Va. congressman heads forum on gun show loophole

[GreenStormCloud]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/07/va_congressman_heads_forum_on.html

Va. congressman heads forum on gun show loophole

Videos of undercover gun buys, prepared statements from law enforcement officers, and wrenching testimony from victims of 1999 Columbine shootings and the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre played out at a Capitol Hill forum Wednesday on the closing the so-called gun show loophole.

It was standing room only in the Rayburn building for the meeting on the "Closing the Gun Show Loophole Act of 2009." But it was also as much about symbolism as lawmaking, because the gathering was a forum, and not a full-blown hearing.

Gun-rights groups, such as the NRA, did not bother to show up. Even backers conceded that the Democratic leadership's decision not to hold a hearing on the bill was a sign of the unlikelihood of the bill's passage in an election year.

Still, Paul Helmke, president and chief executive of the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, said he welcomed it.

(Continued at link)

Could it be that the party leadership is getting the hint about guns?

[Possumpoint]

1. Got A Hint For You

Drop it or lose.

[GreenStormCloud]

2. Lose? Pro-RKBA has been on a steady winning roll for the last 15 years. N/T

[Travis Coates]

3. I think he was directing that at the politicians

As is drop the "gunshow loop hole " or lose

[GreenStormCloud]

4. Maybe. Possumpoint, if I misunderstood, I apologize. N/T

[spin]

5. Many NRA members will disagree with me, but ...

I support opening up the NICS background check to all private sellers.

I will not sell a firearm to anyone who I personally do not know and who does not have a concealed weapons permit. I would have no problems with going to a firearms dealer to have him fill out the necessary forms and call for a background check on the buyer (or even me, for that matter). The cost would have to be reasonable, say $10 to $20. If my idea was implemented, I could sell off some of my firearms with less fear that some fool that might misuse them would benefit. At least, I would know that when he bought the firearms, he had a clean legal and mental record.

Such a requirement would eliminate the "gun show loophole" and accomplish far more. At a gun show, if I bought a firearm from a private individual, I would still have to pass the NICS background check. No big deal.

The NICS background check has proved to be beneficial in my opinion. It does need more funding to process state records in a more timely manner and improvements to detect those with severe mental problems.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. I would be OK with that. I had a different point in posting the OP.

My interest was in the lack of interest of the Democratic Leadership in any further level of gun control. Exception for Ms. Shoulder-thing-that-goes-up, who maintains her faith.

[spin]

7. Democrats don't have to drop all improvements of gun control ...

they could call for and finance better enforcement of existing laws and work to make them these laws more efficient. Gun bans and schemes like micro stamping shell cases or registration of firearms should be discarded. Such "feel good" laws do little good if any, and result in defeats for many Democrats at the polls.

[Travis Coates]

8. Such a requirement

Would eliminate private sales.

How do you plan to enforce this W/ out registration?

On edit

There is no "gun show loophole" FFLs are required to conduct an NCIS background check every time they sell a fire arm, non FFls who privately sell a weapon do. Dosen't matter if they're at a gun show or not. The "gun show loophole" is anti-speak for banning private sales or bringing in registration which alwaysleads to confiscation

[spin]

9. When I buy a firearm from a dealer, I go through the NICS ...

background check.

If I privately sold a firearm and had to have a background check ran by a dealer, the same procedure would happen.

Privacy and Security of NICS Information

The privacy and security of the information in the NICS is of great importance. In October 1998, the Attorney General published regulations on the privacy and security of NICS information, including the proper and official use of this information. These regulations are available on the NICS Web site. Data stored in the NICS is documented federal data and access to that information is restricted to agencies authorized by the FBI. Extensive measures are taken to ensure the security and integrity of the system information and agency use. The NICS is not to be used to establish a federal firearm registry; information about an inquiry resulting in an allowed transfer is destroyed in accordance with NICS regulations. Current destruction of NICS records became effective when a final rule was published by the Department of Justice in The Federal Register, outlining the following changes. Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day. If a potential purchaser is delayed or denied a firearm and successfully appeals the decision, the NICS Section cannot retain a record of the overturned appeal. If the record is not able to be updated, the purchaser continues to be denied or delayed, and if that individual appeals the decision, the documentation must be resubmitted on every subsequent purchase. For this reason, the Voluntary Appeal File (VAF) has been established. This process permits applicants to request that the NICS maintain information about themselves in the VAF to prevent future denials or extended delays of a firearm transfer. (See VAF Section below.)
emphasis added
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm

But I do see your point. I have known people who would only buy used firearms as there was no paperwork involving the government. They felt the government would have no idea that they owned firearms. This is possible but unlikely in an age where the government is extensively involved in data mining. Chances are that the government already knows who owns firearms. I personally don't really worry about the government finding out that I own weapons. Since I have a concealed weapons permit, it's obvious.

