NRA Was 'Foreign Asset' To Russia Ahead of 2016, New Senate Report Reveals

[Belsnickel]

(10-02-2019, 11:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, it is historically proven that banning something people want creates a black market for said something.  See prohibition for a rather salient example.  However, vaping is not a Constitutional right.  Additionally, there's the fact that the vast majority of criminals, who account for the vast majority of gun related homicides, acquire their firearms illegally already.  Why would adding more laws curtail that?  Again, actually enforce existing laws.  Aggressively prosecute those found in illegal possession of a firearm.  Aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Once you actually do that maybe we can then consider additional laws to curtail this criminal activity.  Maybe stop trying to impose further restrictions on those actually obeying the law prior to doing so?

So I think here is where the hangup occurs. It is illegal to sell, or even give, a firearm to someone that is not legally allowed to own one. I believe this is the law in every state. However, in many states if a transaction is between two individuals, there is no requirement for a background check to be conducted. So the question then becomes how can we enforce the law about providing a firearm to someone illegally if there is no sure way for them to know that the transfer was illegal? Should we not hold people accountable if they transfer a firearm to someone that is not legally allowed to own one?

This is where the idea of universal background checks does fill a gap in the law. Criminals will acquire their firearms illegally, we know that. They acquire them from people that are not dealers and therefore often don't need to conduct any sort of background check under the law. To hold those people accountable, instituting a universal background check law would mean that there is a mechanism of accountability in place.

It isn't a perfect solution. It isn't going to fix everything. However, it is something that can be used to help enforce existing laws.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-03-2019, 08:43 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How are straw purchasers identified?

For someone engaging in it as a source of criminal revenue it's rather easy.  Does X person buy a large amount of guns?  Does X person still have possession of a majority of them?  Do guns purchased by X person seem to often end up in the hands of criminals?  Now if you have a person who has done this once or twice proving straw purchasing becomes more difficult, but not impossible.  However, finding a large number of people willing to risk prison time to furnish criminals with guns is not an easy task, hence the numbers of people engaged in this activity are small and account for a large percentage of straw purchases.  

The main issue is that the building a case takes a large commitment of time and investigative effort.  Add that to straw purchasing not being a "sexy" arrest, indictment or conviction coupled with the always present potential of the jury buying the defense's bullshit and it's not made a priority.

(10-03-2019, 09:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So I think here is where the hangup occurs. It is illegal to sell, or even give, a firearm to someone that is not legally allowed to own one. I believe this is the law in every state. However, in many states if a transaction is between two individuals, there is no requirement for a background check to be conducted. So the question then becomes how can we enforce the law about providing a firearm to someone illegally if there is no sure way for them to know that the transfer was illegal? Should we not hold people accountable if they transfer a firearm to someone that is not legally allowed to own one?

Yes, this is a problem, but a proportionately minute one.  The straw purchases I explain above aside, it's exceedingly rare for a criminal to purchase a firearm from a law abiding individual via private party transfer (CA lingo there).  Rare enough to be statistically insignificant.

Quote:This is where the idea of universal background checks does fill a gap in the law. Criminals will acquire their firearms illegally, we know that. They acquire them from people that are not dealers and therefore often don't need to conduct any sort of background check under the law. To hold those people accountable, instituting a universal background check law would mean that there is a mechanism of accountability in place.

Sure, it would block the insignificant number of guns going to criminals in that fashion.  However, seeing as how the vast majority of firearms end up in criminal hand via theft, both home and commercial burglary, followed distantly by straw purchases, it would have almost zero effect on gun related homicides.  In fact, I'd venture to say it would have zero impact as criminals would then turn exclusively to the methods just mentioned.

Also, said universal background checks would require a national database of owned firearms to be enacted.  Such a database could then be used in the future by Dems like Robert Francis, Biden and Warren who are openly campaigning, to varying degrees, on the confiscation of legally purchased private property.  Those public, and finally honest, statements from leading candidates for POTUS (and Robert Francis) have utterly squashed any chance of universal background checks being agreed upon.  It's almost like they don't really care about gun violence.

