How Gun Control Ends: Not With A Bang, But A Whimper

[Pullo]

Here’s a hard truth: all the emotion and outrage and sadness that followed the Dec. 14 shooting of 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook elementary school may make almost no difference in federal gun control laws. How little is the Hill going to do on gun control? As things stand, Congress may not even pass two gun control measures that even some elements of the powerful gun lobby have suggested they could support. But if post-Sandy Hook gun control measures are badly wounded, they’re not finished yet. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle insist there’s still a chance to do a deal; here’s the state of play.

.....

The assault weapons ban is already near death, and so is the ban on large capacity magazines. Even Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has declined to support a ban and voted against the 1994 bill that expired in 2004. Grassley and other Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans are already out against both the assault weapons ban and the prohibition on large capacity magazine clips.

.....

If Congress ultimately produces a combined bill that turns gun trafficking into a felony, expands background checks to private sales and spends some money on school safety, perhaps the public outcry after Sandy Hook won’t have been entirely fruitless. But there are plenty in Washington who expect next to nothing to come of the massacre at Newtown, and believe that if compromise can barely survive the committee process it will certainly be doomed in the full Congress.

Link

Looks like reality may be setting in.

[iiibbb]

1. YUP

[slackmaster]

2. Gun control advocates keep making the same mistakes over and over and over

1. Demanding so much that they end up getting nothing, and

2. Refusing to work with gun rights supporters to find common areas of agreement.

[bowens43]

3. there is no such thing as 'gun rights'

that's a term made up by the death merchants and their mindless minions.....

[iiibbb]

5. Welcome to the Status Quo...

Even the schmo Cuomo is going to have to give up the ground they made.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2013/03/budget-resolution-takes-aim-at-new-yorks-safe-act

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2013/03_-_March/N_Y__must_prove_constitutionality_of_gun_law__judge/

[Eleanors38]

7. Punk uses a rifle, the state wants a pistol registry?

[sarisataka]

8. Oh, so now...

we want to be picky over terms and made up words

I'll see your 'gun rights' and raise you an assault gun, clip and shoulder thing that goes up

[pipoman]

12. Don't forget 'gun show loophole'

[brindleboxer]

10. How bad is it...

that I can't even tell if this is parody or not?

[holdencaufield]

22. mindless mininons ... Yay!

[rrneck]

6. That's because

if the system is working right, sooner or later at the end of the day whatever legislation gets passed into law has to work in the real world. Prosecutors have to be able to look at the statute and be willing to devote resources to convict people of crimes.

The AWB and mag capacity regulations were absurd on their face. Background checks for private transfers are a fine idea if they can get it to work. But you're talking about regulating the transfer of an object that weighs about three pounds between people who could have a near infinite variety of relationships. I don't see how you can mandate and enforce background checks without chain of custody documentation. And we're not talking about documenting something almost exclusively operated in public, but something inside the privacy of people's homes. If the civil rights problems weren't bad enough, the political ramifications could be disastrous.

But let's assume they can figure out a way to get it to work and pass it into law without giving the Republicans control of government for another few generations. In all the brouhaha over the issue, I haven't seen anyone comment on the impact of private background checks on the gun market. If they implement that system, it will effectively turn every gun owner in the country into a gun dealer. We can't successfully regulate straw purchases at gun dealers now, imagine if we create eighty million of them.

[av8r1998]

17. As a gun owner I disagree

The system of private background checks for pistols works "pretty" well here in CT. Is it perfect? Far from it. I would like to eliminate the Pseudo-registration that we have for one, but that aside, here are the strengths:

1) It effectively eliminates the need for "Re-Certifying" upon renewal. EVERY time you buy a gun, you undergo a criminal background check.

2) Violation of the law requires a person with a clean record to be complicit with a person who doesn't. Do straw sales happen? Yes, but we also have a 72 hour requirement to report a stolen/lost gun. Don't you think the police will kinda want to "Investigate" when you've just "lost" your 3rd gun this month? You have to assume a person with a clean record wouldn't risk his gun being used in a crime. Chances are a person who would pay a premium to purchase a gun illegally doesn't want a range toy. It makes the gun business self-policing.

