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

[Sistema1927]

If he couldn't make it through the background check then he would try the legal private sale "loop hole".

If he couldn't exploit the legal private sale "loop hole" then he would try the illegal out-of-the-trunk-behind-the-bar "loop hole".

If he couldn't get one through the illegal out-of-the-trunk-behind-the-bar "loop hole", then he would try the steal-one-out-of-a-police-car "loop hole".

If he couldn't get one through the steal-one-out-of-a-police-car "loop hole, he would try the "steal-one-out-of-a-home "loop hole".

If he couldn't get one from any of those, then he would use the pressure-cooker-full-of-black-powder-from-fire-crackers-and-nails "loop hole".

See how it works? It isn't the tool, but rather the "tool" behind the tool.

 

[Deanimator]

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.

You'll get NOTHING in return except deceit.

The proponents of racially invidious gun controls are in maximalist mode. Why should they "offer" you ANYTHING when they can just kill you and your family and take your guns as they've so gleefully promised to do?

And suppose they DID "offer" you something? What are you going to do when it INEVITABLY turns out to be a lie? Make the NEXT transparently fraudulent "deal"? And the next and the next?

Some of us are actually educated and know the phrases "no further territorial ambitions" and "resettlement to the East". We know what happens when you trust pathologically lying sociopaths.

We're on to the grift.

NO I REFUSE.

 

[jjadurbin]

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.

Well said.

I can assure anyone who is interested that the (SES) top management of all the responsible agencies are well aware of how many of us are out there that have a high speed background. Against that every single utterance from non-players in the field (politicians and lobbying groups and the press) is nothing more than a guaranteed propaganda paycheck, scare and collect, and the louder they are, the more and longer they get paid. For some it's become a career, for others selling emotion over logic is a mainstay gun control falls into after any event -- when it's all about killing freedom by transforming lies into a false reality witless voters will embrace. Would it be wrong of me to say I'm sick of the simpering morons who lap up this rubbish.

 

[jjadurbin]

You'll get NOTHING in return except deceit.

The proponents of racially invidious gun controls are in maximalist mode. Why should they "offer" you ANYTHING when they can just kill you and your family and take your guns as they've so gleefully promised to do?

And suppose they DID "offer" you something? What are you going to do when it INEVITABLY turns out to be a lie? Make the NEXT transparently fraudulent "deal"? And the next and the next?

Some of us are actually educated and know the phrases "no further territorial ambitions" and "resettlement to the East". We know what happens when you trust pathologically lying sociopaths.

We're on to the grift.

NO I REFUSE.

Ah, now this really cracks me up ...it's a character flaw. The truth always makes me laugh. If it ever gets down to grit and guts, and I don't think it will, it might be refreshing to know that FBI is still an all-American gun club of honest to God Christians, in spite of the incredible James Comey and his political ilk, and the entire Army War College is on the side of the 2nd.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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

Maybe, but there is the potential for nearly 30 individual lawsuits or maybe one massive lawsuit. That has the potential to be very costly for the seller in terms of time, money, and concern.

 

[danez71]

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.

(emphasis added)

.... every other aspect of life except politics. In this aspect, they never give a little; they only restrict less.

Do you think we could get suppressors back? I certainly dont.

Do you think we could get private sales to out of state residents? I certainly dont.


Let me ask.... What current restrictions do you think the anti's would be willing to give up in order to get UBC?

 

[Texas10mm]

We need to go to the table and say we'll give you UBC....IF we repeal the NFA and Hughes Amendment.

 

[GEM]

We need to go to the table and say we'll give you UBC....IF we repeal the NFA and Hughes Amendment.

Add reciprocity, HPA and the SAGA act. However, the latter (getting rid of state bans) would probably be impossible. I feel the time for a deal has probably passed as the antigun folks see the progun forces on the ropes.

Now, let's not start to denounce and rant if someone doesn't follow your ideological purity test and suggests some negotiation. Every progun measure had compromise. In TX to get the CHL, the bill had to have the signage provisions, for example.

 

[Gtscotty]

I feel the time for a deal has probably passed as the antigun folks see the progun forces on the ropes.

I keep hearing that we are on the ropes, but I haven't seen it. What have we lost, besides the bump stocks Trump willingly and stupidly gave away? What has actually been taken from us on a federal level? Nothing as far as I can see, there's a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth and "We're gonna get ya!", but it's largely BS and scare tactics to try and bully concessions. We even have a relatively Constitution-friendly supreme court these days, there's more winning going on than losing.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Maybe I'm not really up on these background checks, but I thought that lying on the form was a felony.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that when a person tries to buy a gun, but fails because the background check turns up that he's dangerously mentally ill, or he's a convicted felon that he'll just go out and try to buy what he wants on the street?

