Gun control in the wake of San Bernadino
Ex-Ph2 sends us a link to Reuters which reports that Senate Democrats wasted no time trying to restrict law abiding Americans from purchasing firearms yesterday.
One day after a mass shooting in California that killed 14 people and wounded 21, Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Senate jousted on Thursday over gun control but again failed to advance legislation addressing the violence.
Democrats tried to expand background checks to those purchasing weapons at gun shows and through intrastate Internet transactions. They also proposed closing a loophole allowing people on “terror watch lists” to buy guns and explosives.
Both efforts failed in the face of heavy Republican opposition.
That gun show loop hole really has a grasp on those gun grabbing folks. There is no gun show loop hole – it’s a private sales loophole. Americans can sell anything they own to anyone else. If the Democrats want to make it illegal to sell stuff to each other, they should just say that out loud. As I’ve said a hundred times here on this blog, I’ve bought guns at gun shows and I went through background checks every time. There is nothing that Democrats can write into the gun laws that will prevent criminals from transferring weapons between themselves that isn’t already in the law.
Reuters took it upon themselves to revisit Brent Nicholson’s stockpile of thousands of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Most of those guns had been stolen and Nicholson appears to have been dealing in distributuion of stolen firearms to criminals;
“This has completely changed our definition of an ass-load of guns,” said Chesterfield County Sheriff Jay Brooks. Six weeks after the discovery, officers are still cataloging the weapons, many of which have proved stolen, and the final tally is expected to be close to 5,000. “I don’t know if there’s ever been (a seizure) this big anywhere before,” Brooks says.
Criminals are going to break the law, no matter how many new laws you write. That’s why we call them criminals.
Congress should also try writing laws against the possession of bombs – San Bernadino terrorist dude had more bombs than he had guns. But those are already illegal, too – a few more useless laws wouldn’t make any difference in that regard either, so it’s a situation that’s prime for a lawmaker, right?
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
So how about that restriction on cigarette lighters?
About that bozo in Chesterfield County. Most of the weapons in that picture are long guns. Even sawed off, a shotgun is pretty big and hard to conceal. If this guy was a dealer in stolen guns, I have to wonder what his handgun traffic was like?
Then I think about his business model. Maybe he had a 2fer or 3fer deal – 3 long guns for 1 handgun – and these were the items he had left over that he swapped for pistols.
Then I wonder if he figured out that he had a lot of long guns that he couldn’t get rid of because everyone wanted pistols and nobody wanted long guns so he stopped the 3fer.
If this guy was buying and selling lots of stolen guns and nobody noticed until he died, why exactly does anyone in Congress or the WH think that they will detect more of these guys if they pass a new law? That pile of stocks with guns attached is not one week’s worth of business. He ran for years without being detected …
Just making stuff up for entertainment but still.
The blood had not even stopped dripping and they were politicizing the entire mess that was caused by them and their support of Muslim’s in America.
They truly have no shame whatsoever.
Rush was right yesterday when he said the attack was a result of their policies and now they are trying to cover their tracks…
If you think about the big picture, radical muzzies have figured out our laws and using them to exploit our weaknesses. It’s a shame those “in charge” haven’t figured that shit out yet.
Before they close the “terror watch list” loophole they need to change how someone gets on the terror watch list. Right now about 40% (300,000 people) on the list have absolutely no ties to terrorism whatsoever. The reason the NRA opposes it is that there is no due process to get on the list, but mentioning that doesn’t fit the NRA and Republicans want to arm terrorists narrative.
As soon as they manage to close that terror watch list “loophole” we’ll see anyone with a DD214 added to the list.
Can’t remember which asshat it was that said “veterans are the biggest threat”
Janet Napolitano said that.
The hell of it is that they don’t realize- or just don’t care, which would be worse- that closing the “terror list loophole” is a failure two ways: 1, it would most likely be struck down as unconstitutional due to removing due process; and 2, the terror watch list they’re refering to is the infamous “no-fly” list of dubious legality in and of itself
rumor out is there is a video of the shooting in Iraq !!!!!!