3) Because of the above it doesn't have to be enforced, just prosecuted when it happens.

4) I agree on the Civil Rights issue, but as a gun owner I really don't want my guns falling into the wrong hands.
That is bad for everyone, especially gun rights proponents like me.

[clffrdjk]

23. "Gun rights proponents like me"

Is that some kind of joke?
Registration
Depending on criminals to turn themselves in because the law says so.
Support of pointless waiting periods.

It just has to be a joke

[av8r1998]

25. Reread my post

Last edited Tue Mar 12, 2013, 08:03 AM - Edit history (1)

I clearly said that what we have here in CT is flawed as it is Pseudo-Registration. Meaning I do not want ANY registration AT ALL.

Also - based on the status quo we have Tiart (which should be made permanant) to protect us from registration at the federal level.

Barring an out and out power grab by the executive (e.g. warrantless searches), here in CT I am pretty confident that any confiscation scheme based on the current system wouldn't even meet the level of legal scrutiny needed to obtain search warrants.

Why?
It doesn't account for transport in and out of the state, firearms owned before 93, firearms transferred privately before the law was applied to private transfers, transfers to an out of state buyer via an FFL, firearms lost or stolen before the law re: reporting of lost firearms went into effect, or guns turned in at gun buybacks.

As I said in my post I would prefer the state destroy the records as the Federal Gov't does, but that aside, while imperfect it is certainly a good start.

Also - as a matter of practicality, unless you a 100% cash buyer from ONLY private sales, finding out what you purchased is no more difficult than any other good or service.

Sorry for the confusion.... I DO NOT SUPPORT REGISTRATION. I would like NICS 100% available to private sellers.
That's about it.

ETA: Where did I advocate waiting periods or registration?
I didn't

[clffrdjk]

28. The waiting period was

Screw up I apologize.

As for registration I can not think of a way for all private sales to have a background check without a national registry. How would it work? How would you enforce it? How would it effect criminals?

[av8r1998]

29. Simple

We already do it here, and it works "Pretty Well" as I said.
When you want to purchase a handgun on a private sale we fill out a form (DPS-3-c)
On the form are the information for the buyers and sellers, including permit numbers.
A phone call is made, and when both permit #'s are given, and provided both permits are valid, an auth # is given.

Now, I did mention that there is a flaw. This results in 1) Pseudo-Registration as records are not destroyed and 2) Requires a permit to purchase. (Most states do not have that requirement) There is also a step where the seller must keep the paperwork, a copy goes to the state, and a copy to the buyer's local PD.

How would I fix this at the federal level?
1) Open NICS to the public (Currently the STATE here facilitates the NICS check based on permit numbers/FFL id)
2) Use other identifying number so as not to require a permit. (I'm not really sure what # is used for the federal background check... I always buy on my permit)
3) Destroy the records, as is currently done on federal BG checks
4) Remove Pistol Identifying Information

As for enforcement, it is self-policing, because we require reporting of stolen firearms. Honestly, unless you are a straw seller, why would you NOT report the theft of your legally owned and expensive property. Also - even though the STATE or FED GOV'T doesn't keep records, an FFL does. How can they not? Stolen/lost/used in crime firearms can be investigated that way. No need for registration.

As a gun owner I am usually pretty cautious about private sales. I really have no interest in selling a gun to someone who shouldn't have one. If we did not have the ability to run the bg checks ourselves, I probably would use an FFL to do the transfers.

[rrneck]

24. But here's what I keep wondering.

If people want a background check for every transfer, how do we handle interpersonal relationships?

Bob and Alice have been married for twenty glorious years. Bob wants to take up target shooting so Alice decides to give him a gun for his birthday. Alice goes to the store with the make and model of the gun he wants, fills out the paperwork pays for the gun and leaves. She gives him his gift over dinner that evening.

