HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Biden cites broad agreeme...

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:28 PM

Biden cites broad agreement on ‘universal background checks’ for gun buyers

Source: Washington Post

Vice President Biden said Thursday he sees an emerging consensus around “universal background checks” for all gun buyers and a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines as he completes the Obama administration’s broad study of ways to curb the nation’s gun violence.

Biden, who said he would present his working group’s policy recommendations to President Obama by Tuesday, suggested that universal background checks and a high-capacity magazine ban would be part of the administration’s agenda.

Biden made the remarks as he opened a meeting with hunters and sportsmen, one of a series Thursday that also includes a gathering with gun owners’ groups, notably the National Rifle Association. It was not immediately clear how those participants would react to such recommendations.

...

“There is an emerging set of recommendations — not coming from me but coming from the groups we’ve met,” Biden said. “There is a surprising, so far, a surprising recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks. These recommendations were not only about “closing the gun show loophole,” he said, “but total universal background checks, including private sales.” He said the focus would be on how to “strengthen those background checks.”

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-cites-broad-agreement-on-universal-background-checks-for-gun-sales/2013/01/10/2369cc6c-5b4b-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_story.html



I'm a little confused by his wording, since the lack of universal background checks is literally what the "gun show loophole" is, but I'm liking the sound of this so far.

41 replies, 4347 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply Biden cites broad agreement on ‘universal background checks’ for gun buyers (Original post)
Recursion Jan 2013 OP
dsc Jan 2013 #1
Recursion Jan 2013 #2
dsc Jan 2013 #3
-..__... Jan 2013 #9
jody Jan 2013 #23
dsc Jan 2013 #24
question everything Jan 2013 #4
Recursion Jan 2013 #5
Puzzledtraveller Jan 2013 #31
Ashgrey77 Jan 2013 #6
Recursion Jan 2013 #8
RC Jan 2013 #27
DryRain Jan 2013 #7
Recursion Jan 2013 #10
DryRain Jan 2013 #13
Recursion Jan 2013 #14
DryRain Jan 2013 #16
hack89 Jan 2013 #12
DryRain Jan 2013 #17
hack89 Jan 2013 #18
DryRain Jan 2013 #21
hack89 Jan 2013 #22
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #20
samsingh Jan 2013 #11
Kingofalldems Jan 2013 #15
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #19
groundloop Jan 2013 #25
DryRain Jan 2013 #26
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #29
DryRain Jan 2013 #32
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #33
DryRain Jan 2013 #34
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #36
DryRain Jan 2013 #39
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #40
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #28
groundloop Jan 2013 #37
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #38
Puzzledtraveller Jan 2013 #30
Recursion Jan 2013 #35
Macoy51 Jan 2013 #41

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:33 PM

1. there is another problem with the backround check

there is a limited amount of time to conduct it, and once that time is up, if nothing disqualifying is found the gun has to be sold. This means places that haven't computerized records end up not being able to be searched in time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:34 PM

2. So we fix that

Tell states if they want any Homeland Security money they have to update their databases and keep them updated.

Alternately, institute a waiting period that's tied to how up-to-date the state's database is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:36 PM

3. I presume that is what Biden is saying

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:50 PM

9. Nope... an FFL can still deny the transaction...

 

Wal-Mart's policy is to deny the sale even after 3 business days have passed with no response from the NICS system.


If the FFL has not received a final determination from the NICS after three business days have elapsed since the delay response, it is within the FFL’s discretion whether or not to transfer the firearm (if state law permits the transfer). If the FFL transfers the firearm, the FFL must check “no resolution was provided within three business days” on line 21d of the ATF Form 4473.


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/federal-firearms-licensees/a-nics-delay

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:46 PM

23. OTH it make take weeks to complete a check under the new, yet to be written procedures. One example

 

of federal abuse is restoring RKBA for anyone convicted of a federal crime and completing their sentence.

Federal law allows that but lawyers advise it's effectively impossible to accomplish.
Q: I want information on relief of federal firearm disability? (I am a felon but want to own a firearm, how do I get my privilege restored?)
* * * * * * *
Persons convicted of a federal offense may elect to apply for a presidential pardon. Information on applying for a presidential pardon may be obtained at:
U.S. Department of Justice
The Pardon Attorney’s Office
1425 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 11000
Washington, DC 20530 USA
Voice (202) 616-6070

Source http://www.atf.gov/contact/faq/#firearms-relief

A presidential pardon is most unlikely, see List of people pardoned by Barack Obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:55 PM

24. frankly I don't have any problem, nor do I consider it abuse, for

the feds to say no more guns if you are a felon. As to the amount of time, too bad so sad. The NRA insists on making it all but impossible to use computers and then whine that it takes too long. I don't think we should purposely take forever but it takes weeks to get a passport, without which I can't travel fully so I don't have a problem making people wait some time for a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:42 PM

4. Alot has been said about mental illness

But, really, would the shooters at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Tuscon, the Sikh Temple, Newtown, Portland and other places would have been denied weapons? Shall we look at every lone individual, someone who walks in the streets mumble to himself as a potential mass shooter?

And what about friends of the ones denied license who purchase guns for them, as was during the ambush at firefighters?

I think that instead of concentrating only on individuals we need to ban... whatever passes for assault weapon. Anything that can discharge several shots in a few seconds. Anything that is used by military and law enforcement personnel fighting real criminals and enemy personnel in combat.

I used to visit range for target practice. One bullet at a time. No machine guns that would discharge several shots at one squeeze of the trigger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:44 PM

5. Mass random shootings start discussions, but are probably bad drivers of policy

I'm much more worried about the significantly more common "normal" murders, where one person shoots one other person he knows.

I think mass murders are too much of an outlier for there to be many good policy ideas about them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:22 PM

31. Or the fact that people can steal guns from otherwise legal and registered owners

be it parents, friends, anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:44 PM

6. Even bolt action rifles can fire several times in a few seconds.

Look up the "Mad Minute". It was a test for British rifleman, they did it with a .303 Lee Enfield bolt action rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:49 PM

8. As far as the assault weapons

I think that instead of concentrating only on individuals we need to ban... whatever passes for assault weapon. Anything that can discharge several shots in a few seconds.

I'm giving up on the semantics of this, but the class of firearms you're describing is much, much broader than I think you think it is; it's essentially every firearm designed in the 20th century, and 80% of guns in private hands. Part of why people like me are so resistant to renewing the assault weapons ban is because it doesn't ban this class of weapons, but just a subset of them based on how they look, so it's a big political hit without actually doing anything about the problem. (Case in point: the weapon Lanza used was legal under the AWB because it lacked a bayonet mount. Yes, really. But attempts to make it "stronger" by catching all the weapons with the capabilities that actually matter keep running into the fact that that's basically every new gun sold and the majority of guns people already own. That's much harder to ban.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:22 PM

27. How they look is one of the very problems that needs to be addressed.

 

The Busmaster looks attracts a certain mind set. That mindset, for the most part, are the more unstable, more fantasizing, Rambo types. The fact you can order parts to turn your normal, wooden stock, semi auto hunting rifle into a Bushmaster look/work alike weapon, complete with bump-stock,($300) is itself a problem. What is the need? How does this increase anyone hunting skills, unless they fantasize about hunting Humans?
So, yes, the very looks of some weapons are a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:49 PM

7. I'm sorry, background checks and "improved mental health" is just window dressing

 

Here's the facts: in Detroit Michigan, which is about 2 miles from downtown Windsor, Ontario, Canada, there were over 400 gun murders last year, (2012). In Windsor, Ontario, there were less than 15 gun deaths. There's the same movies in the cinemas, the same computer games, the same music, the same TV station violence, the same language, the same working middle class economy.

The only difference between these two cities, less than 2 miles apart: availability of guns and less of the same illegal drugs in Canada. (Drugs harder to get across the border, but about equally illegal in both places).

The ONLY solution to stopping death by gunfire: make guns very very very hard to get without government permission to own one, (for hunting, target practice, etc.).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DryRain (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:53 PM

10. Windsor also has much less inequality. MUCH less

Like, I can't even believe you're pretending those cities are similar. They also have fewer immigrants, a much more homogeneous population, and, yes, free universal health care including mental health care. And, yes, it's (somewhat) harder to legally buy a gun in Windsor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:08 PM

13. I'm sorry, immigration in Canada? THAT's the problem in the USA?

 

How many "illegal immigrants" in Canada, versus the USA?

I will grant you free health care, but 99% of those on public assistance in Detroit have access to free health care. True, the low wage working class folks in the great old USA do NOT have access to free health care, but few of those working mothers on 20 hours per week at McDonald's ever own or use a weapon.

The ONE UNIVERSAL difference is that in the USA, guns are legally available to anyone 18+ years old, at Walmart or somewhere else, or on the internet. In Canada, this idea is ludicrous, outrageous, and totally outside the realm of normal society.

Tell me, how many mentally deranged Detroit folks who couldn't get free health care went out and shot somebody!

They shot somebody because they could legally get a gun, not because they couldn't get a free flu shot.

I have spend over 10 years living in 4 major Canadian cities, I have relatives who are native born Canadians. They think America is foolish to allow anyone to own a gun, without a valid reason. They totally restrict assault weapons sales to those in the Canadian military, or to local police with RCMP approval.

The USA, in their love of unbridled freedom, thinks crazy people should be allowed to walk the streets, beg for money, and freeze in winter, and be able to buy guns, as long as they have never been judged crazy.

I see kids in high school and college in both countries, I talk with them often in my work. NOT ONE of the Canadian kids fears a mass shooting, when asked about VA Tech, but American college kids are very apprehensive about the question, and have no realistic solutions, walking away thinking about the problem.

Canada and the USA are very different, because, somewhere in the history of the USA, the sense of responsibility for our fellow man faded away, but in Canada, following the English and French traditions of "nobless oblige", people with wealth and privilege felt the need to take care of others, to make sure the proper people had access to power and forces of destruction, by contrast, in the USA, ANYONE can do as they please, from the lowliest and poorest and most sick to the most deserving of our admiration.......both were considered "equals". In Canada, one has to earn respect, in the USA, all Americans think they deserve it from the moment of birth.
SORRY, Americans, you don't deserve "respect" from the moment of birth, you deserve equal rights to make your own way in the world, not anything more nor less.

And insisting upon and demanding a right to ownership of guns as part of your way to get there? No respect for that at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DryRain (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:12 PM

14. The only difference in gun availability is that a Candian PAL takes a week as opposed to the 3-day

... background check in the US.

But then on the other hand you only have to do it once every 5 years (IIRC) no matter how many guns you buy.

For that matter, PALs and RPALs are denied less than 1% of the time, as opposed to IIRC 8% denials in the US.

It's not very difficult to buy a gun in Canada. They just choose not to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:23 PM

16. PAL's have very rigid restrictions Americans don't face

 

You must be a citizen, or engaged in an occupation deemed worthy to own a gun for self-protection, (e.g.cab driver in some cities only)

You must have NOT ONE juvenile offence on your record, let alone NO adult offence EVER!

You must agree to under-go a polygraph and/or psychological intervew if asked.

Restrictions vary among provices. Let's just say, Walmart doesn't bother to sell guns to Canadians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DryRain (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:04 PM

12. Does Windsor have gang infested ghettos? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:25 PM

17. Are you asking a rhetorical question?

 

Let's answer this with a question, which, of course you will find offensive.

Where would gangs be in major cities in the world without easy access to lethal weapons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DryRain (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:28 PM

18. So they can smuggle drugs by the pallet load but not guns?

Criminals will always have guns. Like they always will have heroin and cocaine to sell - they are in the business of meeting consumer demands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:42 PM

21. The Windsor, Ontario drug probem pales in comparison to Detroit

 

What can I say? Kids that have adequate health care growing up, kids that have almost free trade schools, and low-cost junior colleges, kids that don't have access to drugs and guns as often as in the USA, they tend NOT to shoot each other.

By the way, most gun deaths in Detroit USA were NOT among kids! They involved adults over 18, many over 22.

By the way, Canada offers assistance to each town and hamlet and village and big city like Windsor, from a national police force as advanced as the FBI, that's the RCMP. They do the international background checks, the fingerprinting of all applicants, the DNA samplings, etc. In 7 days, Canada can spot 99.9% of the guys who should NEVER have a gun, and many of them are sent back to the USA where they have been found to be escaping charges, sent back handcuffed, and over the bridge, from Canada to the USA, never to enter Canada again, about 3-4 a day on average. What the USA does when they are on that side of the border? Seldom find out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DryRain (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:44 PM

22. Exactly - the solution to gun violence is a just society

where the needs of the people are meet. Education, health care, jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DryRain (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:35 PM

20. No private transfers means police can track down straw purchasers

that supply guns to the criminal elements.

Not as easily as registration, but you note that all the latest mass shootings, the point of acquisition has always been identifiable. This is how. It's a good start, not 'window dressing'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:00 PM

11. there is a lot of support out there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:17 PM

15. I like this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:33 PM

19. It's a correct use of language though.

'Gun show loophole' is a total misnomer. Private Transfers is the 'loophole' if you want to call it one at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:00 PM

25. Private transfer is a huge loophole.

From the ATF:

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law....

That doesn't even suggest that I ask a guy buying a gun from me if he can legally own one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 04:20 PM

26. There's a solution to that: one year in jail unless...

 

the transfer is registered with the US govt, and a 150% tax on the purchase price is assessed the buyer!

Then the buyer agrees to buy innocent injury fire INSURANCE each and every year for owning the gun, equal to 200% of the purchase price.

This would make gun ownership economically unreasonable for 99% of Americans. The black market would be easy to shut down, one violation of these requlations, 10 years in prison and no way to buy a gun legally in the USA ever again.

DONE! Let those gun rights folks spend a few years in prison where the only peope with guns are the peope the prisoners hate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DryRain (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:18 PM

29. Why do you only want the 1% to have guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:31 PM

32. I don't ! I want 1% to have the rights to

 

assault weapons.

The other 99% earn their rights, by being "well regulated", as does that 1%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DryRain (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:33 PM

33. Have you ever heard of a Poll Tax?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:37 PM

34. I used to pay one, Yes! I heard of it

 

What does the right to vote have to do with "well regulated"?

Voting is not about "well-regulated" voters....bearing arms, a different story. I fail to see your point, as you probaby do, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DryRain (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:42 PM

36. Artificial cost has nothing to do with 'well regulated'.

The Supreme Court has already ruled we have a civil right, incorporated against the states via Due Process, to weapons for personal use, that are in common use.

The AR-15 is the most popular center-fire rifle in civilian ownership in this country, so clearly, it falls within common use.

You are suggesting imposing taxes and fees upon a civil right.

If you want to go down this path, you need to amend the constitution. Otherwise, it gets thrown out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:49 PM

39. Please stop making stuff up

 

The Supreme Court of the USA ruled that Dred Scott could be taken as property from one state to another.

The Supreme Court of the USA never ever in ANY decision ever in their history, mentioned the AR-15.

(By the way, the Supreme Court never ever ruled against a citizen owning an atomic bomb, so what, so f*cking what?)

I am suggesting imposing taxes upon vices, and detriments to society. You ready to vanish the cigarrette tax and get packs of those suckers back to $.30 a pack?


So stop making stuff up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DryRain (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:55 PM

40. Never read District of Colubmia vs Heller (2008) huh?

That's ok. (Dangerous and unusual weapons are discussed in the decision, and that would be inclusive of things classified as Destructive Devices, encompassing explosives, and hypothetically, atomic weapons)

The AR-15 need not be mentioned by name. Doesn't matter. People actually crafting laws around this issue WILL read those decisions and work within the constraints of the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:18 PM

28. A 'loophole' suggests an unintended usage.

That statute was clearly designed in that manner, on purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:45 PM

37. True. Or it could simply suggest a means to circumvent regulations....

which is what it is. The thing is, we've heard about the "gun show loophole" for so long that it's become second nature to say it.

In any case, let's FIX THE DAMNED LAW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:49 PM

38. No private transfers would go a long way to ending straw purchases

and will help dry up criminal access to firearms, so I'm with you. This can be done in a manner that is no harm to either side, and carries enormous benefit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:20 PM

30. Which wouldnt have stopped Newtown, Ct n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 06:39 PM

35. No. Mass shootings are generally bad drivers for policy

It would do something about "normal" murders, though, which kill a lot more people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #35)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 07:38 AM

41. Would This Open Up The Data Bases?

 

May seem like a minor issue, but wouldn’t background checks for private sales make the background check data bases open to the public? I am uncomfortable with the idea that any person can do a background check on me. They can just claim that I talked about buying a gun from them.


Macoy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread