Skip to main content

What the heck is a background check anyway?

Blindfolded Lady Justice
Justice is Blindfolded - But is that always good?
In this Open Thread diary we present a short introduction to one of permanent provisions of the Brady Act, passed by Congress in 1993. A failed background check was a key part of the back story in our diary on Schrader v. Holder, The Supreme Court denied cert on Monday November 4, 2013 and TRPChicago analyzed the petition and Mr. Schrader's case for us yesterday, SCOTUS Declines to Hear Navy Vet's Gun Rights Appeal.

Join us below the fold for a brief introduction to Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) of the US Criminal Code. Bring your questions and any assignments of material you would like us to cover.

This is an Open Thread.

Sponsored by the Firearms Law and Policy Group



The Daily Kos Firearms Law and Policy group studies actions for reducing firearm deaths and injuries in a manner that is consistent with the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment. If you would like to write about firearms law or policy please send us a Kosmail.

To see our list of original and republished diaries, go to the Firearms Law and Policy diary list. Click on the ♥ or the word "Follow" next to our group name to add our posts to your stream, and use the link next to the heart to send a message to the group if you have a question or would like to join.

We have adopted Wee Mama's and akadjian's guidance on communicating.  But most important, be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.

National Instant Background Check Process for Customers



The transcript is here.

Passed in 1993, and going into effect in 1998, the law "required the U.S. Attorney General to establish the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)." The system screens buyers who purchase or receive a firearm through a Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer (FFL). Under current federal law sales, gifts, and other transfers between private individuals do not require a background check, although a few states require it for all sales.

The NICS is the Justice Department's service that is at the core of efforts to pass a Federal Universal Background Check law, an effort that was re-invigorated after the Sandy Hook School shootings last December. Despite widespread public support from Republican and Democratic voters the effort to pass the bill died in the Senate last spring.

In future diaries we will look at the the process for federally licensed firearms dealers and will take a closer look at the statutes involved. Here are links for those of you who like to read ahead.

STATUTES

Brady Law (P.L. 103-159, Title I; 107 Stat. 1536)
1968 Gun Control Act, as amended by Brady Law (18 U.S.C. Chapter 44)
Prohibited categories (18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1)-(9) and (n))
Lautenberg Amendment (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9))
<
Blindfolded Lady Justice
Justice is Blindfolded - But is that always good?
Schrader vs. Holder

Jefferson Schrader just wanted to buy a gun.

The government wouldn't let him.

Schrader, an honorably discharged Navy veteran, went to a dealer to buy a shotgun and a handgun. But then the mail came, a letter from the FBI saying he did not pass a Federal background check. Why? In 1968 when he was 20, he had been convicted of assault and battery for punching a street gang member who had assaulted him earlier that month. In accordance with latitude the Maryland law allowed for such misdemeanors, the judge fined Schrader $100 plus $9 in court costs but did not sentence him to jail time. Mr. Schrader went back to the Navy and served in Viet Nam.

...Continue reading SCOTUS Declines to Hear Navy Vet's Gun Rights Appeal

To follow TRPChicago click on the ♥ or the word "Follow" next to his name.

Mr. Schrader failed his background check under Title 18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (1), which prohibits ownership of any firearms, by someone who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

General Information – NICS Index

   
In November 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act), Public Law 103-159, was signed into law requiring Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) to request background checks on prospective firearm transferees. The permanent provisions of the Brady Act, effective November 30, 1998, required the U.S. Attorney General to establish the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). FFLs may contact the NICS by telephone, or other electronic means, to determine whether or not the transfer of a firearm would violate Section 922 (g) or (n) of Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), or state law.

The NICS is a national system that checks available records in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the Interstate Identification Index (III), and the NICS Index to determine if prospective transferees are disqualified from receiving firearms.

Prohibiting Categories Defined by Statute

The NICS Index contains information that may not be available in the NCIC or the III of persons prohibited from receiving firearms under federal or state law. A valid match of a NICS Index record to a prospective firearm transferee results in an immediate determination of firearm dis-qualification. NICS Index records are voluntarily provided by local, state, tribal, and federal agencies.

Section 922(g) of the Gun Control Act prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:

18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (1)
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (2)
Is a fugitive from justice

18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (3)
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance

18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (4)
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution

18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (5)
Is an alien illegally or unlaw-fully in the United States or who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa.

18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (6)
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions

18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (7)
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship

18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (8)
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner

18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (9)
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

18, U.S.C. §922 (n)
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year


...Continue reading General Information – NICS Index

Originally posted to Firearms Law and Policy on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:38 PM PST.

Also republished by notRKBA.

Poll

When are you looking for Firearms Law and Policy News?

