20 ms·

>There is no regulation that can actually stop it. As a gun owner, sure there is. If your gun shows up in a crime, you get indicted as well. That would put a b

>There is no regulation that can actually stop it. As a gun owner, sure there is. If your gun shows up in a crime, you get indicted as well. That would put a big dent in people being willing to buy guns for others. Also making sure there are no secondary sales without background checks, which is supported by (I think?) the majority of Americans would help. Repeat offenders at losing guns lose the right to any guns. All of these would stop repeat offenders, and if I recall, the majority of straw sales are repeat offenders knowing they don't get in much or any trouble buying guns this way.

HideousKojima 4y ago
>Also making sure there are no secondary sales without background checks, which is supported by (I think?) the majority of Americans would help. It's only supported by the majority of Americans until you ask them about specific situations and policy implications. Instead of a generic "Do you support universal background checks?" question they should try asking "Should you have to perform a background check to loan a gun to your roommate to take to the range?" or "Should you have to perform a background check to loan a gun to your next door neighbor who is worried her violent stalker ex-boyfriend has figured out where she lives?" and you'll find much lower levels of support.
- kelnos 4y ago
  That's a bit of a straw man. Even closing loopholes around private sales would improve the situation somewhat, and a majority of Americans definitely support that.
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    >That's a bit of a straw man. Not at all, the current state-level bans on private sales only make exceptions for immediate family members and a few other specific groups/situations, they would make the behavior in my questions a felony. Here's Washington State's exceptions (note that c would not apply to my violent ex scenario because the violent ex would need to be actually present at the time of the transfer and threatening harm): (4) This section does not apply to: (a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, parents-in-law, children, siblings, siblings-in-law, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift or loan; (b) The sale or transfer of an antique firearm; (c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if: (i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and (ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; (d) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if: (i) The transfer is intended to prevent suicide or self-inflicted great bodily harm; (ii) the transfer lasts only as long as reasonably necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm; and (iii) the firearm is not utilized by the transferee for any purpose for the duration of the temporary transfer; (e) Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official; (f) A federally licensed gunsmith who receives a firearm solely for the purposes of service or repair, or the return of the firearm to its owner by the federally licensed gunsmith; (g) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners; (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located; (iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance; (iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; (v) under circumstances in which the transferee and the firearm remain in the presence of the transferor; or (vi) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; (h) A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or (ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days. At the end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in compliance with all federal and state laws; or (i) A sale or transfer when the purchaser or transferee is a licensed collector and the firearm being sold or transferred is a curio or relic.
    - ChrisLomont 4y ago
      >they would make the behavior in my questions a felony. They would also stop of lot of existing homicides, which are also felonies already being committed. Your cases are honestly quite contrived and rare, especially against the number of homicides and other crimes using straw purchases. I think most people would trade common case homicides for rarer cases you pick. The stats are pretty clear on which cases are most common. That is why the support for such laws is so widespread and bipartisan.
      - XorNot 4y ago
        The cases are so contrived they do not happen. Just think of the situation he's proposing: your neighbour who you apparently trust enough to give a loaded gun too, to potentially kill a person with, does not have a gun themselves but apparently is completely capable of using it? And you know, this problem has to be solved right now: too much of an imposition to look out for them while they go and buy a gun from one of the numerous gun stores - but giving away a loaded gun, that's what you want to do (no one would do this in this scenario).
