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

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aim1, Sep 4, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,668
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    The people pushing this totalitarian agenda see themselves as the "vanguards of revolution". They truly HATE lawful gun owners. It's simply not in their nature to leave well enough alone. They HAVE to poke the bear to prove their moral "superiority". Of course they won't just stop at guns. Gun bans are a means AND an end. They want you starving silently in your cold house while they take private jets to each other's villas. They're dumb but not dumb enough to think that people are going to endure a renewed Holodomor, or be hauled away at gunpoint for using the wrong pronoun without resisting with force.

    And a LOT of people will die behind it.
     
    P5 Guy and Browning like this.
  2. FlSwampRat

    FlSwampRat Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2019
    Messages:
    1,618
    Location:
    Broward County, Fl


    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
    [/QUOTE]
    The article doesn't say anything about the supplier/seller building/manufacturing the gun. As I say later, are the two people or one person>

    But, to me, the troublesome part of the article are the lines:

    "Ator was denied gun purchase in January of 2014 but purchased a gun thorough an unlicensed gun dealer."
    "...the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided the home of the manufacture who built the gun for Seth Ator, 36, used in the Odessa Mass Shooting."

    Exactly what, in whose eyes, is the difference between a private seller and an unlicensed dealer? In Fla someone can sell a certain number of cars before they need to legally declare themselves a "dealer" and not just a private seller.

    How many guns can one person sell before the law regards them as a dealer?

    Are the persons mentioned, manufacturer and seller, one and the same?

    If they are two separate people, how was the gun made for the shooter and not for the private seller/unlicensed dealer?

    Was the maker truly a manufacturer, or as you say, an assembler?

    Just seems so vague, as the early reportings of these things are.
     
  3. FlSwampRat

    FlSwampRat Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2019
    Messages:
    1,618
    Location:
    Broward County, Fl
    Yes.

    Yes

    Yes
    This, along with making the system more correct and functional are my two drums I beat incessantly.
    Lock up those trying to get guns who are prohibited from legally doing so and make sure the system is full of correct information.
    The scary thing about the system being incorrect on so many levels is that this is the system the LEOs consult when they pull someone over on the highway. I don't want to have a service weapon pulled on me by a suddenly freaked out LEO because my name or information is incorrect in the system.
    Doesn't this possibility bother anyone else on either side of the gun debate?
     
    40-82 likes this.
  4. FlSwampRat

    FlSwampRat Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2019
    Messages:
    1,618
    Location:
    Broward County, Fl
    If you are a legal purchaser, why would you risk purchasing from someone you weren't sure of being legit?

    At least in Florida we can check the serial numbers on anything we might want to check for being stolen at:
    http://pas.fdle.state.fl.us/pas/restricted/PAS/StolenArticle.jsf
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2019
  5. giggitygiggity

    giggitygiggity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,863
    Another issue is the distortion from the raw question/data to what gets reported. For instance, a poll may ask a question such as “if there is unquestionable evidence that confiscation of guns would stop mass shootings, would you support such a ban?” I’m sure a lot of people (let’s say 80%) would answer “yes.” However, you might see something on the news that says “80% of Americans support gun confiscation” without providing the full, raw context in which the question was posed.

    Additionally, poll question can be leading... “universal background checks will ensure that criminals will not have access to guns used in mass shootings. Do you support universal background checks?” To the average American who is indifferent when it comes to guns, his answer will likely be “yes” because he was led to conclude that not supporting universal background checks means that criminals will have access to guns and can commit mass shootings.

    I am not saying that all polls are misleading or the data is always distorted by the media, but the potential definitely exists.
     
    P5 Guy, Shanghai McCoy and SharpDog like this.
  6. jmorris

    jmorris Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    17,344
    How about “Would you support all gun owners having access to instant background checks to ensure they are selling to someone that could legally purchase a firearm anywhere?” How is that for common sense? Give legal gun owners the information they need to know they are also selling to lawful people, only a child could come up with something so obvious...

    The answer would be “yes” from just about everyone but making things “safer” isn’t the goal, control is. They know that giving up control of the information is counter productive to controlling the people. After all if we could background check them before we voted for them, many of them would have never been elected in the first place.

    They want to make you dependent and hopeful “911” will get you help in time before someone kills you vs enlighten you to whom you might be dealing with. Aka, they don’t really care about you, you are expendable, as long as they can move towards their ultimate goal.

    It also might open even more windows to the failures of their system that “ensures” we are all safe, like this one.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2019
  7. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,288
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    Then why do dealers stay in business? Is it some moral obligation they have to supply people with a state mandated service? I hear guns cost more in CA. Maybe the dealers are making up for their loses on the sale of new firearms.

