Gun Show Loophole

[1a2b3c]

We seem to have some differences here so i thought i would poll to see how deep the difference is.

Will requiring background checks at gun shows fix the problems of felons buying guns without background checks?

[Romulus]

1. First vote

:toast:

[RoeBear]

2. I would like to be able...

...to do a background check if I were to ever sell a gun. I'd feel better knowing that the person wasn't ineligible.

[Lefty48197]

3. If the death penalty is a deterrant

then maybe we should advocate death for those that sell guns to felons.

[MrBenchley]

4. Notice he doesn't ask

about whether the loophole ought to be closed...

[Superfly]

7. I think you need to get your

glasses checked.

"No, but closing the loophole of ALL private sales would."

[MrBenchley]

12. So tell us, fly.....

Want to close that loophole?

[Superfly]

13. That's how I voted

Got a problem with that?

[MrBenchley]

19. Gee, so what are you doing

to close it?

[Superfly]

21. Well, I ain't selling any of my guns, if that's

what you're asking.

[MrBenchley]

22. No it wasn't...

but thanks for showing us what a load of hooey your claim was...

[Superfly]

23. I told you I support extending the NICS...

what do you want me to do, picket in front of the US capitol until it's done?

I support closing the private-party transfer loophole. I will do my part to back that up.

What's your problem with that?

Say, who do you support in next year's election, and what are you doing about it?

[MrBenchley]

25. Yeah, surrrrrrrre....

"I support closing the private-party transfer loophole. I will do my part to back that up."
Yeah, we can tell......

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

15. Who are you trrying to kid, cross?

So do YOU support closing the private sales loophole?

[Wcross]

26. Hell no

But I took the time to read the post.

[slackmaster]

11. Go back and re-read the question and responses

Private-party sales that occur at gun shows are a small subset of private party sales.

[MrBenchley]

16. Hey, slack, it's not worth it

"Private-party sales that occur at gun shows are a small subset of private party sales."
So do YOU support closing that loophole?

[slackmaster]

17. Already answered dozens of times on DU Forums

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=15313#15342

[MrBenchley]

20. So in short...

No you don't.

[slackmaster]

32. Go back and read it again

You still haven't comprehended what I wrote.

My proposal would close the misnamed "gun-show loophole" and more.

[MrBenchley]

35. Yeah, surrrrrre....

[slackmaster]

37. Please list your specific objections to my proposal

If you do it in a civil manner I might even reply to your reply.

[MrBenchley]

41. Jeepers, there's an incentive

You mean you're asking what objection I have to a proposal that makes closing the loophole a matter of the seller's whim?

Hahahahahahahaha....

Now all you have to do is get someone to propose your scheme in Congress, and then there might be a chance that your fellow "enthusiasts" will jump on board.

[slackmaster]

43. You still haven't even comprehended it Benchley

whim
Pronunciation: 'hwim, 'wim
Function: noun
Etymology: short for whim-wham
Date: 1697
1 : a capricious or eccentric and often sudden idea or turn of the mind : FANCY

(Source: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary )

Please go back an re-read my proposal very carefully and point out precicely where the seller's whim comes into play.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1a2b3c]

38. I noticed no one voted for closing the loophole at gun shows only

But, like i said, no one is dumb enough to think the problem is gun shows.

[MrBenchley]

44. Nor dumb enough to bother

with the RKBA crowd's phony sidetracks...

[slackmaster]

46. Funny that you would accuse us of "phony sidetricks"

Are you finally admitting that the term "gun-show loophole" is the phoniest sidetrick of all?

Let's see your proposal.

[MrBenchley]

48. Sure...

All these phony cries from the RKBA crowd of "there is no gun show loophole" are designed to do nothing but keep it propped wide open.

"Let's see your proposal."
Gee, you mean you think I serve in Congress, slack? Wow!

If you want to know what I support, I support HR 260, the Gun Show Background Check Act of 2003. Of course, thanks to the corrupt gun industry and the GOP its bottled up inn committee, as were all the bills on the same topic in the past few Congresses.

[slackmaster]

50. Cool, let's see what HR 260 addresses and does NOT address

From the bill text:

a) DEFINITIONS- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(35) GUN SHOW- The term `gun show' means any event--

`(A) at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, transfer, or exchange, if 1 or more of the firearms has been shipped or transported in, or otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce; and...

Note invocation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. That is the only basis on which the federal government has claimed any authority over the firearms trade. It's reasonable to assume that at a gun show (as most people would understand one) there would be at least one qualifying firearm. So far so good.

`(B) at which--

`(i) not less than 20 percent of the exhibitors are firearm exhibitors;

`(ii) there are not less than 10 firearm exhibitors; or

`(iii) 50 or more firearms are offered for sale, transfer, or exchange.


OK, so an antique show with 50 exhibitors at which 9 are selling or showing a total of 49 guns would be exempt. That would probably be unusual but consider a recurring flea market with hundreds of exhibitors at which several are selling guns. That happens all the time in some states.

That's a pretty clear and I think satisfactory definition of "gun show". It's designed to ensure that there is a high probability that at least one firearm offered for sale has been transferred interstate or imported from another country, which ensures that the federal government has reasonable grounds to regulate it.

I don't have a problem with this bill but I think it's a waste of time. I stand by my statement that it's window dressing because it fails to address the lion's share of used gun sales. In most states you can pick up the classified ads from the Sunday newspaper and find firearms of all kinds for sale, and present law allows a person cleaning out his or her attic to sell a gun to a stranger for cash with no transaction record, no ID checked, and no questions asked.

My proposal would make it possible for ANY private seller to check up on the background of an unknown person who wants to buy your gun. It allows you to sell or give a gun to a person you know well without worry, and provides a way to cover your ass when you sell one to a stranger.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=14724&mesg_id=14866&page=

My idea needs to be fleshed out to specific revisions to law, but it would cover a lot more transactions than HR 260. HR 260 is limited in scope because it's lingustically bound to gun shows. I'm sure Noam Chomsky would have a lot to say about that. Gun shows are not where the majority of used gun sales occur.

I find it interesting and quite telling that the authors bent over backwards to ensure that the bill has a Constitutional basis - the Interstate Commerce Clause. It's a clear acknowlegement that the federal government has no authority whatsoever to regulate intrastate transfers of used tools among citizens. If they really wanted to regulate private sales of guns they'd have to classify them as toxic waste or amend the Constitution to greatly extend the power of Congress.

On edit: One more aspect of this I'd like to point out - It's been my observation that well under half of the exhibitors at major gun shows actually have any firearms for sale. Many sell just gun parts, cleaning products, services, etc. or books, fishing gear, custom ear plugs, foot massages, cookware and so on. A predictable unintended consequence of this bill would be for some of the smaller events to be restructured so as to avoid the "gun show" definition thresholds. Some vendors who follow gun shows would switch over to motorcycle shows or boat shows or cowboy crap shows. The bill carries good intentions but because of the limits of federal power it's inherently weak.

[MrBenchley]

51. Gee, slack, that's touching...

"I don't have a problem with this bill but I think it's a waste of time."
Well, thanks to the corrrupt gun industry and the GOP, criminals and lunatics will continue to be able to arm themselves at gun shows.

"My proposal would make it possible for ANY private seller to check up on the background of an unknown person who wants to buy your gun."
Looking forward to seeing you convince the rest of the RKBA crowd.

[slackmaster]

52. Thanks for your comments

"...the GOP, criminals and lunatics will continue to be able to arm themselves at gun shows."

Even with this bill in place the GOP, criminals, and lunatics will still be able to easily buy used guns from private individuals with no background checks.

[MrBenchley]

54. True as far as that goes...

but of course they won't be finding those sellers helpfully bunched up in one place. One battle at a time...especially when it's a Herculean task to get even this much concession from the crooked GOP and the corrupt gun industry.

Of course, if we do win this battle and try to close another, smaller part of the loophole the gun industry engineered, which side do you think will be fighting to keep the loophole open?

[slackmaster]

56. Only a very small number of crooks got their guns at gun shows

The availability of used guns at gun shows is a tiny part of the problem. The A tempest in a teapot. Bumper sticker politics.

Regulate all sales at gun shows or even wipe gun shows off the face of the Earth and the few private sales that now occur at gun shows will be geographically scattered. Instead of a few tables with hundreds of prospective buyers milling around (where they can be watched by local police) you'd relocate all of those transactions to peoples' garages and (restating my hyperbolic remark solely for your personal entertainment) small venues like church rummage sales.

Of course, if we do win this battle and try to close another, smaller part of the loophole the gun industry engineered, which side do you think will be fighting to keep the loophole open?

I'm not convinced you understand the issue MrBenchley. There is a deep legal issue that you GSL-closing fans fail to address again and again: Private individuals can sell used guns to other private individuals not because of any kind of deficiency or loophole in the law but because it's a fundamental right to dispose of one's personal property as one sees fit. That right exists because it is not within the scope of the power of the federal government to regulate intrastate private exchanges of used stuff.

[MrBenchley]

62. Says you

Of course, that's contradicted by many many sources....and yes, I know there's a survey of prisonn inmates that says different (there's a source to be believed, by the way!)

"Regulate all sales at gun shows or even wipe gun shows off the face of the Earth and the few private sales that now occur at gun shows will be geographically scattered. "
Why? It couldn't be because the private sellers KNOW they're selling to criminals who can't, could it? Is that why regulating gun shows would scatter them?

"I'm not convinced you understand the issue MrBenchley."
Yeah, surrrrre....

"it's a fundamental right to dispose of one's personal property as one sees fit."
Hahahahahahahaha...and that's why these sellers turn up at gun show after gun show after gun show?

[slackmaster]

63. You have a knack for putting the worst possible spin on anything

The fact remains that gun shows as a major source for weapons used by criminals is a proven fairy tale.

[MrBenchley]

65. Says you...

"gun shows as a major source for weapons used by criminals is a proven fairy tale"
Only to those who believe Wayne LaPierre is Mother Goose.

[1a2b3c]

82. I wanna see this link if you would

Of course, that's contradicted by many many sources....and yes, I know there's a survey of prisonn inmates that says different (there's a source to be believed, by the way!)

give me 5 tries and i will guess correct on who did the study.

[MrBenchley]

84. Yeah, and they'll all be better sources

than YOU.

[1a2b3c]

80. bunched up in one place

twice a year. My paper bunches up gun sellers in the same section every day.

[MrBenchley]

85. And do you want them to stop, binky?

[1a2b3c]

79. poor benchly

I feel for you man. I think the only person here who likes you is Iverglas. Hell i think COLiberal might have you on ignore. :-) Sidetracks blah blah. Youre accusations are very boring. Please try harder. Isnt there a way you could spin this into us pro gunners being racist or GOP pimps for wanting to close a private sales loophole?

[MrBenchley]

81. Might as well go to the personal attacks, bunky

It's not like you've got any sort of real issue...

[1a2b3c]

83. ohh

You mean the real issue of us pro gunners wanting to close the person to person sales loophole? Or how its just us spinning our wheels to somehow get our jollies by pissing you off?

I will tell you why we want to close the P2P loophole. We are tired of criminals getting guns and shooting someone...then we somehow get blamed because we own guns. As long as all gun sales are ran through a background check i dont think anyone could blame a gun owner unless they blame the gun owner for getting robbed.

[MrBenchley]

86. Hahahahahahahha!

"us pro gunners wanting to close the person to person sales loophole"
Yeah, I'm sure we ALL believe that.

[RoeBear]

61. Well, there is one person...

...dumb enough.

[jody]

5. Your poll omits at least one reasonable answer.

QUOTE
Will requiring background checks at gun shows fix the problems of felons buying guns without background checks?
UNQUOTE

Answer. No because criminals will continue to acquire firearms from illegal sources that do not use background checks.

[CO Liberal]

6. Then You Figure Out Ways to Eliminate the Illegal Sources

I'm open for suggestions.

[Superfly]

8. See response #3

I think Lefty is on to something.:shrug:

[CO Liberal]

28. How About This?

If you sell or provide a gun to someone who should not own a gun (such as a convicted felon), he or she uses that gun to commit a crime, and the gun can be treaced back to you, you are liable for the same punishment as the felon.

[Superfly]

29. I would agree with that if

the government made the NICS system available to private party transfers.

Without the NICS, how is a person to know who should or should not have a gun?

[jody]

31. If anyone sells or gives a firearm to a known felon, they have committed

a federal crime. Unfortunately, no recent administration has aggressively enforced that law.

[Spoonman]

58. Now apply this to ANYTHING you sell or provide

Let's say you sell your used truck to a 5 time convicted drunk driver and he goes out and kills a family of four.

Should you go to jail with him?

You hold a garage sale, and you decide to get rid of your old golf clubs.

I really fucking crazy SOB buys them, takes them home and crushes all the members of his families heads.

Should you go to jail with him?

You sell your house to a guy, and he sets up a meth lab in it that produces a bad batch that kills 35 teenagers at the local high school.

Should you be worrying about dropping the soap?

[slackmaster]

14. Covering all sales by private parties would cover a lot of it

But not guns that are stolen from their rightful owners, homemade guns, guns imported from other countries, etc.

[MrBenchley]

24. By the way

wonder how many people actually believe that all this grousing about the gun show loophole from the RKBA crowd has been because the proposals aren't stringent enough?

Even more to the point, I wonder who thinks anyone else will actually believe it?

[slackmaster]

34. The proposals I've seen have all been window dressing

They come down like an iron fist on private sales that happen at events arbitrarily defined as gun shows but fail to address the fact that in most states a private individual can sell a gun to another private individual any time, any place. And unless the seller lacks the ability to plausibly deny knowing about a buyer's criminal past because of an obvious pre-existing relationship, there is no way to prosecute a private individual who sells a gun to a convicted felon.

I've addressed that problem in my proposal. Our representatives in Congress haven't bothered to try.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=15313#15342

[MrBenchley]

36. Hahahahahaha...

Yeah,, I'm sure EVERYBODY believes you're for harsher gun control....

[slackmaster]

39. My propoal for closing the "GSL" does not involve gun control at all

I don't believe in gun control. Guns are not a problem unless they fall into the hands of criminals.

I believe in criminal control. That can be accomplished by making it impossible for someone who sells a gun to a felon to plausibly claim that he or she had no way of knowing the buyer was a felon. That is the intent of my proposal for making NICS available to private sellers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=15313#15342

Sellers have the option to not use NICS but that choice comes with a price. The system would motivate people to be very careful about to whom they sell or give guns.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

45. Let's look very closely at your responses

Or lunatics.

People who have been adjudicated as lunatics are ineligible to own guns and they will turn up in NICS. A prohibited person is a prohibited person. My system covers lunatics.

Or ordinary people who lose their temper.

Most people lose their tempers from time to time. Your irritating posts have driven me close to that threshold on many occasions. Losing one's temper does not disqualify a person from owning a gun.

(slackmaster) "Sellers have the option to not use NICS but that choice comes with a price."

(MrBenchley) Yeah, surrrrre. We can tell how concerned you have been that sellers pay a price for their actions.

I've read this response several times and it still makes no sense. Please explain your remark.

Try editing your posts for clarity and maybe people wouldn't misunderstand you so often.

[MrBenchley]

53. Lets!!

"Losing one's temper does not disqualify a person from owning a gun."
No but losing one's temper while armed can and often does create a problem for others. Remember, you weren't talking about sales, but about when guns were a problem.

Meanwhile, not so long ago you were trying to pretend that private sellers were not part of the gun industry...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=14309&mesg_id=14595&page=

and now you are admitting they are...

So you stil haven't answred my question. Which member of Congress are you going to approach with your proposal?

[slackmaster]

57. Two logical fallacies and one reasonable question

No but losing one's temper while armed can and often does create a problem for others. Remember, you weren't talking about sales, but about when guns were a problem.

That is a classic Red Herring and not worthy of any response other than to expose it as such.

Meanwhile, not so long ago you were trying to pretend that private sellers were not part of the gun industry...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=14309&mesg_id=14595&page=

and now you are admitting they are...

And a Straw Man.

For the record, private sellers are not part of the gun industry any more than someone selling a used hammer is part of the tool industry. The gun industry makes money from sales of NEW guns. They don't have a dog in the GSL/private sales fight.

So you stil haven't answred my question. Which member of Congress are you going to approach with your proposal?

Once I get it fleshed out I'll send it to the following people:

Senator Diane Feinstein
Senator Barbara Boxer
Congresswoman Susan A. Davis

[MrBenchley]

64. See many "used hammer shows" in your part of the world, slack?

"For the record, private sellers are not part of the gun industry"
<sarcasm>>Yeah surrrrrrrre..and used car dealers are not part of the auto industry either.</sarcasm>
"Once I get it fleshed out I'll send it to the following people:
Senator Diane Feinstein
Senator Barbara Boxer
Congresswoman Susan A. Davis"
Be sure and point out how often you jumped into complain when some idiot posted crap like "Fiendstein" in a public forum. That will help seal the deal (snicker).

[slackmaster]

68. As a matter of fact...

<sarcasm>>Yeah surrrrrrrre..and used car dealers are not part of the auto industry either.</sarcasm>

They're not. But you would have us believe that Joe Sixpack posting an ad offering his 1994 Toyota Camry for sale is part of the auto industry.

Be sure and point out how often you jumped into complain when some idiot posted crap like "Fiendstein" in a public forum. That will help seal the deal (snicker).

What is that supposed to mean? Could it be that you are walking the line between what is permissible and not on this board? That if you said exactly what you meant your post might get deleted like about six of your other gems so far today?

Naw.

[MrBenchley]

70. Nuff said.

"But you would have us believe that Joe Sixpack posting an ad offering his 1994 Toyota Camry for sale is part of the auto industry."
And you'd have us believe used car dealers have nothing to do with the auto industry.

P.S.: Tell us what happens if Joe Sixpack doesn't turn over the change of registration information to the DMV.

[slackmaster]

71. Gee whiz, yet ANOTHER Straw Man

And you'd have us believe used car dealers have nothing to do with the auto industry.

Sure, they have about as much to do with the auto industry as thrift shops have to do with the clothing industry.

:freak:

P.S.: Tell us what happens if Joe Sixpack doesn't turn over the change of registration information to the DMV.

You've apparently never learned the difference between the auto industry and the government, and the functions of each.

:dunce:

[MrBenchley]

72. Nope, slack, just common sense.

It will come as a whopping surprise to the used car dealers' association that they've been ridden out of the auto industry by you...

http://www.nada.org/Content/NavigationMenu/MediaCenter/IndustryNews/Industry_News.htm

"You've apparently never learned the difference between the auto industry and the government"
You'd be surprised. I've also learned the difference between bullshit and bullion....and what you've been peddling is bullshit.

[slackmaster]

74. From the FAQ on the cited Web site

"The National Automobile Dealers Association, founded in 1917, represents more than 19,700 new car and truck dealers, both import and domestic, with more than 49,300 separate franchises.

NADA membership is open to any new-automobile or new-truck dealership holding a new automobile or truck sales and service franchise."

(bold font added for emphasis)

Nothing about even NEW car or truck dealers being part of the industry per se, though I would agree that businesses that sell NEW cars and NEW trucks are very much a part of the automobile industry. That's quite obvious. And businesses that sell NEW guns are certainly the final link in the chain of production and distribution for NEW firearms. I don't believe anyone would dispute that.

What were you saying about USED car dealers, MrBenchley?

Do you know the difference between a NEW vehicle and a USED vehicle?

Are you capable of admitting that you have made an obvious error?

[MrBenchley]

75. I was saying used cars are as much a part of the auto industry

as used guns are part of the gun industry.

http://www.ai-online.com/links.asp

Suggest you click on NAIDA...or even the Automotive Recyclers Association.

[slackmaster]

76. Nice attempt at a Dodge, but no cigar

You really are quite Intrepid at coming up with these twists and evasions, but in this case your best strategy might be to Escape. You're going to have to go past the Horizon or hope for an Eclipse to bail you out of this one. I don't mean to sound Cavalier about this subject, but you've stretched your point past the orbit of Saturn.

The word "used" does not even appear on the cited page of links.

I was saying used cars are as much a part of the auto industry...
...as used guns are part of the gun industry.

If you said used cars were part of the STEEL industry you might have a point. Otherwise you are just shoveling more bullshit.

[MrBenchley]

77. Who are you trrying to kid, slack?

"The word "used" does not even appear on the cited page of links."
No, but the NAIDA certainly DOES...just as I said. t

Now go play your silly semantic games with someone who gives a crap.

[slackmaster]

78. You're starting to lose your Tempo

The evil gun control Enterprise can't keep up the Pace.

If you try to perpetuate this Charade I will continue to Probe you until we get to the truth.

No, but the NAIDA certainly DOES...just as I said

Yes, that organization for dealers of NEW cars and trucks, not used ones.

:evilgrin:

[1a2b3c]

40. So what are you?

The conspiracy theorist?

[MrBenchley]

55. No, just somebody

laughing his ass off at this new tactic.

[slackmaster]

60. What new tactic?

My message on this issue has been consistent since I have been posting on DU.

[MrBenchley]

66. And yet you never seem to post it to anyone but me

You never once suggest your "lets regulate all private sales" to any of those claiming that the loophole ought to remain gaping wide open.

In fact, here you are jumping in to answer a response I made to one of those who do...just as if it had been addressed specifically to you.

So let's see you go to work....tell Mr Hamster Dance why the private sales loophole ought to be closed and why private sellers who don't conduct background checks ought to be charged with whatever crimes are committed with that gun. Let's see you convince HIM.

[slackmaster]

69. That's pretty funny MrBenchley

This board is a one-to-many communications medium. Anyone in the world with a Web browser is free to read, log in, and respond. If I have anything to say to you and you alone I'll send you an email or private message.

[MrBenchley]

73. In other words...

You never post it to anyone but me...and you have no interest in trying to convince any of the other "enthusiasts" here in your cockamamie scheme.

"Anyone in the world with a Web browser is free to read, log in, and respond."
Gee, we've got cross further up the board saying private sales should never be subject to background checks...Go ahead and respond to that.. I'll wait right here.

[jody]

30. CO, you are the gun-control proponent. The burden is yours to come up

with ways to eliminate illegal sources without infringing upon a law abiding citizen's inalienable right to defend self and property where firearms are the choice of law abiding citizens, law enforcement officers, and criminals.

I support aggressive enforcement of existing firearm laws to include more arrests, more prosecutions, and more severe sentences. As pointed out recently by CDC, there are no valid research papers that show that gun laws reduce violent crime. Looks like Scary Brady and her crowd have based their positions for banning handguns and other gun control laws upon unreliable research.

[CO Liberal]

49. Neither Side Bears the Burden

Both sides need to work together to find a solution agreeable to all. I was trying to open a dialog.

WHat are the illegal sources you were referring to? We need to know what the problem is in order to fix it.

[jody]

59. The gun-control group insists that more gun-laws will reduce violent crime

The pro-RKBA group believes that more gun-laws only infringe upon a law abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms when exercising his/her inalienable right to defend self and property.

I don't have a clue about what new gun law would actually reduce violent crime without infringing upon a basic civil right and neither does anyone from the gun-control group. The difference between me and gun-controllers is that I admit I'm clueless but gun-controllers keep touting various gun laws without a single shred of evidence their proposed laws reduce violent crime.

Illegal sources are all sources from which someone who is prohibited by law from owning firearms, can buy or receive a firearm. See Firearm Use by Offenders

[MrBenchley]

67. And the RKBA crowd claims "More guns, less crime"...which is a lie

and has been shown to be such.


"I don't have a clue about what new gun law would actually reduce violent crime"
And yet that doesn't stop you from flatly declaring that none would.

[slackmaster]

10. I picked the second choice with a clarification to add

I do not believe mandatory background checks on all private sales is appropriate, though we have such a system here in California and it has not infringed much on the RKBA. I still advocate the plan I have proposed here many times, which makes it possible but not absolutely required for private sellers to run checks on people to whom they wish to sell or give a gun.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=14724&mesg_id=14866&page=

The problem with the present system as I see it is that the best available background check system for gun purchases, i.e. NICS, is by law not even available to be used by people who do not have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). It wouldn't take much of an act of Congress to create a financially self-sustaining system that would force people selling guns to accept responsibility for selling to prohibited persons, and for damage caused by people to whom they sold a gun illegally.

[Superfly]

18. I support extending the NICS system

thereby closing all private party transfers loopholes, to any private seller of firearms.

1) This system can be self-supporting. Say it costs 10$ per NICS check. The seller can pass that expense onto the buyer of the firearm, costing the government $0 to administer the program.

2) It will release the seller from culpability if the firearm is used in a criminal or negligent manner.

3) It can provide a chain of custody for the firearm. "See officer, I sold it to Joe Smith, who seemed fine at the time and passed the NICS check. Go ask him why it was found at the scene of a crime."

[RoeBear]

87. Did Benchley vote?

Either he hasn't voted or voted the same way I did.

[MrBenchley]

88. No, of course not...

[slackmaster]

90. Why not?

Are you afraid to be the only one to choose the first option, or are you now admitting that the misnamed "gun-show loophole" is not really the great Bogeyman you and the other gun-control enthusiasts have painted it to be?

[MrBenchley]

92. Since you asked so nice, slack....

It's because I don't care to join the horseshit side show the RKBA crowd is trying to put on.

[RoeBear]

89. I'm taking a WAG that Benchley responded....

...I'll take another WAG that he didn't answer my question. And that is exactly why he's on my ignore list and why everyone else should put him on ignore also.

Really, what's the point of trying to have a discussion with someone who won't answer even the simplest question? And then insults you for asking.

[MrBenchley]

93. Gee roe, tough luck for you

I answered it.

[jody]

91. After reading the replies, I wonder if the respondents would support NICS

for prescription drugs to make certain addictive drugs are not sold to the wrong people like Rush Loudmouth?