- HWR_14 4y ago
  > "Should you have to perform a background check to loan a gun to your roommate to take to the range?" or "Should you have to perform a background check to loan a gun to your next door neighbor who is worried her violent stalker ex-boyfriend has figured out where she lives?" Yes to both. It takes 30 seconds to run the check. They're not required to interview kindergarden classmates or something crazy.
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    It takes a trip to your nearest FFL willing to run a background check, and who will usually charge for it. And oops! Your next-door neighbor's name matched a different person who has a criminal record, and she now has to wait three days to transfer the gun. And oops again! She already got raped and beaten to death by her ex in the time it took for NICS to clear her.
    - ChrisLomont 4y ago
      Alternatively, we can continue to have mass killings, single killings, and lots of crime by guns bought by people that should have been blocked. For every person you cherry picked getting raped that would have stopped the assailant with a gun, many more are killed under the current system. Instead of picking outlying events and trying to put them forth as common, why not look at common events to start with? You'll get much better policy and understanding from that.
      - xienze 4y ago
        > Alternatively, we can continue to have mass killings, single killings, and lots of crime by guns bought by people that should have been blocked. Sounds possible in theory, but not so much in practice. Let's say I live my whole life as a model citizen, then one day buy a gun with the intent to kill a bunch of people. No background check in the world would deny my purchase. What now?
        relaxing 4y ago
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >It's only supported by the majority of Americans until you ask them about specific situations and policy implications. It also seems you're trying to stack the deck in your favor. If you're going to ask questions designed to pull support away with cherry picked circumstances, then you should also ask cherry picked questions leading the other way, like pointing out how many mass shootings are done with guns that bypassed background checks. So cite your poll please. I'd like to see the questions. Or you can ask a fairly neutral question, like [1], a poll with the question "How much do you support or oppose each of the following? Requiring background checks on all gun sales" 73% strongly support, 15% somewhat support, 4% somewhat oppose, 4% strongly oppose, 5% don't know/no opinion. That's a pretty neutral question, has massive support. Let's see your data on your split questions. [1] https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-fe72-d0c2-a9ae-ff7250f80000&nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=0000014e-f115-dd93-ad7f-f91513e50001&nlid=630318 https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-fe72-d0c2-a9ae-ff725...
  - Ancapistani 4y ago
    > [...] like pointing out how many mass shootings are done with guns that bypassed background checks. Can you name some? Better yet, can you point to data on how often this has happened? Off the top of my head, I can think of several instances where the guns were legally purchased and the shooter passed the background checks. I can think of a couple where they were stolen, and one where they were taken from a family member after that family member's murder. I can't think of any where the firearm(s) were acquired exclusively through private sale.
  - R0b0t1 4y ago
    I hate to be the one, but he's right: more background checks is hilariously unpopular outside of blue cities and states. A lot of people in red states, even in cities, think that the gun regulations we have are too strong.
    - tristan957 4y ago
      Anecdote: I know many gun owners who are fine with universal background checks if they can be performed at home for free in a reasonable amount of time. I don't understand why people who want gun regulation aren't pushing for this. Free, easy, and fast background checks.
newaccount2021 4y ago
> If your gun shows up in a crime, you get indicted as well so, someone breaks into my house while I am on vacation for three weeks, ignores the alarm, rips open the gun safe, takes a gun, kills someone...I go to jail? but even in the case of actual straw purchases, the buyer is often victimized by the ultimate intended user...gangs browbeating vulnerable people etc. doesn't excuse the crime, but imprisoning a mule won't stop much