Bob and Alice have been living together for five years. The neighborhood is going downhill and they can't afford to move, so they decide to get a gun. Since Bob is a truck driver and is often away from home, he tells Alice what to buy and she makes the purchase.

Bob and Alice hooked up at a rave and fell madly in love. Bob thinks guns are cool so Alice goes to the store and buys him one.

Bob and Alice broke up because Alice found out about Cathy. She kicked Bob's cheating ass out but kept the gun. Alice meets John and falls madly in love with him and gives him the gun as a gift.

As I recall president Obama mentioned an exception for husbands and wives, but what about same sex couples? That's kind of a slap in the face isn't it? And cohabiting couples, friends, roommates, and who knows how many relationships that would facilitate if not the sale, then the loan of a gun. And how hard is it to loan a gun to somebody and get a handful of cash for it?

Every time I look at the issue, I see holes that a Mack truck could drive through. It seems to me that they are not trying to regulate guns, but relationships. That process is pretty straightforward when it comes to a business deal, but between two people who can define for themselves the nature of their relationship, I don't see how it could work. But I wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing something because a lot of smart people seem to thing it's a good idea.

[av8r1998]

26. I've done this

1) One of the things about the CT law is you can't "TRANSFER" ... as in "OWNERSHIP". There is no problem with lending a gun, especially between spouses.

As for your example's:
"Bob and Alice have been married for twenty glorious years. Bob wants to take up target shooting so Alice decides to give him a gun for his birthday. Alice goes to the store with the make and model of the gun he wants, fills out the paperwork pays for the gun and leaves. She gives him his gift over dinner that evening."

Since it is a store, this could be construed as a straw purchase under CURRENT LAW. If Bob has a 30 year old felony that Alice doesn't know about she is going to prison. So is he. In any state. In CT, after giving the gift, you call DPS with both permit numbers and get an auth #.

"Bob and Alice have been living together for five years. The neighborhood is going downhill and they can't afford to move, so they decide to get a gun. Since Bob is a truck driver and is often away from home, he tells Alice what to buy and she makes the purchase."

In CT this is perfectly legal. I carry my wife's .32 Seecamp pretty often in the summer. (Nice and comfortable) Some other instructors I work with and I trade guns all the time to teach with. Nothing at all illegal about it, provided neither person is prohibited from posessing.

"Bob and Alice hooked up at a rave and fell madly in love. Bob thinks guns are cool so Alice goes to the store and buys him one."
This is the same as in #1. If you said "Bob thinks guns are cool so Alice gives him one of hers", then in CT there is no problem if it is a Long Gun. If it were a handgun it would be an illegal transfer, but calling DPS with both permit #'s and getting an auth # takes 5 minutes.

"Bob and Alice broke up because Alice found out about Cathy. She kicked Bob's cheating ass out but kept the gun. Alice meets John and falls madly in love with him and gives him the gun as a gift."
Again, not a problem. If a handgun, an Auth number is needed.

"Every time I look at the issue, I see holes that a Mack truck could drive through. It seems to me that they are not trying to regulate guns, but relationships. That process is pretty straightforward when it comes to a business deal, but between two people who can define for themselves the nature of their relationship, I don't see how it could work. But I wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing something because a lot of smart people seem to thing it's a good idea. "

You will not get any argument from me.

One of my complaints about Democrats and Gun Control is it is by in large a losing issue.
But gun owners complete inability to come up with something that is acceptable leads to Gun Controllers proposing anything they want, and in Blue States, they tend to pass. This is how we get 1 feature tests, mag bans, registration, etc. At the federal level nothing will happen. The Repubs won't give Obama an inch, Reid is a 2A supporter, so just no. Red State gun owners can afford to dig in their heels, because Red States will not pass any additional gun control. Swing States are safe as well, because 2A is one of the issues Democrats lose on. But in Blue States we need to understand that we are GOING to have to swallow some bitter pills. I'd rather minimize the damage then end up like New York.

