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

[newfalguy101]

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.

Assuming the original buyer is the one who sold the gun

Assuming the feds can PROVE the seller had any reason to believe the buyer was prohibited..

I am quite sure trace requests have been submitted, and ATF will follow the trail till it disappears, typically the first time its sold privately.

 

[AlexanderA]

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.

That's true as regards hardened criminals. But what about "non-hardened" or "amateur" criminals? Tightening up the background check system is likely to deter some of them. Remember, every mass shooting that we can prevent is one less talking point for the antigunners.

 

[Tommygunn]

While I would be in favor of preventing mass shootings -- in any number -- I'm not sure I believe UBCs could really do much, and I'd also be suspicious of how it would really be determined if they were being reduced.

Oftentimes events have numerous different causes. In the case of crime, a human-caused event, motives come from many causes, some more motivating than others.

The Odessa shooter failed a nics check but continued on and bought one via a private sale. This is great fodder for the Dems who push UBC laws , but if he'd been refused the private sale, do we assume "PROBLEM SOLVED!" or, would he have driven his pickup into the front of a local gun store and stolen what he wanted.

Or bought some fuel oil and fertilizer and gone the Timothy McVeigh route?

We're informed by a media saturated with statistics and numbers. We're told we are experiencing an epidemic of gun violence no other country experiences .... except it's a lie. Other countries have mass killings, and murders. Russia has no second amendment. Just a higher murder rate.
Few media talking heads bring up Mexico, a country with severe gun laws .... and drug cartels virtually at war with each other, and often think little of killing police wholesale.

My point is:

When we DO get UBCs, and the numbers come in on their effectiveness, remember: IT'S A LIE.

They lie to us about no other "modern" (or ... whatever) country having a frightening murder rate.

They will lie about anything else.

 

[gbw]

Several of you are kidding yourselves.

I support the 2nd Amendment and I own and shoot a pile of guns. But there are no absolute rights, and no right survives society's decision to rescind it.

The loophole is that he was able to purchase privately without a background check. Legal for the seller - the one who provided the gun.

UBC prevents this by requiring the check be run. If buyer fails check seller cannot sell. Part of the check is that the gun to be sold is registerd to the seller and transfers to the buyer if sale is made.

UBC works ONLY with Universal Registration - only if all guns are registered to their owner and all sales are recorded. No other scheme is possible - if the owner/gun is not tracked then UBC cannot work.

Is it perfect? No. Will it be better? yes.

(Universal registration is not a big deal - if the Gov't gets all guns declared illegal, it won't matter much if they are registered or not. 2nd A is gone, game over. Only those willing to risk a felony conviction will own guns, and I'm not one of them.)

There are just too many cretins out there with no business owning a gun, and too many of them end up with ARs/AKs/ Glocks. UBC will help.

 

[AlexanderA]

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.

In other words, you are relying on the buyer to tell the truth. Is it outside the realm of possibility that a disqualified person would lie? This is why a BG check system must have a way to compare the buyer with a list of known excluded persons. (Perhaps this list might not be 100% accurate, but that's another question.)

 

[Tommygunn]

"No right survives society's decision to rescind it."

So.... here we are, a sheep in a country-full of wolves, voting on lunch?

 

[22-rimfire]

I participated in a poll in the last few days where the question on universal background checks was asked... my answer> NO background checks. I know how these things work (surveys) and you have to read the question pretty carefully. If you suspect the purpose is to assemble a bunch of numbers for background checks, you answer No background checks. The reality is that I have no problem with background checks through a FFL (as in buying a firearm from them or a transfer). But I do with private sales..

 

[newfalguy101]

The loophole is that he was able to purchase privately without a background check. Legal for the seller - the one who provided the gun.

You might want to look up the definition of loophole.....

A loophole is a section of law that is unaddressed..

Private sales are expressly defined AND purposely allowed by the GCA of 68.....there is NO private sale/gunshow loophole

 

[AlexanderA]

UBC works ONLY with Universal Registration - only if all guns are registered to their owner and all sales are recorded. No other scheme is possible - if the owner/gun is not tracked then UBC cannot work.

Sure a UBC system can work without gun registration. What you wrote is a myth often repeated by those opposed to UBC's. This is the first time I've read it from someone in favor of UBC's.

