Texas shooter 'failed background check' but exploited loophole by buying through private sale

What's the country going to be like with a widespread culture of lawlessness?

Click to expand...

How many people drink and drive? How many people use marijuana and other drugs? How many people fudge their taxes? America will not be affected if a bunch of AR and AK owners having their guns and mags buried? It supposedly is the case in the local ban states already. Have you seen one bit of social disruption in those states related to the bans?

I think folks are getting so into their own space that they think the issue is going to cause the 'revolution'.

As I said many times, if the bans occur - the guns become useless on a practical level. However, society will move on without a major ripple. Yes, some of you will think that the libertine sexuality will run rampant, there will be racial or ethnic gulags, Medicare for All, etc. I'd bet the majority of folks won't care.

Sorry to be a downer, but these threads veer from reality.

Palolosj said:

That makes perfect sense. In multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial societies like Russia and United States nationalist tendencies are destabilizing and would need to be addressed.

Click to expand...

Nationalism in the US embraces multi-ethnicity. “The Melting Pot” has always been an integral part of our national identity. Multi-culturalism however is indeed destabilizing and destructive to society. Our culture embraces the integration under the values of individual freedom and liberty, representative democracy, and the market economy of those from any race or ethnicity that wishes to share and respect those values. Multi-culturalism fosters Balkanization and division and is to be avoided.

Going off topic, folks. Let's not wander or we close.

OK, getting back to background checks -- I want to make it clear that I am not in favor of UBC's. But if it's going to happen -- and it increasingly looks like it will -- we need to steer it in a direction that does not facilitate a gun registry. A number of suggestions have been made as to how this could be done. Don't jump to the conclusion that those making these suggestions are traitors to the gun cause. A wise adage is that "things must change so that things can remain the same."

I would have no issue, if I had a gun to sell locally, using an FFL to transfer it. The potential problem would be finding an FFL that would provide that service. If there is a law set up for UBC, they would have to have a system in place for private sales.

Walkalong said:

At the local level that is obviously true, what cha gonna do about it? .

Click to expand...

Vote and support SAF. About all I can do.

Orion8472 said:

I would have no issue, if I had a gun to sell locally, using an FFL to transfer it. The potential problem would be finding an FFL that would provide that service. If there is a law set up for UBC, they would have to have a system in place for private sales.

Click to expand...

There already is a system in place. UBC happened here 2 years ago. FFL's are still in the loop. They just charge you for their time. I know of about 7 places I can get a BC and do a private transfer for a fee. Easy as falling off of a log.

CoalTrain49 said:

So a better question might be name the dealers who won't do a private transfer in a UBC state.

Click to expand...

The cpl of stores in CA that I've used would rather not do them.

CA capped the fee at $20-$25.. something like that..... to protect us peasants from being over charged.

And it's about an hr plus of work because they have to hold the gun for 10 days while the BC is being done and go through all the safe handling requirements etc etc when you pick it up.

The fee proably covers wages only...if that.

danez71 said:

The cpl of stores in CA that I've used would rather not do them.

CA capped the fee at $20-$25.. something like that..... to protect us peasants from being over charged.

And it's about an hr plus of work because they have to hold the gun for 10 days while the BC is being done and go through all the safe handling requirements etc etc when you pick it up.

The fee proably covers wages only...if that.

Click to expand...

That appears to be win win for the CA govt. Makes a disincentive and costly regulation for firearm stores and a hassle for the consumer dealing with waiting periods. Too bad you cannot get an initiative that has a waiting period on any law or regulation and require a form 4473 type and background check for all government officials in CA.

Here in Washington state they started the ubc crap a couple years ago. Biggest pain is most Ffl's have turned it into a money making deal, they charge 40 or $50 dollars just to run a background check and do a transfer.

Orion8472 said:

I would have no issue, if I had a gun to sell locally, using an FFL to transfer it.

Click to expand...

The problem is not in selling a gun through an FFL, under the proposed UBC system. The problem is in buying a gun through an FFL. That puts you on record as owning it. As things stand now, you can say that you later sold it in a private sale, and that absolves you of ownership. Under the proposed UBC system, since all private sales would be channeled through FFL's, you would lose that alibi. Every sale would be on record, as well as every purchase. This is why we call it "backdoor registration." And a registration system, backdoor or not, would vastly simplify a future confiscation. (Of course, there would be a "window" for private sales of existing guns, until the new system took effect. But all new guns would certainly be affected.)

Big_Al said:

Here in Washington state they started the ubc crap a couple years ago. Biggest pain is most Ffl's have turned it into a money making deal, they charge 40 or $50 dollars just to run a background check and do a transfer.

Click to expand...

Yup. That's why I'm saying that FFL's would be stakeholders favoring the UBC system. The gun industry is not necessarily the friend of gun owners and users. Each group has divergent interests.

That reminds me when years ago, the local LGSs took out a full page ad to ban gun shows as being threats to humanity (or maybe their sales prices). The big good ol' boy gun store was in the lead of that push. They were a complete ripoff MSRP outfit. I recall seeing a soldier want to buy a Beretta 92 to have a match of his M9. They had them for full retail. You could up the road to Academy and get the gun for $100 less. I still feel bad that I didn't open my big yap.

danez71 said:

The cpl of stores in CA that I've used would rather not do them.

CA capped the fee at $20-$25.. something like that..... to protect us peasants from being over charged.

And it's about an hr plus of work because they have to hold the gun for 10 days while the BC is being done and go through all the safe handling requirements etc etc when you pick it up.

The fee proably covers wages only...if that.

Click to expand...

The fee is $35.

Firearms dealers are required to process private party transfers upon request but may charge a fee not to exceed $10.00 per firearm for conducting the transfer.

Click to expand...

If you want to do business in CA (dealer) you have to do it according to state laws.

CA isn't a shall issue state either. I'm not sure I would use CA as an example for a UBC state. They're pretty much wedged on just about everything firearm related.

AlexanderA said:

Yup. That's why I'm saying that FFL's would be stakeholders favoring the UBC system. The gun industry is not necessarily the friend of gun owners and users. Each group has divergent interests.

Click to expand...

Yup. Transfers is big business in this state for dealers. Dealers profit by a UBC. You don't see them closing up shop because the state has a UBC. As a matter of fact I know 2 people who became dealers because of our UBC.

Robbins290 said:

They also said in the news this morning that 92% of the people support background checks.

Hmmmmm. I wonder if they asked “certain people” and not everyone for that poll

Click to expand...

I always wonder who they poll for those things as I’ve never been polled for anything. Also, polls from a few years ago said Trump had no chance of beating Billary.

Polls are screwed up because the sampling is impossible nowadays. Most politically oriented polls use questions that push the answer. If you aren't polled that's because statistical number crunching says the if you have a representative sample, 1200 people suffice. The problem is that the sampling is now almost impossible.

In the past, neutral polls demonstrated that :

1. Most Americans supported the right to own guns in general for self-defense
2. Most Americans supported laws that would stop the guns from falling into the wrong hands.

That's how you get polls that are progun in general and for new laws to prevent that.

CoalTrain49 said:

The fee is $35

Click to expand...

The FFL only gets 10 bucks.

That doesn't cover jack squat of the dealers expense of doing it... even kitchen table FFL have no real way to make real profit for doing PPTs. They are an annoyance for FFLs here.

Emphasis added

How much is the state fee when purchasing a firearm?

• 
  The total state fee is $25. The DROS fee is $19.00 which covers the costs of the background checks and transfer registry. There is also a $1.00 Firearms Safety Act Fee and a $5.00 Safety and Enforcement Fee. In the event of a private party transfer (PPT), the firearms dealer may charge an additional fee of up to $10 per firearm
  

Click to expand...

CoalTrain49 said:

CA isn't a shall issue state either. I'm not sure I would use CA as an example for a UBC state. They're pretty much wedged on just about everything firearm related.

Click to expand...

Shall issue isn't really part of an Fed mandated UBC. Not sure why you're bring that up.