    I just thought I would throw that in there to make a point. CA is wedged.
     
  8. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,002
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    Wait.. what?

    You said

    I basically said CA caps the FFL can charge to a petty amount (10 bucks) that doesn't even cover costs, let alone make a profit, and it takes more time than 20 min.


    Everything you said after that doesn't make any point about anything related to what were talking about which was amount and time for PPT thru FFL.
     
  9. DoubleMag

    DoubleMag Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,196
    US Congress is back in session Monday. Call your representatives, senators.

    Mucho more effective then unwritten pages 8, 9...13 to this or any other thread
     
    SharpDog likes this.
  10. Mowgli Terry

    Mowgli Terry Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,322
    Location:
    Tennesse-former Confederacy
    I really love it when the the anti-gun people start making over-generalizations about firearm owners. The stereotype make out all firearms owners to be like the Texas Shooter. If you have a gun you are really sick. No matter what the circumstances having a gun is an evil. The chances are good for the outcome of this current hysteria to be a serious monstrosity.
     
  11. Trunk Monkey

    Trunk Monkey member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,120
    Location:
    Colorado
    I think the biggest mistake the pro Second Amendment side makes is believing that any compromise is possible with the antis.

    I'm sorry if this sounds like conspiracy theory insanity but they want nothing less than total civilian disarmament. Maybe not the rank-and-file maybe not the soccer moms posting on Facebook but the people behind the movement the people who are funding the movement want you disarmed.

    So it doesn't matter what we compromise on or what we concede, they want all of our guns and we need to quit pretending that's not the goal. And in my opinion we need to adopt a not one inch policy.
     
  12. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,288
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    In every business there's going to be some regulation that requires you to do something in the course of doing business. You may not be able to charge a customer for doing that particular requirement but you will have to find a way to cover that overhead and still make a profit. It's that way in every business. If dealers in CA can't figure out a way to run a business with the required regulations then they probably should find some other business to be in.

    In this state a dealer has to collect the state sales tax on a private transfer. Basically they're tax collectors for the state. Can the dealer charge me an adm fee for that? No. He sets his fee accordingly to cover that.

    Most of the dealers I know don't have a storefront. They do business from home and have no inventory. For some of them it's nothing more than a sideline or part time business.

    Personally I would like congress to put the ATF out of business. They're nothing more than puppets of whatever adm happens to be in the WH. The fed doesn't license drug dealers (pharmacists) so what are they doing licensing firearm dealers. They don't enforce the felony clause on the 4473, nor does NICS work as advertised. Basically an FFL license is a joke. States are going to tell dealers how they will operate and enforcement falls on local LE anyway. A dealer friend of mine told me the ATF comes around about once every 5 years to look at his books.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2019
    Texas10mm likes this.
  13. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,680
    Location:
    Virginia
    Except that if we don't engage in the process the other side may win everything by default. It's a matter of counting the votes. If the other side has the votes -- and it's beginning to look like it does, if not now then after the next election -- then engagement is the only way to salvage anything at all. Surely this is not a good situation but it's been brewing for many years.

    BTW, the "pro Second Amendment side" generally does not believe in compromise. Therefore your initial statement is based on a false assumption. Those of us advocating for engagement -- I won't call it "compromise" -- are a distinct minority within the activist gun community.

    You are correct that the end goal of the antis is a gun-free America. The key thing is that they haven't managed, so far, to convince the bulk of our fellow citizens. But they are getting closer with each mass shooting incident. We should be in the forefront of preventing mass shooting incidents, just out of a sense of self-preservation if nothing else.
     
    CoalTrain49 likes this.
  14. Mowgli Terry

    Mowgli Terry Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,322
    Location:
    Tennesse-former Confederacy
    Let's play"...what if." Say, if the world of Tomorrowland where UBS is in place. I found a 700 ADL that I plan to use for a donor action. The seller and I head to Bubba's Gun&Chrome Shop. Bubba has been running checks for ten bucks. We run my background check. OK. Well we run the rifle and it's stolen .Also, as it happens a check is run on the seller. He has not only has a stolen rifle but he threw his SO at the time, Bambi, out along with her clothes etc. She called the cops and guy had caught and plead guilty to a domestic assault charge. What's next?
     
  15. film495

    film495 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2019
    Messages:
    1,342
    Across the pond in good old Russia, they have stricter gun control than we do, and also a rash of recent mass shootings. The result of those shootings has been more people buying self defense guns illegally on the black market - so they can defend themselves. Most guns used in crimes there appear to be obtained illegally, so - restrictions on ownership seems to have no effect on actual criminals obtaining and using firearms.

    https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/russia.php

    IMHO, the Pro 2nd side of the discussion should hammer on more real world examples.