“Senate Democrats wasted no time trying to restrict law abiding Americans from purchasing firearms yesterday.”
Please explain to me how expanding background checks would stop “law abiding Americans” from buying firearms. From the text you’ve copied from the article it seems the only people who would be seriously impacted would be the people who already can’t pass a background check, and those who can but happen to be on a terror watch list.
Because it would require ALL sales-even private sales- to go through an FFL, thus taxing an already over-taxed system.
Some states already require that FFL venue for private sales.
If NICS is overtaxed then its capabilities can be expanded through legislation. Whatever the price, it would be more than worth it even if it only managed to prevent 10-15% of illegal sales.
The terror watch list objections are bit a more understandable because of the lack of due process, but this idea that people should be able to sell guns “no questions asked” to someone simply because they happen to live in the same state seems patently ridiculous.
What business of anyone’s is it who I choose to sell my private property to? Should you have to have a dealership run a background check every time you want to sell a car?
Wow, great argument!
How about this, Federal and state law prohibits you from selling your guns to convicted felons, the mentally ill, and other prohibited people. I would say it’s very much in the government’s wheelhouse to make sure you’re not selling your guns to such people.
Federal law already prohibits you from selling your guns to convicted felons, the mentally ill that have been deemed a threat to themselves or others in a court of law, and other prohibited people.
Right, and pray tell, how can the authorities determine if you knowingly sold to a prohibited person when you’re not even required to keep a record of who you sell to, let alone perform a background check?
Um, maybe they catch the crook and he rats you out? Or someone else knows about the sale and testifies about it?
Difficult, yes. Not impossible.
There has been discussion in the past about tracking firearms sales from original point of origin. I read somewhere that ATF says that would be difficult since firearms can be passed from family member to family member. The problem arises when a firearm is stolen and is used in the commission of a crime, then that whole issue unfolds.
Hondo, you’re pretty good at looking up statistics, why don’t you go find something on how many criminals flip on the people who performed straw purchases for them?
Given how prevalent straw purchasing is, I don’t think you’re going to find much.
You asked how authorities might discover a private transfer to a prohibited individual. You didn’t ask how often such a sale might be discovered.
I provided two possible methods of discovery. I also allowed that discovery would likely be uncommon (e.g., “difficult”).
You’re now asking a different question entirely. If you want further specifics on the “how often” part, feel free to research that yourself.
I’m already familiar with the “how often”, Hondo. That’s why I’m in favor of universal background checks.
I was merely responding to the position I thought your statement implied, and that position is that since it’s “not impossible” then there isn’t a need for background checks on private sales.
If that’s not your position then I humbly ask, as someone who respects your intelligence and enjoys reading your thoughts on a variety of topics, as to what your position on UBC is.
Waste of resources. Resources are not unlimited.
It would be little more than a high-cost “feel good” exercise. The resources can be better spent elsewhere – increasing incentives for more comprehensive reporting of mental health and criminal disqualifications to NICS comes to mind. Ditto using the resources to actually, you know, prosecute some of those individuals caught falsifying 4473.
I also am among those that simply don’t trust the Federal government (or any state, for that matter) not to use a comprehensive background check system as a backdoor means of clandestinely building a firearms registration database. Retain that data over time, and at some point you know who virtually all the lawful firearms owners are.
Anyone who trusts bureaucrats – whether federal, state, local, or in private industry – to always and without fail act morally and in the public’s best interest is naive at best, and at worst a fool. Bureaucrats work to enhance their own power and prestige. And government bureaucrats do that by increasing their de facto power and authority over others.
You beat me to it, Twist.
More people are killed by drunk drivers then guns, so clearly we need to mandate that drunk drivers bit be allowed to buy cars, so we should have to do background checks on everyone buying a car- if it Saves Just One Life, it’s worth it.
I like how you’re comparing cars, which are required by law to be registered to their owners in a government database to guns, which generally are not.
Call me crazy, but if someone whose license is suspended or revoked tries to register a new car, I would think they’d have some ‘splainin’ to do.
