When even gun controllers doubt the existence of the "gun show loophole"....

...folks like me should be forgiven our skepticism:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1006326#t=article


Private-Party Gun Sales, Regulation, and Public Safety
Garen J. Wintemute, M.D., M.P.H., Anthony A. Braga, Ph.D., and David M. Kennedy

N Engl J Med 2010; 363:508-511August 5, 2010





This makes Michael Bloomberg's recent attempts to gin up a moral panic over gun shows appear even more seamy and cynical.

to go through an NICS background check.

Currently I limit my sales of firearms to people I personally know who have a valid Concealed Weapons Permit. This limits any sales I wish to make considerably, so it's a good thing that I rarely sell a firearm.

I believe a system could be set up so that a potential buyer and I could go to a gun store and have an NICS background check preformed for a reasonable fee of $10 to $20. If the buyer passed the check, I could sell the firearms to him without worry. I really can't see a need for any data about the firearms being sold (such as serial numbers or type) to be recorded by the dealer.

I would get a receipt from the dealer for the cost of the background check and it would have the buyers name and info and the fact that he had passed the NICS check. If I chose, I might fill out a list of the firearms and serial numbers and have both the dealer and the buyer sign the list. The list would stay with me unless the buyer also wanted a copy.

the PA state police do it anyway, and have since the 1930's, in knowing violation of the law.

mark

Ban private sales and the only effect will be more people reporting "stolen" guns.

is a felon.

from the article
"although it is always illegal for certain classes of people to buy a gun, it is illegal to sell a gun to such people only if the seller knows or has reasonable cause to believe that he or she is doing so. Unscrupulous private sellers may simply avoid asking questions that would lead to such revelations."

These statements are now indisputable, as Wintemute has written something honest, and the NEJM has actually published it!!!

I suggest you read more of it from the article..

A more effective approach would be to subject all private-party gun sales to the screening and record-keeping requirements that apply to sales by licensed retailers. Six states do so already, and nine others regulate all sales of handguns (see map

State Procedures for Regulating Private-Party Gun Sales, According to Gun Type and Ven



Screening works. In 2008, under the terms of the federal Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, federal and state agencies conducted 9,900,711 checks initiated by licensed retailers and denied 147,080 purchases (1.5%). Long-term observational studies in California show that denial, in turn, is associated with a roughly 25% decrease in the risk that the would-be purchaser will later commit a crime involving guns or violence. Unfortunately, the effect of such regulations when they are implemented at the state level, as they usually are, is blunted by the lack of similar requirements in other states. Similarly, perhaps the principal reason for the well-documented failure of the Brady Act to lower rates of firearm-related homicide is that its requirements do not apply to private-party gun sales.4 Regulating all private-party sales, by contrast, would have measurable benefits.5

Drawbacks with respect to expense and inconvenience notwithstanding, 83% of self-reported gun owners and 87% of the general population endorsed regulation for all private-party gun sales in a 2008 poll that was conducted for the advocacy organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Gun owners gave stronger support to this all-inclusive approach than to a gun-show-only proposal in a 2009 poll conducted for the same organization. Either proposal would face tough sledding on Capitol Hill. It would therefore seem preferable to move forward with the version that is most likely to reduce the rates of firearm-related violence.


I with you on this(a first) in agreeing with the article. Thanks

"background checks on private handgun sales" and not the misnomer "gun show law", just like the usual misnomer and incorrect "assault weapon" name being applied by the ignorant it would be less offensive to the public.

It is a crime for a felon to attempt to buy a gun.

When a crook goes to buy a gun, and fails the background check, what happens? The crooks finds out that the database is current. He already knew he was a crook. You make a phone call and now the FBI knows he's a crook and tells you to deny the sale, but they don't tell YOU why.

But the FBI now knows where the crook is right then, in a process of committing a crime. What happens?

NOTHING!

Unless after you tell the crook "NO," he decides to rob you.

Does the FBI tell you to stall him while they send the cops to arrest his law-breaking ass? Nope.

Are you going to draw down on him, rough him, cuff him and drag him off to jail? Hell no!

Charles Manson could break jail, walk into a gun store, fail the NICS check and walk right back out after finding out the FBI has his name in a computer database in West Virginia.

Big Fucking Whoop!

The odds of a criminal, even a wanted criminal with current warrants, getting arrested for illegally attempting to buy a gun (even failing the NICS check) are about the same as him hitting the lottery.

he couldn't purchase the gun.
I think the other part has something to do with the 5th Amendment. By saying he was illegally buying the gun he would be incriminating himself in an illegal transaction. Not sure, but my guess. I'm more concern with keeping the gun out of the hands of criminals. If the same rules applied to private sales, the sellers would be more likely to deny the sale, as they would be knowingly breaking the law. As stated in the article, it is illegal to "knowingly" sell to a prohibited buyer. As the article also stated the NICS checks HAVE stopped thousands of sales to prohibited buyers. That is a good thing.
I think the law is to stop the illegal sale in the first place, which it does for the most part.

