That's an excellent point. For someone who works 8am-6:30pm how are they going to legally buy a gun from someone if all the shops close by then? Many people only have 1 shop in their area. Also like the NRA letter mentioned, the only shop in DC charges $125 for a transfer!

GoWolfpack
February 25, 2013, 07:43 PM
The greater inconvenience of this law, combined with the lower risk of being caught, is going to lead to massive non-compliance.

Interstate sales generally require shipping anyway, so what's the difference on the seller's end if he ships to an FFL?

Intrastate sales are usually face-to-face, and exchanges between parties who trust each other are highly unlikely to be done through an FFL, regardless of the law. Just look at how many people skip title on a car, drive on the previous owners plates, borrow tags from another vehicle, etc.

Unlawful interstate or intrastate sales by criminals will continue uninhibited.

This is only going to ensnare a few people who are unfamiliar with the law, or misunderstood the exemptions, thus self-incriminate because they thought they were within the law.


I think you're missing the main thrust of my post. It isn't always convenient to follow the law, but the vast majority of people sincerely want to, no matter how stupid or low-risk.

Interstate sales often don't require shipping. I live near a state border, and cross state lines often to visit family and friends.

Honestly, there just aren't that many people I would trust to not sell me out if we conducted an illegal unchecked transfer. The ones I believe I could trust I'm forbidden by current federal law from buying from without an FFL anyway.

MachIVshooter
February 25, 2013, 11:57 PM
It isn't always convenient to follow the law, but the vast majority of people sincerely want to, no matter how stupid or low-risk.

I beg to differ. Ever pay attention to the way people drive (speed, no signals, California stops, etc)? Any idea how many responsible adults smoke pot? Jaywalk? Litter?

Everyone breaks laws. It's just a question of degree and frequency.

breakingcontact
February 26, 2013, 12:20 AM
And this is going to stop how much crime? How much crime will it actually CREATE?

mastiffhound
February 26, 2013, 12:48 AM
This whole situation makes me want to sell one of my guns to a friend without a background check. But hey, once this is passed all the gangbangers and drug dealers will probably get background checks when selling a stolen firearm that has killed six people already. Oh wait, that sounds stupid. The only people that follow laws are the guys like us. We are penalized by more taxes and less freedoms because we actually obey the law. Punish the lawful for what the unlawful do. Yep, makes perfect sense. And people say that our government is broken, I wonder why?

Somebody said in another thread that I seemed angry. Am I? Yes, you're damn right I am. I took enough crap in elementary school. In high school that crap came to a sudden stop. I don't like to be bullied, it's that simple. Be it by some moron who picks on me because I'm not a slow reader like he is and I get good grades, some worn out old hag and her cronies, some dental hygene challenged Brit that craps on his own country's soldiers, or some idiot senator whose state had some of toughest gun laws and the highest murder rates. Being picked on for having common sense and being able to read a graph or statistics is sickeningly familiar to me gentlemen. I'm sorry, it had to be said.

Ignition Override
February 26, 2013, 12:54 AM
rondog: Most of my guns also came from FTF sales, and will continue to be.
Most people seem to prefer doing paperwork, leaving records, paying high costs and transfer charges for brand-new guns.

A warranty must be worth it, when people have limited confidence in what they buy.
My six WW2 Enfields, '55 Service Grade Garand, Chinese SKS (so-called "Commie junk" that works;)) and Yugo Mauser rifles still need no warranties.

If you enjoyed reading about "Senators near a deal on background checks for most private gun sales" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!