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >so, someone breaks into my house while I am on vacation for three weeks, ignores the alarm, rips open the gun safe, takes a gun, kills someone...I go to jail? Not if you report it or demonstrate it was stolen. And I didn't write "go to jail" - indicted means they're going to investigate you, just like they do now when a gun registered to someone shows up in crimes. And those people don't "go to jail" if they didn't have the gun. What it does curtail is people buying guns to give away, because at some point enough guns will show up having been registered to them then used in crimes, and that should be prosecuted. That behavior is what is going to bring even stricter regulations if it is not curtailed by some set of laws. I'd prefer a decent background check on firearm transfers - I already pass them with zero problem, but it would hinder people that should be banned from working around such measures.
  - pandaman 4y ago
    > indicted means they're going to investigate you That's not what "indicted" means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment#United_States
jaywalk 4y ago
> Also making sure there are no secondary sales without background checks, which is supported by (I think?) the majority of Americans would help. How would it help at all? They've already proven willing to break the law with the straw purchase. > All of these would stop repeat offenders, and if I recall, the majority of straw sales are repeat offenders knowing they don't get in much or any trouble buying guns this way. You don't know what you're talking about. It's a felony, and precludes you from purchasing or even possessing a firearm ever again. It's not possible to be a repeat offender.
- lokar 4y ago
  Republicans have ensured that the ATF is not able to really enforce these laws. They are setup to be ineffective.
  - alkaloid 4y ago
    And here I thought the other party runs the United States government. I did a quick Google, and -- sure enough! -- "Biden nominee for ATF Director says he's never owned a gun" https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/06/biden-nominee-for-atf-director-says-hes-never-owned-a-gun/ https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/06/biden-nominee-for-a... And I'm also pretty sure it's not "Republican" DAs and AGs refusing to prosecute crime.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      I did a quick Google search and found https://nyti.ms/3edFGs8 https://nyti.ms/3edFGs8. Lo and behold, the Biden administration is fixing what can be fixed in ATF. "At the N.R.A.’s instigation, Congress has limited the bureau’s budget. It has imposed crippling restrictions on the collection and use of gun-ownership data, including a ban on requiring basic inventories of weapons from gun dealers. It has limited unannounced inspections of gun dealers. Fifteen years ago, the N.R.A. successfully lobbied to make the director’s appointment subject to Senate confirmation — and has subsequently helped block all but one nominee from taking office." I'm pretty sure no DA is refusing to prosecute violent crime. One party is limiting the gun crimes that DAs can prosecute. https://www.salon.com/2022/06/06/us-laws-are-causing-mayhem-and-mass--and-couldnt-be-more-thrilled/ https://www.salon.com/2022/06/06/us-laws-are-causing-mayhem-...
dangerboysteve 4y ago
Those same people getting the guns are more and likely removing serial numbers.
- collegeburner 4y ago
  Removing serial is a lot harder these days bc the compression of stamping alters the metal and makes it hard, "filing off" does not work. Old guns maybe depending on how it was done, but new ones there is specific regulations (I think pressed to 0.003 inch?) so chemical etching will show different densities. These days they can even catch over stamping, I heard about some cases using xray to do it. So it's more trouble than it's worth to remove serials on new guns usually. For some reason I hear about almost no instances of peening to hide it, which is probably because you need to know the right size and pressure so it mostly makes sense at scale. It's funny the number of criminals that run around with literally filed off serials and get themselves literally 10x the time on the gun charge as whatever else they caught for. You can instead get a shitty gun bc some have badly done serials (speshul wepunz has done this before, but ofc then you have to shoot one lol), you can get an old gun, you can finish an 80% lower. But most criminals just steal or straw buy, or buy smuggled guns (the philippines is notorious for this).
  - double_nan 4y ago
    Not true for the new guns either. For example Glock’s serial number is a small metal plate embedded into the polymer.
    - collegeburner 4y ago
      True, glocks are an exception bc the frames are plastic so they can't serialize them easily other ways. I seen other plastic guns (like hipoints and polymer80s) do the same. There's safeguards against this though, I know there's a place you can cut on a hipoint to find a hidden serial even if they remove the plate. Smith & Wesson actually got sued to add an extra hidden serial to their guns. A bunch of plastiguns have this kind of stuff for exactly this reason.
    - 4y ago
Hellbanevil 4y ago
wyager 4y ago
