Do You Support The "Gun Show Loophole?"

[M14 Shooter]

This is just your speculation. If EVERY gun sale required a background check, criminals would not be able to use straw buyers.

Background checks do not, and can not, in any way, stop straw purchases.

Of course they can. The money is so good that they probably can't elimenate 100% - but they can certainly put a big dent in them.

I go to a dealer. I get a background check. I buy a gun.

What about that background check stops me frop handing that gun off to a guy in the parking lot?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Background checks do not, and can not, in any way, stop straw purchases.

Of course they can. The money is so good that they probably can't elimenate 100% - but they can certainly put a big dent in them.

I go to a dealer. I get a background check. I buy a gun.

What about that background check stops me frop handing that gun off to a guy in the parking lot?

Nothing - UNLESS you are required to perform a background check to sell the gun to that guy in the parking lot. Your example is a good snapshot of exactly WHY we need universal background checks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course they can. The money is so good that they probably can't elimenate 100% - but they can certainly put a big dent in them.

I go to a dealer. I get a background check. I buy a gun.
What about that background check stops me frop handing that gun off to a guy in the parking lot?

Nothing

And so, background checks do -not- stop straw purchases. Thank you.

UNLESS you are required to perform a background check to sell the gun to that guy in the parking lot.

How does requiring me to run a background check on the guy in the parking lot prevent me from buying the gun and handing it off to him w/o running that check?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I go to a dealer. I get a background check. I buy a gun.
What about that background check stops me frop handing that gun off to a guy in the parking lot?

Nothing

And so, background checks do not stop straw purchases. Thank you.

UNLESS you are required to perform a background check to sell the gun to that guy in the parking lot.

How does requiring me to run a background check on the guy in the parking lot prevent me from buying the gun and handing it off to him w/o running that check?

ah - I see where you are coming from.

When a gun is involved in a crime, you want the perp to be punished for purchasing the gun illegally. But you you don't think the person who sold it to him illegally should be punished.

There are several ways to achieve the trace back to the seller. A sales database, testimony ...

 

[The Rabbi]

SCOTUS has given strong signals that they would uphold background checks.

But when 92% of all U.S. voters favor the measure, it behooves congress to enact it and even move to amend the Constitution if that is initially struck down.

Another option is to tie federal law enforcement subsidies to states to their enactment of mandatory background checks.

They have given no such signals. They have not commented at all on it.
As for 92% of voters, let me ask the question and I will get you the result you want.
If states enact it, that is legal adn fine. I dont think it has any effect on crime but they are welcome to their folly.

Your are right - it wasn't really a signal. It was a flat out statement in the Heller ruling.

There was no statement in the Heller ruling that dealt with federal universal background checks. Period.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nothing

And so, background checks do not stop straw purchases. Thank you.

UNLESS you are required to perform a background check to sell the gun to that guy in the parking lot.

How does requiring me to run a background check on the guy in the parking lot prevent me from buying the gun and handing it off to him w/o running that check?

ah - I see where you are coming from.

When a gun is involved in a crime, you want the perp to be punished for purchasing the gun illegally. But you you don't think the person who sold it to him illegally should be punished.

There are several ways to achieve the trace back to the seller. A sales database, testimony ...

Testimony by a felon doesn't carry much weight.
But you are right that to be effective there must be universal rregistration of guns. Something that won't happen for a variety of reasons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing

And so, background checks do not stop straw purchases. Thank you.

UNLESS you are required to perform a background check to sell the gun to that guy in the parking lot.

How does requiring me to run a background check on the guy in the parking lot prevent me from buying the gun and handing it off to him w/o running that check?

ah - I see where you are coming from.

When a gun is involved in a crime, you want the perp to be punished for purchasing the gun illegally. But you you don't think the person who sold it to him illegally should be punished.

There are several ways to achieve the trace back to the seller. A sales database, testimony ...

You did not answer the question:

How does requiring me to run a background check on the guy in the parking lot prevent me from buying the gun and handing it off to him w/o running that check?

The answer to this question goes directly to supporting, or destroying your statement that "If EVERY gun sale required a background check, criminals would not be able to use straw buyers."


Further:
You agree that background checks are a form of prior restraint, and that standard for upholding a prior restraint is a very high one -but, even so, prior restraint has been upoheld by the court.

Specifically, on what basis? That is, when did they do so, why did they do it?
Then, explain how this example can be soundly applied to the issue at hand - background checks.

 

[Dubya]

And so, background checks do not stop straw purchases. Thank you.


How does requiring me to run a background check on the guy in the parking lot prevent me from buying the gun and handing it off to him w/o running that check?

ah - I see where you are coming from.

When a gun is involved in a crime, you want the perp to be punished for purchasing the gun illegally. But you you don't think the person who sold it to him illegally should be punished.

There are several ways to achieve the trace back to the seller. A sales database, testimony ...

You did not answer the question:

How does requiring me to run a background check on the guy in the parking lot prevent me from buying the gun and handing it off to him w/o running that check?

The answer to this question goes directly to supporting, or destroying your statement that "If EVERY gun sale required a background check, criminals would not be able to use straw buyers."


Further:
You agree that background checks are a form of prior restraint, and that standard for upholding a prior restraint is a very high one -but, even so, prior restraint has been upoheld by the court.

Specifically, on what basis? That is, when did they do so, why did they do it?
Then, explain how this example can be soundly applied to the issue at hand - background checks.

Background checks work fine with registration that requires renewing. When the country wises up, that's going to be the requirement. Missing guns should be treated as possible trafficking and computers can easily spot trends of registrations not being renewed. If you are caught with a gun that isn't registered or caught making a straw purchase, your days of legally being around a gun are gone and you can practice it in prison.

 

[ima]

They should end every gun show with a massive shootout.

 

[Bfgrn]

And so, background checks do not stop straw purchases. Thank you.


How does requiring me to run a background check on the guy in the parking lot prevent me from buying the gun and handing it off to him w/o running that check?

ah - I see where you are coming from.

When a gun is involved in a crime, you want the perp to be punished for purchasing the gun illegally. But you you don't think the person who sold it to him illegally should be punished.

There are several ways to achieve the trace back to the seller. A sales database, testimony ...

Testimony by a felon doesn't carry much weight.

UNLESS...it is a survey of where felons got guns they used to perpetrate crimes, THEN what they say is GOSPEL...

 

[logical4u]

They should end every gun show with a massive shootout.

They already have shootouts.... in cities where guns are limited and regulated!

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is just your speculation. If EVERY gun sale required a background check, criminals would not be able to use straw buyers.

Well that takes care of .00000001% of guns acquisition by criminals.

In fact according to the associated press Virginia's background check system has prevented 54,260 people, including more than 16,000 felons, from buying guns since it began in 1989.

I'm sure those figures aren't cooked by HGI or another anti-liberty group.

Incorrect - a sales database would give law enforcement a trail to follow.

Ah, despite assurances by leftists that such information would be completely private.

I could see party apparatchiks feeding the names and addresses of gun owners to the party press so they could be target by criminals. There is precedent for this.

The checks cost $2. I've seen ranges of free to $25. I've never seen $60. What state are you in?

Sorry Jr. Can't let you inherit Grandpa's shotgun because we haven't done a background check...

What you're doing, and what the intent is, is to make criminals out of legitimate citizens. We all know that no one will comply with these chicken shit edicts, so the effect will be to criminalize transactions between private individuals. And I believe that is the intent.

 

[nodoginnafight]

And so, background checks do not stop straw purchases. Thank you.


How does requiring me to run a background check on the guy in the parking lot prevent me from buying the gun and handing it off to him w/o running that check?

ah - I see where you are coming from.

When a gun is involved in a crime, you want the perp to be punished for purchasing the gun illegally. But you you don't think the person who sold it to him illegally should be punished.

There are several ways to achieve the trace back to the seller. A sales database, testimony ...

You did not answer the question:

How does requiring me to run a background check on the guy in the parking lot prevent me from buying the gun and handing it off to him w/o running that check?

The answer to this question goes directly to supporting, or destroying your statement that "If EVERY gun sale required a background check, criminals would not be able to use straw buyers."


Further:
You agree that background checks are a form of prior restraint, and that standard for upholding a prior restraint is a very high one -but, even so, prior restraint has been upoheld by the court.

Specifically, on what basis? That is, when did they do so, why did they do it?
Then, explain how this example can be soundly applied to the issue at hand - background checks.

I did answer your question. The law will prevent you from selling your weapon without doing a background check.
Prior restraints have been upheld specifically in time and manner restrictions - exactly the type of restriction involved with a background check.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Well that takes care of .00000001% of guns acquisition by criminals.

And you accuse others of "cooking numbers"????
Oh pleeeze.

Sorry Jr. Can't let you inherit Grandpa's shotgun

I never mentioned anything about inheritence.

You just keep on making crap up...

it's working soooo well for you.

 

[ima]

We should just tattoo the serial number of every gun someone buys on his arm or back, that way, we'd always knows whose gun it was.

 

[M14 Shooter]

ah - I see where you are coming from.

When a gun is involved in a crime, you want the perp to be punished for purchasing the gun illegally. But you you don't think the person who sold it to him illegally should be punished.

There are several ways to achieve the trace back to the seller. A sales database, testimony ...

You did not answer the question:

How does requiring me to run a background check on the guy in the parking lot prevent me from buying the gun and handing it off to him w/o running that check?

The answer to this question goes directly to supporting, or destroying your statement that "If EVERY gun sale required a background check, criminals would not be able to use straw buyers."


Further:
You agree that background checks are a form of prior restraint, and that standard for upholding a prior restraint is a very high one -but, even so, prior restraint has been upoheld by the court.

Specifically, on what basis? That is, when did they do so, why did they do it?
Then, explain how this example can be soundly applied to the issue at hand - background checks.

I did answer your question. The law will prevent you from selling your weapon without doing a background check.

Incorrect.
The law does not prevent me from walking into the parking lot and doing exactly that.
Disagree? Show how the law stops me.

Prior restraints have been upheld specifically in time and manner restrictions - exactly the type of restriction involved with a background check.

Show this to be true. Cite cases and detail the circumstances, and then show how those circumstances create a precedental parallel to background checks.
Else, you've supported your claim by doing nothing greater than rerpeating it.

 

[The Rabbi]

ah - I see where you are coming from.

When a gun is involved in a crime, you want the perp to be punished for purchasing the gun illegally. But you you don't think the person who sold it to him illegally should be punished.

There are several ways to achieve the trace back to the seller. A sales database, testimony ...

Testimony by a felon doesn't carry much weight.

UNLESS...it is a survey of where felons got guns they used to perpetrate crimes, THEN what they say is GOSPEL...

A survey is not testimony in a court of law, hairboy.
Fail.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And you accuse others of "cooking numbers"????
Oh pleeeze.

It's a wild assed guess - which means it is every bit as accurate as the crap you're throwing out.

How many criminals get guns through "straw purchases?" Damn few, why would they bother? Chinese and Russian guns flow with no real obstruction, just like drugs. A criminal has no incentive not to buy a Chinese AK47 - it's not like they worry about breaking the law..

As with all attacks on civil liberty, your proposal ONLY affects the law abiding. Criminals don't care, they don't buy from Bass Pro Shops, they buy from the Sons of Anarchy or some other criminal gang. Or they flat out steal they guns they use.

I never mentioned anything about inheritence.

What is the difference? If every transfer, even between private parties, requires a background check, then the scenario I've repeatedly spelled out is the reality.

AND we both know this is nothing more than a means to punish the nominally law abiding, because NO ONE is going to follow the chicken shit laws you propose, no one. So it becomes nothing but another club to beat the law abiding public with.

 

[Jarlaxle]

We should just tattoo the serial number of every gun someone buys on his arm or back, that way, we'd always knows whose gun it was.

You need your patient number at the nut farm tattooed on your face.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We should just tattoo the serial number of every gun someone buys on his arm or back, that way, we'd always knows whose gun it was.

Nazis were famous for tattooing symbols on the skin of people.