First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Shooting Near San Antonio
25778 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 11/6/17
Maybe we are too forgiving. Beating his wife, his child, and blaspheming should have clued us in on his penchant for violence and aggressive behavior. We didn't want to ruin his life with the harsher punishments, but if we had, he would have not been able to do this massacre. Heck, his life would have actually been longer and better. Judges need to take this into consideration and understand that a more severe punishment can be helpful.
321 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/6/17 , edited 11/6/17

Cydoemus wrote:


jewishrapscallion wrote:
BCD is done on a case by case basis. People in a BCD can lose their ability to purchase firearms depending on the situation.

A former airman with the US Air Force, Kelley, received a "bad conduct" discharge from the military after charges of assault against his spouse and child led him to be court-martialed.

Military members dishonorably discharged cannot legally purchase a gun, but Kelley's bad-conduct discharge falls just short of that mark.

It's unclear if Kelley's assault charges constituted domestic violence, but such a conviction could have also legally disqualified him from gun ownership.

But even if the assault charges didn't technically go down as domestic violence, assault alone can be treated as a felony, which should preclude gun ownership. And even if the charges didn't go down as felonies, the twin charges carried a maximum sentence of over a year in prison, and therefore should preclude gun ownership.


Correct.
But in this case, the BCD charge that Kelley had was not sufficient enough to classify it as a dishonorable discharge.
I believe it varies depends on the length of the individual's stay in confinement, at least in the armed forces, whether or not it becomes a "felony class" issue once the person has been properly discharged.
Also, misdemeanor domestic violence is not enough to disqualify someone from purchasing firearms at a federal level.
In order for someone who was convicted of a misdemeanor domestic act of violence to be disqualified from purchasing a firearm, the Lautenberg Amendment criteria must fit the offender.
This means that the offender must be a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, OR share a child in common with the victim, OR be a current or former cohabitant with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, OR be similar situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

The good news is that it's been around 150,000 applications for firearms denied under the Lautenberg Amendment.
The bad news is that it isn't always upheld because of regulatory tape or files being classified as military records (like in this case).
The military forces have different classifications for breaking the law while in the "care" of the military and it is not always reported to ATF for filings against background checks.

Additionally, all of the outlets that have any "insight" into Kelley indicate that he was in confinement for twelve months.
His lawyer could have leveraged the charges as misdemeanors (standard legal definition) and made sure his confinement time did not exceed the maximum duration under that classification.
I'm almost certain that Kelley purchased his firearm legally, even if he did skirt the rules a little by applying under an out of state address.
Texas has fewer restrictions on those purchasing firearms as non-residence of their state; as they rely on that state to voice any concerns.
We all know how long it takes for states to communicate to one another on such things.
Since nothing immediately popped up, they assumed that Kelley was good to go and was only purchasing the gun as a non-resident (from what I've seen, thus far).


The time that excludes being able to own a firearm is a year.

But even if the assault charges didn't technically go down as domestic violence, assault alone can be treated as a felony, which should preclude gun ownership. And even if the charges didn't go down as felonies, the twin charges carried a maximum sentence of over a year in prison, and therefore should preclude gun ownership.
321 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/6/17
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/06/texas-church-shooter-reportedly-fractured-stepsons-skull-on-purpose.html

The gunman who opened fire in a Texas Baptist church on Sunday, killing at least 26 people, was once convicted of assault after he reportedly fractured his infant stepson’s skull.

Before 26-year-old Devin Kelley received a bad conduct discharge from the U.S. Air Force in 2014, he was court-martialed in 2012 for assaulting his wife and child. Kelley “intentionally” fractured his stepson’s skull, The New York Times reported Monday.

“He assaulted his stepson severely enough that he fractured his skull, and he also assaulted his wife,” retired colonel Don Christensen, formerly the chief prosecutor for the Air Force, told the Times. “He pled to intentionally doing it.”

As punishment, Kelley was confined in military prison 12 months, received a reduction in military rank and was discharged for “bad conduct” -- a step above a dishonorable discharge.
1309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/6/17

jewishrapscallion wrote:

As punishment, Kelley was confined in military prison 12 months, received a reduction in military rank and was discharged for “bad conduct” -- a step above a dishonorable discharge.


Yikes.
Fox News really should be more aware as to what they're publishing.
It isn't a "step above" a dishonorable discharge.
From the military's perspective, a dishonorable discharge is reserved for the worst of the worst.

Here's another interesting view.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/11/06/texas-shooting-gunman-devin-kelley-trouble-past/836298001/


A federal law enforcement official later told USA TODAY that it appears that the category of Kelley’s dismissal from the military – a bad conduct discharge – did not prohibit the 2015 purchase of the weapon used in the attack.