> If your gun shows up in a crime, you get indicted as well. This is A) obviously nonsense B) does not incentivize any positive behavioral changes C) equivalent to banning re-selling your guns. We already have the ability to prosecute people who perform straw purchases. > the majority of straw sales are repeat offenders Sounds like the problem lies with straw purchase enforcement, not with the entire concept of gun resale.
- stonemetal12 4y ago
  It doesn't ban sales, it bans unregistered, non background checked sales. I don't see what is nonsense about it, the same law already applies to cars. If you loan your car to someone and they commit a crime with it, you can face charges for it. If you sell your car without a termination of interest notice filed with the state and the new owner doesn't file the signed title, it is still legally your car and what the new owner does with it can get you in legal trouble.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    I'm not aware of any federal law that makes it illegal to sell a car without registering it or titling it. I'm definitely not aware of any law that requires background check to buy or transfer a car (Dealership license may require it, but not private party transaction). In general if you have no reason to believe someone will commit a crime with your car, you typically can't be found criminally liable for merely loaning it out. With firearms, it's actually a federal crime to lend a firearm to an out of state resident except for lawful sporting purposes (not general purposes, like lawful self defense).
    - spacemanmatt 4y ago
      > I'm not aware of any federal law that makes it illegal to sell a car without registering it or titling it if your car is involved in a crime, the cops will come looking for you. maybe you can beat a conviction but you might face an uphill battle even with an attorney. but sure, it's not illegal to sell a car without transferring the title, but neither is it considered a legal sale. that is still your car as long as the title is in your name.
xienze 4y ago
> As a gun owner, sure there is. If your gun shows up in a crime, you get indicted as well. That would put a big dent in people being willing to buy guns for others. Buying a gun "for" someone else is a very gray area. For example, if I bought a gun and ten years later sold it to some guy who committed a crime, should I be indicted? Was this a straw purchase with a looooong time window? Or if I truly did buy a gun for someone else (as in, purchased and delivered the same day) and he waits ten years to commit a crime, was this also a true straw purchase? How can you tell?
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >For example, if I bought a gun and ten years later sold it to some guy who committed a crime, should I be indicted? No, because for you to sell it to him, you'd have done the background check, and transferred it to him. That is the point. Same as car titles, or mortgage deeds, or others items in society that transfer ownership.
  - xienze 4y ago
    > No, because for you to sell it to him, you'd have done the background check, and transferred it to him. That is the point. In most (all?) states there's no need for a background check or any kind of record keeping when two individuals are selling/transferring to one another [0]. Between states it's another story. > Same as car titles, or mortgage deeds, or others items in society that transfer ownership. There's no constitutional right to any of those things, which is what makes the situation different. 0: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/federal-ccw-law/federal-private-firearm-transfer-laws/ https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/federal-ccw-law/f...
    - ChrisLomont 4y ago
      >In most (all?) states there's no need for a background check Have you followed this thread at all? I am fully aware of this, having done many gun transfers. This thread is about adding universal background checks. >There's no constitutional right to any of those things, which is what makes the situation different. It is not different at all - it is perfectly constitutional to require background checks and transfers - that is how the current system is legal. And all constitutional rights have bounds. 1st Amendment free speech has limits on what you can say, where you can do it, even requiring permits for many cases. 3rd, 4th, 5th Amendments about housing and property - you have a constitutional right to property, but it can be deprived, and many forms are registered and require paperwork to transfer. So it's not at all different from other property registration and transfers.
tekknik 4y ago
> As a gun owner, sure there is. If your gun shows up in a crime, you get indicted as well. That would put a big dent in people being willing to buy guns for others. So again, as many others have said, if your gun is stolen then what? You’re implying that if your gun showed up at a crime scene you’ve done something wrong, which is clearly not true in many cases. All this will do is decrease gun ownership due to liability.

