Trump to take steps to ban bump stocks

[LauraTXNM]

Hey lady. Wake up. You can build a gun in the comfort of your own home with a cheap 3D printer. There is no deterrence for people who want a gun.

! No longer available

Making that will 1) be more difficult, 2) take longer, 3) and be less effective than an AR-15.  At least at the moment.  Yes, there will always be ways around the law and alternatives to using guns in a mass attack (bombs, knives, cars, etc.). 

But we still need to do what we can, including focusing on preventative mental health and making sure LE follows up on reports.  And making it as hard as possible for mentally ill people to get weapons.

[driftdiver]

That seems sensible.  So would they try to get a gun on the black market if they couldn't buy it at a dealer?  Possibly, but I'd guess it would at least be more difficult and a deterrent in some measure.

@LauraTXNM
Very very very few licensed dealers would ever sell a gun under the table.  The feds have a list of them and run stings on them every so often.   They would lose their license and go to jail for selling any gun to anyone without the right paperwork.

The only way a gun sale can be made without a background check is between a private seller and a private buyer.   The BATF looks for people selling higher volumes of firearms and would prosecute.   Basically if you sell more than 1 or 2 a month you had better have a federal license.

Most people I know won't sell a firearm privately without running their own background check.  But then most people I know wouldn't sell a firearm in the first place

[txradioguy]

@LauraTXNM
Very very very few licensed dealers would ever sell a gun under the table.  The feds have a list of them and run stings on them every so often.   They would lose their license and go to jail for selling any gun to anyone without the right paperwork.

The only way a gun sale can be made without a background check is between a private seller and a private buyer.   The BATF looks for people selling higher volumes of firearms and would prosecute.   Basically if you sell more than 1 or 2 a month you had better have a federal license.

Most people I know won't sell a firearm privately without running their own background check.  But then most people I know wouldn't sell a firearm in the first place

@driftdiver

IIRC BATF did a two year investigaton at the behest of Elijah Cummings and some Lib senator to try and prove the myth of gun dealers knowingly selling weapons to people who would fail the background checks only two of 82 attempts we're successful.

The results were the same when they tried the same experiment on the Dark web as well.

[LauraTXNM]

@LauraTXNM
Very very very few licensed dealers would ever sell a gun under the table.  The feds have a list of them and run stings on them every so often.   They would lose their license and go to jail for selling any gun to anyone without the right paperwork.

The only way a gun sale can be made without a background check is between a private seller and a private buyer.   The BATF looks for people selling higher volumes of firearms and would prosecute.   Basically if you sell more than 1 or 2 a month you had better have a federal license.

Most people I know won't sell a firearm privately without running their own background check.  But then most people I know wouldn't sell a firearm in the first place

Thanks for all the info!  Question: how does the BATF to find people selling lots of weapons as private sales?

I understand people may not WANT to go through the hassle of running a background check or make less money on a weapon by going through a broker.  But it seems like it's the *rsponsible* thing to do.

[LauraTXNM]

@driftdiver

IIRC BATF did a two year investigaton at the behest of Elijah Cummings and some Lib senator to try and prove the myth of gun dealers knowingly selling weapons to people who would fail the background checks only two of 82 attempts we're successful.

The results were the same when they tried the same experiment on the Dark web as well.

I never really have thought dealers are the problem.  It sounds like the big issue for dealers is background checks providing complete and accurate information, making sure all LE upload records to the NICS. 

But private sales should require a background check, as well.  Maybe tough to enforce, but penalties should be harsh for people who don't.  Yes, there will always be lawbreakers, so we need to make it very unpleasant to break the law.

This to me is the definition of "well-regulated".

[truth_seeker]

Laura, criminals have zero trouble getting a weapon. Any city with a population over 2,500 has a criminal underground that can get you anything you want. People think registration is the answer, well if they are criminals what makes anyone think they would follow this law.

Exactly right. And towns under 2,500 have people that know where to go to get guns, drugs, etc.

So the bad guys will always have or know how to get weapons, even if stupid citizens give their weapons up.

[truth_seeker]

I'm still focused on the mentally ill mass shooters.  They seem to acquire their weapons legally.  If it's so easy to buy guns on the black market, avoid the background checks and waiting periods, why don't they do that already?  Why do they expend the time and effort to go the legal route if they don't have to?

Mentally ill by what standard? The Florida guy is only spoken of, as mentally ill, but I have not seen any official diagnosis.

The Aurora Colorado theater mass murderer was found to be sane for the purposes of his trial.

This idea of insanity as a defense, reason or excuse has to be done away with.

[LauraTXNM]

Mentally ill by what standard? The Florida guy is only spoken of, as mentally ill, but I have not seen any official diagnosis.

The Aurora Colorado theater mass murderer was found to be sane for the purposes of his trial.

This idea of insanity as a defense, reason or excuse has to be done away with.

You bring up a great point!  I know there's a difference between "clinical" mental illness and "legal" mental illness used as a criminal defense.  I thought that it was actually pretty rare to actually be declared "legally insane" at a trial.  But I agree, it should be difficult and rare.

Who decides who is "mentally ill" enough to be prevented from buying firearms?  Is it LE reporting visits to a home for being violent against family or pets?  Is it people who've been involuntarily committed for violent behavior towards themselves or others?  Is it people who suffer from some specific mental illnesses like schizophrenia (just an example)? 

I think this is really where the conversation needs to go.

[LauraTXNM]

Exactly right. And towns under 2,500 have people that know where to go to get guns, drugs, etc.

So the bad guys will always have or know how to get weapons, even if stupid citizens give their weapons up.

Yep.  This is one of many reasons why I think people should be free to own firearms.  I know there are "good" reasons to own guns.

[roamer_1]

That seems sensible.  So would they try to get a gun on the black market if they couldn't buy it at a dealer?  Possibly, but I'd guess it would at least be more difficult and a deterrent in some measure.

LOL! The criminal class doesn't buy guns from dealers now. There is absolutely ZERO deterrent involved at all. In fact, probably quite the other way. Underground manufacturing of arms and ammo will very quickly be seen as an opportunity, as will smuggling.

You can't stop the manufacture and distribution of drugs, nor stop trainloads of wetbacks, nor even touch the sales of stolen goods.
 
There is no deterrent AT ALL. except the one you are trying to take away.

[roamer_1]

P.S. Regarding criminals and illegal aliens, they will use the black market; that's a big part of homeowners having weapons for protection at home and on the road, etc.  But criminals and illegal aliens can also go through private sales.  That I find the height of irresponsibility.  Would you be comfortable selling a weapon to a stranger? Knowing that person might be someone who was prohibited from having a gun because he was violent?  I recall one of the individuals who privately sold weapons or ammo to the Las Vegas shooter -- this guy said he felt terrible that his materiel was used to kill the concert goers.  Does he feel bad enough not to sell any more weapons to people he can't confirm are safe?

HECK YEAH. What is the difference between selling a gun or any other thing? You are operating under the complete MYTH that you can prevent crime by preventing the criminal his resources. Absolutely a fairy tale.

In the end, bad men do bad things. You will find no succor until you admit that the only place to prevent him is in the actual commission of the crime.

The only defense there is is to defend yourself. That's it. And you are desperately trying to justify removing that ability.

[roamer_1]

This to me is the definition of "well-regulated".

No, it isn't. Look at the old English context of the word.

[driftdiver]

Thanks for all the info!  Question: how does the BATF to find people selling lots of weapons as private sales?

I understand people may not WANT to go through the hassle of running a background check or make less money on a weapon by going through a broker.  But it seems like it's the *rsponsible* thing to do.

@LauraTXNM
The monitor gun ads in places that sell guns, also gun shows.   

Its usually not about the hassle of a background check.  Background checks are a nothing burger.  The waiting period that people without a concealed permit have to comply with is annoying.

Its usually more about price and availability.

[truth_seeker]

Yep.  This is one of many reasons why I think people should be free to own firearms.  I know there are "good" reasons to own guns.

My local police dept. members, have agreed I should be more prepared to defend myself, my property and my property.

If the law enforcement pros advise that, what does it mean to me if a private citizen or government representative want to disarm me?

It means to me they have little or no regard for my safety. Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, etc. 

[Cyber Liberty]

My local police dept. members, have agreed I should be more prepared to defend myself, my property and my property.

If the law enforcement pros advise that, what does it mean to me if a private citizen or government representative want to disarm me?

It means to me they have little or no regard for my safety. Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, etc.

It's like that here, a few hundred miles East of you.  The Sheriff asked people who can carry to please start doing so regularly.

[Jazzhead]

LOL! The criminal class doesn't buy guns from dealers now. There is absolutely ZERO deterrent involved at all. In fact, probably quite the other way. Underground manufacturing of arms and ammo will very quickly be seen as an opportunity, as will smuggling.

You can't stop the manufacture and distribution of drugs, nor stop trainloads of wetbacks, nor even touch the sales of stolen goods.
 
There is no deterrent AT ALL. except the one you are trying to take away.

What is the point of having laws at all, roamer? 

[Jazzhead]

The only way a gun sale can be made without a background check is between a private seller and a private buyer.   

And that's the loophole that needs to be closed. 

[roamer_1]

What is the point of having laws at all, roamer?

What is the point indeed, when they are designed to impede the law abiding without effecting the criminals?

[Cyber Liberty]

What is the point of having laws at all, roamer?

If people see laws as unjust, they will resist compliance.  It's that simple.  Prohibition of the 1920's for an example, saw a lot more people breaking the law than following it.

Pass a law requiring Insurance or registration and there will be wholesale non-compliance.  Try to break through that by forcing compliance and you will have exactly the situation faced by the Founders when it was decided to send Paul Revere on his ride.  There will be resistance, and it will sometimes be violent.  That is not a threat, BTW (Hear me Mods?), it's just a prediction of what will happen if this issue gets forced, based upon the history of this country.

[Jazzhead]

What is the point indeed, when they are designed to impede the law abiding without effecting the criminals?

The laws I propose are not designed to- "impede the law abiding without affecting criminals" but rather to provide law enforcement with information it needs to track and trace stolen firearms, and to encourage safe practices and lawful transfers/dispositions.  That is, not sales from the back of a truck, roamer.

Gun owners aren't special.  Store owners must keep records of sales and pay appropriate taxes, and abide by nondiscrimination laws.   Car owners must register their vehicles and purchase insurance.   Banks must abide by rules when lending money.   Lots of activities are subject to regulation in this modern world.   And while I share your concern about unnecessary, onerous and expensive regulation,  your position that gun owners are somehow special and should be subject to no regulation or restrictions at all as they amass their private arsenals, is patently ridiculous.   

[Jazzhead]

If people see laws as unjust, they will resist compliance.  It's that simple.  Prohibition of the 1920's for an example, saw a lot more people breaking the law than following it.

People aren't laws unto themselves.  Especially in a Constitutional Republic, where laws are enacted by the peoples' elected representatives and therefore carry the patina of legitimacy. 

As for Prohibition, that law was resisted because it was exactly what it said it was - prohibition.  Nothing I am proposing would outlaw gun ownership or even restrict one's ability to buy the quantity and quality of guns he/she wants.  I think most Americans appreciate the crisis of violence in this country, and would respect the efforts of our elected representatives to provide the tools for law enforcement to address it.   

[edpc]

Nothing I am proposing would outlaw gun ownership or even restrict one's ability to buy the quantity and quality of guns he/she wants.

Of course you are.  We have no idea what the cost of this proposed insurance would be.  I could walk into the store and buy 10 good guns in cash right now, but that may change if the cost of insuring them is too high.  To use the car analogy always thrown around, I could go out and finance a handful of cars.  However, the cost of the required comprehensive collision and liability insurance changes how many I could actually afford.

[LauraTXNM]

LOL! The criminal class doesn't buy guns from dealers now. There is absolutely ZERO deterrent involved at all. In fact, probably quite the other way. Underground manufacturing of arms and ammo will very quickly be seen as an opportunity, as will smuggling.

I specifically said I was talking about the mentally ill shooters, who do currently buy their weapons legally.  My comment excluded criminals, who we know get guns from the black market already.

[truth_seeker]

People aren't laws unto themselves.  Especially in a Constitutional Republic, where laws are enacted by the peoples' elected representatives and therefore carry the patina of legitimacy. 

As for Prohibition, that law was resisted because it was exactly what it said it was - prohibition.  Nothing I am proposing would outlaw gun ownership or even restrict one's ability to buy the quantity and quality of guns he/she wants.  I think most Americans appreciate the crisis of violence in this country, and would respect the efforts of our elected representatives to provide the tools for law enforcement to address it.

What is the purpose of your insurance idea? Why should anybody think "government" will perform better, than they did regarding this Florida example?

--FBI misses two warnings
--School authorities find no reason to issue warnings about him
--Local police respond to 39 calls, but never deal seriously with him
--School armed guard, cowers in the face of a big requirement

And Texas church shooting

--US Air Force fails to notify data bank, of the mass murderer's domestic violence?"

Taken together these failures, PLUS recently uncovered FBI corruption, prove citizens need to be armed now more than ever.

[roamer_1]

The laws I propose are not designed to- "impede the law abiding without affecting criminals" but rather to provide law enforcement with information it needs to track and trace stolen firearms, and to encourage safe practices and lawful transfers/dispositions.  That is, not sales from the back of a truck, roamer.

It amazes me that, as I said before, I live where there are more guns per square inch than anywhere on the planet, where I CAN buy guns without any of your ludicrous laws in my way, and we here don't have the problems you do. Nearly everyone I know has multiple guns, freely carried about, and our gun crime is low... Way low if you omit the liberal city centers.

You will not track and trace stolen arms.  You might know the gun got stolen (which would probably be reported anyway), but once it is stolen, POOF! gone. No tracking, no tracing, because the criminal element doesn't give a shit about your titles and requirements.

And I guarantee you won't get compliance. Just from the point of the margin on the sale, the seller will not be able to get his profit, because the dealer doesn't buy at retail. So you are imposing an immediate loss of equity to comply.

Equally, with compliance, you are removing the ability to defend and subsist from poor people across the west. Because now they will have to buy at full retail price (which none of them can afford), not to mention what will predictably be an exorbitant  insurance fee, where they were once able to dicker and trade, and at street value. . You forget that people here NEED guns to survive. And not just one. Somewhere around six or more, and most guys have way more than that.

And that's not even touching the fact of a forcible registration of guns, wherein even our state house and governor will tell you to kiss all our asses, Democrat or Republican alike.

So you won't get compliance. Not here, as has already been proven by Washington State's misbegotten  venture down this road. Almost literally ZERO compliance.

Gun owners aren't special.  Store owners must keep records of sales and pay appropriate taxes, and abide by nondiscrimination laws.   Car owners must register their vehicles and purchase insurance.   Banks must abide by rules when lending money.   Lots of activities are subject to regulation in this modern world.   And while I share your concern about unnecessary, onerous and expensive regulation,  your position that gun owners are somehow special and should be subject to no regulation or restrictions at all as they amass their private arsenals, is patently ridiculous.   

No, what is patently ridiculous is that you think merely passing a law is going to force willing compliance. If you want to register Montana guns, you'll have to do it the old fashioned way. Door to door. Come and get em.

And I will most certainly continue to buy off the back of a truck, just like I always have, and will not pay your insurance, because my guns will never be registered. Your law be damned.

So pass all the idiotic laws you want in your state. Leave my state the hell alone.