No UBC system is going to be 100% airtight, gun registration or no gun registration. The way these things are enforced is by spot checks and sting operations -- exactly the way drug laws are enforced. Law-abiding people will comply, and those that don't, set themselves apart into the criminal underworld.

 

[GEM]

WSJ says they might have the seller but it’s behind a paywall

 

[22-rimfire]

A popular view is that NICs check data is saved by the Feds when it is supposed to be unsaved. UBCs could work without registration. One of the proposed Dem laws on guns is gun licensing to purchase and I suspect a continuing license renewed that might require a background check post sale to see if you have since been convicted of a felony or mental health issues. Then they raise the price of the license.....

 

[Deanimator]

Sure a UBC system can work without gun registration.

1. Define "work". The definition used by the anti-gun cult pushing racially invidious gun controls is, "Can be used to justify REGISTRATION, followed by CONFISCATION when it inevitably fails."
2. You KNOW it can't POSSIBLY "work" without REGISTRATION, since without out it, it will be UNIVERSALLY IGNORED.

 

[jmorris]

I said it once or twice in the past but the last time that less than 25,000 people were killed in America by automobiles was 1925 anyone want to guess how many cars or roads there were back then?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mot..._by_year#Motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

So where is the outrage with the over 36,000 killed last year by them? We don’t do background checks on anyone that buys them, nor is that even proposed. In fact States actually shield people, Illegally hear, illegally operating them from judicial proceedings....and they want to talk about “common sense laws” to me....

AOC, as a former bartender, I am sure would be all for prosecuting bartenders for actions buyers have done after they left the legally operating establishment. Makes me wonder how many subsequently drunk criminals she has produced in her career, before Congress. If you want to feign moral outrage you could at least be a model...

 

[Deanimator]

UBC works ONLY with Universal Registration - only if all guns are registered to their owner and all sales are recorded. No other scheme is possible - if the owner/gun is not tracked then UBC cannot work.

CONFISCATION only works with universal REGISTRATION.

NO, I REFUSE.

Any attempt at confiscation should be painfully difficult for the confiscators and attended by credible fear of physical danger.

 

[Gtscotty]

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.

I disagree, we haven't gone with a "you'll get nothing and like it" strategy. How do you productively deal with a person or entity that is dealing from a fundamentally dishonest platform? They say "hey why can't we just get UBCs, it's a small step, you're being unreasonable" but you know for a fact that really that's just the first step and there are incremental steps planned thereafter to eventually lead to confiscation and bans. They won't confirm as much right now, but occasionally one of their own steps out of line and hints at or states the obvious. You also know that since their common sense steps won't actually work, there will always be another well publicized reason to push for the next step, fear makes stupid herd animals, like people, pliable and they have fear on their side.

The only way to fight a coordinated campaign of fear, manipulation, lies and bad ideas like that is to do your best to hold the line on every step, secure in the knowledge that another incremental step is always waiting in the wings regardless of the outcome. Occasionally you can try to push the bounds back a bit in areas they aren't paying close attention to and try to exploit these tactical victories and turn them into successful campaigns (like the expansion of CCW laws). Giving ground on the main front for the purposes of appeasement, however is always a losing move, they won't be appeased and the masses won't remember your precious concession the next time some lunatic opens up on a crowd. I honestly believe that playing this hand any other way will only result in a faster defeat.

I've long said that a voluntary NICS hotline for private sellers was an obvious way to cut down the number of prohibited criminals getting guns through private sales. I'd definitely use it for any sales. It's a bit too subtle and practical, and doesn't have enough governmental "Thou Shalt Not" thunder and lightning for the Antis though. Also once estimates on the usage rates of such a program in private sales came in, it probably wouldn't do much to support their push for UBCs and registration.

As others have said, loopholes in the law, by definition, aren't illegal. What the shooter did was buy guns even though he knew he was prohibited, which is in fact unambiguously illegal and not in any way exploitation of a loophole.

 

[The Evangelist Cowboy]

I do quite a bit of sales and trades. I mostly deal with men older than me and sometimes guys about my age. I have had instances of certain people I wouldn't deal with they only came out for the cheap stuff, selling a taurus 85 UL for $175? I get all kinds of people out the woodwork, they're no where to be found once I post a higher end gun even a 400 asking price is enough to deter unwanted people looking for a gun, I was accused of being and I qoute a "cracka, who is racist and probably voted for Trump cause I don't want to sell to a (certain word i I will not say)" nevermind the fact that the my skin is reddish brown due to my spanish/native American ancestry and yes I did vote for Trump, but that is MY decision to make with my private property. Even if I did unknowingly sell to someone who commits a heinous crime with it how am I responsible for the actions of another ?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Assuming the feds can PROVE the seller had any reason to believe the buyer was prohibited..

Well, if they find out who the seller is (have they yet?), even if not criminally negligent, you can bet the seller will be in civil court.

 

[film495]

anyone know if he was taking or had recently been taking anti-depressant or anxiety medications? it is probably HIPPA protected info, but the bounce back or hangover effect of going cold turkey on those things can have dramatic effects, more on some people than others.

heard today the makers of Oxy were looking to settle, for lying about how addictive there medication was and pushing rampant addiction on the nation, for their profit. they should probably go to jail or be hung, well - will all the dead kinds and all, but that will never happen.

the notion that those other drugs are not - also, dangerous; come on. the drug companies know it, but same scenario - they are getting rich and just don't really care if their drugs kill people. Obviously, the makers of Oxy didn't care a whit, does anyone think the other drug companies actually do?

 

[CapnMac]

We all have to educate the fence leaners as to why the UBC is a bad idea

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?

How about we make it a criminal offense for all these various clerks and othe political entities to not complete the forms they are required to?

 

[CapnMac]

Also, in the day late, dollar short category, isn't the story, today, that the shooter had two felony convictions?

 

[22-rimfire]

.... You also know that since their common sense steps won't actually work, there will always be another well publicized reason to push for the next step, fear makes stupid herd animals, like people, pliable and they have fear on their side.

The only way to fight a coordinated campaign of fear, manipulation, lies and bad ideas like that is to do your best to hold the line on every step, secure in the knowledge that another incremental step is always waiting in the wings regardless of the outcome.

I've long said that a voluntary NICS hotline for private sellers was an obvious way to cut down the number of prohibited criminals getting guns through private sales. I'd definitely use it for any sales. It's a bit too subtle and practical, and doesn't have enough governmental "Thou Shalt Not" thunder and lightning for the Antis though. Also once estimates on the usage rates of such a program in private sales came in, it probably wouldn't do much to support their push for UBCs and registration.

There will be another reason to push for the next "step" when Step 1 doesn't make an appreciable difference. So, I just draw the line and say no new gun laws unless you can demonstrate that they will make an appreciable difference in crime. They won't because we're dealing with criminals and by definition, they do not adhere to the law.

I would like a no-frills easy to access NICs check for non-dealers for private sales. I would use it. But I feel that if this was done, then I should be allowed to ship a gun out of state after I conduct the check on a buyer and avoid the FFL completely. Give a little, get a little.

 

[newfalguy101]

Well, if they find out who the seller is (have they yet?), even if not criminally negligent, you can bet the seller will be in civil court.

I think even in civil court, it would be a tuff sell, however, IF the seller is prosecuted, it gets easier....

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Go ahead and get your UBCs passed. People will still do private sales under the radar just like there are umpteen thousands of people out there now that smoke dope and simply lie on a 4473.

In the end it will change nothing.

Start on the registration/confiscation and they'll be so many shoot outs the country will essentially go to anarchy.

Any way you slice it the left wont win. Personally I think they adhere to there technological lifestyles too much to let it go that far. But if I'm wrong then I guess we'll see where the chips fall.

 

[22-rimfire]

Go ahead and get your UBCs passed. People will still do private sales under the radar just like there are umpteen thousands of people out there now that smoke dope and simply lie on a 4473.

In the end it will change nothing.

It would be interesting to see independent data put together where state wide back ground checks are required for a firearm transfer. PA comes to mind. I don't think a UBC law would make any difference what so ever for anyone bent on criminal activity.

 

[AlexanderA]

I would like a no-frills easy to access NICs check for non-dealers for private sales. I would use it. But I feel that if this was done, then I should be allowed to ship a gun out of state after I conduct the check on a buyer and avoid the FFL completely. Give a little, get a little.

Absolutely. This is what we should be doing -- in exchange for being a little flexible on UBC's, we should be getting something else in return. This is how negotiation works in every other aspect of life. Give a little, get a little. But the defensive mentality has become so ingrained among the gun community, that in our insistence on "not giving another inch" we preclude ourselves from getting another inch either. We're never going to make any progress on what we want this way. Instead, it's going to be one long slide into oblivion.