    Japan has double the suicide rate of the US.
    There is 3 times as much crime in the UK as in the US.

    In this article we see - gun restrictions actually increase gun crimes. And they mention an interesting and corollary to the Japanese cultures and other cultures where there are less crimes in general. What is it that actually reduces crimes of all sorts?
    https://crimeresearch.org/2016/04/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

    Seems it is culture. There is a cohesion that exists between police and citizens in places with low crime rates and gun ownership seems to have little to no actual bearing, and police officers and organizations are held in high esteem in places with the lowest crime. If we want to look at what causes crime and gun crime, and makes the US, a difficult and often dangerous place to feel safe - we should be looking directly at the sources the breed distrust between communities and police. CNN and the rampant fake news increasing over the last decade or so, comes to mind. Someone should map out a graph of how often totally fake news is repeated on CNN, and link that directly to how many mass shootings take place. Then you'll be having a conversation.
     
    SharpDog and AlexanderA like this.
  16. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,002
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    Agreed.



    If that's your basic point then the reason I missed it is because I never insinuated that they couldnt.

    Simply saying that your pay/time analysis doesn't apply eveywhere.

    I'll add that the state of CA isnt the only place your pay/time analysis doesn't apply to either.

    I'm not directing this at you...

    Its wrong to portray that FFLs would make a lot of easy money as a result of a .Fed UBC for PPTs and thus the FFLs would support UBC.

    Its not a conclusion. It's premature speculation that misguidly creates diversionary boogeymen.
     
    CoalTrain49 likes this.
  17. Mowgli Terry

    Mowgli Terry Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,322
    Location:
    Tennesse-former Confederacy
    I think leaving the field is questionable. I don't care about the murder rate in Vulnavia. I have a good friend that has FN's,AR's HK's etc. He is a collector and has not fired a round in years. That's my point. There are millions of gun owners who are minding their own business not harming anybody and want to be left alone!

    Leaving the field, no participation in the discussion, is how to become road kill. What's the high estimate of firearms in America? I saw 325,000,000 guns. How many of that number do you think are in circulation at any given time? UBC?

    What percent of that number of guns are used in mass shootings? Same for other gun violence. Watch out for double counting.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2019
  18. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,680
    Location:
    Virginia
    That's just my point. I think a lot of the pro-gun side is confident in its electoral superiority. (That's because they live in parts of the country where most of their neighbors feel as they do.) So, they follow the traditional tactic of digging in their heels and stonewalling every antigun proposal. That worked in the past but it won't work for much longer. The ground is changing beneath our feet.
     
  19. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,288
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    True. It depends on how the fed sets up the UBC. If there are no federal restrictions on what a dealer might charge, there may be in the state restrictions as in the case of CA. WA has no fee restrictions on the PPT, not sure about other states.

    Mostly it's just a part time business where I live. I wouldn't want to try to make a living with just PPT's.

    I still say the ATF needs to clean up it's act or let the states take care of the regulation.
     
  20. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,002
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    Thinking that part of negotiations is compromise, is a fatal flaw.

    In a most simple example, bad guy tells good guy 'give me your money or you die', the BG hasn't given up or compromised anything that that BG has to the GG in exchange for the GGs money. The GG is forced into this negotiation that has no upside for him.


    The Anti's negotiate in a similar way in that its from a scale of Zero guns to 100 % 2A.

    When they say they want zero guns, they have not compromised anything in the negotiation.

    We compromised and give up 10%

    Next round, they still say they want 0 guns. Since they want 0 guns, giving back some of the 10% is not even considered.

    They want 0 guns.... we compromise because we don't 0 guns and give them another 10% after a lot of whinning and hand wringing.

    Now we only have 80%

    Guess what... round 3 comes and they still want 0 guns. We say No Way... and back and forth and back and forth.

    If their goal is zero guns, it's foolish to think they'll give up any of the 20% of their progress. There is no incentive for them to give up anything that doesn't get them closer to zero guns.


    So... we are in a position of 0 guns or giving another 10%

    Now we're at 70%


    The frame work of this negotiations has no upside for us because they don't have anything to offer as a compromise that doesn't undermine their 0 gun goal.


    Stonewalling can force compromise by the other side into the negotiations if they think can gain can more than they give up.

    Now...... this is the type of negotiations that most people think of... when both side have something they have to offer that the other side wants.
     