To add: People still drive with suspended licenses, hence the gov’t involvement in that process. To contrast, operating a motor vehicle is not guaranteed in the constitution.
Driving an automobile is a privilege, not a right. That privilege can be given or taken by the government at will. My rights are not up for debate. Would you like to fill out a form to exercise your right to “free” speech?
Bill, go commit a violent felony, and try whining about your rights and see how far that gets you vis-a-vis possessing a firearm.
Actually, I don’t think they would. As far as I know, there is no requirement to have a drivers’ license to own a car – only to drive it on public roads.
I’m reasonably certain I’ve known two different individuals who owned automobiles well after they no longer had a valid drivers’ license. They had someone else drive them wherever they needed to go.
You don’t need a register a car in order to own it.
You need to register it in order to drive it on the public streets.
Plenty of businesses or property owners have vehicles that never leave their private property and are, therefore, not required to be registered.
So try again.
Whoops Hondo beat me to it. 🙂
Holy shit, that’s your counterargument? That a person with a DUI might drive a car on his own private property, where the odds of him injuring or killing another are drastically reduced? Yup, that totally refutes what I said.
Where did either Martinjmpr or I bring up DUI?
An elderly person may own an automobile long after they no longer have a drivers’ license. I knew at least two persons who did. Someone else drove them everywhere they went when they were no longer able to drive themselves. Often, the elderly person’s vehicle was used.
And yes – a person with a DUI conviction is NOT legally proscribed from owning an automobile. As far as I know, they’re also not prohibited from purchasing another auto while their license is suspended. They well could do so, then have their spouse (or someone else) drive them wherever they needed to go until their license was restored.
Plus, as Martinjmpr observed, some businesses do in fact use vehicles on-site only. (Ranches and large manufacturing complexes come to mind.) If the vehicles aren’t used on public roads, generally no license is required to drive them.
Geez.
Ok, let’s answer this question- who gets to decide what qualifies as “mentally ill”? I’m sure that couldn’t POSSIBLY ever be abused and mangled to include “someone who wants to buy a gun”
You have to be “adjudicated” as mentally ill, which means you’ve been found as being incapable of managing your own affairs in a court of law. Considering how many absolute crazies have still managed to pass NICS checks it’s safe to say that being “someone who wants to buy a gun” would not come close to the level of crazy that gets you denied.
Right, I’m sure that no one would EVER abuse that- just like no one ever files a restraining order out of sheer petty-mindedness, and no one ever filea false rape charges…….
Even though that’s a requirement, the reporting processes of who is prohibited from owning a firearm are inconsistent. Mental health professionals argue that part of the problem lies in how HIPPA laws are interpreted by state agencies. We’ve read stories of how the VA has overreached their authority by reporting veterans, based on nothing more than their medical records. Again, the whole due process issue.
Forget medical records, there were rumors of the VA trying to get some veterans guns confiscated because the vets were having finacial difficulties
You’ll find this interesting then: http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V41/I3/Flynn-Brown_Online.pdf
Ask Andre Sakarhov about that. Or, more precisely, his surviving kin.
The problem with the idea of “universal background checks” is that the government isnt doing its part in maintaining an accurate and accountable list. Mentioned this yesterday but google “Marysville Shooter Father Charged in gun crime” and you would see where the federal government failed to stop his illegal purchase of one of the weapons used to kill the kids at school. Then look at some of the other events and you would see that there were violent felony actions with charges and judgements, but the results weren’t reported to the feds because the laws on reporting criminals is voluntary. The same folks pushing for tighter background checks are the same ones who are pushing to not tarnish felons and have thier rights restored immediately upon release. Detect the hypocrisy there?
Also, there is supposed to be a sales tax on all guns sold to support the NICS system, but some have used that money for other purposes outside of the scope. So there hasn’t been a dime for improvements to the check system.
That is not a good argument against UBC, it’s just an argument for stricter legislation with regard to what’s reported to NICS. And yes, you are correct in that those things should absolutely be reported.
There’s also the concern that the Feds won’t erase the data gathered from those checks once everything is green.
