Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun-trafficking case in Charlotte may have exposed loopholes in gun laws (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The bill itself is security theater (8+ / 0-)

    I don't believe for a moment that banning outright certain kinds of magazine-fed longarms is going to prevent angry, murderous people from committing mass murder. Can't get your hands on an AR-15? Magazine fed handguns are still legal, but let's suppose we ban those next. Even then, Diesel fuel and fertilizer are still legal. Okay, so let's license fertilizer sales and ban Diesel for non-commercial drivers. Even then, glass jars, gasoline, and rags are still legal. If the purpose is to prevent another Sandy Hook, such laws fail poorly, have too much impact on law-abiding citizens, and fall way off the mark.

    It's also worth noting that magazine-fed longarms - so called "assault rifles" - account for about one percent of all homicide deaths.

    As a piece of legislative strategy, however, the AWB is brilliant. It has the entire Second Amendment community - that is to say, the grass roots Second Amendment crowd that is much more vocal and responsive than the NRA - focusing on it and on the magazine ban. This gives Congress room to pass other measures that will lead not only to fewer Sandy Hooks, but much more importantly will slow down the flow of guns to gangbangers via the black market. These measures include universal background checks, which should have been made law decades ago. If not for the AWB, those grass roots would be focused on universal background checks instead, in the mistaken belief that such checks require a de facto registration scheme. Total net result, substantially fewer deaths of young people by homicide. That's a legislative result worth fighting for.

    If Obama can pull that off, then that's a much bigger progressive result than the AWB.

    ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
    My Blog
    My wife's woodblock prints

    by maxomai on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:04:31 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Wishful thinking. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite

      The 2A grassroots can walk and chew gum at the same time, especially when the other side is so obliging as to telegraph the play.  If the goal is to sneak past registries (which is what every "universal background check" the gun control lobby has proposed actually is), it's not going to succeed.  But if the goal is to secure transfers to the legitimate population, and you propose a scheme that doesn't require a registry (as you say you are), then it's a done deal.  You don't need to play chicken with an AWB.  Just propose it and it will pass. Period.

      Will there be some hollering about it?  Of course, there's going to be conspiracy theorists on my side.  On your side, there'll be consternation from those whose real motives are as nefarious as the NRA makes them out to be.  But they will be completely sidelined by an overwhelming majority of the public and the Congress.  More importantly, I give it 10 to 1 odds the NRA signs on; because this system lets them get into the regulation game as one of many private guarantors of provenance.

      •  registration?...background checks? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lyvwyr101

        background check don't ask what you are buying as far as I know.

        That would benew to me and good toi if so.

        As far as I know backgtround checks just indicate you are not prevented from this purchase today as far as they know.

        You are making the leap that the background check id's you and the gun you purchased??

        If you Know different please spill it. Otherwise that sounds like NRA propaganda. If that's a fact then we sure shou;d have the de facto gun registry as that may gain na nlot of cooperation one way or the other.
        thanks..

        This machine kills Fascists.

        by KenBee on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:24:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's Form 4473. (0+ / 0-)

          I'd start at  Section D., page 3.

          I'm more than happy to dig this stuff up for you, but before leaping to the conclusion that an innocuous claim ("background checks list firearms transferred") is "NRA propaganda."  Especially if your final position is that's exactly you want.

          •  ok thanks (0+ / 0-)

            hadn't seen that form asked for specifics as which firearm/.

            Seems unnecessary unless to track.....so yes it is a rudimentary registration..if digitized somewhere by somebody, otherwise it;s buried away in a paper drift somewhere not really useful or 'dangerous'..

               Perhaps a good change would be to make the firearm specifics only filled out (and can be inspected anytime by ATF) and signed by the FFL at the time of sale, also copied to his kept paper, kept on the new owners paperwork, and kept on the old owner (for private resales) with the new owners name blanked out.

            If a crime investigation occurs, LOE/ATF goes to FFL site where the physical paper is kept and sees number/caliber etc.

            Now if a crime is committed and they find a gun, they want to know if it was sold by an FFL, to whom, and when...so to answer that the FFL should have to file a digital record or a paper one, whatever, with the ATF listing all guns sold, with SSN,....and keep the 'to whom' physical records cross listing gun sold to Form 4473.