    Good Ol' Boy likes this.
  21. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    6,280
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    Many don't.
    Seriously.....have you totally ignored what has happened in the gun business over the last six years?
    The retail side hasn't exactly been thriving and the manufacturing side has seen massive layoffs.
    And you think dealers can stay in business by doing UBC's?o_O


    Says the guy who has never been in the firearms business. "Do something" is the same "do something" uttered by the antigun crowd.....its an admission that they have absolutely no idea of what the issues are, much less how to fix the problem.


    Wait, what? If his fee does "cover that" "admin fee".....then he's charging you for that...…"admin fee".
    And in your state there is no state mandated MAXIMUM transfer/background check fee. It's not that way in every state.




    The overwhelming majority of licensed dealers are home based businesses, but they have the same regulatory requirements as a dealer with a retail storefront. While they may not have the expense of maintaining a separate retail building, they have expenses as well.

    Dream on.
    And sadly, ATF has been more of a puppet for our current administration than it was during the eight years of the Obama administration.



    Good grief. Why do you think gun dealers are required to have an FFL? Do you think ATF dreamed that up by themselves on a Saturday afternoon?
    And as regards pharmacists, while there isn't a Federal Pharmacists License (because no federal law requires one), quite a few federal laws require pharmacists to hold a state license in order to perform certain activities (like compounding).

    Well, wrong. While ATF is the federal agency responsible for law enforcement regarding violations of federal firearms laws (and the Form 4473)......they don't prosecute the offenders. That's the role of the US Attorneys Office. For example, if a felon on parole commits a robbery at a liquor store with a handgun he stole from a dealers table at a gun show....here's what possible charges might be filed:
    State- Robbery or Aggravated Robbery
    State- Felon in possession of a handgun
    State- Theft of handgun
    Federal- Felon in possession of firearm.
    Federal- Theft of firearm from a licensed dealer

    Typically, the federal charges won't be filed unless the defendant gets off on state charges. If he pleads out to the state charges, federal may not choose to prosecute. If he is convicted of the state charges he serves time in a state facility, not federal. As the USAO decides what cases it will pursue in court, the ATF doesn't.


    No, the misconception is that a NICS background check is foolproof. Anyone at the FBI will tell you otherwise. The information contained in the databases used for a NICS check come from a number of sources: State and county criminal courts, Immigration, etc. If a state fails to submit timely or accurate information to the FBI as required by law, then obviously the value and accuracy of the background check system is compromised. It's a little difficult for me to blame the FBI NICS for Dylan Roof when it was his state that incorrectly submitted his arrest information as a misdemeanor.


    Huh? Please explain.


    Only in a handful of states. If your state has laws that "tell dealers how they will operate" and "enforcement falls on local LE"...…..THATS the fault of YOUR state, not the dealer. In the majority of states, licensed dealers do not face additional restriction that any other business. In Texas, there are no laws that tell me how to operate, nor does local LE have any authority to enforce federal firearms law.


    In eleven years I've had two compliance inspections. While you might think ATF is looking for criminal evidence by buyers, the purpose of a compliance inspection is....wait for it...…….compliance by the FFL. Meaning his bound book must match his current inventory, 4473's, multiple sale forms, etc.
     
  22. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    6,280
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    1. ATF doesn't have anything to do with the Brady law.
    2. Oh.Heckfire.No. No way in heck should regulation of firearms laws be left up to the states. In fact, firearms laws should strictly be regulated by...….the Second Amendment. You need to read that.
     
    Texas10mm and Charlie Horse like this.
  23. Mowgli Terry

    Mowgli Terry Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,322
    Location:
    Tennesse-former Confederacy
    Let's see what happens on the state and local level. Looks like almost two thirds people surveyed are seeking more gun safety. They do not want to hear 2A. The point is that pro-2A people need to work smart.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2019
  24. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    10,642
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    That is not codified in either Law or Regulation. So, the US Attorney gets to decide, and the defendant gets to prove otherwise. ATF will only say that it is a number greater than one and less than infinity.

    Not a distinction important to journos, and thus, not reported. Or, edited out to fit format by an even less-informed editor/compositor.
    Go ask your dog if he speaks Sanskrit, you will get a similarly puzzled expression.

    Journos have no idea how firearms are made, nor sold, and that ignorance shows.
     
  25. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,288
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    I think the MSM is making it perfectly clear what the issues are behind this latest shooting in TX.

    I'm not exactly sure why I need to be in the business to understand that ATF/NICS is a joke. In many states NICS is the only background check people get. The ATF failed to investigate the TX shooter when he was denied.

    Some states use NICS and their own databases for BC's. In this state (POC) if I was denied I would have been investigated by state LE.

    I thought the ATF was responsible for investigating denials. Evidently not.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice