Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dsc

(52,130 posts)
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 09:29 PM Apr 2013

How about this as a compromise for the backround checks of private sales

Many states have laws which treat car sales differently if the seller sells fewer than some small number of cars a year (like 3 or 4 say). If you sell under that number than you get to sell as is, you get to insist sales are final barring outright fraud. If you sell over that number you have to give a 30 day warranty during which the car can be returned, and the sale voided. The principle being that if you sell more than a few cars a year you are in fact a dealer and deserve to be treated as such. Similarly, how about a rule that if you sell, trade, or gift more than 3 or 4 guns a year then you must run backround checks on all of your sales, gifts, or trades, no matter who the recipient is, but if you sell, gift, or trade fewer than that, then you don't have to run the backround check unless you don't know who you are selling, gifting, or trading the weapon to.

26 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How about this as a compromise for the backround checks of private sales (Original Post) dsc Apr 2013 OP
I'll give you background checks on all sales (w/o a gun registry) and a 10 round limit on new mags badtoworse Apr 2013 #1
I think states have a right to determine who does and who doesn't get to ccw in their states dsc Apr 2013 #2
None of your other civil rights end when you cross a state line. Why should RKBA be an exception? badtoworse Apr 2013 #8
really, tell that to gay people dsc Apr 2013 #10
That is not right, but least it's changing. badtoworse Apr 2013 #12
I don't recall anything in the 2nd amendment truebluegreen Apr 2013 #14
It's not a concealed carry issue badtoworse Apr 2013 #17
As I understand it, the various states have the right to pass what laws they choose. truebluegreen Apr 2013 #21
I think the issue will reach the SCOTUS in the next five or ten years, if not sooner badtoworse Apr 2013 #22
I doubt it. truebluegreen Apr 2013 #23
I agree with you they wouldn't take a case now. badtoworse Apr 2013 #24
you have a residence but you aren't a resident? dsc Apr 2013 #13
It means I own two homes, one in NJ and one in NY badtoworse Apr 2013 #16
and you still would be a resident, albeit parttime, of NY dsc Apr 2013 #18
Technically, I'm out of state badtoworse Apr 2013 #19
The US Constitution billh58 Apr 2013 #25
Read through the thread; I've been clear on the issue. It's not a carry issue. badtoworse Apr 2013 #26
Unenforceable and just ridiculous madville Apr 2013 #3
then fine title all guns and require backround checks on them all dsc Apr 2013 #4
It's the drug laws here madville Apr 2013 #7
drugs are illegal in france, germany, spain, the uk, australia, austria, new zealand dsc Apr 2013 #9
We are way behind though and at a disadvantage demographically madville Apr 2013 #11
Especially since gun cultists are not as law-abiding as they keep telling us. Hoyt Apr 2013 #20
Kind of already is that way Duckhunter935 Apr 2013 #5
I don't have an issue with Universal Background Checks today, regardless of # of xfers ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #6
Looks like we need regular background checks of all males 15-35 whether they are buying guns or not FarCenter Apr 2013 #15
 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
1. I'll give you background checks on all sales (w/o a gun registry) and a 10 round limit on new mags
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 09:34 PM
Apr 2013

In return, I want a federal CCW, on a "shall issue", that is valid in all 50 states plus DC.

dsc

(52,130 posts)
2. I think states have a right to determine who does and who doesn't get to ccw in their states
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 09:36 PM
Apr 2013

if the feds adopt the standard of the strictest state, then I would be OK with that.

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
8. None of your other civil rights end when you cross a state line. Why should RKBA be an exception?
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 09:53 PM
Apr 2013

I'm a resident of New Jersey and I legally own a handgun in New Jersey. I also have a residence in upstate New York, but it is illegal for me to bring the handgun into New York. Since I'm not a New York resident, there is no way for me to get a New York permit. Where is the fairness in that? Why do I lose a constitutionally guaranteed right because I crossed a state line?

 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
14. I don't recall anything in the 2nd amendment
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 10:20 PM
Apr 2013

about the right to concealed carry.

And even thisSupreme Court (including Fat Tony!) recognizes the right to regulate arms.

So there's me dealing with your question; you will have to deal with your issue.

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
17. It's not a concealed carry issue
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 10:34 PM
Apr 2013

I don't have a carry permit in NJ, but I can legally take it to the range, if I want to shoot. As I understand NY law, I can't bring the gun into NY for any reason or in any manner.

ETA: I don't believe the question of right to carry has made it to the SCOTUS yet.

 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
21. As I understand it, the various states have the right to pass what laws they choose.
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 11:39 PM
Apr 2013

So they have. NY law is tougher than NJ, or, since you are not a resident (I assume you file taxes in NJ, not NY?), you can't have a gun in NY. Right?

So what you want is a national law that allows you to bring your gun across state lines, right?

I understand the issue, now, but I don't think you will gain any satisfaction soon, or ever. I can't imagine the uproar if the SC or anyone tried to dictate that all states "respect" each others' laws....who would decide? The loosest or the tightest?

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
22. I think the issue will reach the SCOTUS in the next five or ten years, if not sooner
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 06:10 AM
Apr 2013

Hard to say how they would rule, but, given McDonald, I don't think they would support allowing a state to deny you a civil right just becuase you are travelling in that state.

 

truebluegreen

(9,033 posts)
23. I doubt it.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 09:00 AM
Apr 2013

The Supreme Court is above all a political body, however much they prefer to pretend otherwise. They prefer not to open a can of worms when they can avoid it. Witness the conservative bloc's grousing about the gay rights cases now before the Court. They accepted them, but are now wishing they hadn't as the issue comes more and more to the forefront of the culture wars. I bet they will rule as narrowly as they can so they disturb their political allies as little as possible. Remember the flap last summer when Roberts switched his vote and approved the ACA? I think he did that because he understood that ruling against it, on purely partisan grounds, would severely damage the Court's credibility and therefore his own.

Anyway. With the gun rights v gun regulation battle heating up, in my opinion the Court will stay as far from it as they can. Especially since they just ruled, in Heller, that gun regulation is permitted. A "civil right" doesn't exist just because your reading of the Constitution says it does.

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
24. I agree with you they wouldn't take a case now.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:23 PM
Apr 2013

That's why I said within 5 or 10 years. Scalia did say he expected the SCOTUS to be ruling again on the issue. I believe he said that ion the context of defining what constituted reasonable restrictions.

BTW, I agree with you that my reading of the constitution doesn't define a civil right. It's an entirely different matter when the SCOTUS does.

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
16. It means I own two homes, one in NJ and one in NY
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 10:31 PM
Apr 2013

The NY residence is a vacation home in the Adirondacks

dsc

(52,130 posts)
18. and you still would be a resident, albeit parttime, of NY
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 10:36 PM
Apr 2013

I find it hard to believe they make you live the entire year to get a gun permit. It would be one thing, if it were a one week timeshare but if you actually own the home, you are then, a resident of NY. You should, if you otherwise qualify, be able to get your permit.

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
19. Technically, I'm out of state
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 10:42 PM
Apr 2013

I have to buy a non-resident hunting and fishing license because I have a New Jersey drivers license. If you or anyone else have any specific information about this, I'd love to hear it.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
25. The US Constitution
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:37 PM
Apr 2013

"guarantees" you the right to carry a gun in public? Could you please cite that ruling or SCOTUS decision? New Jersey allowed you the privilege of carrying a gun in public, but New York is not bound by that permitted privilege.

If you are granted a building permit in New Jersey, would you expect New York to allow you build there as well without further process?

Your statement above that you would allow background checks in exchange for CCW in all 50 states reminds me of an old story: a man asks a beautiful lady if she would go to bed with him for a million dollars, and she answers that she would consider it. He then asks her if she would go to bed with him for 10 dollars, and her indignant response was "do you think that I'm a common prostitute?" He replies to her, "madam we have already established what you are, now we are only haggling about the price."

The NRA is all about profit for it's providers so that they can continue to support the NRA, and the vicious cycle continues. We already know that the NRA prostitutes itself and spends the blood money it receives on buying politicians who pass obscene public carry laws at its behest. The price you propose is way too cheap, and a national gun registry is as low as a growing number of Americans are willing to go.

madville

(7,397 posts)
3. Unenforceable and just ridiculous
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 09:41 PM
Apr 2013

There is no way to track a few sales or transfers a year between individuals.

dsc

(52,130 posts)
4. then fine title all guns and require backround checks on them all
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 09:45 PM
Apr 2013

but this notion that we can have criminals and the mentally ill buying guns willy nilly has to stop. Funny every single, solitary, other first world nation handles this task without any problem whatsoever. And to a nation, they have vastly fewer gun deaths than we do. The Swiss, the next most lax, have the next highest rate, and it is less than a third of ours.

madville

(7,397 posts)
7. It's the drug laws here
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 09:50 PM
Apr 2013

We could reduce gun violence by two-thirds simply by legalizing drugs. All illegal drugs are simple to produce, take the illegality out of the equation and crime goes down by multiples.

dsc

(52,130 posts)
9. drugs are illegal in france, germany, spain, the uk, australia, austria, new zealand
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 09:56 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Sun Apr 21, 2013, 10:31 PM - Edit history (1)

and a host of other countries, all of which, to a country, have vastly lower rates of gun death than we do. To find countries which match or exceed our rate, you need to find third world nations, places in the midst of civil war, places with no government, or otherwise compromised or failed states. We shouldn't have to say thank god for ethiopia to put our gun stats in prospective.

madville

(7,397 posts)
11. We are way behind though and at a disadvantage demographically
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 10:03 PM
Apr 2013

All of those countries you reference don't have the racist history America does, here in America the government encourages black and Hispanic gangs to kill each other over turf and a profit margin.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
5. Kind of already is that way
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 09:50 PM
Apr 2013

If your in the business of buying or selling over a certain amount you require an FFL and must then conduct a background check. Just not enforced.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
6. I don't have an issue with Universal Background Checks today, regardless of # of xfers
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 09:50 PM
Apr 2013

There needs to be some cleanup from the Manchin bill and it will be better once DOMA finally dies.

I prefer the Firearms Owners ID approach, which is effectively a precheck and supports instant check. It should be done automatically once the person reaches 18 like registering to vote and Selective Service.

Then a transaction becomes a case of me sending in their FOID and getting an instant notification that they are good and a transaction number that I can record in case anything comes up.

Registration/identification of which firearms are being transferred is a separate issue.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
15. Looks like we need regular background checks of all males 15-35 whether they are buying guns or not
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 10:27 PM
Apr 2013
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How about this as a compr...