[FLyon]

A House Democrat has introduced legislation that would require sellers to obtain a background check for all guns sold at gun shows.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday reintroduced the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act, a bill long championed by former Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.),.

The bill would subject anyone selling or transferring a gun to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and require that transfers be reported to the attorney general.

Maloney said a background check is required when a Federal Firearm Licensee wants to sell firearms at a gun show, but no such requirement exists for private sales.

Gun show operators would be required to register with the attorney general and provide information on upcoming shows, including the identity of all firearm vendors, and keep a record of all vendors’ identities…

Bill would require background checks for private sales at gun shows | TheHill

 

[SONYtec]

They keep trying...

 

[ShootingSight]

I'm actually in favor of this one. Sort of.

I used to work gun shows, and I saw every weekend, about 30 minutes before closing time, the scumbags (who presumably waited till the end to avoid paying admissions), would go from table to table, and the first question was 'do you require paperwork'. These were no patriots, worried about limiting government oversight, these were the scumbags with felonies who were looking to buy illegal guns.

We as a firearms community are the first to point out that before adding new laws, they should enforce the laws they have. Doing what we can to prevent felons from buying guns should be something we support.

Will it eliminate the problem? No. If they find someone willing enough to step out in the parking lot, they can still do the transaction without paperwork, but in my mind, this is about going after the low hanging fruit. Make it more difficult, and it will happen less often.

When I say 'Sort of', my objection is that the Democrats are after 'common sense gun laws'. Only that's a lie. They are after common sense gun laws that are more restrictive. THey will not support common sense gun laws that are less restrictive. Yes, all gun show sales should have to go through NICS. But all silencers should stop being Class III items. Concealed carry should have US wide reciprocity, like driver licenses, SBRs should be legalized, so we don't have this nonsense about adding a stock to a pistol, 'once a machine gun always a machine gun' should be repealed, so if you permanently render a machine gun semi auto only, all they need to do is transfer a serial number from one list to another list. Common sense stuff like that.

But until they negotiate, I won't openly support any of their plans.

 

[Fröman]

Guns are just personal property and there should be ZERO prior restraint regarding a basic human right.

Make the penalty for criminal misuse life in prison or even death for all I care but when regarding Civil Liberties the punishment must be punitive not preventative.

Restricting access to guns for adults would be like making people get a license to speak in public or buy a computer and limiting them to posterboard and paper megaphones if the mob decides they they don't like their demographics.

No Prior Restraint is remotely constitutional in any way, shape or form.

 

[hogslayer]

I think this is a matter of time background checks for every transaction including trusts. Not that I want it or I am for it, just to many people doing the wrong thing causing us to have to accept it..

 

[Fröman]

I think this is a matter of time background checks for every transaction including trusts. Not that I want it or I am for it, just to many people doing the wrong thing causing us to have to accept it..

Homicides are at their lowest point in 100 years.
The percentage of homicide victims who are criminals is at 90%(vs 60% in the 80s/90s)
Mass Shootings have killed fewer Americans than Peanut Butter Allergies in the last 40 years.
Background Checks wouldn't have stopped any notorious criminal that's been in the news for 2 decades.

The basis for this push has nothing to do with public safety or "people doing wrong", it's just incremental destruction of your Civil Liberties.

 

[ShootingSight]

I have no objection to saying that mentally ill people or violent felons should not be allowed to buy guns.

My big objection is that (if I recall the statistics), of all the people flagged by NICS, and denied, only about 1% were actually prosecuted for trying to buy a gun that they knew they were not allowed to buy.

 

[HK SD9 Tactical]

Felons and no guns did not happen until the GCA68. It was a bad law tben and it is still a bad law.

Since 68 we have given up much of our 2nd for common sense gun laws. Every one of these of these laws/acts or whatever has done nothing except penalize the law abiding.

Every gun control law passes by every lawmaker at the federal, state and local authorities is unconstitutional. Only rhe people under Art V of the Constitution can put limits on the 2nd. That is what "Shall not be infringed" means.

 

[hillbillyjim]

I'm actually in favor of this one. Sort of.

I used to work gun shows, and I saw every weekend, about 30 minutes before closing time, the scumbags (who presumably waited till the end to avoid paying admissions), would go from table to table, and the first question was 'do you require paperwork'. These were no patriots, worried about limiting government oversight, these were the scumbags with felonies who were looking to buy illegal guns.

We as a firearms community are the first to point out that before adding new laws, they should enforce the laws they have. Doing what we can to prevent felons from buying guns should be something we support.

Will it eliminate the problem? No. If they find someone willing enough to step out in the parking lot, they can still do the transaction without paperwork, but in my mind, this is about going after the low hanging fruit. Make it more difficult, and it will happen less often.

