gun laws in the new budget

Status
Not open for further replies.
What just passed?
Because of three years of constant grassroots opposition, four gun control sections were removed from VAWA:




    • Sections 101 and 102: grant funding programs to train police to executive “red flag” gun confiscation orders.
    • Section 801: an expansion of the Lautenberg Misdemeanor Gun Ban (a.k.a. Biden’s “Boyfriend Loophole”).
    • Section 802: funding to turn state-level stalking laws into “red flag” gun confiscation laws.
Alas, for all the horrible gun control removed from the bill, some gun control remained:




    • Sections 1101-1102: the NICS Denial Notification Act to launch criminal investigations into firearm transfer background check denials—even though 9 out of 10 times the system falsely denies a law-abiding citizen.
    • Section 1103: funding for ATF to deputize local police to enforce federal gun laws, especially to undermine Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA) states.
Both of these sections reveal the importance of fighting these battles at the state and local levels at the ballot box. In Ohio, for instance, you can bypass NICS entirely by showing your CCW and; thereby, not put yourself at the mercy of this onerous federal legislation. Reagrding section 1103, it's would appear that this law would require cooperation between state and local police and the federal government. We need to make it clear that we're not going to vote for anyone that would willingly or, worse, enthusiastically cooperate with the federal government in these matters. The battle goes on. My two cents on this.
eta: the 3 victories seem significant.
 
AlexanderA said:
I thought that the pro-gun side has been complaining that BG check denials weren't being prosecuted (that is, that existing laws weren't being enforced). So now, that they're taking steps to enforce existing laws, we're complaining about that? Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
I have been arguing all along that a valid CCW should negate the need for any NICS check between two private citizens or between an FFL and a private citizen and, in this way, transfers could remain private, free, untaxed and unregistered in any database and, at the same time, guns would be kept out of the hands of criminals (assuming private citizens abided by the law and why wouldn't they). If you can't show the CCW license, then you conduct your transfer at an FFL and he handles the BGC and undoubtedly charges you a fee for his service and the sale undoubtedly ends up in a database somewhere.
here in Ohio, a valid CCW will allow you to bypass NICS and private sellers frequently (but not always) stipulate that you need to show a valid Ohio CCW before the seller will sell the firearm to you but it isn't a requirement. It seems like a fair compromise that gets everyone what they say they want but it's never entirely clear what people want. Sometimes they just want to use issues like the 2A and race and whatnot to advance their personal interests and reasonable solutions don't help them accomplish that.
 
I find nothing at NRA-ILA or SAF on these two parts GOA is citing as problems.

1101-1102 is something gun-owners have been demanding for years. Enforce the law, don't pile new upon old. Prosecute criminals attempting to buy guns.

1103 is for funding, but doesn't provide authorization so what does it accomplish?
 
redcon1 said:
I have been arguing all along that a valid CCW should negate the need for any NICS check between two private citizens or between an FFL and a private citizen and, in this way, transfers could remain private, free, untaxed and unregistered in any database and, at the same time, guns would be kept out of the hands of criminals (assuming private citizens abided by the law and why wouldn't they). If you can't show the CCW license, then you conduct your transfer at an FFL and he handles the BGC and undoubtedly charges you a fee for his service and the sale undoubtedly ends up in a database somewhere.
Click to expand...
Obtaining a CC permit is much more of a burden than submitting to a background check. And having a CC permit puts you into a police database, something that merely buying a gun (with BG check) generally does not.

Also, your proposal isn't a solution in the growing number of states with permitless carry.
 
AlexanderA said:
Obtaining a CC permit is much more of a burden than submitting to a background check.
Click to expand...
There are always people that poo poo this idea for various reasons. The fact is, most of us have CCWs anyways and it isn't a big deal to get one. I knew the Ohio law was going to change and I drove over to the sheriff's officer and renewed mine last week. Why? So I don't have to submit to a NICS check to purchase firearms and so I can enjoy reciprocity in any of the states that I might find myself traveling in. Eventually, they're going to ban private sales altogether and/or impose penalties for transferring to a prohibited person who then uses the firearm for illegal purposes. Once they ban private sales, all sales will be regulated, taxed and entered into numerous data bases to facilitate confiscation later. This would be a far preferable compromise. I would prefer the status quo except I think there will come a day that private sales will be banned and we won't be in a position to force a compromise. If the day comes and we are in a position to force a compromise, this would be a good one.
AlexanderA said:
Also, your proposal isn't a solution in the growing number of states with permitless carry.
Click to expand...
Ohio is permitless carry now and, yet, the option of obtaining a CCW to bypass the NICS still exists here. I'm just saying this would be a better solution than subjecting all private sales to a NICS check and it would prevent guns from being unwittingly transferred into the wrong hands. Here in Ohio, a lot of private sellers make it clear that they won't sell you a handgun without presenting a valid CCW license even though they aren't required to do so because it's a good way to keep yourself out of trouble It is a record of having conducted "due diligence". The case of the Michigan parents whose son shot up the school shows us the direction they're moving on this-holding law abiding people responsible for the illegal actions of criminals.
AlexanderA said:
And having a CC permit puts you into a police database, something that merely buying a gun (with BG check) generally does not.
Click to expand...
And yet most of us have those permits. And the fact is, it doesn't create a record of transfers to you so when the day comes that "they" decide to confiscate, there will be less need to worry about a gang of jackbooted thugs showing up at your front door with an order to seize your private property. That's my concern-I don't want there to be a record of who has firearms in America and I don't want free and private firearm sales to end up taxed. But again, I prefer the status quo, I just thing the status quo's days are numbered.
 
AlexanderA said:
I thought that the pro-gun side has been complaining that BG check denials weren't being prosecuted (that is, that existing laws weren't being enforced). So now, that they're taking steps to enforce existing laws, we're complaining about that? Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I find it amusing that they need to pass a law to enforce one already on the books…

From now on do we need two laws for everything? “55 Speed Limit”….”Really no faster than 55 or we are going to come after you, well, if all of the different agencies agree to work together, that is…”
 
"Sections 1101-1102: the NICS Denial Notification Act to launch criminal investigations into firearm transfer background check denials—"

I believe ATF has stated that there is little incentive on their part to investigate NICS denials because of the crappy nature of some data in the NICS database.

One local guy was notified by ATF he had lied about his criminal record on his FFL application. He was able to produce an affidavit from the state bureau investigator in his case that (a) yes the guy was listed as a suspect in the robbery of the hotel at which he worked, but (b) at that time, all hotel employees were listed as suspects until cleared by investigation, and (c) the guy was cleared.
Another local guy was stopped at a police road block and happened to match the name of an FBI wanted fugitive; he was arrested, but released when the FBI told police, yes same name but not the guy we're looking for. He knew enough to get a paper copy from of the disposition that it had been a mistaken identity arrest.
Apparently suspect lists and arrest records can be in the police permanent records, but investigation results and court decisions exonerating the individual may not be in the permanent records.
 
Last edited:
redcon1 said:
The fact is, most of us have CCWs anyways and it isn't a big deal to get one.
Click to expand...
redcon1 said:
And yet most of us have those permits.
Click to expand...
I would question this. Maybe a majority of members on this forum have carry permits, but it's certain that a majority of gun owners/buyers do not.

It used to be very easy to get a carry permit in Virginia, because the training requirement could be satisfied with an easy online course. Now the training has to be in person. That alone discourages people. But the biggest drawback, to me, is that permit holders are entered into the police database, and that information, tied to license plate numbers, comes up at every traffic stop. This could lead to some dicey situations. (Ironically, the state machine gun registry is not tied in to the police patrol database.)
redcon1 said:
Eventually, they're going to ban private sales altogether and/or impose penalties for transferring to a prohibited person who then uses the firearm for illegal purposes. Once they ban private sales, all sales will be regulated, taxed and entered into numerous data bases to facilitate confiscation later.
Click to expand...
I have news for you: this kind of gun control is on the wane. Gun ownership is an existential issue for the blue-collar, working class, and this demographic has been defecting steadily from the Democrats to the Republicans, with gun control being a major factor. So for the Democrats to keep harping on guns is electorally suicidal for them, and the savvier strategists among them know this. Anyway, if the Democrats running for office don't back away from gun control, they will be a permanent minority.
 
redcon1 said:
I have been arguing all along that a valid CCW should negate the need for any NICS check between two private citizens or between an FFL and a private citizen and, in this way, transfers could remain private, free, untaxed and unregistered in any database and, at the same time, guns would be kept out of the hands of criminals (assuming private citizens abided by the law and why wouldn't they).
Click to expand...
Whether you realize it or not, what you are really advocating for is a FOID scheme like those in Illinois and a few other states. Make everyone who wants to own or purchase a firearm first obtain a Firearm Owner's Identification card to 'prove' that they're not a prohibited person without having to be subjected to a NICS check. Make people show their FOID card before every firearms purchase, FFL or private, and every time they attempt to purchase ammunition, to make sure that prohibited persons aren't trying to buy ammo for their illegally possessed firearms.

Then you get states like my own Michigan where the ATF no longer allows a CPL to substitute for a NICS check because the state of Michigan refuses to deny CPLs to medical marijuana cardholders.
 
F-111 John said:
Whether you realize it or not, what you are really advocating for is a FOID scheme like those in Illinois and a few other states. Make everyone who wants to own or purchase a firearm first obtain a Firearm Owner's Identification card to 'prove' that they're not a prohibited person without having to be subjected to a NICS check. Make people show their FOID card before every firearms purchase, FFL or private, and every time they attempt to purchase ammunition, to make sure that prohibited persons aren't trying to buy ammo for their illegally possessed firearms.

Then you get states like my own Michigan where the ATF no longer allows a CPL to substitute for a NICS check because the state of Michigan refuses to deny CPLs to medical marijuana cardholders.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I would prefer to maintain the private sales status quo indefinitely but I can see us losing the ability to resist the gun controllers in D.C. at some point and having something worse than a FOID card foisted upon us. I don't think this is a FOID incidentally. It's a permit to carry a handgun which is sufficient evidence that a person is not prohibited from owning a firearm. I'd make a compromise like this if it would stall ending private sales entirely for 20 years.

Plausible deniability is the name of the game for the future. They may know you have/had a CCW but they would have no idea what firearms you used it to buy. Killing the paper trail is the other name of the game for the future. "No sir Mr. Jackbooted Thug, I only own this here double barrel shotgun and that there Highpoint handgun that you're taking away from me. I lawfully sold all my other guns a decade ago to some city feller with a CCW permit".

I know compromise is a dirty word but there are worse ideas and we should get out in front of those worse ideas and kill them in their cribs before they can grow up into laws. This is all academic of course because what I'm discussing isn't going to happen. I can definitely see private sales being outlawed entirely however. It's a precarious balance. On their side, they're all pretty much in lockstep. On our side, not so much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top