Hey, I trust the Feds. They won’t domestically spy on us, or take our property without legal cause, or use the IRS to pressure dissenting political groups…
Oh, wait. Nevermind.
You’re aware that reporting of criminal convictions to NICS is (1) done by states for state crimes, (2) is voluntary, and (3) is not generally funded by the Federal government, right?
Then it should be made mandatory, and funds should be made available. The fact that the current system has flaws is not a sufficient counterargument for closing loopholes that allow people who would currently fail a NICS check from being able to buy a gun from a private seller who has no responsibility to check the status of his buyer.
You’re arguing apples and oranges here. NICS reporting issues are a separate issue entirely from requiring background checks on private sales.
I would agree on devoting additional resources to enhance NICS operations – to include the requirement for periodic vetting of the names contained thereon. If something involves denying a fundamental right guaranteed by the US Constitution, then ensuring it is accurately done is paramount.
Making reporting by states legally mandatory may or may not be legally feasible. IMO, it’s doubtful whether Congress has the authority to mandate that states report criminal convictions to the Federal government for state crimes. They can, however, offer to fund the states’ efforts to do so.
Regarding the advisability of UBCs: you obviously trust the Federal government not to abuse that process. Remember: Federal political leadership is far less trustworthy than the military chain-of-command. Were ALL of your past military leaders unfailingly and uniformly ethical and moral? Did they always play things “by the book”? And you expect a less trustworthy group of individuals (politicians and bureaucrats) do to better than that?
Maybe I should offer you a good deal on this bridge I just happen to own . . . .
I’m sorry, but I’m a lot more worried about criminals getting their hands on guns than I am of the ATF disarming America. Ibguessbyour mileage may vary.
And my point is that universal background checks won’t do a damn thing to stop criminals from getting firearms. Less than 2% – or less than 1 in 50 – criminals incarcerated for firearms crimes obtained their guns at either gun shows (which already have background checks) or via private sales. Over 90% were obtained via illegal back alley “street sales” from other criminals or via straw buyers.
You don’t fix a broken process by concentrating on
“corner cases” (rare occurrences). You fix a broken process by concentrating on reducing the number of occurrences of the more common failures.
former 11b, any law that makes it illegal for me to give my daughter a defensive weapon is wrong. Any law that that makes it illegal to hand my weapon to someone is wrong. Anyone who suggests that it would do anything to prevent criminals from possessing firearms has their head so far up their third point of contact as to be blind and deaf.
My son is expected to be born in six weeks or so. Nineteen years from now, when he’s a legal adult, I might want to give him one of my rifles. Obviously this wouldn’t be the case if he turns out to be a shitbag, but my wife and I are working very hard to make sure that doesn’t happen.
So let’s say he grows to be the fine young man I hope for him to be. Should he have to go through DROS, submit a 4473, and sit through a waiting period just to receive the family heirloom Winchester ’94 passed down from his great-grandfather, that he’s shot many times, and that’s been in the house with him his entire life?
I think an exemption for close family members would be more than reasonable.
Well, how generous of you.
At the rate we’re going, by the time your new son in 19, that rifle will be spiked and in a museum, and the only way he’ll get to handle a gun will be if becomes a cop or a soldier.
Damn. That should be “…new son IS 19…” and “…if HE becomes…”
Sorry. I’m having a Friday.
Funny when the story about Brent Nicholson first came out, the paper said he had 10,000 guns. 6 weeks later he only had 5000. What happened to half of his supposed stockpile in 6 weeks.
Either of the following options:
1. They fell into a “lake”
2. The “new math” kicked the correspondent’s/LEO’s asses
Math is hard, Jeff.
Or somebody’s estimate of what they saw on Nicholson’s property was way off. Maybe they would have been better off by saying, “he had a whole lot of guns”?
Let’s see if I can come up with something that will offend as many people as possible. . . ..
AS it can be shown that most “mass” shootings are connected with some form of mental disturbance or illness. . . .
AND it can be shown that many, many forms of mental illness/disturbance are connected to Libtardism (“progressivism”) and/or religious fanaticism. (I leave it as an exercise for the readers to show the chain between Libtardism and religious fanaticism, with The State being the Libtard’s religion of choice).
SINCE State Religion Libtardism, and Islam jihadism seem to be the primary culprits in these current spate of mass shootings,
THEN restrict the purchasing of guns from Libtards and muzzies.
TO MAKE a list of either/both:
IF you have voted DemonRat in both of the last two FedGov elections (i.e., O’Bozo), THEN you’re a Libtard, and will NOT be allowed to buy guns.
IF you attend mosque on even a semi-regular basis, THEN you’re a muzzie, and THEREFORE a potential jihadist, and will NOT be allowed to buy guns.
And once you’re on the Restricted List, good luck getting yourself off of it. (I figure what’s sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. And if the DemonRats want to get THEIR Favorite Children off the Restricted List, then they will fix that system, so that the innocent will also be able to get themselves off the List).
YAY!!! I’m “awaiting moderation”!
I’m playin’ with the big boys now!
Don’t get too excited, we are all “awaiting moderation”.
was once a Kansas Atttorney General who made it a practice to bust rick kids for pot instead of targeting the poor ones… he openly admitted he didn’t agree with Kansas pot laws but thoguht rich prnts rtrying to get little Johnny and Janie off the felon list would have more influence than the normal protesters. (He also tried to requisition a couple of Phantoms to force down airlines serving liquor by the drink in Kansas airspace. Interesting guy.)
I got the impression that Nicholson wasn’t just a dealer, he was also a hoarder. His property was a mess and that ‘cave’ where he kept those weapons was ridiculous.
But, with a cache of junk like that, he is one of those who would be targeted as a source for under-the-counter sales by people who otherwise can’t get a gun, including extremists.
Lived like a bum, too.
You know, the politicians want to make San Bernardino a gun control issue. In reality, it is a national security issue and is a further indication that the war has come to our shores.
Hey, Barry, when you and Joe dump all your armed secret service agents, we can talk about more stringent gun laws. Mmmkay?
Regarding the issue of universal background checks for all gun purchases, there are two questions, the legal one and the political one.
From a legal standpoint, currently intra-state transfers of firearms between private individuals are not regulated by the government, only those involving sales across state lines.
Now, some states (including Colorado and California) require ALL firearms transfers to be completed through a dealer. Colorado has an exemption for transfers between husband/wife and parent/child (I think) but I don’t know about California.
From a legal standpoint, I think a federal law requiring all firearms transfers to be conducted through a FFL (Federally licensed dealer) would be challenged on Constitutional grounds, but I also believe that it would most likely be upheld by SCOTUS because firearms are “items that move in and affect” Interstate Commerce. Wickard v. Fillburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) makes it pretty clear that even if the items themselves never leave the state, the fact that they affect interstate commerce is enough for the Feds to have the right to regulate it.
Here’s the summary for those interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
However, the second question – the political one – is the crux of the issue. AFAIK Obama cannot simply modify Federal law by fiat (much as he might want to.) Since current Federal law doesn’t require intra-state face-to-face transfers between private parties to be completed through an FFL, the only way to change this would be to change the law. THAT would require both houses of congress to agree and given that (a) both houses are currently controlled by a party that the president hates (and is hated by) and (b) even democrats remember what happened when they passed a gun control law in 1994, this is unlikely to happen.
OK, so the replies were getting squeezed in too much to make them readable so let me address Former11B here:
The DUI thing was a red herring you threw in, not m.
My point was that you seem to be arguing (as many do) that “we are required to register cars, so we should also register guns.”
And that is simply, factually, provably incorrect. I’m not aware of any state where you are required to obtain any sort of registration merely to OWN an automobile.
Now, in my state (Colorado), if you go to register your car, they will ask to see an identification document, (which in practical terms is usually a driver’s license) but the purpose of that is NOT to verify that you are licensed to drive – they actually don’t give a crap about that. In fact, in Colorado, vehicle registration is done by the County and driver’s licenses are issued by the state so the systems don’t even “talk” to each other.
IOW, it is absolutely possible to have a suspended or revoked license and still be able to register a vehicle.
The reasons you are required to show your identifying document are (a) if you write a check they want to make sure you are who you say you are in case the check bounces and (b) because some counties have higher taxes or strict emissions requirements and the requirement to show an ID document that shows an address prevents people from fraudulently registering their vehicle in a low-tax or no-emissions county while actually residing in a high-tax or emissions-required county.
Also note that I live in CO which requires background checks for all firearms sales, even face-to-face personal transactions, so I really have no dog in this fight.
My implication that a suspended or ineligible driver could not register was incorrect and I was wrong.
The DUI part was not a red herring that I threw in there, it was part of my original discussion with The AI, and I was continuing with that line of thought.
All that being said, if you drive around your town in a car registered to someone with a suspended/revoked license then you really shouldn’t be surprised if you get pulled over by the cop in the patrol car which pulled in behind you at a red light and decided to run your plates.
But we’re getting sidetracked. The law does not prohibit people convicted of DUI (or people who are otherwise ineligible from driving on public roads)from owning automobiles, so there is no reason to require a background check on someone who wants to buy one.
Guns, on the other hand, are an item that are restricted to people who don’t fall into certain prohibitive categories. Prospective buyers should absolutely be required to undergo a check regardless of if they’re buying from an FFL or some guy who listed his old Blackhawk in the classifieds.
Actually, no. Regardless of your political leanings, you appear to be parroting a misconception common among those on the political left. Gun ownership is a fundamental right under the US Constitution – just like freedom of speech, religion, association, the right to a jury trial, and the others enumerated in the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional amendments. Exercising such a fundamental right does not require permission from the government. For US citizens, it is a right specifically guaranteed against infringement by the US Constitution. It has also been held by the SCOTUS to be universally applicable to states and localities as well. It is not at all comparable with owing or driving an automobile. Neither of those is a fundamental right guaranteed by the US Constitution. Driving and automobile ownership may thus be regulated as the state sees fit – to include being banned outright. Like all other Constitutional rights, it is subject to reasonable regulation. However, since it is a fundamental right, such regulation must pass the “strict scrutiny” standard. Even then, it’s not a matter of the government “allowing” you to exercise the right. Rather, it’s a matter of the government having demonstrated that the restriction imposed serves a “compelling governmental interest” and is narrowly crafted to achieve that interest. Restrictions that do not meet this standard are legally impermissible. However, like any other fundamental right it can be forfeit – but it can only be forfeit as the result of due process of law. Under current Federal law, there are to my knowledge three ways one may lose this right permanently: (1) involuntary commitment to a mental institution; (2) a legal declaration of mental incompetence; or (3) conviction of a felony crime (or the specific misdemeanor crime of domestic violence). Each of those requires due process of law – e.g., an adversarial legal proceeding. And even then, there are procedures by which the right can at least theoretically be restored (legal pardon, subsequent court action restoring the right). Some other means of temporary suspension of this right are also defined in Federal law; two of those… Read more »
That is perhaps the best, most succinct, explanation and illustration refuting the often and ill-founded argument for gun registration/background checks I’ve read, Hondo. May I plagiarize?
Be my guest. Or link to the comment here, so Jonn’s site gets the traffic.
You know, what? I’ve been mulling it over for a few hours, and I have to say I’m pigeonholed on this one. As much as it pains me to say it, you’ve convinced me. Background checks are antithetical to the spirit of the constitution and should be abolished across the board. If they can’t be applied to the first amendment, then they can’t be applied to the second either.
Good stuff!
Applying that same logic, there are no legitimate arguments against either open or concealed carry either. I’m going to be up all night re-examining my political positions.
Thanks for ruining for plans Hondo!
You’re welcome, amigo. Sorry for any inconvenience – but logical consistency concerning difficult issues often doesn’t come cheap. Neither does freedom.
Either a right is a fundamental one or not. And if it’s a fundamental right, it takes one helluva lot to justify limitation of same. Across-the-board background checks IMO simply don’t “make the grade”.
Kudos to you for being open-minded and honest enough to reevaluate your position. Many are not.
Hondo says: “However, since it is a fundamental right, such regulation must pass the ‘strict scrutiny’ standard.”
That should be the case but it is not. As Prof. Ruthann Robson notes, quoting New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo and The Connecticut Citizens’ Defense League v. Malloy: “neither District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) nor McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) ‘delineated the precise scope of the Second Amendment or the standards by which lower courts should assess the constitutionality of firearms restrictions’ “.
This is consistent with what Eugen Volokh wrote in “McDonald v. City of Chicago and the Standard of Review for Gun Control Laws”.
This discussion is useful, but the fact of the matter is that the required background checks are either not done properly or people lie on the form 4473; so-called straw purchases are considerably lower in volume than guns provided by drug cartels and other ‘street’ sources; and per the mid-day news, Syed Farouk’s wife had posted something on her Facebook in regard to an affiliation to ISIS before those two began their rampage. The report was not detailed or clear.
The REAL problem is the hysterics that are generated with each of these episodes, no matter who is at fault or how it starts, and that is almost entirely done by the media in their efforts to point the finger at someone. There is no way to determine ahead of time who is going to do this kind of thing, or the reasons for it. When Charles Whitman decided to have his little shooting spree at the University of Texas, he had made preparations to do that several weeks ahead of it.
What we should be discussing is how to spot these troublemakers and stop them before they start these rampages, instead of worrying about being accused of some prejudice.
Having said all the above – I’m not necessarily against UBC laws. Certainly I opposed the UBC law when it was enacted in 2013 (in a move that cost two state reps their jobs due to recalls) but in the 2 years it’s been in place I have to admit that it doesn’t seem to have had any effect on anyone I know being able to buy and sell firearms.
In fact, in one sense, Colorado’s UBC law has removed a legal and moral burden from gun owners here: If I sold a gun in a Face-to-Face, private transaction (F2F being the shorthand people use around here) and that person went on to commit suicide with it or to harm another person, I’d feel at least partially responsible and could even be sued by the family members of the person harmed or killed.
But running the transaction through a dealer pretty much sidesteps those issues because from a legal standpoint, I didn’t transfer anything to the other person: I transferred it to the dealer and then HE transferred it to the buyer. As long as all laws were followed, there is no legal (or moral, IMO) culpability because everything that could have been done to prevent an illegal sale, WAS done.
My guess is that eventually, UBC will become Federal law, but it won’t happen with this Congress or this President.
And given that almost all of our recent mass-shooters purchased their guns legally through licensed FFL transactions, my guess is that it won’t do a damn thing to stop the next mass shooting, either. 🙁
A lawsuit against you would never hold in court unless the family could prove that you knew the gun was going to be used in a nefarious manner. But everything else you’re saying is on point.
I agree that UCB may not stop the next mass shooting scumbag, but I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that it will drastically reduce the number of straw purchasers.
True but irrelevant. Given the costs and consequences of litigation, the mere threat of a suit is enough to give a reasonable person to take precautions, even if he is sure he will win.
Even the Washington Post is admitting that gun violence is down in the U.S. by almost 50% in the past two decades. They even list five reasons why:
1. More police on the beat
2. Police use of computers
3. Less booze
4. Less lead in gasoline (I kid you not)
5. A better economy
Note what is most assurably a major causative factor but nonetheless notably absent: More armed citizens. But of course a liberal rag like WAPO isn’t about to admit that truth no matter how glaringly obvious it is.
The capacity for self-delusion among liberals is beyond measure.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw
Well, I see where you’re coming from but I don’t agree. I don’t know that there’s ever been any study or research that would indicate that the presence of potentially armed citizens in a public place would deter a criminal.
At home it’s a different story, there has been research showing that burglars, for example, are unlikely to break into an occupied home in areas where gun ownership is common because the prospect of starting down the muzzle of a 12 gauge is not that enticing to them.
But given that most CCW licensees don’t regularly carry (and I’m guilty of that as well, though partly out of necessity as my employer is the Federal Government) I don’t know how much of a real deterrent it is.
What are you disagreeing with Jumper? I didn’t differentiate between private or public gun violence and neither did WAPO.
And reversing your argument, why would you think private criminals are deterred by the possible presence of an armed victim, yet public shooters are not? Why do you think that most of these mass shootings take place in gun-free zones?
What I’m disagreeing with is your assertion that the reduction in gun violence since 1993 has anything to do with liberalized CCW policies.
As alluring as it might be to believe that, there’s nothing that I have seen that would lead me to believe that criminals take that into consideration.
In fact, if anything, I’d argue that the exact opposite is true: The general reduction in gun violence has created an environment in which relaxed CCW laws are generally looked at with approval by the public, even the non-gun-owning public.
But if there were shootouts in the streets every day, I would imagine that the public tolerance of “shall issue” CCW would diminish greatly.
Understand, I’m not a gun-hater or a CCW hater (as I have been a CCW permit holder since 2007.) But I think with any public policy argument it’s very important to differentiate between what we can prove and what we imagine/assume/wish to be true.
“What I’m disagreeing with is your assertion that the reduction in gun violence since 1993 has anything to do with liberalized CCW policies.
“As alluring as it might be to believe that, there’s nothing that I have seen that would lead me to believe that criminals take that into consideration.”
And in your mind, the reason they seek out gun-free zones to perpetrate their crimes is what, Jumper?
Well, two things:
First of all, the vast, vast, VAST majority of shooting incidents in the US are not “mass shooter” events. The drop in gun crime that we are discussing is a drop in ALL gun crime, not a drop in “mass shootings.”
Second, you seem to be operating under an assumption that mass shooters choose gun free zones deliberately.
The mere fact that there have been shootings in supposedly “gun free zones” doesn’t mean that they were chosen for that reason. All it really means is that since liberalized CCW became the law of the land, more and more places where people congregate (which is to say, places where “mass shooters” can find a lot of targets”) tend to be designated as off-limits for CCW.
I get that this is a “talking point” for the gun-rights crowd but I don’t know that it’s true. Most “mass shooter” incidents in the US involve disturbed individuals who are angry and want to vent their anger at the people they perceive to be the cause of said anger, or who are looking for a target for shock value (like Adam Lanza and the Newtown shooting) or to make a political statement (like Dylan Roof shooting up the predominately-black church.)
If there was some concrete evidence that indicates these mass shooters deliberately sought out “gun free zones” I haven’t seen it. Although it’s rare for “mass shooters” to survive the shooting, a few have including James Holmes here in CO and AFAIK it was never stated that he deliberately sought out that Aurora theater because it was a “gun free zone.”
Now certainly some of this is a no brainer. There are a lot more robberies of liquor stores than gun stores, for example, and I’m sure it’s for this exact reason: People who run gun shops usually pack heat.
But I’m not going to simply “assume” that liberalized CCW had anything to do with the drop in overall crime rates unless I can see some objective evidence that shows it be to be so.
Martinjmpr: review overall crime stats since 1993 along with this graphic:
Yes, it could be “just a coincidence”. But I personally don’t think it is. Given a few years “time lag” for attitudes and behaviors to change after the adoption of new laws, IMO it fits entirely too well to be pure coincidence.
Liberalized CCW laws may not be the sole factor involved, but I’m convinced they’re a significant part of the reason for the observed decline.
Jumper, seems like I remember hearing that your Aurora shooter had revealed that he did indeed pick his target precisely because it was “soft”.
In any event, I’m praying that at the next one the shooter will not expire from his wounds until he can gasp out, “Tell Martinjmper I picked this place because it was a gun-fr…”
Or, because he doesn’t fully complete his confession, will we still be having this debate?
Heh…
It must have been a good video, they have already taken it down.
Was HE the snot-brained fungus-head blabbing about the “30 clip magazine”?
Yup.
And I’m sure it would surprise no one here to know that the address the female shooter used on her visa application doesn’t exist. And yet, she was “fully vetted” by the US government- the same government that would be in charge of the universal background checks some people are clamoring for.