If the background check has any chance to be useful whatsoever, we're going to have to start putting these people who lie on the forms in jail.

We won't put them in jail of course because there's a strong belief that the criminally insane and the violent felon are at heart good people, and it's only necessary to keep them away from the evil of the gun.

It's headed in that direction. In this state if you get a denial you get investigated if you don't appeal within a certain period.

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/daily-bulletin-walmart-gun-violence-assault-weapons-ban/


Plus you have to waive your HIPPA rights when you fill out the states form for a BC. No more legal private sales here.

Although I've never been denied, I purchased my last firearm in June. A false positive on a BC sets off all kinds of undesirable actions by LLE here.

 

[Walkalong]

I keep hearing that we are on the ropes, but I haven't seen it.

Agreed, we are not on the ropes, it just looks/feels bad right now.

 

[SharpDog]

I don't seem to find agreement on what firearm the shooter used. THis morning there was a report he used a 'manufactured' weapon from a seller who was not licensed to manufacture. When looking more into that I see reports that he used an AK from Rumania and then another reporting he used an 'AR style' weapon.

My question is whether he used an 'AR style' weapon, and if he did, was it 'manufactured'.

If it was 'manufactured' what does that mean ? Did the seller just assemble an upper and a lower ? Did he assemble the lower ?

FBI Raids Lubbock Home for Suspect Who Built Gun for Odessa Shooter:
https://sanangelolive.com/news/crime/2019-09-05/fbi-raids-lubbock-home-suspect-who-built-gun-odessa-shooter

 

[CoalTrain49]

Agreed, we are not on the ropes, it just looks/feels bad right now.

Depends on where you live.

 

[Mousegun]

Mousegun said: ↑
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.)

EXACTLY -- The decision has to be made as to if you are for or against private sales without a background check. If you are for it (like myself) the question makes the buyer the illegal factor in the sale, not the seller and to make it even more secure, I only sell to people I know, not the guy at the door of the local gun show.

 

[AR-Bossman]

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?




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?

Buy your gun from a store then, but without a CCP, you aren't buying anything from me or many other gun enthusiasts. Checking a CCP is at least one firewall between you and potential legal ruin. The rate of illegal gun use among CCP holders is very very very low.

 

[WrongHanded]

It seems like a UBC system without a registry is simple. All sales must got through an FFL, but no gun information, just buyer information. $100,000 fine for selling to anyone without a UBC. And the local, State, and Federal agencies can use entrapment to create enough of a potential threat to keep sellers honest.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

Lol, failed background check. What a joke! So they want MORE background checks Hey? So that is the Liberal answer. It is non-stop on CNN. So someone please tell me how this will stop the vast majority of crimminals in this country and do the most violent crimes, who laugh at gun laws is going to help anything. How about CNN and the Liberals tell up about this area of one state, has over 350 killing this year alone. And tell up how these guys that do the shooting are going to actually go get a background check? Please I am dying to know. And remember this is only one area. How about Baltimore, Houston, LA, and on and on.
Come on Kamalya Harris, How about driving into these neighborhoods on a Saturday Night, letting the driver drop you off and YOU begin to tell these guy that they better start complying with the law. (Don't worry, someone will pick you up in the Morning).

Ok, check out these facts. You be the judge.

https://heyjackass.com/

 

[AlexanderA]

It seems like a UBC system without a registry is simple. All sales must got through an FFL, but no gun information, just buyer information.

That's impossible. Any gun received by an FFL must be entered in his "bound book" and a Form 4473 filled out by the buyer. This is what we want to avoid by proposing alternatives that do not go through FFL's.

 

[Sistema1927]

It seems like a UBC system without a registry is simple. All sales must got through an FFL, but no gun information, just buyer information. $100,000 fine for selling to anyone without a UBC. And the local, State, and Federal agencies can use entrapment to create enough of a potential threat to keep sellers honest.

Give me a break.

If folks aren't scared of an additional 5 years in "club fed" for being a felon in possession of a firearm, what makes you think that even the threat of a $100K fine would deter them? Last I checked, the penalty for murder was quite stiff, but that doesn't stop people from doing it every day.

As I have stated before, background checks do NOTHING to stop determined criminals from obtaining weapons, but they do set up stumbling blocks for ordinary law abiding folk. At the same time, BCs, waiting periods, etc. have actually cost some their lives by keeping them from obtaining a weapon when they really needed one.

I, for one, am not in favor of any more infringement.

 

[newfalguy101]

Maybe, but there is the potential for nearly 30 individual lawsuits or maybe one massive lawsuit. That has the potential to be very costly for the seller in terms of time, money, and concern.

Absolutely...."a win by bankruptcy"

 

[WrongHanded]

Give me a break.

If folks aren't scared of an additional 5 years in "club fed" for being a felon in possession of a firearm, what makes you think that even the threat of a $100K fine would deter them? Last I checked, the penalty for murder was quite stiff, but that doesn't stop people from doing it every day.

I wasn't suggesting the fine be put towards the buyer (potential criminal). I was suggesting the seller (assumed law abiding citizen) would be fined. The possibility of a 100K fine and the guy buying the firearm actually being an undercover cop would certainly stop me from selling without a background check.

Pretty simple concept in my opinion. Now you'll again counter with "background checks do NOTHING to stop determined criminals from obtaining weapons", but it's one less way they'll be able to do it. Some people like to say that background checks don't stop criminals getting guns, but they are the very reason that criminals don't buy guns at gun stores.

That's impossible. Any gun received by an FFL must be entered in his "bound book" and a Form 4473 filled out by the buyer. This is what we want to avoid by proposing alternatives that do not go through FFL's.

Then a new law could simply make an exception to this rule for a person-to-person transfer, with the background check running through an FFL, providing both parties are present.

If background checks don't go through some regulated body that has an insentive to do things correctly, what's the point? Harry just got online and googled Larry. Larry seems clean. Background check done. That's not going to work because there's no oversight or enforcement.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

Well, the Daily Mail story is of course completely misleading and downplays the severity of the problem facing this country.

According to the CDC, each year nearly 20,000 Americans are victims of the Murder Loophole. While laws exist that outlaw murder, thousands of people every year exploit the Murder Loophole to commit heinous crimes against their fellow citizens. Despite evidence of the harm caused to society by this dangerous loophole, politicians refuse to act. Under terrorist-like pressure from the Logic Lobby, elected officials across the country simply refuse to enact common sense murder control laws that virtually all Americans agree on. Only when the Murder Loophole is finally closed will mothers be able to allow their children out in the streets. Action must be taken now.

lol, yep... this shooter was not allowed to legally purchase a firearm so he broke the law and illegally obtained said firearm from a private party purchase.

So, a criminal breaks the law to obtain a firearm in order to kill people, who knew that was even possible????

 

[JERRY]

gang members exploit this very same loophole by buying through private sales with one another. for me, if you want to buy or trade guns with me, your driver's license and ccw permit are a must.

 

[AlexanderA]

Then a new law could simply make an exception to this rule for a person-to-person transfer, with the background check running through an FFL, providing both parties are present

FFL dealers would oppose this. They are looking forward to the transfer fees that they will be able to charge for UBC transactions. But to charge a transfer fee, they would have to run the gun through their inventory.

 

[GEM]

The increasing number of state weapons and mag bans and the failure of challenges in the lower courts isn't a hopeful sign. Supposedly gun friendly VT and FL jumped on the restriction band wagon. I know folks think that now with Kavanugh and Gorsoch, SCOTUS will finally take a case and freedom reigns. I don't think so. Roberts is a loose cannon. He may feel that the court needs to go with past precedents and support state bans or come up with a fatally flawed decision that seems to support gun rights but doesn't.

I know we have Heller true believers. However, the emphasis on self-defense and some restrictions have leaped out of the prose (yes, you can find other more positive prose) to support bans. The SD emphasis is insidious as the choir can write rationales that are very convincing for ARs (Ayoob does a great job), most folks don't see it and go for the weapons of war evil mantra. Shotgun Biden, Weapons of War Romney, Zumbo, Metcalf and well as our own Is 5 enough crowd supports that. The defense against tyranny mantra is not one put forward much by the major gun organizations like the NRA. Their marketing found that it didn't sell as well as SD. The defense against tyranny - how to play that? Wild eye libertine, sex mad liberal will take you guns and institute the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. Or the threat that has pushed increased minority fears and support for gun rights (guess who is the star of that threat profile)? The generic use of the threat of tyranny gets confounded with a partisan view of the upcoming tyranny.

The supposed progun party was never a proactive progun party. They were happy to let the issue fester for votes and checks. Many of them actually were OK with restrictions.