As it stands now, even if the buyer is on the FBI's 10 most wanted list when he attempts to buy the gun, no one will come after him. They will not call the local law, nothing nada, zilch!

You might be pleased he didn't buy a gun then, but he is absolutely free to go anyplace else he thinks he can beg, borrow or steal one.

You are perfectly happy to let him walk out after committing a felony, but hey so was Janet Reno. She testified the law was merely symbolic, it was NEVER intended to arrest anyone who actually tried to buy a gun.

What is the point? Seems to me to be a waste of time. It strikes me like saying "STOP" signs are symbolic, we never meant for anyone to get arrested for running one.

He is not incriminating himself when he tries to buy a gun knowing he is ineligible, he is committing a crime! And apparently it's no big deal, no one is going to bust him for it.

I've never heard of anyone being arrested for running a red light.
If the buyer had to go the local police or sheriff to get the NICS check and fill out a permit to purchase from a private person, the 10 most wanted person would not only not get the gun, but would be arrested. Good point, make em get the permit to purchase from law enforcement. Thanks, you solved the problem. The state I use to live in required one to visit the local police or sheriff to get a permit to purchase a handgun, even if from a FFL dealer. I did it many times, no problem. 5 other states also require it and no court has found that to be unconstitutional.

I have nothing to hide and fear no government tin foil hat type conspiracy to take away ever legal persons guns. I don't live a world based on fear.

I don't know which idea is more frightening- That you might have slept through the entire eight years of the Bush Administration...

Or that you didn't....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=219794

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=194687#194741

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=221495#221517



So, what's it gonna be for you?


The way I see it, you've got several choices:

*Pretend those confiscations (and this post, for that matter) never happened...

*Assure us that this would surely never happen again...

*Tell us that those confiscations were 'reasonable'...

*Surprise us by addressing the issue head-on...


Inquiring minds want to know: Which way will you jump?

More than willing to bet you a hundred bucks that you will never have any guns that you legally own and use legally today confiscated while Obama is President. This I'm willing to do even after reading the NRA's "Obama's secret 10 point plan to take away your guns".
I'm also willing to raise the hundred bucks to any number you are willing to bet.

Who said anything about "While Obama is President"? Once the guns are registered they can't be unregistered.

I agree that our guns are (probably) safe while Obama is President but what about while Hillary is President?

and in the long history of this country less than a few thousand have ever been confiscated and in most case those policies were overturned in court. So, looking at the history of this country, you are much more likely to be hit by lighting. We need a lighting forum also for the fearful.

For some reason, the term "faith promoting rumor" is coming to mind...

Parsed that very carefully, didn't you? What if Biden or Hilary Clinton hold the office?

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

I do agree that our "friends" who keep telling us 'there's nothing to worry about' aren't really our friends at all.

The Tea party isn't always wrong. Film at 11

the cops were doing a pigmentation check. It's still like that in New Jersey and North Carolina, and likely other places as well.

The problem has always been the deceptive way proponents of the background check, going all the way back to the original version of Brady with waiting period, is that there was never any follow up and none was ever intended. NICS is an improvement in that it is less hassle for the innocent, most folks are cleared in seconds.

I can remember when some smug announcement came almost daily about Brady, NICS, etc "stopping" some "increasingly ridiculous huge number" of crooks from buying a gun. Well, sort of, depends on what you mean by stopped. If the crook was brazen or foolhardy enough to try the system using his real name and ID, the absolute worst thing that will happen to him is the sale will be denied. Here you claim that the guy has been "stopped."

Actually, he is perfectly free to ask the guy he buys his dope from if he can get him a gun as well. He is perfectly free to use forged documents and a false identity. He can get his girlfriend to buy it.

The only thing the check has really accomplished is most crooks don't bother going to a legal source, unless they already have the straw buyer or the fake ID ready. That's fine and worthwhile, but quit spreading the delusion that a crook is somehow stopped in any meaningful fashion. Or that the FBI is far less interested in investigating those to whom sales have been denied than in keeping the names of those to whom sales were approved.

fine supporter of gun rights, so it must be correct, it is stated.
"Screening works. In 2008, under the terms of the federal Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, federal and state agencies conducted 9,900,711 checks initiated by licensed retailers and denied 147,080 purchases (1.5%). Long-term observational studies in California show that denial, in turn, is associated with a roughly 25% decrease in the risk that the would-be purchaser will later commit a crime involving guns or violence. Unfortunately, the effect of such regulations when they are implemented at the state "


So, it did stop prevent 147,080 purchases by those not allowed by law to purchase preventing many, many possible violent gun crimes. Don't blame me for the article and it's contents. Your side posted it and I agree with it. Now I'm accused by some of MY TRUE colors coming out. Looks like that poster has nothing but personal attacks when he is caught agreeing with the other side. Sad, very sad.

