Confession time:

Whoah--Confession time:  This time the NRA admits that not every gun sold goes through a background check.  In fact, being able to sell guns to criminals might be a violation of the concept of "gun rights".

To the first point, it is incontestable that a vote for the Manchin-Toomey-Schumer bill constitutes a vote to take away gun rights.  Currently, gun owners in most states enjoy the right to privately transfer firearms.  They often do so by facilitating such transfers at gun shows and by advertising through online and print publications.  The private transfer restriction amendment would have outlawed this activity, making firearm transfers more difficult, and therefore less likely to occur.

Thank you, NRA.

The best thing to do is to let gun loons shoot their mouths off and screen cap their comments.

Law abiding, my arse.


Source:
www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2014/10/fact-checkers-appoint-themselves-arbiters-of-what-constitute-gun-rights.aspx

BTW, the above site has been mirrored.

Don't forget criminals as well!

Facebook Gun Sales

Come on, we all know there are gun sales being made without background checks.   It doesn't take too long to find someone who is willing to sell a gun "no questions asked".


Don't come the old "enforce the laws on the books" since the laws are set up so that it is next to impossible to prosecute these people.  Anything which might prevent these sales are opposed on the basis that they "infringe upon our rights."

Or "criminals don't obey the law".

OK, if criminals don't obey the law, let's get rid of all laws.

You need reminding

BTW, I CAN pass (and have passed) a security clearance.  In case you forgot, professional licenses reguire background checks.

I can see why registration and background checks could be scary....

I can just imagine this as a reason for owning a firearm and putting it on an application to buy and register one.

No wonder people want to call them "Modern Sporting Rifles"  (only if the sport is "shoot the kindergardener in the classroom").  More fun here

PA gun owner on why background checks are necessary

Larry Glick, former executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association, explains why universal background checks will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.



And don't forget that background checks are Constitutional according to the Heller and McDonald decisions!

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5

Which has as a footnote (26):

We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Better yet:

But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Heller at 64

From McDonald:

It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40

Sen. Tom Coburn Suggests DIY Background Check System

 USA Today

Getting a background check to buy a gun would be as easy as printing out an airplane boarding pass -- if Sen. Tom Coburn has his way.

Coburn's do-it-yourself background check plan -- which would expand the number of gun sales covered by background checks but also attempt to make them more user-friendly -- is one possible path forward for the gun safety legislation now stalled in the Senate.

Gun control advocates are more skeptical of Coburn's plan, and Coburn himself admitted he doesn't know whether it has the votes to pass. But it appears his plan will get a vote: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., promised as much last week as he pulled the gun bill from the floor, saying he would bring it up again later. Coburn has one co-sponsor, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., but the NRA has been silent on the proposal.

Here's how Coburn's plan would work: A gun buyer would log in to a free federal web portal and enter some personal information. If the buyer passes the background check, he or she would get a multi-digit key code, good for 30 days, to print out and take to a seller. That seller would use the same portal to confirm the authenticity of the background check. 

The self-service system, the Oklahoma Republican said, would bypass the cost and record-keeping requirements required by the current proposal, which requires the involvement of a federally licensed firearm dealer for sales at gun shows and over the Internet.

"It's unworkable," said Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, "and there would be no incentive for any private seller to do a background check under the legislation."

Another problem for gun control advocates: There would be no lasting record of the sale. 

What's your opinion? I could see something like this working.  What if the system produced a record of the transaction which could later be accessed? What if gun owners were required to maintain a print-out of the background check approval as later proof? 

As with all background check systems, this one would work best with licensing and registration. 

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

Larry Pratt Insists It's the Gun-Free Zone That's the Problem

This discussion illustrates perfectly the difference between the gun-rights and the gun-control sides. The pro-gun folks won't budge on issues like background checks and gun availability while the gun-control side is willing to consider everything.

The opposition to universal background checks makes them really look bad.  Don't you think? Plus, the insistence that gun free zones are somehow to blame lends an element of the absurd to their position. 

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

8.5 Million New Guns in 2010 - 16.5 Million Background Checks

ABC reports

There are more than 129,817 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States, according to the latest Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives numbers (as of Aug. 1) .  Of those, 51,438 are retail gun stores, 7,356 are pawn shops and 61,562 are collectors, with the balance of the licenses belonging mostly to manufacturers and importers of firearms and destructive devices.

For comparison, here are some numbers of other ubiquitous elements of American life:

• Gas Stations in the U.S. (2011):  143,839 (source TD LINX/Nielsen via National Associations of Convenience Stores, Association for Convenience for Convenience and Fuel Retailing)
• Grocery Stores in the U.S. (2011) 36,569 (source:  Food Marketing Institute)
• McDonald’s restaurants in the U.S. (2011): 14,098 (Source:  McDonald’s Corporation Annual Report 2011)

That's a lot of gun dealers. But what about individual guns?