GAO: Fed Data Mining Extensive
Kim Zetter Email 05.27.04

Just as the General Accounting Office released a report Thursday surveying the extensive amount of data mining conducted by federal agencies on individuals, a government watchdog group released its own report suggesting three steps the government could take to limit the invasiveness of such activity.

Data mining is the practice of using database software to compile and sift through large amounts of data, often of a personal nature, for the purpose of producing profiles of people, analyzing activity and deducing patterns in the information.

The GAO investigation (PDF), which covered only unclassified data mining, found that the practice was pervasive throughout the government and identified 52 agencies that had 199 data mining projects active or in the planning stages. Of those, the GAO found that 122 used Americans' personal information.

***snip***

The report also uncovered 54 projects with data supplied by private companies, such as credit reporting agencies and credit card issuers. Of those 54 projects, 36 involved personally identifiable information such as names, Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers, raising concerns about the unregulated nature of government data mining.

Read More http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2004/05/63623#ixzz0tuhQHBUx

[Travis Coates]

11. Again, I asked a very specific question

How do you intend to enforce this W/ out registration? Roughly half of my firearms came from private sales. There's no paperwork attaching them to me anywhere How to you propose to stop me from selling one W/out a background check if there's no proof I ever owned it?

[spin]

16. I see your logic for registration now ...

You're right. Without registration the law would be impossible to enforce.

Slackmaster (in reply #13) suggests a voluntary system that might answer my problems in selling a firearm to an individual I wasn't sure of. That might be a fair solution as long as the price of the NICS check was $20 or less.

[slackmaster]

13. It would not have to be a requirement

Making it available is not the same as making it available plus mandatory.

It is already illegal to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person. Making NICS available for private sales would provide a way for private sellers to verify that a buyer is not a member of a prohibited class.

Safeguards would be needed to prevent NICS from being misused. They're pretty obvious - Notification by mail that someone used it to check your background, and that person's name and address; criminal penalties for misusing it; etc.

[Travis Coates]

14. If you really want to use NICS why not transfer the firearm through an FFL? NT

[slackmaster]

15. Money, time, and inconvenience

Dealers here in California can charge up to $35 to do a private-party transfer. About half of that is to offset what the state charges to do its version of the background check, the rest is to compensate the dealer for their time and trouble. For multi-gun transfers, it's $31 per additional gun. I bought out most of a guy's small collection several years ago, one piece at a time over a period of about six months. It was a ridiculous amount of hassle. If I could have run one NICS check on him for the first transfer, the others would not have involved both of us going to a gun store on busy Saturday mornings.

It would really suck to have to pay $35 to sell a shotgun to someone for $50. $10-$12 wouldn't be so unpalatable.

[spin]

17. Agreed. A voluntary system would satisfy my concerns ...

when selling a firearm to someone I didn't know.

[Statistical]

10. Cost should be free.

States are given free access to NICS. It was one of the conditions for the system.

If States with billion dollar budgets are given free access why should an individual pay $20 for access?

[spin]

18. Interesting point.

I would be willing to pay a dealer a reasonable fee for his time. I believe that you are suggesting allowing a private citizen access to the system. The only problem I can see with this is that someone might run a background check on another individual just to see if he/she could pass the NICS background check. Privacy might be a problem.

If both parties to the sale of a firearm had to show up in front of a dealer and present ID, that might work out better.

[Pavulon]

19. Yep, I will NOT sell to a gun to anyone

who I not personally know. If I needed to I would go through a FFL.

[MisterBill45]

12. This is stupid and unproductive

First, the only reason we even need a NICS in the first place is the reluctance to put people in jail and KEEP them there for serious crimes against persons. Parole? for MURDER? Are you F****ing kidding me? Probation for armed robbery? Happens not infrequently. Or we give someone 1.5 years on an armed robbery charge, or child-rape etc.

We also don't even prosecute under federal felon in possession charges. That law has been in force for decades and it is virtually NEVER enforced. Federal charges aren't even sought except in a vanishingly small percentage of cases where it would be a slam dunk with severe penalties. Baltimore had a program a year or two ago where they brought in federal prosecutors and started charging people with a federal beef for felon in possession. Their murder and assault rate went down by 25%.

But rather than even make an attempt to enforce the thousands of gun laws we already have, the Antis are focusing on this non-existent loophole which once again, will only stop people who already pose no threat to anyone.

There is no data to suggest that gun shows are a source for any significant numbers of guns ending up in the hands of criminals.

I wish all these supposed "liberals" could be bothered to actually produce clear-cut data that doesn't come from someone with an axe to grind to support their position. They want to pass more laws, and more importantly add a national gun registration scheme that has ZERO possible purpose except bans and confiscations. There is no other explanation for gun registration since it's a less than worthless tool in 90% of crime investigations.

[Callisto32]

20. Oy vey.

More like the "we-really-really-want-to-look-relevant-here-so-we'll-pass-a-bill-to-address-something-that-doesn't-exist act of 2009".

Hey, at least they are doing SOMETHING right?