By being interested in those making the approved buys, there is a line of ownership to trace straw sales back to the straw buyer. This, of course, would make the straw buyer less likely to make such a purchase as it can be traced back to that person. You or I, as a legal, law abiding gun purchaser would have little to fear. Do you really think the straw buyer is going to go into the police station and sign up, or the convicted felon. Ok, may be the certified lunatic, but at least if that person is certified, purchase would be denied. I really think you make the case for purchase permits.

local sheriff has pretty low bar to entry. Some ignorant poon I have to bribe or otherwise convince to exercise a basic right is not going to happen. doesn't matter anyway. This issue is done, gun control is through as an issue and is declining.

The morons who backed it have moved on to things like 4loko, you know with no supreme court cases (2) or constitutional protection, by name.

Its done, cash in your chips. Only choice is how you side handles the loss. You will be witnessing the correction of stupid laws on the books that only impact legal owners.

It's perfectly reasonable and just plain common sense:

How's about you start lobbying to open up the NICS to private sellers, since you claim "Screening works".


It would help keep guns out the hands of the ineligible, and the Volstead-type gun controllers will hate the idea as it wouldn't

encumber gun owners enough to suit them...

That paper trail already existed prior to the Brady Act, under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The GCA required that newly manufactured and imported firearms be stamped with markings identifying the manufacturer/importer and a unique serial number, and that a private party acquiring a firearm from an FFL fill out an ATF Form 4473.

Indeed, since under the Brady Act, background check records on approved purchases (and the whole point of using a straw purchaser is that the purchase will be approved) were initially to be retained for at most 120 days, the Form 4473 has continued to be the essential part of the paper trail in tracing and identifying the initial purchaser of a recovered crime gun.

I find it curious that someone professing to be a gun owner would not be familiar with the Form 4473; you can't buy a gun from an FFL without having to fill one out. Similarly, in a thread a few days ago, you seemed to be unaware of the fact (in this post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=348282&mesg_id=348370) that every firearm legally manufactured in, or imported into, the United States since 1968 already bears a serial number and manufacturer/importer's mark (and quite a lot manufactured even decades prior to 1968 already did so as well, which is how I was able to establish that the Winchester 1894 saddle-ring carbine a friend of mine had inherited from his grandfather had been made in 1918; because it was stamped with "Winchester Repeating Arms Co., New Haven, CT" and a serial number). If you own guns, you really should have noticed that.

If you do, in fact, own guns.

If you don't, and don't know much about firearms laws, it would certainly quite a long way to explaining why you seem to be so fixated on handgun registration as a means of making firearms traceable; because you aren't aware the means to do so--without registration--already exists.

that once a handgun is sold in a private sale the chain is broken and it can be sold over and over with no trace of ownership. I have purchase a handgun at a garage sale with no evidence of that sale. My point was that a relative or girl friend that was going to purchase for some one not legal to do so, would have second thoughts about going to the police station to get a permit to do so, even if from a FFL dealer. Also, the straw purchaser may simply say they sold the gun purchased from a dealer to Joe Blow in a private sale with no way to prove other wise. What are the means to do it that already exists in those cases?

It requires old-fashioned expenditure of shoe leather. Basic police work.

I have purchase a handgun at a garage sale with no evidence of that sale.

No you haven't. There were at least two witnesses to the sale.

promoting unilateral registration to promoting licensure )IE permission to exercise my rights) from the local police?

one of those things that makes you go hmmmm?

You've rather too many conveniently 'overlooked' facts and carefully parsed replies to pass the smell test.

But we get your point

Everyone else realizes that she's an not-unattractive dimbulb with delusions of grandeur. The true believers, of course, treat her

as some sort of moose-hunting Margaret Thatcher.



Similarly, the RACSGC ('Reasonable' And 'Common-Sense' Gun Control) types that post here sound plausable -

to those who already support gun control.


To those of us who are better informed and know our history, they might as well write the blog posts at "Gun Guys", or hang around

Harvard Square offering free personality tests...

You've claimed that, if only firearms came with serial numbers, "the gun would not be sold in the open market, thus making it worth little and a sure ticket to jail." (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=348282&mesg_id=348370)
You've claimed that if there were "a line of ownership to trace straw sales back to the straw buyer<, this> would make the straw buyer less likely to make such a purchase as it can be traced back to that person." (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=348633&mesg_id=348697)

Both have been standard for 42 years, in spite of which, firearms are still stolen and fenced, and firearms are still straw purchased from FFLs. So we've established your ability to accurately predict criminal behavior--even criminal behavior that has already occurred--is just about non-existent. So why should we put any stock in your predictions concerning the crime-reducing effect of other measures you support?

What made you assume I didn't read the article? The fact of the matter is that I read the entire article.

Showing your true (presumptuous/irrational) colors once again, I'm afraid.

Much like a hunting license, drivers license fishing license etc...

No

the day before?

or anywhere else you would like to exercise your Constitutional RIGHTS? Thats why not. No one need to take a test to exercise their right.

In practice, however, licensing requirements have been abused in the past to impose de facto gun prohibitions by arbitrarily denying licenses (to ethnic minorities, recent immigrants, those without political connections, et al.) or by making it difficult to impossible to meet the criteria (e.g. by not actually holding the class you need to take, or holding it only on the fifth Tuesday of the month during office hours), which is why pro-RKBA types tend to be extremely leery of that sort of thing.

sure seem fair to me. They have clear cut rules in most states and have not been abused in any great number. You think they are bad and have been leery of them? In practice most "shall issue" laws have not been abused or used to impose de facto gun prohibitions, denying carry licenses to minorities or those without political connections. As a matter of fact, those laws have put an end to those practices in the states where passed. Why not well written "shall background checks" laws? My county sucks on getting CCWs. Open for CCW business times at the local sheriffs office sucks and they nit pick everyones papers. But, the law was well written so you can go to any county that boarders on your county. The county next to mine is great and they end up with all of the business and that sheriff is very popular with the voters. The key to any law is how well it is written and how well it works.

to exercise a Civil Right?

May I see your First, Fourth and Thirteenth Amendment licences and proof of fees paid, please?

So don't get one. No charge. You already do, it's called a sale tax, it's called a property transfer tax. You already do, it is called the price and taxes paid to own a newspaper, TV or radio station and there are licensing fees on those. You already do when you pay for a permit for your demonstration on the Capital Mall. The 4th does not apply. You already do, you have to pay for your gun, unless giving to you. You even have to get the governments permission to vote and be registered. Why should you have to? Because this isn't Somalia, even if you wish it was. Life is a bitch and then you die.

Then there is Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Impost and Excises,.....

lets make a tax for both. Better yet lets make it so you need a piece of paper some asshole has to stamp to do both of those. Got bribe money?

I shit you not if employment ever forced me to move to some restrictive shithole I would be sure the contract put enough cash on the table to bribe whomever to get a carry permit.

By bribe I mean pay a lawyer to figure it out, a rich persons bribe..

bribes in "shall issue" states? I don't see anyone calling for expanding "may issue".

When you only see in black and white, you miss a lot.

bottom line in socal or nyc area I can get a permit with a stack of cash through a lawyer. What he does is not my concern.

No stack of cash, no permit. I see plenty of gray. anyone not addressing root cause of gun violence is either unable to see it or unwilling to state it and acknowledge the problem is more complex than some new reg I have to follow.

thats the gray space. the rest is simple, its a right, it is a done argument. now we are like post brown vs board and roe, only thing left is determining how the parties will handle their new guidance.

both NY and Cal are "may issue" states. Bad laws equal bad outcomes. Now show me all the stories, must be a bunch of them, for states with "shall issue" laws that have a problem with bribes for CCWs.

to blacks, jews, people who did not donate you your re-election fund. I have no problem with the CCW process in my state. Nice and reasonable.

Next domino to push is the laws that make driving up the east coast a legal mess with a handgun.

That may force some places to confront the facts. Camden NJ is a shithole, that fact has nothing to do with my firearms.

You claim it's a problem? Demonstrate it.

the link and touting it for me. What, you think no one is going to read the whole thing?

Namely that "shall issue" CCW laws were a relaxation of the gun laws, compared to the previous situation, in which a concealed carry permit was either "may issue" or non-existent. By contrast, requiring a license to simply possess a firearm would represent a tightening of gun laws in most jurisdictions in the U.S. (and the status quo in the rest).

Let's take a look at a recent historical example of a jurisdiction being forced to "shall issue" licenses to possess (forget concealed carry, this is just to have in your home) a handgun, namely the District of Columbia. As WaPo reported Chris Davenport put it:

to get the permit.
In my neck of the woods, you can get a brand new SIG-Sauer for less than it costs to get the fucking license in D.C. to own the thing in the first place. And for fuck's sake, four visits to the cop shop, presumably at times at which most people are required to be at work? Anyone want to tell me that "shall issue" system isn't deliberately designed to deter most people from even trying to get a license?

you go get your license to vote, gather in groups of more than three, check out a book at the library?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

That's the problem I have with gun-control measures. Even opening the NICS test to everyone, as a measure, does not clearly identify a problem, nor how the measure purports to address the problem, let alone how an outcome will be measured. With illegal gun purchases at "gun shows" at such low levels (and a concentration of LEO at these shows a common-place event), what kind of problem is addressed? To me, a measure like this seems to have a political subtext that dwarfs any so-called social problem.