Quote:It isn't a perfect solution. It isn't going to fix everything. However, it is something that can be used to help enforce existing laws.

It could, but as I stated above not to any appreciable degree. 

[GMDino]

(10-03-2019, 09:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So I think here is where the hangup occurs. It is illegal to sell, or even give, a firearm to someone that is not legally allowed to own one. I believe this is the law in every state. However, in many states if a transaction is between two individuals, there is no requirement for a background check to be conducted. So the question then becomes how can we enforce the law about providing a firearm to someone illegally if there is no sure way for them to know that the transfer was illegal? Should we not hold people accountable if they transfer a firearm to someone that is not legally allowed to own one?

This is where the idea of universal background checks does fill a gap in the law. Criminals will acquire their firearms illegally, we know that. They acquire them from people that are not dealers and therefore often don't need to conduct any sort of background check under the law. To hold those people accountable, instituting a universal background check law would mean that there is a mechanism of accountability in place.

It isn't a perfect solution. It isn't going to fix everything. However, it is something that can be used to help enforce existing laws.

The problem is Matt that the "they'll never take my my guns" crowd have turned the argument into it must be perfect or there's no sense doing it.

Anything that might help a "little" won't help "enough" so why even bother?  And if it might help "enough" it might be a "slippery slope" to more gun control and then why even bother.

And from what I read and hear the majority of legal gun owners do support things like a universal background check but it's the noisy ones that fight it and they are the ones being heard in Washington.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-03-2019, 10:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: The problem is Matt that the "they'll never take my my guns" crowd have turned the argument into it must be perfect or there's no sense doing it.

A deliberately incorrect statement, as explained above.

Quote:Anything that might help a "little" won't help "enough" so why even bother?  And if it might help "enough" it might be a "slippery slope" to more gun control and then why even bother.

No, anything that infringes on our rights is unacceptable.  This is further compounded by the fact that there are laws in place that are not being aggressively enforced that would actually make an impact.

Quote:And from what I read and hear the majority of legal gun owners do support things like a universal background check but it's the noisy ones that fight it and they are the ones being heard in Washington.

Yes, I'm sure Vox, Vice and The Daily Beast are telling you exactly that.  Regardless, the Constitution is not subject to the whims and vagaries of the public.  Tell you what, I'll support a national registry if it comes attached to a Constitutional amendment that plainly states that no confiscation or mandatory buyback of any kind will ever be allowed and that anyone in public office advocating for such will be immediately removed from office and declared unfit to ever hold public office again.  Deal?

[GMDino]

(10-03-2019, 11:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A deliberately incorrect statement, as explained above.



No, anything that infringes on our rights is unacceptable.  This is further compounded by the fact that there are laws in place that are not being aggressively enforced that would actually make an impact.


Yes, I'm sure Vox, Vice and The Daily Beast are telling you exactly that. 

(10-03-2019, 11:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Regardless, the Constitution is not subject to the whims and vagaries of the public. 

https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/prohibition

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=63

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

https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/resource/our-constitution/constitution-chapter-4-constitution-changed-time/

(10-03-2019, 11:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Tell you what, I'll support a national registry if it comes attached to a Constitutional amendment that plainly states that no confiscation or mandatory buyback of any kind will ever be allowed and that anyone in public office advocating for such will be immediately removed from office and declared unfit to ever hold public office again.  Deal?

(10-03-2019, 11:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Regardless, the Constitution is not subject to the whims and vagaries of the public.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-03-2019, 11:48 AM)GMDino Wrote:







https://www.history.com/topics/roaring-twenties/prohibition

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=63

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

https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/resource/our-constitution/constitution-chapter-4-constitution-changed-time/

Please research the difference between amending the Constitution and a popular vote.  Then feel bad about yourself and your sad reliance on emojis. 

