Islamic State magazine steers followers to U.S. gun shows for ‘easy’ access to weapons

[Hanzo581]

Ah, I see. I wasn't thinking about it from that angle. I don't see how background checks help with that, unless you mean by going after straw purchasers, which I would agree with.

Yes, my aim would be the straw purchaser. Right now, "Guy A" can legally walk in and buy a gun...paperwork, background check etc. Then walk about and sell it to "Guy B" who happens to be prohibited. Let's say that gun is then used in a crime, they have to prove that Guy A knew they were selling to a prohibited person..which isn't easy. By putting another step in the system, requiring a background check between Guy A and B, you can at the very least charge Guy A, assuming he sold the gun to Guy B without going through the proper process.

 

[RPZ]

The Islamists are tied to the narco trafficking cartels. They don't need gun shows. They can get any thing they want, and much more than you will see at a gun show.

Background checks are defacto gun owner registration. They managed to force it on dealers through the commerce clause, we don't need it forced on private sellers.

 

[RPRNY]

Yes, my aim would be the straw purchaser. Right now, "Guy A" can legally walk in and buy a gun...paperwork, background check etc. Then walk about and sell it to "Guy B" who happens to be prohibited. Let's say that gun is then used in a crime, they have to prove that Guy A knew they were selling to a prohibited person..which isn't easy. By putting another step in the system, requiring a background check between Guy A and B, you can at the very least charge Guy A, assuming he sold the gun to Guy B without going through the proper process.

But Guy A has broken the law. There was a step in the form 4473 aimed at stopping this crime. By your logic, because Guy A, who passes NICS, is willing to violate the law to get a firearm to Guy B, a "common sense gun law" solution, as the anti-civil rights movement so cynically puts it, would be registration, so that if Guy A were to sell his firearm, he would have to inform the authorities as to whom he sold the firearm to.

We have laws. People break those laws. Passing more laws will not, as evidenced, make the original laws more effective.

 

[Hanzo581]

But Guy A has broken the law. There was a step in the form 4473 aimed at stopping this crime. By your logic, because Guy A, who passes NICS, is willing to violate the law to get a firearm to Guy B, a "common sense gun law" solution, as the anti-civil rights movement so cynically puts it, would be registration, so that if Guy A were to sell his firearm, he would have to inform the authorities as to whom he sold the firearm to.

We have laws. People break those laws. Passing more laws will not, as evidenced, make the original laws more effective.

Yes, Guy A absolutely is breaking the law...point I was getting at is there's no way to prove it since selling it to his buddy is perfectly legal (as long as you "didn't know" he was prohibited). Unless there is some amount of time you have to own a gun before privately selling it that I don't know about.

And to reiterate, I do not believe any of these laws help in prevention, they are meant as a means to punish someone after the fact.

 

[Sistema1927]

And to reiterate, I do not believe any of these laws help in prevention, they are meant as a means to punish someone after the fact.

There are already laws against murder, terrorist bombings, hijacking airliners, armed robbery, etc.

If someone is an accomplice to any of these crimes we can also punish them "after the fact'. Why should all of us have our civil rights infringed for laws which, as you conclude, do nothing to help in preventing said crimes in the first place?

 

[Leanwolf]

I am more looking at it in the reverse. Not so much about prevention, as allowing an avenue to punish the person putting the gun in the felons hands. Straw purchasers are basically operating with impunity. But I will certainly agree, if a bad guy wants a gun they'll get it, so who the hell really knows what the answer is? Circling back around, I just don't think being able to order guns out of the Sears catalog like the good ole days is feasible or realistic today. So much has changed, parents don't parent, no one has personal responsibility for anything anymore and "mental issues" seem to be way more prevalent.

Passing a Federal law demanding "Universal Background Checks" for 100,000,000 million gun owning men and women is a "pie in the sky" idealistic view that if we just somehow pass more and more restrictive anti-gun laws, miraculously criminals will not be criminals anymore.

After all, several States now demand background checks for a citizen to buy, sell, trade, give as a gift, a firearm ...... and have those b.g. checks made a dent in their violent crime? No. So, what do the do-right-daddies and mommies cry, "MORE GUN LAWS! MORE, MORE, MORE! Just look at Calif., New York, Mass., Maryland, etc., etc. Gardens of Eden, right?

Have any of you pro-universal background checks adherents ever considered what it is truly all about with the left? It is not about preventing violent crime, It is about eventual universal registration and eventual confiscation. No, no, not today nor tomorrow, nor even next year ... but someday when the Presidency and the Congress/Senate are again controlled by the far left America hating, Constitution hating radical "progressives," then the law will be passed. As far left liberal Calif. Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein said on CBS several years ago, "Turn them all in, Mr. and Mrs. America, or we'll come get them." And with universal registration, Big Brother & Big Nanny will know exactly where to "come get them."

Here is a link to a very good (although a bit slow at times) movie regarding criminals, strict gun control, and what happens when the honest people are disarmed. Yeah, I know it is "fiction," "just a movie," but I have friends in and from England who've told me it is very true, including a retired London Metropolitan Police Officer now living in this country.

http://ffilms.org/harry-brown-2009/

It's the full movie so make some time to watch it.

Years ago when I was going through one of the largest, non-Federal LEO academies in the world, one of our Senior Instructors told us, "You cadets better never forget what I tell you. Criminals are exactly like you, except for one thing. They do not think the way you think." I never forgot it and that very street wise instructor was 100% correct. If a criminal wants a gun, NO MATTER WHAT law is on the books, he or she will get one. They don't think the way we think.

Just my view of how very unworkable, useless, restrictive, and ineffective background checks for private transfers of firearms are. They just punish honest men and women.

L.W.

 

[JN01]

Yes, Guy A absolutely is breaking the law...point I was getting at is there's no way to prove it since selling it to his buddy is perfectly legal (as long as you "didn't know" he was prohibited). Unless there is some amount of time you have to own a gun before privately selling it that I don't know about.

And to reiterate, I do not believe any of these laws help in prevention, they are meant as a means to punish someone after the fact.

If you require background checks for all gun sales, you will still have straw purchases. In your example, Guy B will just get Girlfriend C to buy the gun from Guy A, the same way they currently do straw purchases from FFLs. If Guy A buys a gun from a dealer and immediately sells it (especially if he makes a habit of it) it may show that he is "engaged in the business" in the eyes of the BATF, also a violation of current law. The problem is, even those who knowingly provide guns to felons are rarely prosecuted for it.

 

[Hanzo581]

If you require background checks for all gun sales, you will still have straw purchases. In your example, Guy B will just get Girlfriend C to buy the gun from Guy A, the same way they currently do straw purchases from FFLs. If Guy A buys a gun from a dealer and immediately sells it (especially if he makes a habit of it) it may show that he is "engaged in the business" in the eyes of the BATF, also a violation of current law. The problem is, even those who knowingly provide guns to felons are rarely prosecuted for it.

Right, but when Girlfriend C gives the gun to Guy B without going through the process, she's now on the hook. And yeah, if done very often I'm sure they'd look into it, but even a gun a week wouldn't raise any flags, I know plenty of you guys trade and sell guns like baseball cards.

 

[Speedo66]

This is a gun forum. Dissent will not be tolerated! You're either in favor of completely unchecked, unregulated access to firearms for everyone, or you're a commie pinko liberal millenial snowflake progressive who hates America, freedom, mom, and apple pie. The is no middle ground and there shall be no discourse!

You forgot hippie, bed wetter, college student.

 

[George Dickel]

There are systems in place to get your rights restored right? I haven't researched the detail of it, I only know it's possible. And that's what I'd recommend you do in the scenario you presented (if they even got a felony conviction and didn't settle on a lesser charge given the non-violent nature of the "crime") If there were a way to differentiate between violent and non-violent felonies as far as gun buying goes, I'd absolutely support non-violent felons maintaining their 2nd Amendment rights.

I do not mean to come off as some anti-gunner, I love guns (some in my real life may say too much), but of the few laws I support, this is one. I only sold guns for several months, but even in that short time I personally denied several sales that had straw purchase written all over it. We know it's happening, and requiring a background check between transactions would at least let some blame be placed on the straw purchaser when they hand over the gun to a prohibited person.

It's illegal to be a straw purchaser, it's illegal for a prohibited person to possess or purchase a firearm from anyone, it's illegal for a person to receive a firearm from a straw purchaser. Passing more laws that only hinder honest citizens won't do a thing to stop prohibited people from obtaining firearms. From what I've read over the years, a felon getting his firearm ownership rights restored ranks right up there with winning the Power Ball. There are misdemeanor federal charges for what a prosecutor feels is a lesser crime than a felony but if you inadvertently carry a firearm into a federal facility and the prosecutor wants to look tough on crime or is anti-gun, what do you think your chances are that he will charge you with a misdemeanor? My generation learned a long time ago that the more power you give the government to control your life, the more they will and the more draconian it will be.

 

[Crawdad1]

This is a gun forum. Dissent will not be tolerated! You're either in favor of completely unchecked, unregulated access to firearms for everyone, or you're a commie pinko liberal millenial snowflake progressive who hates America, freedom, mom, and apple pie. The is no middle ground and there shall be no discourse!

That is a quote to be enshrined in the Hall of Fame.

Trouble is it gets dangerously close to describing our Congress.

 

[Tommygunn]

How come every time I see footage from terrorist homelands, everyone has a full auto AK47?
I don't think they need American gunshows......

 

[Mike J]

Hanzo I disagree with you enough to believe that GCA of 1968 should be repealed. If criminals want guns they will get guns. If they can't buy them they will steal them. They are after all criminals.

My attitude is simple. If one can not be trusted enough to have full citizenship rights either keep them locked up or eliminate them from the population. If the legal system is not doing its job effectively maybe we need to reform the legal system. The guns aren't the problem-lawyers & politicians are.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

BG checks affecting how terrorists get guns is simply more left propaganda with the intent of more gun control. Plain and simple.

As for general talk about citizens and BG checks well, it's clearly a violation of the 2A, but I'm one of those folks who "doesn't have anything to hide". So it's one of those things that tends not to affect me. The last BG check I had for a pistol I bought a few weeks ago popped back GTG in under 30sec, seriously. Obviously that can make a person bias towards the conversation.

If it could help keep guns out of the hands of criminals I would say I'm all for it but it obviously does not. The idea that a felon would walk into a LGS and try to buy a gun is actually pretty inconceivable to me. Most know what will happen and if they don't they will find out post haste.

I can sort of understand businesses doing BG checks just like many other enterprises do various "checks", but private sales seems like it should be off limits.


I really don't know. Again this is all from someone who is pretty unaffected by BG checks.

 

[Elkins45]

It's not about me anymore. If they instituted nationwide UBC tomorrow I already own plenty of guns with no 4473 in my name. So I really don't have a personal interest in the matter.

What I do have is a respect for what makes the United States fundamentally different from almost the rest of the world. Freedom is messy, and sometimes it's scary. And I don't see how a nation that already has XX million of pre-68 guns in private hands is going to stuff that genie back in the bottle. Heck, as one smart guy whose name I can't recall once said, "If you want to smuggle guns into America all you need to do is disguise them as cocaine and bring them in through the Miami airport!"

 

[hdwhit]

Tirod wrote:
If you were selling your guns at a table and a Islamic State operative came up to buy one,...

How do I know they are an ISIL operative? Are they wearing an "I heart Abu Bakr al-Bhagdadi" t-shirt?

 

[hdwhit]

Aim1 quoted:
"...the Islamic State encouraged recruits in the United States to take advantage of laws that allow people to buy firearms without having to present identification or submit to background checks."

Well, it sounds like the people writing the ISIL propaganda are about as well informed about our gun laws a many of our own journalists.

 

[Hanzo581]

It's illegal to be a straw purchaser, it's illegal for a prohibited person to possess or purchase a firearm from anyone, it's illegal for a person to receive a firearm from a straw purchaser. Passing more laws that only hinder honest citizens won't do a thing to stop prohibited people from obtaining firearms. From what I've read over the years, a felon getting his firearm ownership rights restored ranks right up there with winning the Power Ball. There are misdemeanor federal charges for what a prosecutor feels is a lesser crime than a felony but if you inadvertently carry a firearm into a federal facility and the prosecutor wants to look tough on crime or is anti-gun, what do you think your chances are that he will charge you with a misdemeanor? My generation learned a long time ago that the more power you give the government to control your life, the more they will and the more draconian it will be.

I'll try one more time.

I know straw purchases are illegal, what I'm saying is there is little to no way to punish the straw purchaser since you'd have to prove they knowingly sold to a prohibited person.

Also, no, this and any other law isn't going to prevent anything. It's you prevent straw purchasers from operating with impunity.

 

[RPRNY]

I'll try one more time.

I know straw purchases are illegal, what I'm saying is there is little to no way to punish the straw purchaser since you'd have to prove they knowingly sold to a prohibited person.

Also, no, this and any other law isn't going to prevent anything. It's you prevent straw purchasers from operating with impunity.