Still, the official, who is not permitted to comment publicly, said authorities are examining Kelley’s purchases to determine if the nature of his offenses in the military should have been given added weight in the background check process.

Under terms of a 1996 amendment to the Gun Control Act, known as Lautenberg Amendment, gun purchases would be denied to those who have used force or even attempted to use force against a family member.


It appears as though people are still trying to gather details around the stipulations around the purchases.
Though, no matter how it's viewed, Devin Kelley purchased the guns legally.
I am not for "harsher gun control laws" but do believe there should be a genuine system in place to confirm all potential conflicts (e.g., military discharges [including, but not limited to, any charges accrued during one's term served], psychiatric illnesses [President Trump removed the stipulations that allow Social Security to report any citizens that were on SSI/SSDI for mental ilnesses], and violent criminal activities).
As it appears that this is something that our current system is lacking the most in, transparency and communication.
321 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/6/17

Cydoemus wrote:


jewishrapscallion wrote:

As punishment, Kelley was confined in military prison 12 months, received a reduction in military rank and was discharged for “bad conduct” -- a step above a dishonorable discharge.


Yikes.
Fox News really should be more aware as to what they're publishing.
It isn't a "step above" a dishonorable discharge.
From the military's perspective, a dishonorable discharge is reserved for the worst of the worst.

Here's another interesting view.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/11/06/texas-shooting-gunman-devin-kelley-trouble-past/836298001/


A federal law enforcement official later told USA TODAY that it appears that the category of Kelley’s dismissal from the military – a bad conduct discharge – did not prohibit the 2015 purchase of the weapon used in the attack.

Still, the official, who is not permitted to comment publicly, said authorities are examining Kelley’s purchases to determine if the nature of his offenses in the military should have been given added weight in the background check process.

Under terms of a 1996 amendment to the Gun Control Act, known as Lautenberg Amendment, gun purchases would be denied to those who have used force or even attempted to use force against a family member.


It appears as though people are still trying to gather details around the stipulations around the purchases.
Though, no matter how it's viewed, Devin Kelley purchased the guns legally.
I am not for "harsher gun control laws" but do believe there should be a genuine system in place to confirm all potential conflicts (e.g., military discharges [including, but not limited to, any charges accrued during one's term served], psychiatric illnesses [President Trump removed the stipulations that allow Social Security to report any citizens that were on SSI/SSDI for mental ilnesses], and violent criminal activities).
As it appears that this is something that our current system is lacking the most in, transparency and communication.

There are 5 regular levels of being discharged https://themilitarywallet.com/types-of-military-discharges/

His was a step above the worst.
3527 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/7/17 , edited 11/7/17

Tripbag wrote:

I find that quite odd, since the Bible definitely taught you to turn the other cheek if attacked. Obviously they don't really believe what they preach.


so people arming themselves so they will not be victims of these mass shooting is an issue? You like dragging a person's religion to the mudeh ? Islam is a religion of peace no? or so i heard? please insult Islam like your would with any other religion (if you dare) and see how peaceful the worshipers are

i'm sure you can walk around like this but i have yet to see anyone who got the balls to walk around with "Muhammad is a rapist" shirt before. Islam is a religion of Peace? isn't that what they are keep claiming with each terrorist attack?

Religous people are all CULTISTS to me, some are just more violent than others that is all.











runec 
38564 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/7/17
Um, the guy escaped from a mental health facility in 2012? The one he was sent to after fracturing his son's skull?


The incident report, first obtained by local NBC affiliate KPRC, shows that two police officers apprehended Kelley, who was then 21 years old, at a bus terminal in downtown El Paso after being dispatched there for a missing person report.

A witness on the scene told the officers that Kelley "suffered from mental disorders" and had planned to flee the hospital and take a bus out of state. The witness added that Kelley "was a danger to himself and others" and had already been caught sneaking firearms onto the Holloman Airforce base, and had made death threats against his military superiors, according to the report.


The Airforce dropped the ball hard on this one.
15748 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 11/7/17

Cydoemus wrote:

I am not for "harsher gun control laws" but do believe there should be a genuine system in place to confirm all potential conflicts (e.g., military discharges [including, but not limited to, any charges accrued during one's term served], psychiatric illnesses [President Trump removed the stipulations that allow Social Security to report any citizens that were on SSI/SSDI for mental ilnesses], and violent criminal activities).
As it appears that this is something that our current system is lacking the most in, transparency and communication.


The issue is actually pretty wide-spread. While direct numbers are hard to come by, there are still four states which do virtually nothing to report mental health information to the FBI and many others just recently started so I'm sure there are plenty of unentered records. The same issue can be found in crime reporting (though again, specific numbers are hard to come by). South Carolina, for example, has only submitted five records for people found to be unlawful users of controlled substances so there are obviously some holes. Same goes for open warrants. While there are 7.8million open warrants in state databases, only 2.1million warrant records have been submitted to the federal background check database.

If I were Trump, I would immediate create an evaluation team to evaluate the record submission of every state (and any other agency tasked with submitting background check data) and use this information to provide recommendations and funds for states to fill the glaring holes in our background check system.

However, there will still be glaring holes unless a federal law is passed requiring background checks for private firearm sales.
576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Online
Posted 11/7/17

sundin13 wrote:

If I were Trump, I would immediate create an evaluation team to evaluate the record submission of every state (and any other agency tasked with submitting background check data) and use this information to provide recommendations and funds for states to fill the glaring holes in our background check system.

However, there will still be glaring holes unless a federal law is passed requiring background checks for private firearm sales.


While I do agree that the system needs a overhaul, I do think you have the wrong idea on how to make it possible.

Here is my 2 cents.

1. Drop the State-wide databases, migrate to a federal and 50-state wide system in which it -is- reported at the moment it is at any level, whether by city, county, or state police entities, as well as federal such as FBI, DEA, Etc.. etc..

2. Not sure if other states are like this, much like the ABCs here have a means to scan drivers licenses for purchases. Migrate the above system to tie into ID smart cards. Require them for all special features, such as voting, driving, social security, permits, etc. No reason for 50 individual licenses, or multiple permits if a Chip on a RFID card can do it all. Improves even the ability for officers to identify and check for warrants.

3. The "background check system" is an already existing Federal NICS level, it is not done at the state level, it does not need more funding, it works as intended. Again, the issue is data throughput, and having it all on 1 system, not 50 states, which each even further subdivide into county, city, for example.

4. Private sales are not the culprit of the issues you are worried about, nor would I focus on trying to curb an nearly untraceable transaction. Legislation on this is purely a retroactive response, and would require a lot of work proving that they did in fact give a sale which again would waste more time and money than actually solving anything. Leave it as it is, as again by ATF's own reports we got millions of stolen guns rolling about, not like they are gonna disappear anytime soon and will remain to be the primary culprit of most gun homicides.
15748 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 11/8/17

Nasigno wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

If I were Trump, I would immediate create an evaluation team to evaluate the record submission of every state (and any other agency tasked with submitting background check data) and use this information to provide recommendations and funds for states to fill the glaring holes in our background check system.

However, there will still be glaring holes unless a federal law is passed requiring background checks for private firearm sales.


While I do agree that the system needs a overhaul, I do think you have the wrong idea on how to make it possible.

Here is my 2 cents.

1. Drop the State-wide databases, migrate to a federal and 50-state wide system in which it -is- reported at the moment it is at any level, whether by city, county, or state police entities, as well as federal such as FBI, DEA, Etc.. etc..

2. Not sure if other states are like this, much like the ABCs here have a means to scan drivers licenses for purchases. Migrate the above system to tie into ID smart cards. Require them for all special features, such as voting, driving, social security, permits, etc. No reason for 50 individual licenses, or multiple permits if a Chip on a RFID card can do it all. Improves even the ability for officers to identify and check for warrants.

3. The "background check system" is an already existing Federal NICS level, it is not done at the state level, it does not need more funding, it works as intended. Again, the issue is data throughput, and having it all on 1 system, not 50 states, which each even further subdivide into county, city, for example.

4. Private sales are not the culprit of the issues you are worried about, nor would I focus on trying to curb an nearly untraceable transaction. Legislation on this is purely a retroactive response, and would require a lot of work proving that they did in fact give a sale which again would waste more time and money than actually solving anything. Leave it as it is, as again by ATF's own reports we got millions of stolen guns rolling about, not like they are gonna disappear anytime soon and will remain to be the primary culprit of most gun homicides.


1) I'm not against the idea, but I'm not sure how feasible it is. Often with databases, there are different legal requirements for what information can be entered into what database. One of the main reasons for multiple databases is to make sure that you aren't violating someone's rights. I'm not sure about these specific databases, but that would be something to keep in mind.

2) Again, not really against the idea, but I don't really think it is really relevant to this problem.

3) While the background check system is a federal system, it relies almost exclusively on state reporting. If a state doesn't want to report mental illness records or doesn't have the funds, you suddenly have a big hole in your background check. A background check is only as strong as the information that it contains. I posted information in my last post about how several states provide no mental illness data and many others just started, as well as some other information about holes in our background check system. One of the things which drove more states to input more mental illness records to the system was federal funding.