According to ATF reports, in 2010 there were 5,459,240 new firearms manufactured in the United States, nearly all (95 percent) for the U.S. market.   An additional 3,252,404 firearms were imported to the United States.

Right now if you don’t have a criminal record and you have not been adjudicated as mentally incompetent, you can buy guns.  In 2010 the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) ran 16,454,951 background checks for firearms purchases.

The numbers are mind-boggling. Let me try to understand. There were 8.5 million new guns, between manufacture and import, in 2010.  Yet there were twice that many background checks?

Many places a guy with a concealed carry license can buy a new gun without doing another background check, which makes the disparity even more difficult to understand.

Can we assume the 8.5 million new firearms in 2010 includes rifles and shotguns, for which no background check is required in most states? Even worse.  Handguns to background checks is about a 1 to 4 ratio.

How can there be 4 times as many background checks as there are guns to purchase? Some of them may be done in pawn shops where the gun involved is not one of the 2010 vintage.  But can that explain the tremendous disparity?

One conclusion: whenever the pro-gun crowd use background checks as an indicator of gun sales, we can't take it too seriously.  There's some explaining to do.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Third-World Gun Bazaars vs. U.S. Gun Shows

I've been invited to guest blog here for the rest of the month.

And to thank my co-bloggers for the honor, I've decided to build upon Laci's recent post by creating a poster to summarize the issue a bit more, showing that our extreme gun culture in the U.S. isn't functionally much different from that of the "third-world" countries we are horrified of.  Enjoy.

Other than the fact that these third-world gun markets are less tidy or well-lit and have a bit more dangerous weapons (like fully-auto machine guns -- though the gunloons here in the U.S. would love to have the ability),  I don't see much difference between the gun market of Darra, Pakistan, for instance, and most gun shows here in the U.S.  As with the Darra market, you can walk into most gun shows here in most states and buy as many gunz you want, right up to .50-caliber sniper rifles and semi-auto assault rifles, no background check needed (from private sellers).

Mayor Bloomberg on the Background Check System

The New York Daily News reports

Across the country, more than 80% of gun owners support simple fixes to the background check system that would help stop the flow of guns to criminals. The ideologues who run the gun lobby don’t want us to know that, but it’s true.

Americans of both parties support common-sense steps that would save lives and protect our police. But the gun lobby doesn’t, and it has scared Washington silent.

This is the most unconscionable part of the pro-gun resistance. What used to be called "the gun show loophole," and is probably better referred to as "the private sale loophole," is only part of it. Bloomberg's plan is not only to require background checks on all gun transfers but to ensure that the data base which is used in those checks is more reliable.

Incomplete reporting to the national data base especially regarding mental health cases is sorely in need of repair. Even, in many cases, misdemeanor domestic abuse and felony convictions are not entered in a timely manner.

This is the first of the three weaknesses in the system which needs to be corrected, the other two being straw purchasing and theft.

Everyone agrees criminals should not have guns. This is one way to do something about it.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

The Deceptive Use of Background Checks as Indicator of Gun Ownership

Local news in Utah reports on the numbers of background checks and how that might relate to gun ownership.

The report from The Daily Beast places the Beehive State only behind Kentucky among the most armed. The analysis takes into account federal background check applications related to gun sales and permits over the past 18 months. Utah had 46,898 National Instant Criminal Background Check System checks per 100,000 residents. That's well behind the 78,703 checks per 100,000 Kentucky residents, but far ahead of third-ranked Idaho with its 16,888 checks.

The pro gun folks keep using this as an indicator of how many guns are being bought or, even worse, of how many new gun owners there are. This is mendacious claptrap, nothing more.

State officials also take issue with the correlation between concealed weapons permit applications and gun ownership. Baird said applications are not a good indication of who actually has guns.

"It's hard to really look at the numbers and say for certain that's what you're dealing with," Baird said. At Impact Guns in Ogden, workers and shoppers alike were far more welcoming of the lofty ranking.

Of course the numbers of background checks are not a good way to gauge anything about gun ownership. We've covered this already, but wouldn't it just take a little common sense.If half of the population of Utah were buying guns EVERY 18 MONTHS, what would happen over the course of say five or ten years. It's like doubling a penny every day for a month.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

States with the Most Guns (Most Background Checks)

The Daily Beast

The shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, has sparked a fierce debate about Florida’s self-defense and gun laws—but is Florida among the most-armed states in America? The Daily Beast runs the numbers to find out where guns are most prevalent.

