Obama and I agree on something

[CitizenBBN]

More specifically he agrees with me. On two things apparently.

1) Remember when I wrote my letter to the NRA and put it here and one of the things I listed was for the ATF to begin prosecuting people who lie on their 4473 forms when they try to buy a handgun, that they've committed a felony but are never pursued?

one of the things he says he will possibly do by executive order is to increase prosecution of these people.

the NRA and dealers have called for for years, and which I called for when this happened. Why are we adding new laws when we have felons running around the ATF/DOJ refuse to prosecute for tying to obtain a firearm illegally? Seems like we'd prosecute the guys already being caught in felonies by the current background check system before we worry about adding more checks to the system, right?

Of course no one has given credit to the NRA or the dealers for their advancement of this idea or how they have in fact suggested responsible reforms to the system.

2) Remember my complaints about the NICS system? another action will be to compel the states to do a better job of reporting mental illness info to the NICS system so checks can be more accurate.

Again, something I called for when this started, pointing out that there are a lot of weaknesses in how the system works b/c the states and localities only cooperate voluntarily and often don't provide important info the FBI needs.


3) not an agreement, so not in my total, but he does talk about gun "trafficking". This goes to the lack of a bright line test as to what constitutes a "dealer". You can buy a gun, decide you don't want it and then sell it. If you buy it to make money that supposedly requires a license, but it happens constantly b/c there's no way to prove or disprove such a thing so it's ignored even by ATF.

Establishing a bright line test, i.e. you can't sell the guns within x months or more than y guns a year, would make it clear who needs a license and who doesn't. So I don't accept the connotation of "trafficking" b/c it's not trying to get around the law, it's a lack of clarity in the law. ATF itself has changed it's position more than once on who needs a license. Give people something clear and 90% will follow it.


So in fairness to the PResident there are some things in his executive order list that are good things, and in fact are appropriate for an executive order. They address better enforcement of existing legislation rather than trying to legislate. the law already says you can't get a gun if you're mentally incompetent, this makes the database more reliable. That's all good. Prosecuting people who commit felonies attempting to get a gun, that's good too.


now, why can't we do these obvious things and forget the grandstanding about assault weapons?

[suncat05]

They're not going to give up on that. Anything they believe they have a chance of doing they will try to do.

[KeithKSR]

A bright line test for dealers should constitute of the number of guns purchased and then sold in a calendar year, IMO. Making money from the sale of a firearm doesn't necessarily make one a dealer. I have an SKS I bought from my nephew more than a decade ago. The gun is now significantly higher in retail price and I could make a healthy profit by selling it before the demand subsides. I've got a revolver I purchased from an individual, it is a mid-80's vintage revolver and I likely paid more for it than the individual who purchased it new years before. The occasional sale should not make one a dealer.

I also don't think all transfers/sales should be subject to NICS background checks. IMO, laws governing non-dealer transfers would be better to be state specific, because of the tremendous differences in the composition of the people of the states. If someone where I live sells to a neighbor or makes a trade with a neighbor there is a great chance that they have known each other for decades. It is not like that in more urban states. Additionally, firearms tend to be passed from generation to generation, purchased as gifts for family members, etc. To me it would be silly for a background check to be required when I was left an old shotgun by my FIL when he passed away, or for my children to undergo checks if I choose to give them one of my arms.

[CitizenBBN]

Keith the original concept was that an occasional sale didn't make you a dealer, but there isn't any clarity bout what constitutes occasional. it's based around intent, that you didn't buy the gun to resell it. the problem is there's almost no way to prove that and even then it's gray.

I'm for a numeric test like selling x guns per month or year or similar. Even the obama stuff proposed exceptions in the background checks for family, but I agree completely the idea of "universal" background checks has a lot of issues in those areas. Just give us a rule. we're not a bunch of law school grads in this trade.

Don't know if i'd agree too much about the geographic difference. True sales between people who know each other are more common in this part of the country, but there are so many guns now listed on sites and sold between people who don't know each other it's not like it was.

[KeithKSR]

Don't know if i'd agree too much about the geographic difference. True sales between people who know each other are more common in this part of the country, but there are so many guns now listed on sites and sold between people who don't know each other it's not like it was.

IMO, if you are selling more than a small number of guns a year on those sites like gunbroker.com then you are a dealer. This goes along with the stance you, other dealers, and the NRA have on a bright line test for being a dealer.

There are a lot of inconsistencies in the entire system. In some ways dealers have too much placed on their shoulders regarding background checks. I always thought it was odd that someone pawning a gun had to have a background check done when they went to reclaim their property. Should the rules be any different for pawning a weapon and picking it up than it is for taking a weapon for repair at a gunsmith? You don't forfeit ownership in either situation until you eclipse the date which you are supposed to repay the pawn broker.

[CitizenBBN]

Have to do the checks if you take back consignments as well. i don't get that one either and the consignors REALLY don't get it. It's just a weird way to try to expand the background checks.

Obviously if someone is buying a booth at gun show after gun show and selling and buying and doesn't have a license, he should have one.

that would fix the "loopholes" as they are called. Their ire over "gun shows" is really a misdirected ire over guys who buy and sell for profit who don't have licenses and avoid the checks as well as the record keeping. solve that and what's left isn't that big an issue. the fact that people gather to buy/sell/trade guns isn't the problem.

Also untie the dealers re premises requirements. a lot of private sales happen b/c the guy selling it in Louisville will meet the guy from lexington in Frankfort, and no checks or paperwork. Dealers have to have them come to that office. Let a dealer go to Frankfort, call in the check on a cell phone, the same requirements have been met and now the guys who do the checks are on a more level playing field with the unlicensed dealers.

I've had people call and ask if we could meet them to transfer a gun if they bought it at an auction. They don't ask if they have to do the checks, they just don't want to drive as far. we have to say no. No doubt some of those guys end up buying privately with no checks done.

Simple stuff like that would help a lot without having to legally extend the background check requirements at all. At least try that stuff first.