When I say 'Sort of', my objection is that the Democrats are after 'common sense gun laws'. Only that's a lie. They are after common sense gun laws that are more restrictive. THey will not support common sense gun laws that are less restrictive. Yes, all gun show sales should have to go through NICS. But all silencers should stop being Class III items. Concealed carry should have US wide reciprocity, like driver licenses, SBRs should be legalized, so we don't have this nonsense about adding a stock to a pistol, 'once a machine gun always a machine gun' should be repealed, so if you permanently render a machine gun semi auto only, all they need to do is transfer a serial number from one list to another list. Common sense stuff like that.

But until they negotiate, I won't openly support any of their plans.

The problem is we give an inch here next year they ask for two and the year after another two and all of a sudden given up a foot. If we were dealing with normal people with tolerant views I'm sure many wouldn't mind this topic and being open to more regs but not from a bunch aholes who only goal is to eventually ban guns. They don't want to give an inch on subject of killing babies but we need to let them tear up our rights? Libs are allot smarter at the politics game then righties

 

[monsterdog]

Seriously, isn't this just a solution in search of a problem? I'd like to see some actual data on how many guns used in crimes were obtained at gun shows, without a background check.

Maybe the gun shows I go to are different, but they're full of people sitting around waiting for background checks to clear, while the seller is on the phone waiting on the same.

 

[monsterdog]

I have no objection to saying that mentally ill people or violent felons should not be allowed to buy guns.

You know what, I'm split between this and Froman's "no prior restraint" comment. It makes sense that violent repeat offenders and seriously mentally ill people should probably not have a gun.

However, the fact of the matter is it's not just violent felons or seriously mentally ill people who are prohibited.

The law prohibits anyone with a conviction of something the judge could have thrown them in jail for a year or more for. This covers a lot more than violence, and it also covers things that most of the time result in a small fine or a very short jail sentence. The law completely ignores the severity or nature of the crime, and simply prohibits people based on the worst possible legal outcome of their actions. I would say that most people prohibited because of being convicted of a crime, have been convicted of things that are non-violent, and quite often had no victims other than themselves.

In the case of mental health issues, in some states you can be prohibited for life if a doctor signs an order to keep you for a short term observation for mental health issues. In at least one state (PA) you simply can't have your prohibition removed ever again if this happened to you. No judge or jury needed, only the word of someone who doesn't like you. And it doesn't matter if you got better or didn't actually have any mental health issue to begin with.

If it wasn't so easy to prohibit a person and subvert the law to include more and more restrictions, most gun owners would probably find background checks to be the one case they might give up some of their freedom.

 

[mooosie]

The constitution and the amendments are God given rights that do not come under the control of government if the do they are not rights they are privileges granted by government . Is that the kind of freedom you want?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[seawolfxix]

The fact of the matter is that these types of measures will not prevent crime. Criminals will always find a way to commit crimes no matter how illegal it is. This is the unfortunate (and unavoidable) consequence of free will.

What we really need are brain scanners that will detect illegal thoughts before any actions are taken. (/sarcasm)

 

[vz58kid]

These type of bills have been around for 20 yrs. and none ever passed yet, anywhere!

 

[Fröman]

Felons and no guns did not happen until the GCA68. It was a bad law tben and it is still a bad law.

Since 68 we have given up much of our 2nd for common sense gun laws. Every one of these of these laws/acts or whatever has done nothing except penalize the law abiding.

Every gun control law passes by every lawmaker at the federal, state and local authorities is unconstitutional. Only rhe people under Art V of the Constitution can put limits on the 2nd. That is what "Shall not be infringed" means.

The very concept of a "Felon" is a tenet of English Medieval Feudal Law and not even remotely American or even a product of any Democracy, ever.

When a crook serves his time(all of it) his debt to society is supposed to be paid in full.

We used to restore a crooks rights and give him all of his personal property back when he finished his stint(usually at hard labor) in prison.

We should return to "chain gangs" and full length sentences but make them full citizens with full rights once they are done.

Make cons work on a road crew or in a mine for 10 years and we'll never see their butts in trouble with the law again no matter how many guns they have, lol

 

[SAVAGEJIM]

What we really need are brain scanners that will detect illegal thoughts before any actions are taken. (/sarcasm)

Sadly, this type of sarcastic scify is truth.
If such tech actually existed, we can repeal and abolish all background check laws and only have one that prohibits sale to one who is subtantially mentally ill and/or doing so for criminal intent.

These type of bills have been around for 20 yrs. and none ever passed yet, anywhere!

knock on wood. They keep trying because we, the pro-2A have eventually budged too many times to allow anti-2A laws to be passed.
Every sngle time these bills come up, we have to fight them with all our strength or this type of Bill will eventually pass