HideousKojima 4y ago

>Also making sure there are no secondary sales without background checks, which is supported by (I think?) the majority of Americans would help. It's only supported by the majority of Americans until you ask them about specific situations and policy implications. Instead of a generic "Do you support universal background checks?" question they should try asking "Should you have to perform a background check to loan a gun to your roommate to take to the range?" or "Should you have to perform a background check to loan a gun to your next door neighbor who is worried her violent stalker ex-boyfriend has figured out where she lives?" and you'll find much lower levels of support.

kelnos 4y ago
That's a bit of a straw man. Even closing loopholes around private sales would improve the situation somewhat, and a majority of Americans definitely support that.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  >That's a bit of a straw man. Not at all, the current state-level bans on private sales only make exceptions for immediate family members and a few other specific groups/situations, they would make the behavior in my questions a felony. Here's Washington State's exceptions (note that c would not apply to my violent ex scenario because the violent ex would need to be actually present at the time of the transfer and threatening harm): (4) This section does not apply to: (a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, parents-in-law, children, siblings, siblings-in-law, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift or loan; (b) The sale or transfer of an antique firearm; (c) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if: (i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such imminent death or great bodily harm; and (ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; (d) A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if: (i) The transfer is intended to prevent suicide or self-inflicted great bodily harm; (ii) the transfer lasts only as long as reasonably necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm; and (iii) the firearm is not utilized by the transferee for any purpose for the duration of the temporary transfer; (e) Any law enforcement or corrections agency and, to the extent the person is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment or official duties, any law enforcement or corrections officer, United States marshal, member of the armed forces of the United States or the national guard, or federal official; (f) A federally licensed gunsmith who receives a firearm solely for the purposes of service or repair, or the return of the firearm to its owner by the federally licensed gunsmith; (g) The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners; (ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located; (iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee's possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance; (iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; (v) under circumstances in which the transferee and the firearm remain in the presence of the transferor; or (vi) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law; (h) A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the firearm or (ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the death of the former owner of the pistol within the preceding sixty days. At the end of the sixty-day period, the person must either have lawfully transferred the pistol or must have contacted the department of licensing to notify the department that he or she has possession of the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in compliance with all federal and state laws; or (i) A sale or transfer when the purchaser or transferee is a licensed collector and the firearm being sold or transferred is a curio or relic.
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    >they would make the behavior in my questions a felony. They would also stop of lot of existing homicides, which are also felonies already being committed. Your cases are honestly quite contrived and rare, especially against the number of homicides and other crimes using straw purchases. I think most people would trade common case homicides for rarer cases you pick. The stats are pretty clear on which cases are most common. That is why the support for such laws is so widespread and bipartisan.
    - XorNot 4y ago
      The cases are so contrived they do not happen. Just think of the situation he's proposing: your neighbour who you apparently trust enough to give a loaded gun too, to potentially kill a person with, does not have a gun themselves but apparently is completely capable of using it? And you know, this problem has to be solved right now: too much of an imposition to look out for them while they go and buy a gun from one of the numerous gun stores - but giving away a loaded gun, that's what you want to do (no one would do this in this scenario).
HWR_14 4y ago
> "Should you have to perform a background check to loan a gun to your roommate to take to the range?" or "Should you have to perform a background check to loan a gun to your next door neighbor who is worried her violent stalker ex-boyfriend has figured out where she lives?" Yes to both. It takes 30 seconds to run the check. They're not required to interview kindergarden classmates or something crazy.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  It takes a trip to your nearest FFL willing to run a background check, and who will usually charge for it. And oops! Your next-door neighbor's name matched a different person who has a criminal record, and she now has to wait three days to transfer the gun. And oops again! She already got raped and beaten to death by her ex in the time it took for NICS to clear her.
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    Alternatively, we can continue to have mass killings, single killings, and lots of crime by guns bought by people that should have been blocked. For every person you cherry picked getting raped that would have stopped the assailant with a gun, many more are killed under the current system. Instead of picking outlying events and trying to put them forth as common, why not look at common events to start with? You'll get much better policy and understanding from that.
    - xienze 4y ago
      > Alternatively, we can continue to have mass killings, single killings, and lots of crime by guns bought by people that should have been blocked. Sounds possible in theory, but not so much in practice. Let's say I live my whole life as a model citizen, then one day buy a gun with the intent to kill a bunch of people. No background check in the world would deny my purchase. What now?
      - relaxing 4y ago
ChrisLomont 4y ago
>It's only supported by the majority of Americans until you ask them about specific situations and policy implications. It also seems you're trying to stack the deck in your favor. If you're going to ask questions designed to pull support away with cherry picked circumstances, then you should also ask cherry picked questions leading the other way, like pointing out how many mass shootings are done with guns that bypassed background checks. So cite your poll please. I'd like to see the questions. Or you can ask a fairly neutral question, like [1], a poll with the question "How much do you support or oppose each of the following? Requiring background checks on all gun sales" 73% strongly support, 15% somewhat support, 4% somewhat oppose, 4% strongly oppose, 5% don't know/no opinion. That's a pretty neutral question, has massive support. Let's see your data on your split questions. [1] https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-fe72-d0c2-a9ae-ff7250f80000&nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=0000014e-f115-dd93-ad7f-f91513e50001&nlid=630318 https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-fe72-d0c2-a9ae-ff725...
- Ancapistani 4y ago
  > [...] like pointing out how many mass shootings are done with guns that bypassed background checks. Can you name some? Better yet, can you point to data on how often this has happened? Off the top of my head, I can think of several instances where the guns were legally purchased and the shooter passed the background checks. I can think of a couple where they were stolen, and one where they were taken from a family member after that family member's murder. I can't think of any where the firearm(s) were acquired exclusively through private sale.
- R0b0t1 4y ago
  I hate to be the one, but he's right: more background checks is hilariously unpopular outside of blue cities and states. A lot of people in red states, even in cities, think that the gun regulations we have are too strong.
  - tristan957 4y ago
    Anecdote: I know many gun owners who are fine with universal background checks if they can be performed at home for free in a reasonable amount of time. I don't understand why people who want gun regulation aren't pushing for this. Free, easy, and fast background checks.

newaccount2021 4y ago

> If your gun shows up in a crime, you get indicted as well so, someone breaks into my house while I am on vacation for three weeks, ignores the alarm, rips open the gun safe, takes a gun, kills someone...I go to jail? but even in the case of actual straw purchases, the buyer is often victimized by the ultimate intended user...gangs browbeating vulnerable people etc. doesn't excuse the crime, but imprisoning a mule won't stop much

ChrisLomont 4y ago
>so, someone breaks into my house while I am on vacation for three weeks, ignores the alarm, rips open the gun safe, takes a gun, kills someone...I go to jail? Not if you report it or demonstrate it was stolen. And I didn't write "go to jail" - indicted means they're going to investigate you, just like they do now when a gun registered to someone shows up in crimes. And those people don't "go to jail" if they didn't have the gun. What it does curtail is people buying guns to give away, because at some point enough guns will show up having been registered to them then used in crimes, and that should be prosecuted. That behavior is what is going to bring even stricter regulations if it is not curtailed by some set of laws. I'd prefer a decent background check on firearm transfers - I already pass them with zero problem, but it would hinder people that should be banned from working around such measures.
- pandaman 4y ago
  > indicted means they're going to investigate you That's not what "indicted" means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment#United_States

jaywalk 4y ago

> Also making sure there are no secondary sales without background checks, which is supported by (I think?) the majority of Americans would help. How would it help at all? They've already proven willing to break the law with the straw purchase. > All of these would stop repeat offenders, and if I recall, the majority of straw sales are repeat offenders knowing they don't get in much or any trouble buying guns this way. You don't know what you're talking about. It's a felony, and precludes you from purchasing or even possessing a firearm ever again. It's not possible to be a repeat offender.

lokar 4y ago
Republicans have ensured that the ATF is not able to really enforce these laws. They are setup to be ineffective.
- alkaloid 4y ago
  And here I thought the other party runs the United States government. I did a quick Google, and -- sure enough! -- "Biden nominee for ATF Director says he's never owned a gun" https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/06/biden-nominee-for-atf-director-says-hes-never-owned-a-gun/ https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/06/biden-nominee-for-a... And I'm also pretty sure it's not "Republican" DAs and AGs refusing to prosecute crime.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    I did a quick Google search and found https://nyti.ms/3edFGs8 https://nyti.ms/3edFGs8. Lo and behold, the Biden administration is fixing what can be fixed in ATF. "At the N.R.A.’s instigation, Congress has limited the bureau’s budget. It has imposed crippling restrictions on the collection and use of gun-ownership data, including a ban on requiring basic inventories of weapons from gun dealers. It has limited unannounced inspections of gun dealers. Fifteen years ago, the N.R.A. successfully lobbied to make the director’s appointment subject to Senate confirmation — and has subsequently helped block all but one nominee from taking office." I'm pretty sure no DA is refusing to prosecute violent crime. One party is limiting the gun crimes that DAs can prosecute. https://www.salon.com/2022/06/06/us-laws-are-causing-mayhem-and-mass--and-couldnt-be-more-thrilled/ https://www.salon.com/2022/06/06/us-laws-are-causing-mayhem-...

dangerboysteve 4y ago

Those same people getting the guns are more and likely removing serial numbers.

collegeburner 4y ago
Removing serial is a lot harder these days bc the compression of stamping alters the metal and makes it hard, "filing off" does not work. Old guns maybe depending on how it was done, but new ones there is specific regulations (I think pressed to 0.003 inch?) so chemical etching will show different densities. These days they can even catch over stamping, I heard about some cases using xray to do it. So it's more trouble than it's worth to remove serials on new guns usually. For some reason I hear about almost no instances of peening to hide it, which is probably because you need to know the right size and pressure so it mostly makes sense at scale. It's funny the number of criminals that run around with literally filed off serials and get themselves literally 10x the time on the gun charge as whatever else they caught for. You can instead get a shitty gun bc some have badly done serials (speshul wepunz has done this before, but ofc then you have to shoot one lol), you can get an old gun, you can finish an 80% lower. But most criminals just steal or straw buy, or buy smuggled guns (the philippines is notorious for this).
- double_nan 4y ago
  Not true for the new guns either. For example Glock’s serial number is a small metal plate embedded into the polymer.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    True, glocks are an exception bc the frames are plastic so they can't serialize them easily other ways. I seen other plastic guns (like hipoints and polymer80s) do the same. There's safeguards against this though, I know there's a place you can cut on a hipoint to find a hidden serial even if they remove the plate. Smith & Wesson actually got sued to add an extra hidden serial to their guns. A bunch of plastiguns have this kind of stuff for exactly this reason.
  - 4y ago