[Dill]

(10-02-2019, 04:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The answer to this is, no.

They don't, so it won't.

Straw purchases are illegal, thus they fall under the black market.  The very first question on the NICS form is confirming that you are purchasing this firearm for yourself and no one else.  You raise a good point though, how about actually enforcing existing laws on illegal gun possession and purchases instead of proposing new ones that won't affect the murder rate at all?  Novel concept I know.

Straw purchases send profits directly back to gun manufacturers.

So the answer is yes, criminal demand is a sector of the gun market.

Since it is, limiting that demand will limit profits from that sector.

Do gun manufacturers' donations to the NRA pay for themselves when they enable the NRA to limit laws which limit profits?

Do gun manufacturers do the math, or are they mainly concerned about "rights"?

[Dill]

(10-03-2019, 08:43 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How are straw purchasers identified?

In many cases, especially gang-related, the purchasers are "girlfriends." 

Boyfriend is popped and the sale is traced back his partner.

[GMDino]

(10-03-2019, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Please research the difference between amending the Constitution and a popular vote.

 

So is the constitution "subject to the whims and vagaries of the public" or not?


'Cause it looks like the "public" wanted prohibition and got it passed and then got it revoked.  


Probably by "voting" for people to do just that.

Kinda like people say they are doing when the vote of someone who will "repeal the right to abortion".

(10-03-2019, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then feel bad about yourself and your sad reliance on emojis. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-03-2019, 10:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: For someone engaging in it as a source of criminal revenue it's rather easy.  Does X person buy a large amount of guns?  Does X person still have possession of a majority of them?  Do guns purchased by X person seem to often end up in the hands of criminals?  Now if you have a person who has done this once or twice proving straw purchasing becomes more difficult, but not impossible.  However, finding a large number of people willing to risk prison time to furnish criminals with guns is not an easy task, hence the numbers of people engaged in this activity are small and account for a large percentage of straw purchases.  

The main issue is that the building a case takes a large commitment of time and investigative effort.  Add that to straw purchasing not being a "sexy" arrest, indictment or conviction coupled with the always present potential of the jury buying the defense's bullshit and it's not made a priority.


Yes, this is a problem, but a proportionately minute one.  The straw purchases I explain above aside, it's exceedingly rare for a criminal to purchase a firearm from a law abiding individual via private party transfer (CA lingo there).  Rare enough to be statistically insignificant.



Sure, it would block the insignificant number of guns going to criminals in that fashion.  However, seeing as how the vast majority of firearms end up in criminal hand via theft, both home and commercial burglary, followed distantly by straw purchases, it would have almost zero effect on gun related homicides.  In fact, I'd venture to say it would have zero impact as criminals would then turn exclusively to the methods just mentioned.

Also, said universal background checks would require a national database of owned firearms to be enacted.  Such a database could then be used in the future by Dems like Robert Francis, Biden and Warren who are openly campaigning, to varying degrees, on the confiscation of legally purchased private property.  Those public, and finally honest, statements from leading candidates for POTUS (and Robert Francis) have utterly squashed any chance of universal background checks being agreed upon.  It's almost like they don't really care about gun violence.


It could, but as I stated above not to any appreciable degree. 

What you described is how and why straw purchases are used to take advantage of the current system. It’s why I 95 is called the iron pipeline. It’s why guns are purchased legally in states such as GA, FL, or SC then sold illegally in states such as NY. NYPD statistics show the vast majority of guns confiscated at crime scenes are from out of state. Not sure how we could call that statistically insignificant. Current laws don’t prevent this type of activity. Universal background checks and a database of ownership would go a long way toward eliminating straw purchases. The vast majority of citizens don’t support confiscation or weapons bans, but do support better background checks so I don’t buy the NRA level paranoia associated with databases or universal background checks.