            That might look less like a registration database capable of being abused by gummint/hacked/sold etc (NOFLY list, I see you) and yet still with little extra burden be available to track a gun by ATF if found necessary to track an individual gun. And those physical records at the FFL are gold if you are the dreaded home invasion gun thief. As it is now. I think...)

            If in the future gun owners are required to keep a record of disposition of guns they bought, this copy of the gun sale thru an FFL would be sufficient.

            .................

            You must be newish here....don't assume anything about what I want from one comment. Not a fan of gun controls as proposed or the NRA.

                  Yet I have no problem with the burden of FFL check for all private sales, I am also concerned that the resistance to the gun registration database will screw any positive reforms. I also have little faith in the ability of workers in any bureaucracy to not screw things up...and yet do appreciate how much they do get right...especially every month when my ss check gets here. And daily when my mail shows up.

              Gummint has hurt me directly by abuse so I am not reassured by anybody that a gun database or any database can't and won't be abused/sold/hacked.

            But the FFL check for all private sales should be fixed and if it takes not being a de facto registration or looking like one, that's what it takes.

            And thanks for the link...

            This machine kills Fascists.

            by KenBee on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 07:47:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  A lot of people do have a problem with FFL check. (0+ / 0-)

              And not for the burden.  The main issue is a registry--in fact if not in the most convenient form--that can be inspected at will.  I proposed a means to avoid that, by requiring all parties to a transfer through the aftermarket lifecycle to maintain, for all time, a detailed record of transfer.  At no point would either party be required to notify the government that a transfer had taken place; the state's only involvement would be to provide both buyer and seller immediate,, secure, and electronic clearance shortly before the transfer.  This could be as simple as downloading a yes/no bit hashed and authenticated by a government digitally signed certificate valid for say one hour.

              Any law enforcement agency could later follow a gun's chain of custody, but not at will.  They would require a warrant to get a look at the "bound book" at any step in the chain.  

    •  is it as easy to do damage with a glass jar (3+ / 0-)

      and some rags and explosive as with an assault rifle, esp. on the spur of the moment (however long that spur lasts)? Doesn't seem likely.

      Even something as simple and inconvenient as requiring a blister pack for certain drugs commonly used for suicide has dramatically reduced its incidence in England. How many murders with guns of all kinds are similarly spur of the moment acts - even if the moment extends over weeks of nursing a fantasy or a grievance? Even those that are well planned as were the two Colorado mass murders would have been more difficult to execute if buying guns was more difficult and more carefully tracked.

      Those who don't intend to use guns for such activity should not be afraid of reasonable restrictions - they are, IMHO, tarring their reputations as advocates for personal use of guns by their resistance to reasonable and comprehensive controls. Blanket opposition has the same in real life effect as advocacy for random shooting in our cities.

      Hence, anything that makes it more difficult to commit gun-assisted mayhem like "12/14" is a step forward in my book.

      People who are subjected on a daily or nightly basis to smaller scale and less noticed murders in their neighborhoods would probably agree that their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should trump an individual's right to own an unlicensed gun. There's nothing about "a well regulated militia" in the current scheme of things. More inner city families are living with these murders every year than are families of American soldiers killed in Iraq in 10 years. What part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is this?

      Hence, I don't fault Feinstein for trying, tho' I cannot speak to the quality of her bill,  which I have not read.

      "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." - President Obama

      by fhcec on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 11:03:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, that's just it (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlackSheep1, profewalt, NancyWH

        Those who don't intend to use guns for such activity should not be afraid of reasonable restrictions

        We have very different ideas on what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

        Background check for ammo purchase? Sounds reasonable to me.

        Clamp down on straw purchases? Sounds reasonable to me.

        But it doesn't strike me as a reasonable restriction to make it impossible to buy a magazine fed rifle with a pistol grip and an adjustable stock, particularly when that rifle has so many legitimate uses. Especially when the intention is to give others the illusion of security.

        ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
        My Blog
        My wife's woodblock prints

        by maxomai on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 11:09:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (64)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Culture (32)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Texas (27)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Environment (26)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Health Care (20)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Republicans (18)
  • International (17)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site