1. Kentucky

NICS background checks per 100,000 residents (Sept. 2010 – Feb. 2012): 78,703

Previous rank: 1st

2. Utah

NICS background checks per 100,000 residents: 46,898

Previous rank: 2nd

3. Montana

NICS background checks per 100,000 residents: 16,888

Previous rank: 3rd

4. West Virginia

NICS background checks per 100,000 residents: 15,718

Previous rank: 6th

5. Alaska

NICS background checks per 100,000 residents: 14,616

Previous rank: 5th

Keeping in mind that NICS background checks do not equal gun sales, as we discussed before, this list does give us some indication of where the action is in eht gun business these days.

The numbers must be skewed however by the fact that some states have Constitutional Carry laws and do not require additional background checks to obtain the concealed carry permit.  Alaska would be much higher, I suppose.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

State Reporting to the NICS Database

The Dayton Daily News reports

Ohio has identified 26,876 mental health cases and forwarded those since the state passed a law in 2004. But 23 states and the District of Columbia have submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the federal database.

Seventeen states submitted fewer than 10 mental health records, and four states haven’t submitted any records.

The article goes on to describe the slipshod methods that allow drug abusers and even criminals to end up not making the NICS database.

The whole system needs to be revamped. Then we need background checks on all gun sales, licensing of all gun owners and registration of every gun sold.

The irony about all the arguments against this is that the ones making the arguments would be little affected. Law-abiding mentally-sound individuals would continue to have their precious guns under the most stringent of gun control systems.

But, if those regulations about background checks, registration and licensing were in effect, can you imagine how many unfit prople would be prevented from getting guns? Common sense and honesty is all it takes to see this is the right way to go. Opposition is immoral.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Virginia's Background Check System

Hamptonroads.com reports on the efforts of some to disband the Virginia State background check system for gun purchases. Of course these are the same folks who oppose any and all gun control efforts. More reasonable voices explain the problem and offer a simple solution.

This week, the State Police reported 11 percent of its sworn workforce is vacant. The vacancy rate is even higher among its civilian staff. Its Firearms Transaction Center handles close to 800 requests every day, except Christmas, for background checks on gun buyers and is authorized to have 14 call-takers and 11 technicians. As of Tuesday, it had four call-takers and seven technicians - less than half its normal staffing level.

Returning that center - and the agency itself - to full strength would significantly reduce the delay associated with buying a firearm. And it would eliminate perhaps the only legitimate complaint about a state system critical to public safety and enforcement of Virginia's gun laws.

What do you think? Is it simply a redundant and wasteful exercise to have two systems in play, state and federal? Or, wouldn't it make sense that many people with histories of violence might be picked up in the State system but not in the federal, meanwhile, the feds might be better at catching out-of-state offenses?

But, isn't the whole discussion made academic and meaningless as long as private sales are unregulated?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Senator Grassley - Callous and Insulting

via Political Correction and further to our recent post about the testimony of the heroic Patricia Maisch.

In a letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) obtained by Political Correction, 11 survivors of January's Tucson, Arizona mass shooting who attended yesterday's hearing on the Fix Gun Checks Act demand an apology from the senator for his "obvious disregard for the gun violence survivors in the room" and "apparent ignorance of the deadly serious issue we came to discuss with you."

More than 50 gun violence survivors traveled to Capitol Hill yesterday for a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the bill, which would require a background check for every gun sale and facilitate getting into the federal background check system all mental health records that would prohibit gun ownership.

Texas Wisdom

The Houston Chronicle reports on the high rate of compliance Texas has provided in keeping the FBI database up to date.

Two years after Texas passed a law to comply with a new federal mandate, the Lone Star State is among those leading the nation in the number of mental health reports submitted to an FBI database that clears individuals to buy firearms.

Texas' cooperation contrasts with 25 states and the District of Columbia that have filed fewer than 100 mental health records, according to FBI statistics obtained and released by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Thirteen of those states have filed fewer than 10 reports and six states have not filed any reports, its data indicates.

"Texans understand that background checks are not gun control," said Mark Glaze, director of the organization that represents chief executives from more than 600 cities. "Background checks are a common sense, crime-fighting measure that keeps guns away from the most dangerous people in our society while doing nothing to stop the rest of us from exercising our rights."

During the eight-month period that ended April 30, Texas provided 68,769 mental health reports to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Washington state submitted the second-highest total number of reports during that same period, with 42,556.

With its 60,680 reports already in the FBI database, Texas had 129,449 total, ranking sixth behind Virginia, Washington, Michigan, New York and California.

Now, in all fairness to the other states, Texas could just have a higher proportion of mental cases among its population and therefore the numbers would have to be higher. I'm only joking.

I think it's a great example of the kind of cooperation we need much more of. I loved the rationale about background checks. Background checks are NOT gun control.

"Background checks are a common sense, crime-fighting measure that keeps guns away from the most dangerous people in our society while doing nothing to stop the rest of us from exercising our rights."

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Why They Oppose Background Checks?

The background check requirement only applies to Federal Firearms License holders. Private sellers are not required to screen their buyers in any way.

Usually the question of background checks comes up in reference to gun shows. So common is this association that "The Gun Show Loophole" has become synonymous with requiring background checks on all gun sales. This is obviously not the case for the simple reason that not all private gun sales take place at gun shows.

So, legislation requiring background checks at all sales that take place at gun shows is only a partial solution to a very wide-spread problem. I would imagine proponents of this type of legislation expect to expand it eventually to include all private sales, otherwise it wouldn't accomplish what it's supposed to.

The opposition is fierce, primarily by the NRA and by the more extreme gun-rights advocates. Some surveys have shown that they are in the minority, but they are extremely vocal and well financed. Most people feel they're winning.

My question is why, why such powerful and costly opposition? I've identified two reasons which should cover those making up this unreasonable group.

1. Some people actually believe the bizarre suggestion that gun control steps like these would lead to a tyrannical government which will eventually ban all gun ownership and confiscate the ones already owned. Part of this fantasy is that civilian gun ownership is what keeps the government in check. They actually say "the 2nd Amendment preserves the 1st Amendment," and other such nonsense. This is a type of grandiosity mixed with paranoia. To these folks there's no discussing the obvious benefits of proper gun control; they cannot see beyond the glorious struggle for "rights" and "freedom" they fancy themselves involved in.

2. Some people recognize the foolishness of the first group, but they'll never admit it because they both want the same thing. These folks realize very well that making it more difficult for criminals and mentally ill people to get guns is a moral imperative, one which would save many lives, but they don't care. A self-centered, me-first philosophy drives them to resist anything that would result in increased inconvenience and expense. The claims that the inconvenience and increased expense would be minimal, doesn't phase them. They are as stubborn as the first group and are happy to support them in their mutual cause.

To sum up, you've got paranoid lunatics and self-centered people who together make up the background-check resistance. Becuase of their successful opposition, at least so far, I blame them for the baleful results.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Buying Guns in the Classifieds

Deseret News reports

Questions about the ad category came up as reporters from KSL's sister company, Deseret News, were interviewing sources for a story on guns in Utah. Some alleged that the wildly successful site is not only a marketplace for legitimate gun owners to buy and sell handguns, but that it has potential to be a haven for those seeking to get around legal restrictions. Several sellers also said they only sell unregistered guns, since they don't want potential problems to come back against them.

State and federal laws prohibit the sale of handguns to minors or felons, but while licensed gun dealers must verify age and run a background check, no such requirement exists for private gun sales like those advertised on KSL Classifieds. It would also be difficult to police a law banning the sale of a gun to someone who lives in a different state.

There's no evidence any laws have been broken by buyers and sellers who find each other through KSL.com, but that it could happen is troubling, Atkinson said.

That famous pro-gun excuse about there being no evidence when something is obvious is not going to work much longer. Honest people admit, not only that the possibility is troubling, but that it does happen. The only question is does it happen enough that we want to stop it. Obviously the answer is "yes."

I wouldn't be surprised if these media people are reading the writing on the wall and seeing that background checks on all gun sales is coming as a national policy, are making the appropriate changes now.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Dennis Henigan on Obama's Statement

 In his article on the Brady Campaign site, Dennis Henigan described the president's letter as an attempt to take a middle ground which would be rejected by both sides. Yet, as it turned out, only the NRA rejected it, being uninterested in anything like finding common ground.  The Brady Campaign found much to like in the statement.

For me, the most significant sentence in the article, and one curiously overlooked by the early commentators, is this: “If we’re serious about keeping guns away from someone who’s made up his mind to kill, then we can’t allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.” This is an unambiguous reference to a deadly anomaly in our gun laws. Under the Brady Law background check system, if a gun is purchased from a licensed dealer, there must be a background check, but in most states, if it is purchased from an unlicensed private seller, no check is required. Often these private sales occur at gun shows – thus legislation has been introduced to close this “gun show loophole.”

Indeed, many people on both sides of the debate accept that background checks are the first and most important policy change needed.

Although Dennis Henigan didn't allude to Obama's history of making promises which remain unfulfilled, he did sum up his statement with a type of warning.

At some point soon, the President must move beyond discussion to action and leadership. Far from being part of the solution, the NRA has shown, once again, that it is the problem. If President Obama truly wants a system that no longer allows countless violent criminals to “effortlessly” avoid background checks, eventually he will have no choice but to confront the gun lobby, and defeat it.

What's your opinion? Given the widespread agreement on the necessity of background checks, do you think President Obama will follow through on this? Wouldn't it be possible for him to do so without alienating gun owners at large?

What do you think? Please leave a comment.