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

[herrwalther]

Expect a new wave of universal background checks to spin up over this one. Just what gun grabbers have been wanting.

 

[P5 Guy]

https://tennesseefirearms.com/2019/...-michael-bloomberg-to-advance-gun-ban-agenda/

 

[Walkalong]

A UBC law will be hard to fight with this vivid instance.

Yes, UBCs are going to be hard to stop. That of course doesn't mean we shouldn't fight them, we should, but they may get them one of these days and if they do all the gun owner whiners and closet antis will tell us we told you so, we should have just given in. Meh, the heck with them, they'll still be whining about the next fight as well.

 

[ATLDave]

We've gone all in on the "you'll get nothing and like it" strategy. Unfortunately, I think we're about to have a hard landing from that. We've also lost the messaging war - the efficacy of gun control is now assumed by most people and virtually all media. The only question, in their minds, is whether the profits of the gun industry are worth victims' lives.

Of course that's a completely false framing and choice, but we've largely lost the battle over framing.

 

[40-82]

[. It's polls, not poles. Poles cannot vote in this country. Sorry.

Do you know why the Volga Rivermen used Poles to propel their barges against the current?

They tried Romanians but they wilted.

 

[berettaprofessor]

Obtained through a private sale, huh? Isn't that just the most convenient timing for those pushing for UBC's.......

 

[theotherwaldo]

Do you know why the Volga Rivermen used Poles to propel their barges against the current?

They tried Romanians but they wilted

Yeah, but they were Power Poles!

 

[theotherwaldo]

The bottom line is that the mentally unhealthy, addicts, criminals, felons, and illegal aliens are all specially protected classes that will not be held responsible for their actions.
If they falsify information on a form it will not be held against them.
Thus, only the law-abiding, mentally healthy citizens will be affected by this legislation.

 

[AlexanderA]

We've gone all in on the "you'll get nothing and like it" strategy. Unfortunately, I think we're about to have a hard landing from that. We've also lost the messaging war - the efficacy of gun control is now assumed by most people and virtually all media. The only question, in their minds, is whether the profits of the gun industry are worth victims' lives.

I'm beginning to look at all this through the prism of confiscation. Confiscation was once something that was not discussed in polite company; now it's on every politician's lips on the antigun side.

Confiscation will not be practicable unless there's a current database showing who owns what. The antigunners can start creating this database by "weaponizing" dealers' archives of Forms 4473 and "bound books." But, if you have bought a gun from a dealer a few years ago, you can always say that you subsequently sold it in a private sale, and that would get you off the hook. UBC's done through dealers, as well as stringent requirements for reporting losses or thefts of guns, will gradually foreclose that alibi. (Although there would be a "window" between the time of the original purchase and when the UBC law takes effect.)

Our counter-strategy must be to propose a background check system that does not create a de facto registry. Decouple the buyer/seller from the gun itself. The only way to do this is to bypass the existing FFL dealer structure. (FFL dealers would howl because the traditionally-structured UBC is an additional source of revenue for them.)

 

[JTHunter]

https://tennesseefirearms.com/2019/09/walmart-partners-with-everytown-for-gun-safety-and-michael-bloomberg-to-advance-gun-ban-agenda/

Time to permanently call them "Wal-Fart". They are now officially as screwed up as Dick's.

 

[ATLDave]

Our counter-strategy must be to propose a background check system that does not create a de facto registry. Decouple the buyer/seller from the gun itself. The only way to do this is to bypass the existing FFL dealer structure. (FFL dealers would howl because the traditionally-structured UBC is an additional source of revenue for them.)

I have been saying this for about 5 years.

It's super easy to devise a workable system that is not a de facto registry. Want to transfer a firearm? Great, 2 options:

1) Go down to FFL and have BGC run. Variant: create publicly-available online or telephone check. There are challenges with this, but I'm ok with it if it can be made to work.
2) Have the transferee show you their CC permit or other documentation that demonstrates that they have already passed the BGC.

Boom, done. In fact, that what most private sellers around me do anyway for their own peace of mind. Just make that a requirement. No records, no registry, but a universal check. Done. Next topic.

 

[Qweevox]

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.

Background checks only work for non-criminals. Criminals still get guns in the U.K. and other countries where they are almost entirely outlawed. It's very hard to get a rifle in the UK, and all but impossible to get a handgun, but criminals still get them. The same for Australia, criminals who intend to commit more crimes still get firearms.

Felons who intend to commit more felonies and need firearms will get them. Criminals aren't deterred by laws.

 

[ATLDave]

Similarly, it's not that hard to come up with a tolerable red-flag law, though it's not as lead-pipe simple as the recordless-BGC system.

• Initial referral must come from 2 separate individuals (who do not live together) or from a nuclear family member of the subject of the investigation. This should cut down, though not entirely eliminate, the abusive referrals.
• Law enforcement is to make an investigative visit to the subject within 48 hours.
• Law enforcement officers are to make their own independent assessment of whether there is sufficient reason to believe that the individual is an immediate threat to others. If they conclude that he/she is, then they are to be summoned to appear before a magistrate for a hearing within 3 days. If law enforcement is especially concerned, they are free to continue watching the individual, but there is to be no forcible seizure of anything prior to the hearing unless it is incident to an arrest for some actual violation of the law. (If, for example, the person was a prohibited person and there was probable cause to believe they had guns, there could be an arrest for felon-in-possession and obviously guns would be seized incident to that arrest.)
• The questions for the hearing are 2: 1) is there a preponderance of the evidence that the subject individual is an immediate threat to intentionally harm others; and 2) was the referral made for any improper purpose. The magistrate must reach a finding as to the latter.
  • The law must specify that legal ownership of firearms or ammunition (in whatever quantity or of whatever type) is not in any way probative of propensity to violence or threat. Nobody can be found a immediate threat solely or partially because they like firearms or have a lot of them.
  • Similarly, the law must specify that political beliefs or other constitutionally-protected activities or actions cannot form the basis of a finding of immediate threat, although statements related to violence can be considered.
• The subject of the hearing shall have the same right to counsel, including public defender counsel if they cannot afford a lawyer, as a felony criminal defendant.
• The subject of the hearing (and his/her counsel) shall have the same rights of cross-examination and disclosure of government evidence as a felony criminal defendant.
• If there is a finding that the individual poses an immediate threat, they will be required to cooperate in the temporary surrender of firearms or such other weapons or dangerous materials (such as bomb-making materials) as the magistrate finds appropriate. The agency taking custody of the firearms shall hold them as bailee for the subject, and with full liability for any loss or damage to them.
• The subject must have mental health services made available to them if there is a finding of immediate danger.
• If there is a finding of improper purpose of referral, the improperly referring party shall be liable for any attorney's fees incurred by the subject and any other relief the magistrate deems proper.
• A finding of immediate threat can be appealed as of right for a de novo hearing before a court of general jurisdiction.
• The surrender period is either 7 or 14 days. Any extension requires a new hearing, and the burden must be carried again (although evidence previously admitted can still be considered... no need to bring the same witness down every week to testify to the same conversation from long ago).
• No individual magistrate or judge may order more than 2 consecutive extensions. After 2 extensions, the next renewal must be handled by a different magistrate - this should help defuse a magistrate who simply dislikes a person or, worse, hates all guns and is happy to have any chance to take them away from anyone.
• After the expiration of any order, all property is returned to the subject. If two years pass without another finding of immediate threat or any criminal conviction or plea, then the subject can have the record of the prior immediate threat finding sealed.

Is it perfect? No, but it's a lot better than the laws that are getting rammed through currently.

 

[Bedfordtec]

I am not in favor of UBC but as an FFL and CPA with Lawyer as partner, you are taking a risk from a liability perspective as you can be held liable. It may be legal but civily liable as you should have known he was liable. With an FFL background check you are off the hook. Sue the heck out of the guy and nail him for any law he broke.

 

[BSA1]

The background check is supposed to be about the fitness of the buyer to own a firearm, not an opportunity to register who owns what possessions.

If it were merely a check of the individual's fitness then few would object to full ans accurate background checks... .