By burdening others with costly and unecessary regulation.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Congress and state legislatures are already in violation of the Second Amendment. What you are proposing is further infringement. Since you admit that this further infringement would not prevent crime or substantially benefit society, only help law enforcement punish the law-breaking, it's a no-brainer: No. Burdening the law-abiding with more cost and infringement of their right is simply not justified.

 

[Hanzo581]

By burdening others with costly and unecessary regulation.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Congress and state legislatures are already in violation of the Second Amendment. What you are proposing is further infringement. Since you admit that this further infringement would not prevent crime or substantially benefit society, only help law enforcement punish the law-breaking, it's a no-brainer: No. Burdening the law-abiding with more cost and infringement of their right is simply not justified.

We already have background checks, this would simply create more of them. Would it slow the system down? Sure if they didn't increase personnel, but it's already law they can't take more than 72 hours to make a decision.

 

[George Dickel]

I'll try one more time.

I know straw purchases are illegal, what I'm saying is there is little to no way to punish the straw purchaser since you'd have to prove they knowingly sold to a prohibited person.

Also, no, this and any other law isn't going to prevent anything. It's you prevent straw purchasers from operating with impunity.

I believe most people have the understanding the meaning of a "straw purchaser" is someone who legally purchases a firearm in their name and for a person they know isn't legally allowed to own a firearm. I believe the legal definition is a person who purposely purchases a firearm in their name for another person at that person's request regardless of whether they can legally own a firearm or not.

From articles I have read where the writer interviewed police officers and convicts shows that the majority of firearms criminals obtain are stolen. The number of guns obtained by straw purchasers is a very small percentage of the whole because of the straw purchaser law and the requirement for gun shops to report to ATF individuals who buy multiple firearms in one purchase. In the case of the ISIS story where radicalized individuals, who have no criminal records, are told to purchase guns from private individuals the background check won't show anything because there isn't anything to find. So how would a UBC stop radicalized wanabe terrorists from obtaining a gun?

I have read about and seen on news shows stories of numerous straw purchasers that have been prosecuted for their law breaking, so they are being caught and not operating with impunity. Not every person who commits a crime is caught and prosecuted.

I'll add this also. Even if it was required for UBC for private sellers, what is to stop a straw purchaser with no criminal record from purchasing a firearm for a prohibited person from a private seller using a UBC?

 

[hdwhit]

RPRNY wrote:
Congress and state legislatures are already in violation of the Second Amendment.

The only people who get to authoratatively say what the Constitution and its Amendments say are the nine old people at the Supreme Court in Washington and they have consistently ruled that limited restrictions are Constitutional.

 

[Hanzo581]

I believe most people have the understanding the meaning of a "straw purchaser" is someone who legally purchases a firearm in their name and for a person they know isn't legally allowed to own a firearm. I believe the legal definition is a person who purposely purchases a firearm in their name for another person at that person's request regardless of whether they can legally own a firearm or not.

From articles I have read where the writer interviewed police officers and convicts shows that the majority of firearms criminals obtain are stolen. The number of guns obtained by straw purchasers is a very small percentage of the whole because of the straw purchaser law and the requirement for gun shops to report to ATF individuals who buy multiple firearms in one purchase. In the case of the ISIS story where radicalized individuals, who have no criminal records, are told to purchase guns from private individuals the background check won't show anything because there isn't anything to find. So how would a UBC stop radicalized wanabe terrorists from obtaining a gun?

I have read about and seen on news shows stories of numerous straw purchasers that have been prosecuted for their law breaking, so they are being caught and not operating with impunity. Not every person who commits a crime is caught and prosecuted.

Straw purchases are way more common than you are led to believe.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150916162916.htm

And yes, some straw purchasers are caught, mainly the ones that make it their business. But the career purchasers aren't the majority.

 

[Hanzo581]

The only people who get to authoratatively say what the Constitution and its Amendments say are the nine old people at the Supreme Court in Washington and they have consistently ruled that limited restrictions are Constitutional.

Yes, I am glad you brought this up. Rights are not unlimited, they have said on multiple accounts laws related to buying guns are not illegal/unconstitutional. Now maybe one day that will change, but for now we have to operate under their assertions.

 

[George Dickel]

Straw purchases are way more common than you are led to believe.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150916162916.htm

And yes, some straw purchasers are caught, mainly the ones that make it their business. But the career purchasers aren't the majority.

Do some research on Science Daily and you will find that they have a big left wing bent and are definitely anti-gun.