Hellbanevil 4y ago

wyager 4y ago

> If your gun shows up in a crime, you get indicted as well. This is A) obviously nonsense B) does not incentivize any positive behavioral changes C) equivalent to banning re-selling your guns. We already have the ability to prosecute people who perform straw purchases. > the majority of straw sales are repeat offenders Sounds like the problem lies with straw purchase enforcement, not with the entire concept of gun resale.

stonemetal12 4y ago
It doesn't ban sales, it bans unregistered, non background checked sales. I don't see what is nonsense about it, the same law already applies to cars. If you loan your car to someone and they commit a crime with it, you can face charges for it. If you sell your car without a termination of interest notice filed with the state and the new owner doesn't file the signed title, it is still legally your car and what the new owner does with it can get you in legal trouble.
- notch656a 4y ago
  I'm not aware of any federal law that makes it illegal to sell a car without registering it or titling it. I'm definitely not aware of any law that requires background check to buy or transfer a car (Dealership license may require it, but not private party transaction). In general if you have no reason to believe someone will commit a crime with your car, you typically can't be found criminally liable for merely loaning it out. With firearms, it's actually a federal crime to lend a firearm to an out of state resident except for lawful sporting purposes (not general purposes, like lawful self defense).
  - spacemanmatt 4y ago
    > I'm not aware of any federal law that makes it illegal to sell a car without registering it or titling it if your car is involved in a crime, the cops will come looking for you. maybe you can beat a conviction but you might face an uphill battle even with an attorney. but sure, it's not illegal to sell a car without transferring the title, but neither is it considered a legal sale. that is still your car as long as the title is in your name.

xienze 4y ago

> As a gun owner, sure there is. If your gun shows up in a crime, you get indicted as well. That would put a big dent in people being willing to buy guns for others. Buying a gun "for" someone else is a very gray area. For example, if I bought a gun and ten years later sold it to some guy who committed a crime, should I be indicted? Was this a straw purchase with a looooong time window? Or if I truly did buy a gun for someone else (as in, purchased and delivered the same day) and he waits ten years to commit a crime, was this also a true straw purchase? How can you tell?

ChrisLomont 4y ago
>For example, if I bought a gun and ten years later sold it to some guy who committed a crime, should I be indicted? No, because for you to sell it to him, you'd have done the background check, and transferred it to him. That is the point. Same as car titles, or mortgage deeds, or others items in society that transfer ownership.
- xienze 4y ago
  > No, because for you to sell it to him, you'd have done the background check, and transferred it to him. That is the point. In most (all?) states there's no need for a background check or any kind of record keeping when two individuals are selling/transferring to one another [0]. Between states it's another story. > Same as car titles, or mortgage deeds, or others items in society that transfer ownership. There's no constitutional right to any of those things, which is what makes the situation different. 0: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/federal-ccw-law/federal-private-firearm-transfer-laws/ https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/federal-ccw-law/f...
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    >In most (all?) states there's no need for a background check Have you followed this thread at all? I am fully aware of this, having done many gun transfers. This thread is about adding universal background checks. >There's no constitutional right to any of those things, which is what makes the situation different. It is not different at all - it is perfectly constitutional to require background checks and transfers - that is how the current system is legal. And all constitutional rights have bounds. 1st Amendment free speech has limits on what you can say, where you can do it, even requiring permits for many cases. 3rd, 4th, 5th Amendments about housing and property - you have a constitutional right to property, but it can be deprived, and many forms are registered and require paperwork to transfer. So it's not at all different from other property registration and transfers.

tekknik 4y ago

> As a gun owner, sure there is. If your gun shows up in a crime, you get indicted as well. That would put a big dent in people being willing to buy guns for others. So again, as many others have said, if your gun is stolen then what? You’re implying that if your gun showed up at a crime scene you’ve done something wrong, which is clearly not true in many cases. All this will do is decrease gun ownership due to liability.