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?

 

[Mousegun]

I have a written form for selling a gun privately. It contains all the information about the gun, the date, names and addresses etc.

It also includes a question asking if the buyer meets all legal requirement to purchase a gun in a yes or no format and before the sale, the buyer must answer and initial each question or the sale is a no go.

 

[jjadurbin]

And prison overcrowding. Have to make room for for the truly evil, like the plastic straw offenders.

My boy was sitting in my chair as I walked by, he was laughing and said "Look, somebody else who got stuck passing through California."

 

[Walkalong]

I'm beginning to look at all this through the prism of confiscation.

The antis have been after that from the beginning, they are just finally admitting it to the general public.

 

[tarosean]

If that is indeed what the law requires how did Law Enforcement learn so quickly that he was denied years ago?

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.

 

[newfalguy101]

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

 

[BSA1]

So one question would be for private sellers, is how do I keep from selling a gun to Felon Bob? Do you personally feel comfortable with "dont' ask, don't tell"? Because if Felon Bob uses your/his gun, and the police come knocking, you're gonna be in a world of crap. Not just from the local law enforcement but from civil litigation.

How long of time period should I worry about whether the gun I sold will be used in crime? One day, one week, one month, one year, 10 years or the rest of my life?

One way around this is to use a system already in place.. demand your buyers have a CCP.

Well for starters State of Kansas does not require a Conceal Carry License to carry both Openly or Concealed.

Second why should I get a CCL if I never plan on carrying? I may be planning to use the gun only for target practice or for home defense.

Third you are discriminating against people who cannot afford to buy a Government Permission card. In Kansas CCL is very expensive and time consuming process;

To start with I have to attend a 8 hour class conducted by a State Approved Instructor. The cheapest I have seen class is $65.00 and most are $100.00.

A 8 hour class means time off work depending on my job or babysitter / child care for single parents.

The class includes a live fire qualification meaning the student needs to bring a handgun and ammunition. Don't own a gun yet well...

The license application is expensive. The State fee is $100.00 and the Sheriff Office fee for the required fingerprinting is $35.00.

Oh while I talking about the Application it is a difficult to complete. The applicant must attach a Passport size photo ($15.00 at Walgreens) and get their signature notarized.

Oh the State recommends that the application is sent by Certified Mail. More expense plus what the heck are is going in the A.G.'s Office that they can not handled regular mail.

Ok I got all of that done.(Oh by the way. The A.G. has 90 days to approve the application. But if they don't get it done in 90 days there is no penalty to them because they is THE LAW and THE LAW won) 90 days later I am APPROVED and have my License. Well not yet. The letter by A.G. sends me instructs me to take the letter to a local Drivers License Office where they will take my picture, complete the license and charge me $15.00. They do issue a temporary paper license while I wait for my laminated license to be sent to me from Topeka.

The Lady and I only have our CCL because we have family living in Oklahoma and Texas. It is useless for Maryland.


How having pointed all of this out what does any of it have to do with my INTENT on how I am going to use the gun?

 

[BSA1]

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.

So you mean to say the FBI is breaking the law?

Shocked! Simply shocked!!

Not. This information is too juicy for the FBI not to keep for use when the anti's get in power again.

 

[DocRock]

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

Correct. There is no more a private sales "loophole" than there is a murder loophole.

 

[BSA1]

There are ways to have universal background checks without registration. One way would be for sellers to have direct access to the state agency doing the checking (or federal NICS), such as what we have here in Virginia on a voluntary basis. No record of the gun is kept. Something like that could be made mandatory.

er I hate to tell you this the background check is on the buyer not the gun. The Government wants to know who are gun owners, not what guns they own,

But, for such alternate systems to be considered, they would have to be proposed by the pro-gun side. Sadly, that's not going to happen as long as the gun community takes the stance of stonewall opposition to everything.

And I hope we will continue to stonewall opposition to all gun control restrictions.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Hmmmm, I know a guy who exploited loophole in the Controlled Substances Act by buying narcotics on the street. {Sarcasm}

Neither Ator or my guy exploited any sort of loophole. They both outright broke the law.