Whether the government decides to go your route and completely rework our databases or my route and work to improve reporting, funds are required. I'd be fine with either, but as is, no, our background check system is not working as intended.

4) You don't really do much to present an argument here, but private sales are a pretty big hole in our background check system. The best estimates I can find suggest 22% of all firearm sales are done without a background check through private sellers. That is a pretty big hole. Several states have already enacted state legislation which requires private sales to undergo a background check but it isn't enough if they work alone. Data shows that individuals who are barred from buying firearms turn towards private sellers at much higher rates and turn to states with lax laws to get guns that they shouldn't have.

While some would break the law and sell illegally, this could reduce the diversion of guns to crime by eliminating all of the sellers who are acting in good faith. Additionally, such legislation would help law enforcement address the issue of illegal sales. Instead of just focusing on individuals who shouldn't own weapons, law enforcement can more easily go after the people who are diverting guns to criminals.

While stolen guns are a problem, they are not the only problem. There is no silver bullet to these issues. Multiple pieces of legislation should come together to fill the holes in our system. Enacting legislation to require background checks for private sales could restrict some of the supply of illegal guns and fill one of those holes.
576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Online
Posted 11/8/17

sundin13 wrote:

4) You don't really do much to present an argument here, but private sales are a pretty big hole in our background check system. The best estimates I can find suggest 22% of all firearm sales are done without a background check through private sellers. That is a pretty big hole. Several states have already enacted state legislation which requires private sales to undergo a background check but it isn't enough if they work alone. Data shows that individuals who are barred from buying firearms turn towards private sellers at much higher rates and turn to states with lax laws to get guns that they shouldn't have.

While some would break the law and sell illegally, this could reduce the diversion of guns to crime by eliminating all of the sellers who are acting in good faith. Additionally, such legislation would help law enforcement address the issue of illegal sales. Instead of just focusing on individuals who shouldn't own weapons, law enforcement can more easily go after the people who are diverting guns to criminals.

While stolen guns are a problem, they are not the only problem. There is no silver bullet to these issues. Multiple pieces of legislation should come together to fill the holes in our system. Enacting legislation to require background checks for private sales could restrict some of the supply of illegal guns and fill one of those holes.


1. It is illegal to buy a firearm across state lines without going to a FFL, period. Private sale or otherwise do NOT permit you to sell firearms to someone who is a resident of another state without going through a FFL. Anyone doing this is already breaking the law, so your statement of "going to another state" is basically saying they are gonna circumvent already federal law that already exists. Likewise anyone who engages in this is also guilty of gun trafficking, thus that is also illegal.

"could" is not the accurate term. Again, most mass shooting firearms were bought legally, thus the "private sale" loophole does not exist. They were bought almost exclusively at FFLs. Thus that said, stopping this issue is not gonna happen with your proposal. Next, a large majority of the firearms used in homicide, are overwhelming majority not in the hands of the owner, by some points of 80% of the time.

Here is the thing, the only way to make legislation to stop "private sales" is to suspend your 4th Amendment rights. Because without random, unscheduled, and intrusive invasion of your privacy you will not be able to actually assure this law works. Basically it is either the ATF + SWAT allowed to knock at your door, any day, any time, and demand to see your owned firearms just to assure you are not selling them. Otherwise, you have no proof it works. And trust me, I ain't bout to be having to leave work, answer phone calls, or have my door kicked down just cause It was my lucky day to be visited. Nor am I gonna say its time to waste tax payer money on invasion of privacy.
15748 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 11/9/17

Nasigno wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

4) You don't really do much to present an argument here, but private sales are a pretty big hole in our background check system. The best estimates I can find suggest 22% of all firearm sales are done without a background check through private sellers. That is a pretty big hole. Several states have already enacted state legislation which requires private sales to undergo a background check but it isn't enough if they work alone. Data shows that individuals who are barred from buying firearms turn towards private sellers at much higher rates and turn to states with lax laws to get guns that they shouldn't have.

While some would break the law and sell illegally, this could reduce the diversion of guns to crime by eliminating all of the sellers who are acting in good faith. Additionally, such legislation would help law enforcement address the issue of illegal sales. Instead of just focusing on individuals who shouldn't own weapons, law enforcement can more easily go after the people who are diverting guns to criminals.

While stolen guns are a problem, they are not the only problem. There is no silver bullet to these issues. Multiple pieces of legislation should come together to fill the holes in our system. Enacting legislation to require background checks for private sales could restrict some of the supply of illegal guns and fill one of those holes.


1. It is illegal to buy a firearm across state lines without going to a FFL, period. Private sale or otherwise do NOT permit you to sell firearms to someone who is a resident of another state without going through a FFL. Anyone doing this is already breaking the law, so your statement of "going to another state" is basically saying they are gonna circumvent already federal law that already exists. Likewise anyone who engages in this is also guilty of gun trafficking, thus that is also illegal.

"could" is not the accurate term. Again, most mass shooting firearms were bought legally, thus the "private sale" loophole does not exist. They were bought almost exclusively at FFLs. Thus that said, stopping this issue is not gonna happen with your proposal. Next, a large majority of the firearms used in homicide, are overwhelming majority not in the hands of the owner, by some points of 80% of the time.

Here is the thing, the only way to make legislation to stop "private sales" is to suspend your 4th Amendment rights. Because without random, unscheduled, and intrusive invasion of your privacy you will not be able to actually assure this law works. Basically it is either the ATF + SWAT allowed to knock at your door, any day, any time, and demand to see your owned firearms just to assure you are not selling them. Otherwise, you have no proof it works. And trust me, I ain't bout to be having to leave work, answer phone calls, or have my door kicked down just cause It was my lucky day to be visited. Nor am I gonna say its time to waste tax payer money on invasion of privacy.


The purpose of background checks is largely proactive enforcement of existing laws. Currently, there isn't really anything stopping someone from out of state from buying a gun from a private seller. The seller has no responsibility to acquire information to assure that a sale is legal which is why backgrounds checks are important. To ensure that the other party is legally allowed to be purchasing the weapon. It isn't creating any new laws, it is working to proactively enforce existing ones.

As for the the fact that most mass shootings involve legal guns, first of all, mass shootings make up a small minority of homicides. Even if we were to assume that no mass shooting has ever been committed with privately sold weapons, it would be fairly irrelevant to the overall point that privately sold weapons are getting into the hands of criminals.

Second of all, I'm not sure where you got your data, but the data I found says that 34% of shooters in mass shootings were prohibited from owning a firearm at the time the shooting took place. To specifically address mass shootings, I cannot find any data suggesting how many of those involved private sales, but 34% is a fairly sizable number. If you want one specific example of a mass shooting committed with a weapon sold privately to a person who would be barred from purchasing a weapon through a background check, look to the case of Jody Lee Hunt, a convicted felon who purchased a firearm privately and used it to kill four people. (From what I can tell, two more examples would be the Columbine Shooting and John Patrick Bedell).

Now, specific details on how guns are diverted to crime are fairly difficult to come by because once they enter, they tend to move around and lose traceability. However, there are some telling statistics. First of all, statistics show that about 20% of gun trafficking comes from unlicensed sellers. Another study suggests that 15% of trafficking operations involving juveniles involved private party sellers. When background checks came into effect for licensed sellers, about 9% of prospective purchasers were prohibited persons, and with these people being funnelled into the private system, it is likely that this figure is higher there. As previously stated, there is also evidence showing that prohibited persons move towards private sales at greater rates and purchase from states without universal background checks to acquire guns.

Further, background checks also introduce an element of traceability to weapons used in crime. If a gun turns up at a scene, the fact that a record exists can create a paper trail allowing that gun to be linked to a certain suspect. As it is now, you may trace a gun to someone and have him say "I sold it to some guy online. No, I don't have his name." and thats it. There's no requirement for private sales to retain any data and no background check to ensure that the purchaser is who they say they are.

As for how to enforce this, first of all, even with zero law enforcement, you would still see some compliance due to sellers acting in good faith in the bounds of the law. However, enforcement wouldn't require knocking down doors. It would require culpability and a visible police presence in areas where sales occur both during and after the sale (this could range from a physical presence at gun shows, to a presence online utilizing pseudo-sting operations for suspect individuals, to a data holding requirement which requires gun sellers to be able to present sales data upon request).

Overall, background checks for private sales prevent guns entering the hands of criminals from sellers acting in good faith, it discourages illegal sales by adding culpability and potential prosecution on the sellers, it allows law enforcement a straightforward means to address sellers acting in bad faith and it helps introduce an element of traceability to weapons.

And it does that without infringing on the right to bear arms.
576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Online
Posted 11/9/17 , edited 11/9/17

sundin13 wrote:

The purpose of background checks is largely proactive enforcement of existing laws. Currently, there isn't really anything stopping someone from out of state from buying a gun from a private seller. The seller has no responsibility to acquire information to assure that a sale is legal which is why backgrounds checks are important. To ensure that the other party is legally allowed to be purchasing the weapon. It isn't creating any new laws, it is working to proactively enforce existing ones.


Again, it is legally required for anyone who is out of state to purchase through a FFL. Period. If you give a firearm to someone from out of state, you have illegally sold a firearm and now engaged in gun trafficking. Period. Whether or not "the state requires you to do something" is out of the question as this is a FEDERAL LAW ALREADY IN ALL 50 STATES.


sundin13 wrote:

As for the the fact that most mass shootings involve legal guns, first of all, mass shootings make up a small minority of homicides. Even if we were to assume that no mass shooting has ever been committed with privately sold weapons, it would be fairly irrelevant to the overall point that privately sold weapons are getting into the hands of criminals.

Second of all, I'm not sure where you got your data, but the data I found says that 34% of shooters in mass shootings were prohibited from owning a firearm at the time the shooting took place. To specifically address mass shootings, I cannot find any data suggesting how many of those involved private sales, but 34% is a fairly sizable number. If you want one specific example of a mass shooting committed with a weapon sold privately to a person who would be barred from purchasing a weapon through a background check, look to the case of Jody Lee Hunt, a convicted felon who purchased a firearm privately and used it to kill four people. (From what I can tell, two more examples would be the Columbine Shooting and John Patrick Bedell).



You are right, gang homicides and inner city violence in locations that already mostly prohibit such weapons are the main areas, many of the people caught doing this are typically out on probation for repeat offense of illegal ownership. I.e. the great example of the girl who was killed in Chicago was killed by a teen who was out on probation for illegal gun ownership. If you want to fix that issue, then guess what gotta get rid of plea bargaining for felonies or higher offenses, if you want that, then I'm all for it.

Second, the worst mass shootings to date all were legally owned, typically purchases for a gun store by the said shooter. Minus the fact the USAF screwed on this guy, the other shootings such as Las Vegas, Virginia Tech, Pulse, Aurora, and so on all had legally purchased without going through a private seller. These are the "mass shootings" people think of when you say mass shooting, and they all legally bought their firearms.


sundin13 wrote:

Now, specific details on how guns are diverted to crime are fairly difficult to come by because once they enter, they tend to move around and lose traceability. However, there are some telling statistics. First of all, statistics show that about 20% of gun trafficking comes from unlicensed sellers. Another study suggests that 15% of trafficking operations involving juveniles involved private party sellers. When background checks came into effect for licensed sellers, about 9% of prospective purchasers were prohibited persons, and with these people being funnelled into the private system, it is likely that this figure is higher there. As previously stated, there is also evidence showing that prohibited persons move towards private sales at greater rates and purchase from states without universal background checks to acquire guns.

Further, background checks also introduce an element of traceability to weapons used in crime. If a gun turns up at a scene, the fact that a record exists can create a paper trail allowing that gun to be linked to a certain suspect. As it is now, you may trace a gun to someone and have him say "I sold it to some guy online. No, I don't have his name." and thats it. There's no requirement for private sales to retain any data and no background check to ensure that the purchaser is who they say they are.



Not really, they easily have high traceability. This is just not easily available to you or me, as again people do report their firearms stolen, and the police and ATF have the ability, and have had the ability to locate where their guns originate from based on 4473s and other back tracks on firearms either sold or reported stolen, then matched to police databases in evidence lockers. Article I read put that about 8% of FFLs are the source for the "legally purchased" firearms for homicide. But that is just an article it might be right, might be old data now.



sundin13 wrote:

As for how to enforce this, first of all, even with zero law enforcement, you would still see some compliance due to sellers acting in good faith in the bounds of the law. However, enforcement wouldn't require knocking down doors. It would require culpability and a visible police presence in areas where sales occur both during and after the sale (this could range from a physical presence at gun shows, to a presence online utilizing pseudo-sting operations for suspect individuals, to a data holding requirement which requires gun sellers to be able to present sales data upon request).

Overall, background checks for private sales prevent guns entering the hands of criminals from sellers acting in good faith, it discourages illegal sales by adding culpability and potential prosecution on the sellers, it allows law enforcement a straightforward means to address sellers acting in bad faith and it helps introduce an element of traceability to weapons.

And it does that without infringing on the right to bear arms.



Wrong, again as above stated you are expected to understand and know as a gun owner that you cannot sell to someone from another state. If they come to your state, and you sell them the firearm you are guilty of gun trafficking. Not having another law present is grounds to say ignorance of this is alright. If you own something, you take ownership of all laws and regulations, at the state, city, county, and federal level, and you are expected to follow them.

So again, existing laws already cover your desire.
15748 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 11/9/17

Nasigno wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

The purpose of background checks is largely proactive enforcement of existing laws. Currently, there isn't really anything stopping someone from out of state from buying a gun from a private seller. The seller has no responsibility to acquire information to assure that a sale is legal which is why backgrounds checks are important. To ensure that the other party is legally allowed to be purchasing the weapon. It isn't creating any new laws, it is working to proactively enforce existing ones.


Again, it is legally required for anyone who is out of state to purchase through a FFL. Period. If you give a firearm to someone from out of state, you have illegally sold a firearm and now engaged in gun trafficking. Period. Whether or not "the state requires you to do something" is out of the question as this is a FEDERAL LAW ALREADY IN ALL 50 STATES.


sundin13 wrote:

As for the the fact that most mass shootings involve legal guns, first of all, mass shootings make up a small minority of homicides. Even if we were to assume that no mass shooting has ever been committed with privately sold weapons, it would be fairly irrelevant to the overall point that privately sold weapons are getting into the hands of criminals.

Second of all, I'm not sure where you got your data, but the data I found says that 34% of shooters in mass shootings were prohibited from owning a firearm at the time the shooting took place. To specifically address mass shootings, I cannot find any data suggesting how many of those involved private sales, but 34% is a fairly sizable number. If you want one specific example of a mass shooting committed with a weapon sold privately to a person who would be barred from purchasing a weapon through a background check, look to the case of Jody Lee Hunt, a convicted felon who purchased a firearm privately and used it to kill four people. (From what I can tell, two more examples would be the Columbine Shooting and John Patrick Bedell).



You are right, gang homicides and inner city violence in locations that already mostly prohibit such weapons are the main areas, many of the people caught doing this are typically out on probation for repeat offense of illegal ownership. I.e. the great example of the girl who was killed in Chicago was killed by a teen who was out on probation for illegal gun ownership. If you want to fix that issue, then guess what gotta get rid of plea bargaining for felonies or higher offenses, if you want that, then I'm all for it.

Second, the worst mass shootings to date all were legally owned, typically purchases for a gun store by the said shooter. Minus the fact the USAF screwed on this guy, the other shootings such as Las Vegas, Virginia Tech, Pulse, Aurora, and so on all had legally purchased without going through a private seller. These are the "mass shootings" people think of when you say mass shooting, and they all legally bought their firearms.


sundin13 wrote:

Now, specific details on how guns are diverted to crime are fairly difficult to come by because once they enter, they tend to move around and lose traceability. However, there are some telling statistics. First of all, statistics show that about 20% of gun trafficking comes from unlicensed sellers. Another study suggests that 15% of trafficking operations involving juveniles involved private party sellers. When background checks came into effect for licensed sellers, about 9% of prospective purchasers were prohibited persons, and with these people being funnelled into the private system, it is likely that this figure is higher there. As previously stated, there is also evidence showing that prohibited persons move towards private sales at greater rates and purchase from states without universal background checks to acquire guns.

Further, background checks also introduce an element of traceability to weapons used in crime. If a gun turns up at a scene, the fact that a record exists can create a paper trail allowing that gun to be linked to a certain suspect. As it is now, you may trace a gun to someone and have him say "I sold it to some guy online. No, I don't have his name." and thats it. There's no requirement for private sales to retain any data and no background check to ensure that the purchaser is who they say they are.



Not really, they easily have high traceability. This is just not easily available to you or me, as again people do report their firearms stolen, and the police and ATF have the ability, and have had the ability to locate where their guns originate from based on 4473s and other back tracks on firearms either sold or reported stolen, then matched to police databases in evidence lockers. Article I read put that about 8% of FFLs are the source for the "legally purchased" firearms for homicide. But that is just an article it might be right, might be old data now.



sundin13 wrote:

As for how to enforce this, first of all, even with zero law enforcement, you would still see some compliance due to sellers acting in good faith in the bounds of the law. However, enforcement wouldn't require knocking down doors. It would require culpability and a visible police presence in areas where sales occur both during and after the sale (this could range from a physical presence at gun shows, to a presence online utilizing pseudo-sting operations for suspect individuals, to a data holding requirement which requires gun sellers to be able to present sales data upon request).

Overall, background checks for private sales prevent guns entering the hands of criminals from sellers acting in good faith, it discourages illegal sales by adding culpability and potential prosecution on the sellers, it allows law enforcement a straightforward means to address sellers acting in bad faith and it helps introduce an element of traceability to weapons.

And it does that without infringing on the right to bear arms.



Wrong, again as above stated you are expected to understand and know as a gun owner that you cannot sell to someone from another state. If they come to your state, and you sell them the firearm you are guilty of gun trafficking. Not having another law present is grounds to say ignorance of this is alright. If you own something, you take ownership of all laws and regulations, at the state, city, county, and federal level, and you are expected to follow them.

So again, existing laws already cover your desire.


1) The laws are currently written in a "don't ask, don't tell" way. While a sale might be illegal, the seller holds no responsibility over actually determining that. Unless they have some specific reason to believe that the sale is illegal, it doesn't matter if they are selling guns to an out of state murderer, because they didn't know (and it is quite difficult to actually prove it in the case that they did know). Background checks support the idea of responsible selling by making sure that the seller knows exactly who they are dealing with. Operating under the assumption that gun sellers aren't all psychic makes relying on the knowledge of the seller a poor strategy. Again, it is proactive enforcement instead of retroactive enforcement.

2a) I've said many times, there is no silver bullet. No single measure will stop the problem 100%. Arguing in favor of one piece of legislation is not arguing against another. Personally, I am for large-scale prison reform, though not in the way you suggest it, but that is a separate discussion.

2b) I'm not really sure what point you are trying to prove here. "It isn't a problem in a tiny subset of a minority of the nation's homicides therefore it isn't a problem anywhere" really isn't a compelling argument.

3) It feels like you are arguing a different point here. If a gun is recovered at a scene, you can only trace it back as far as a paper trail exists for it. That typically means you can trace it to the last documented sale. As private sales are not documented, they are invisible for traceability purposes. If a gun appears at a crime scene which was purchased through a private sale, you may be able to trace it to the seller (assuming they didn't obtain it privately) but it isn't possible to identify the buyer (who would be the person of interest).

4) Since you seem hung up on this point, I decided to pull up the relevant federal law:


(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to (A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;


As you can see from the bold, it is not a penalty to sell to someone who lives out of state, it is a penalty to sell to someone who you know lives out of state. This knowledge is key. This may seem like a small difference, but it means a lot. If you simply don't ask or do nothing to check where a person is from, you are following all relevant laws and you can sell to people out of state all day. It entirely takes all the burden of ensuring that a sale is legal off of the seller and actually encourages them to not ask questions and to do nothing to find out whether it is legal to maintain plausible deniability.

That is why background checks are pivotal. To ensure that the sellers know who they are selling to and to make it so they can't plead ignorance when they sell to someone who is prohibited.
576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Online
Posted 11/10/17

sundin13 wrote:


4) Since you seem hung up on this point, I decided to pull up the relevant federal law:


(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to (A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;


As you can see from the bold, it is not a penalty to sell to someone who lives out of state, it is a penalty to sell to someone who you know lives out of state. This knowledge is key. This may seem like a small difference, but it means a lot. If you simply don't ask or do nothing to check where a person is from, you are following all relevant laws and you can sell to people out of state all day. It entirely takes all the burden of ensuring that a sale is legal off of the seller and actually encourages them to not ask questions and to do nothing to find out whether it is legal to maintain plausible deniability.

That is why background checks are pivotal. To ensure that the sellers know who they are selling to and to make it so they can't plead ignorance when they sell to someone who is prohibited.


Again, "knowledge is key' as a OWNER, you are expected to know that and EXPECTED to ask. This isn't one of those "oh their isn't a penalty so you ain't gonna know or care" statements. You are hung up on making a penalty or a law for something that already is an existing law, and just using semantics to say well "its not against the law" well that does not fly as a reasonable argument, it is lawyer level arguments, which lets be honest that level of argument is akin to why someone can sue for spilling hot coffee because they decided their legs make for better cup holders than actual cup holders.

So again, if the known expectation is that anyone from out of state is required to go through an FFL, why add another law saying the same thing? "ignroance" is not an acceptable response for why someone did something illegal, why is it in this subject matter? Literally you can google "gun laws by state" and you'll have the NRA-ILA, GunPolicy, and multiple other sources that -will- tell you the laws at every level and even state by state. So yea, no "ignorance" in 2017 is not an acceptable answer to not knowing the law.

You own something, you take ownership of it's everything of it, including regulations, laws, and expectations as an owner when trying to sell it. And not at the level of lawyer speak, at the level of what the law says plainly is required.

That aside, to actually have a "working system" that proves this working is to only suspend 4th Amendment rights, as again without having true checks you are at the whim of literally enforcement after the fact. And with the same level of stupidity of "knowledge" argument, they could turn every case into "it was stolen, and did not know where to report it" case, making it impossible to actually enforce the law. So again, either throw away rights in fear, or just accept the existing laws.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.