[fredtoast]

(10-03-2019, 11:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, anything that infringes on our rights is unacceptable

All constitutional rights can be limited for public safety reasonns.

Happens all the time.

[*bfine32*]

(10-03-2019, 08:43 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How are straw purchasers identified?

They have a bag of straws in their cart.

[fredtoast]

(10-03-2019, 02:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's also why convicted felons can't own a firearm.  The laws on the books are sufficient to deal with this issue.  

No the laws are not sufficient. When police encounter a person with a gun they have no idea if he is a convicted felon or mentally disturbed. And uf that person has no ID it is impossible to find out.

[Bengalzona]

Please refrain from calling out other posters in posts. Thank you for your cooperation.

[fredtoast]

(10-03-2019, 10:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  it's exceedingly rare for a criminal to purchase a firearm from a law abiding individual via private party transfer (CA lingo there).  Rare enough to be statistically insignificant.

Please show me that statistics on where criminals purchase their guns.

Everything I find a indicates that it is impossible to find out where most of the guns come from because there is no record of the transactions. 

Glad to know that you have a source.  I have been looking hard for this info.

[fredtoast]

(10-03-2019, 10:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, said universal background checks would require a national database of owned firearms to be enacted.  Such a database could then be used in the future by Dems like Robert Francis, Biden and Warren who are openly campaigning, to varying degrees, on the confiscation of legally purchased private property. 

A gun registry has zero to do with confiscation laws.  This speaking point is a total red herring.


Confiscation laws will be passed even if there is no gun registry.  There is no connection between the two.  The fact that a gun registry could assist confiscation is also meaningless because if confiscation laws are passed the anyone who did not comply would be a criminal.

So complaining about a gun registry being used to enforce confiscation laws is just arguing for the protection of criminals.

A gun  registry would do a world of good in enforcing the laws some people act like they want to see enforced.  The fact that it could be used in the future for confiscation is no reason to avoid the good it could do now.  

[Belsnickel]

(10-03-2019, 04:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A gun registry has zero to do with confiscation laws.  This speaking point is a total red herring.


Confiscation laws will be passed even if there is no gun registry.  There is no connection between the two.  The fact that a gun registry could assist confiscation is also meaningless because if confiscation laws are passed the anyone who did not comply would be a criminal.

So complaining about a gun registry being used to enforce confiscation laws is just arguing for the protection of criminals.

A gun  registry would do a world of good in enforcing the laws some people act like they want to see enforced.  The fact that it could be used in the future for confiscation is no reason to avoid the good it could do now.  

Would they, though? It is established that there is an individual right to bear arms. If a confiscation law were passed and someone were rebuking that law they would be following the Constitution, the highest law in the land. Obviously the proper way is to fight it in court (which believe you me if such a law were passed there would be a case filed so fast it would make your head spin and there would 100% be an injunction to prevent the implementation until it was resolved), but this philosophical question still remains.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-03-2019, 04:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Would they, though? It is established that there is an individual right to bear arms. If a confiscation law were passed and someone were rebuking that law they would be following the Constitution, the highest law in the land. Obviously the proper way is to fight it in court (which believe you me if such a law were passed there would be a case filed so fast it would make your head spin and there would 100% be an injunction to prevent the implementation until it was resolved), but this philosophical question still remains.

Of course by the logic advanced by others that meant Jim Crow was proper and those violating it were criminals.  Like I said earlier, I'm pleased that Robert Francis, Biden and Warren have finally admitted what we've always known, confiscation is the end game for the anti-gun side.  They're not even bothering to deny it any longer.  Turning law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen is the very definition of tyranny. 

[jj22]

No one loves seeing Americans die from their own hand from gun violence like a country like Russia.

Seems like something they'd back.

[Bengalzona]

Please direct comments to ideas presented and not the persons presenting the ideas.

There are some very good discussions going on in this thread. Let's not ruin that.

Thank you.