Gun control ideas

[StPaulHusker]

There are so many guns distributed through various black markets, I don't know how you can control it much. Bad guys are going to get guns. There's no problem with good guys having guns, though I think in order to purchase a gun you should have to demonstrate responsibility somewhat like applying for a driver's license. I have a bit of a problem with the "stand your ground" laws as people can get trigger happy, and there's the problem with accidental shooting from parents leaving guns laying around the house for their kids to get ahold of which is just plain stupid. Sometimes, however, you can't fix stupid.

Cornographic: You just violated stipulation #2. "Just because we can't eliminate 100% of any given crime doesn't mean we can't reduce the problem. DUI and Crack Cocaine use were sited earlier."

We lowered DUI deaths by 50% without taking away anyone's cars. Shouldn't we try to reduce gun deaths without taking away anyone's guns?

Actually, they usually take away the driving privileges of DUI offenders. I think my position is clear: make it harder to get a gun(s), and go after the various gun black markets/gun show/online loopholes.

There are no gun show or online loopholes. What are you talking about?

It's possible the "loophole" in question would be that some states do not require secondary market sellers (gun shows) to perform background checks on the purchaser of the firearm.

This is is a common myth that's pushed out by the gun control groups. There is no gunshow/internet loophole. The only way to buy a firearm without a background check is person to person. It's federal law. Any business caught selling a firearm without a background check would have the ATF on them immediately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

Right. It's a private party sale. And the reality is, individual sellers at gun shows are nearly nonexistent these days, because the booth space is outrageous. Plus, many of them have clamped down on private party sales by not allowing transactions on site. I'm fine with requiring a BG check at shows, but it's going to affect somewhere around less than 1% of PP transactions.

The problem is, the vast majority of guns used in crimes were via a straw purchase, so a BG check can only do so much.

This doesn't mean it's a myth and not a loophole.

And I am not sure what individual vendors try to sell at these shows to pay for itself but a quick Google search found that several shows run from $350-$500 for a 10X10 booth. Seems reasonable if you are in that business. But I admit I don't really know much about it/

Politicians like to lump the "gun show/internet purchase" into this loophole talk like it's something special. I've even heard them say "oh you can just buy it and get it shipped to your house" which is unequivocally false. It has to be shipped to a firearms dealer, and they have to ship it via UPS or FEDEX express protected shipping.

Buying a gun from a person is a private party sale. It's no different than going to someone's house, or meeting up in person. Plus, the ATF watches gun shows, and if they see a guy moving lots of firearms via "private sales" they quickly become very interested.

But like I said before, straw purchases are a much, much bigger problem.

You are doing a fine job dancing around the original statement.

 

[GBRedneck]

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

 

[StPaulHusker]

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show?

Quote: referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the "secondary market".

 

[GBRedneck]

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show?

It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur.

It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business.

 

[GBRedneck]

I saw you added some more to your post. So I'll add some more info.

It is illegal for a private seller to sell or give a gun to a known felon. Most private sellers would happily use a background check system before selling to someone they don't know. In fact, the vast majority of private gun owners would never sell a gun to someone they don't know in a private transaction.

But, think about it for a sec. If they actually opened up the background check system so private sellers could voluntarily use it, what would happen? There would be one HELLUVA lot more private sales. All those private owners afraid to take a chance on selling to someone they don't know, could now sell a gun safely and legally to anyone who passes the check. Private sales would skyrocket.

There is no epidemic of private sales between unknown parties. It's too risky, and even riskier at a gun show where the ATF is always well represented by plain clothes agents.

 

[StPaulHusker]

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show?

It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur.

It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business.

It isn't unconstitutional.

 

[BigRedBuster]

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show?

It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur.

It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business.

Requiring everyone to do a background check on absolutely everyone you sell or give a gun to is something that will never happen. Heck, even if somehow that law was passed, it still wouldn't happen. If I died tomorrow, my son would get all my guns. Soo...someone's going to do a back ground check on him? NOT!!!!!

 

[GBRedneck]

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show?

It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur.

It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business.

It isn't unconstitutional.

Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.)

Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday?

 

[StPaulHusker]

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show?

It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur.

It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business.

It isn't unconstitutional.

Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.)

Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday?

If it was a clear infringement, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[BigRedBuster]

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show?

It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur.

It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business.

It isn't unconstitutional.

Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.)

Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday?

Ummm.....no.

Requiring that is very impractical. But, it's not unconstitutional. Just because there is a back ground check, doesn't mean they are preventing someone who legally can own a gun from doing so. And, it is very constitutional for the government to regulate who can own a gun and who can't. If I have just gotten out of prison from a violent crime, it is constitutional for me to not be allowed to own a gun.

 

[GBRedneck]

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show?

It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur.

It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business.

It isn't unconstitutional.

Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.)

Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday?

If it was a clear infringement, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's definitely a clear infringement. If you understand the meanings of words, there can be no debate about that. The only debate is if the infringement is constitutionally acceptable.

To pass constitutional muster, a gun law that infringes on the 2nd amendment (which would be practically every gun law) must pass strict scrutiny: Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest…

So what is the compelling governmental interest in requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons, and how does requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons achieve that compelling interest?

 

[GBRedneck]

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show?

It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur.

It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business.

It isn't unconstitutional.

Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.)

Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday?

Ummm.....no.

Requiring that is very impractical. But, it's not unconstitutional. Just because there is a back ground check, doesn't mean they are preventing someone who legally can own a gun from doing so. And, it is very constitutional for the government to regulate who can own a gun and who can't. If I have just gotten out of prison from a violent crime, it is constitutional for me to not be allowed to own a gun.

So how about we require people to get licenses before they are allowed to exercise their free speech? How about a permit before being allowed to join a church?

But the impractical part is also part of the reason why it's unconstitutional. It's not narrowly tailored to meet a specific compelling governmental interest.

 

[StPaulHusker]

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show?

It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur.

It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business.

It isn't unconstitutional.

Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.)

Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday?

If it was a clear infringement, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's definitely a clear infringement. If you understand the meanings of words, there can be no debate about that. The only debate is if the infringement is constitutionally acceptable.

To pass constitutional muster, a gun law that infringes on the 2nd amendment (which would be practically every gun law) must pass strict scrutiny: Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest…

So what is the compelling governmental interest in requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons, and how does requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons achieve that compelling interest?

The definition of infringement is the act of limiting or undermining something. A background check does not limit nor undermine the right to bear arms.

 

[GBRedneck]

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show?

It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur.

It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business.

It isn't unconstitutional.

Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.)

Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday?

If it was a clear infringement, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's definitely a clear infringement. If you understand the meanings of words, there can be no debate about that. The only debate is if the infringement is constitutionally acceptable.

To pass constitutional muster, a gun law that infringes on the 2nd amendment (which would be practically every gun law) must pass strict scrutiny: Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest…

So what is the compelling governmental interest in requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons, and how does requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons achieve that compelling interest?

The definition of infringement is the act of limiting or undermining something. A background check does not limit nor undermine the right to bear arms.

Of course it does. Please explain how you can possibly think it doesn't.

 

[StPaulHusker]

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show?

It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur.

It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business.

It isn't unconstitutional.

Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.)

Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday?

If it was a clear infringement, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's definitely a clear infringement. If you understand the meanings of words, there can be no debate about that. The only debate is if the infringement is constitutionally acceptable.

To pass constitutional muster, a gun law that infringes on the 2nd amendment (which would be practically every gun law) must pass strict scrutiny: Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest…

So what is the compelling governmental interest in requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons, and how does requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons achieve that compelling interest?

The definition of infringement is the act of limiting or undermining something. A background check does not limit nor undermine the right to bear arms.

Of course it does. Please explain how you can possibly think it doesn't.

Because it doesn't keep you from owning them. Unless, of course, you are found to be a felon that isn't allowed to have them anyway.