And I disagree.... every UBC state should be looked at as an example of possible Fed mandated UBC because they have already weather the lawsuits and most likely are being looked at by .fed as examples of what can stick.

BSA1 said:

Isn't the information of everyone has a background check deleted from the FBI computers at the end of each day?
If that is indeed what the law requires how did Law Enforcement learn so quickly that he was denied years ago?

Click to expand...

tarosean said:

Pretty sure denied goes into a separate db than the proceeds that are deleted.. considering the fact that you have 3 days and appeals, etc.
In addition, since the 4473 has to be on file for 20yrs. I am quite certain they contacted the original purchaser and shoved a microscope up his/her you know what.

Click to expand...

What occurs to me is the question "Why wasn't the prohibited person not arrested for attempting to obtain a firearm 'years ago'"?
Seems that an attempt by someone to get a gun when they are on a prohibited list should at least be investigated by someone.
Also seems to me that it's odd that this fact isn't bothering the news media or public.

newfalguy101 said:

I fail to see how this helps the UBC arguement....seems to me it solidifies the fact that people who want a firearm, but are PROHIBITED under federal law...will still get firearms.The fact it was a private sale does NOT change the fact he was PROHIBITED from acquiring a firearm under federal law

Click to expand...

Feeds into the narrative that if there had been a UBC the seller of that gun would have learned he was prohibited and the sale wouldn't have happened in the anti's mind.

rust collector said:

To me, this illustrates the futility of background checks. There will always be alternative sources for guns, and if the background checks close one door, an undocumented alternative will be used.
What seems likely to me is that background checks will make the process more expensive or unpleasant, thereby reducing the number of owners who will put up with the bureaucracy and increasing, not decreasing criminal acts.

Click to expand...

I sell guns in the store I manage. Have been selling guns in ffl pawnshops since the mid 80's. I like the background check system so that I'm reasonably sure that I'm not selling to, as another poster put it, Felon Bob. I know it won't prevent Felon Bob from obtaining a gun illegally anymore than the laws against whatever his particular felony was prevented him from doing that. I just care that I'm, as I said, reasonably sure I am not providing him with a firearm.

Sadly I can only be reasonably sure because the system is so full of wrong information.

FlSwampRat said:

Feeds into the narrative that if there had been a UBC the seller of that gun would have learned he was prohibited and the sale wouldn't have happened in the anti's mind.

Click to expand...

You made me wonder about something. Just spit balling here, but if our side said that we would talk about UBC, after we had 100% prosecution for gun purchase offenses. (prohibited persons who tried to buy a firearm, anyone assisting in a straw purchase, etc.) Now, no one in the Federal system REALLY wants to take the time and effort to go there. I've seen gun charges used as a bargaining chip in plea bargains, or as add on charges. If we demanded 100% enforcement of what we already have, and said we'd come back to the tale after a few years... Yeah I know, they aren't willing to go there.

CapnMac said:

Well, one way would be to point out that the list used for all these checks is horribly incomplete. That there are 14-20 State which have either given no imformation of incomplete information to NICS.
What good would the several millions more checks be if we are using and incomplete, e.g. inaccurate, list?

Click to expand...

My point exactly. Fix the dang extant system!!

Charlie Horse said:

You made me wonder about something. Just spit balling here, but if our side said that we would talk about UBC, after we had 100% prosecution for gun purchase offenses. (prohibited persons who tried to buy a firearm, anyone assisting in a straw purchase, etc.) Now, no one in the Federal system REALLY wants to take the time and effort to go there. I've seen gun charges used as a bargaining chip in plea bargains, or as add on charges. If we demanded 100% enforcement of what we already have, and said we'd come back to the tale after a few years... Yeah I know, they aren't willing to go there.

Click to expand...

They aren't going to do anything that will cost substantial amount. They prefer to enact new laws because it is far less expensive and makes it look like they're doing something.

Palolosj said:

They aren't going to do anything that will cost substantial amount. They prefer to enact new laws because it is far less expensive and makes it look like they're doing something.

Click to expand...

This is not news.