What is MOST disappointing here is that the Sandy Hook comission didn't come up with a Bipartisan compromise. They came up with 2 separate lists. We have a significant number of pro 2A democrats in our state. A compromise could have been made that while less than perfect, gun owners can live with.

We could have gotten something that is "Not that bad"
What we will get is "OMG This sucks"....
Leadership will pressure the pro 2A dems to vote with them, and even if a few dig in their heels, there are enough Anti-Gun repubs to pass whatever the gun grabbers want.

[rrneck]

30. The problem is the conversation we just had, or rather

the lack of one between people on different points of the partisan spectrum. I've raised the registration issue with people here more than once, (the Bob and Alice scenarios were a C&P from my journal) and the only person that has even attempted to examine the issue equitably was a "gunnie". You.

That's why this place is interesting. It is populated by people who, if not actually dyed in the wool hard left liberals, fancy themselves to be so for the purpose of social plumage. It's a great big rolling experiment in the emotional attitudes about the issues of the day. So right here we have people legitimately wailing like it's the end of the world when the Patriot act gets passed or the cops infiltrate the Occupy movement, and at the same time seem to think rigidly enforced gun registration is just fine. They don't stop to consider that every "ping" on the system is data that can be mined by the powers that be. It is a point on a chain of individual relationships with a gun as an anchor. Right now you can go across DU and read about how much worse Nixon was than we thought, and then read some blind authoritarian cheerleading for a 1% billionaire that wanted to regulate soft drink containers. I wonder how many right wing fundie nuts would just love to regulate birth control the way some liberals want to regulate guns?

For me the registration issue isn't about taking guns away, it's about allowing the government access into a citizen's private life without any clear benefit for that citizen but a fairly obvious infringement on their right to be left alone. I don't think the presence of guns among the population significantly reduces crime, but allowing government regulation into your home won't make the cops show up any quicker either. If we can't show a specific benefit for the people who will be impacted by the regulations we propose they won't buy it. Nobody likes to take one for the team, especially if it means losing your life doing it.

If Diane Feinstein got every little thing she wanted or dreamed about in the way of gun control there would be minimal impact on my life, and it wouldn't keep me from voting for a Democrat. I live in a low crime area and the crime rate is on a downward trend across the country. Besides, we've got bigger fish to fry. But I know people who would be inconvenienced enough by current firearms regulation proposals to keep them from owning a gun, and if they get killed it won't be a cause du jour on DU. I doubt it would even make the papers. But they will leave behind friends and family who would become instant Republicans for life because of the tragedy. How many of us have argued that for every innocent that gets killed in a drone attack ten terrorists are made? The same effect holds true for bad public policy here. And we will lose them as voters not because we controlled guns, but because our ideology didn't have a solution for when someone gets assaulted beyond some vague platitudes about "guns as a public health issue".

You've almost sold me on universal background checks. And it took a heathen gun owner to do it. Fancy that.

[av8r1998]

31. Careful there....

I didn't almost SELL you on anything.
I merely explained that I have a somewhat imperfect solution that somewhat works.
YMMV...

I am not sure if you're a gun guy or not, based on your post, but whether you are or are not you listened to logic and reason.
My proposal corrects some problems with CT's current system, is minimally invasive, and will use a combination of legislation and gun owners themselves to police the issue.

The problem is that for people that blindly follow what they are told, that Less Bullets = Less Carnage makes sense.
It doesn't if viewed critically.
The idea that registration will reduce gun crime SEEMS to make sense... except it only has value AFTER someone gets shot. Registration proponents place more value on deterrence than they do on prosecution.
In nearly any area of criminal justice, most progressives will tell you deterrence and incarceration are of limited value. Check out the threads on the Death Penalty.

I don't know if I could vote for a repub, but I'll tell you what...
If Diane Feinstein got every little thing she wanted I (and the people I employ) would be out of work. I can support universal healthcare, the social safety net, a more fair tax code, and use a Sarah Palin photo for target practice until the cows come home... but I can NEVER support the infringement of rights.

We're Americans after all.

[rrneck]

32. This whole making sense thing is going to kill the drama around here.

You make good sense. That convinces people in a more fundamental and lasting way than strident passion for the issue.

Most folks around here figure me for a "gunnie". It probably has something to do with the 1911 and 870 in the closet.

You're right about effectiveness after the fact. It's one way freewheeling lefties can become punitive authoritarians.

Liberals own guns. It's true. These extended engagements in the culture wars divide our ranks and give aid and comfort to the enemy.

[av8r1998]

33. A 1911 and 870?

Well.... at least you have good taste, if not a large collection...
Now if that 1911 was a Wilson, or maybe a Star Arms 9mm, you'd have me....

Look - I should put this thread on some of the Repub dominated gun sites I frequent.
But at the end of the day we are being reasonable, not overzealous.
We are trying to discuss disagreement.
Most people that engage in the conversation ARE over zealous and uncompromising.
While I do understand their flawed logic, neither side is willing to give up anything.
And both sides will end up unhappy.
At the end of the day, Repubs cant win talking about Abortion, and Democrats cant win talking about guns. I don't know why we (meaning Dems) continue to oppose 2A.

"You make good sense."
Thank You...
Many here think I am a gun troll....

[premium]

34. Would I have you with a Star M45?

[av8r1998]

35. Really?

Not nearly as cool as the 9mm, but still a nice gun, so yeah, ya got me.


The 9mm model was Samuel L Jackson's gun in Pulp Fiction.
Tarantino took a lot of flak bc everyone thought it was a .45.
But it was in fact a star 9mm.

[msongs]

9. gun owners continue to butcher their way across the nation. nt

[spin]

11. I hope that you are not saying that all gun owners are butchers. (n/t)

[ThatPoetGuy]

13. You know there's no logical way to extrapolate that from the statement you're replying to, right?

Sorry, I know logic can be hard, especially if you invest yourself heart and soul into illogical dogma.

"Dogs keep trampling my flowerbed" does not mean all dogs keep trampling the flowerbed, nor does it mean that all dogs are flower tramplers.

Keep on looking elsewhere for ways to pretend you're being oppressed.

[spin]

19. Logic question...if dogs keep trampling your flowerbed ...

how do you try to pass laws to solve the problem?

Do you first suggest banning the ownership of Pit Bull dogs as they look mean and have a bad reputation or do you suggest that dog ownership laws should be improved to help guarantee that only responsible people are allowed to own dogs?

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. Don't expect any clarification from *that* one...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

20. no. but we did get a song and a poem. guess it was a fair trade.

[kudzu22]

15. Part of me had hoped that Obama would take the initiative

and come up with something new -- some novel compromise that everyone agrees is a good idea and would make a difference. But alas, he left it to the usual suspects in Congress, and down the same old road we went. I love the way Obama thinks, but his leadership skills are leaving me cold.

[gejohnston]

16. that's how we got reheated Nixoncare instead of Trumancare nt

[Pullo]

18. I agree

I really like President Obama, but he's not the most effective leader. Its frustrating, and limits his full potential IMO.

His action on guns fits his usual pattern, though. Come out with a policy statement that outlines his goals, and then sit back and toss jump-balls toward congress.

[spin]

21. Obama is quite possibly the best campaigner I have ever seen in my lifetime. ...

He did accomplish major changes to our heath care system which is one of the major reasons that I have supported Democratic candidates for President for many years. Unfortunately I fear that if he would have only showed more leadership, "Obama Care" might be even better than it is today.

But fortunately Obama has another four years in office. He has an excellent chance to become the leader I hoped for and if he does he will go down in history as one of our truly great Presidents. I feel both FDR and JFK were great leaders. FDR had a much longer time in office than Obama can have and unfortunately JFK didn't have enough time in office to reach his true potential.

[CanonRay]

27. One more example which proves

It doesn't matter what we think. Our "representatives" no longer represent our interests. Only their own interests, and the that of the corporations they shill for. There are a few exceptions, but very damn few.