0%0 votes
12%1 votes
25%2 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
12%1 votes
25%2 votes
0%0 votes
12%1 votes
0%0 votes
12%1 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes

| 8 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for Universal Background Checks (16+ / 0-)

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:35:02 PM PST

  •  Beers for Background Checks (10+ / 0-)
    bottles of beer
    Background Check Happy Hour Special - $2 Bottled - Draft Beer by the Pitcher only $6!

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:37:23 PM PST

  •  Sponsored Chuck Schumer, my Senator (5+ / 0-)

    when he was Representative Schumer from New York's 9th Congressional District. There were 155 Co-sponsors.

    H.R.1025
    Latest Title: Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
    Sponsor: Rep Schumer, Charles E. [NY-9] (introduced 2/22/1993)      

    Cosponsors (155)
    Related Bills: H.RES.302, H.RES.322, H.R.277, H.R.3268, S.414

    Latest Major Action: 11/30/1993 Became Public Law No: 103-159. COSPONSORS(155), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

    Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 3/18/1993
    Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Andrews, Thomas H. [ME-1] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Bacchus, Jim [FL-15] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Barrett, Thomas M. [WI-5] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Bateman, Herbert H. [VA-1] - 4/2/1993
    Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-30] - 3/18/1993
    Rep Beilenson, Anthony C. [CA-24] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Bentley, Helen Delich [MD-2] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-26] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Blackwell, Lucien E. [PA-2] - 4/2/1993
    Rep Boehlert, Sherwood [NY-23] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Bonior, David E. [MI-10] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Borski, Robert A. [PA-3] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Brown, George E., Jr. [CA-42] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Bryant, John W. [TX-5] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Byrne, Leslie L. [VA-11] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD-3] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Clay, William (Bill) [MO-1] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Clayton, Eva M. [NC-1] - 4/2/1993
    Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Coyne, William J. [PA-14] - 2/22/1993
    Rep de Lugo, Ron [VI] - 2/22/1993
    Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Dellums, Ronald V. [CA-9] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Derrick, Butler C. [SC-3] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Deutsch, Peter [FL-20] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Diaz-Balart, Lincoln [FL-21] - 4/2/1993
    Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6] - 3/18/1993
    Rep Dixon, Julian C. [CA-32] - 5/18/1993
    Rep Dooley, Calvin M. [CA-20] - 11/3/1993
    Rep Durbin, Richard [IL-20] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Edwards, Don [CA-16] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 3/18/1993
    Rep Evans, Lane [IL-17] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Faleomavaega, Eni F. H. [AS] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 10/12/1993
    Rep Fazio, Vic [CA-3] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Filner, Bob [CA-50] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Fingerhut, Eric D. [OH-19] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Flake, Floyd H. [NY-6] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Foglietta, Thomas M. [PA-1] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Ford, Harold E. [TN-9] - 4/2/1993
    Rep Ford, William D. [MI-13] - 3/18/1993
    Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Furse, Elizabeth [OR-1] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Gejdenson, Sam [CT-2] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Gibbons, Sam [FL-11] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Glickman, Dan [KS-4] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Gonzalez, Henry B. [TX-20] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Goss, Porter J. [FL-14] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Hall, Tony P. [OH-3] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Hamburg, Dan [CA-1] - 3/18/1993
    Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 4/2/1993
    Rep Henry, Paul B. [MI-3] - 5/18/1993
    Rep Hoagland, Peter [NE-2] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Hochbrueckner, George J. [NY-1] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Hoyer, Steny H. [MD-5] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Hughes, William J. [NJ-2] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Jacobs, Andrew, Jr. [IN-10] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Johnston, Harry [FL-19] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Kennedy, Joseph P., II [MA-8] - 4/2/1993
    Rep Kennelly, Barbara B. [CT-1] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Kleczka, Gerald D. [WI-4] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Klein, Herbert C. [NJ-8] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Klug, Scott L. [WI-2] - 2/22/1993
    Rep LaFalce, John J. [NY-29] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Lantos, Tom [CA-12] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Lazio, Rick [NY-2] - 4/2/1993
    Rep Leach, James A. [IA-1] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Levin, Sander M. [MI-12] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Lipinski, William O. [IL-3] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Mann, David [OH-1] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Manton, Thomas J. [NY-7] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Margolies-Mezvinsky, Marjorie [PA-13] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Matsui, Robert T. [CA-5] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Mazzoli, Romano L. [KY-3] - 2/22/1993
    Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 2/22/1993
    Rep McHale, Paul [PA-15] - 3/18/1993
    Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. [GA-11] - 4/2/1993
    Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Meek, Carrie P. [FL-17] - 3/18/1993
    Rep Menendez, Robert [NJ-13] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Mfume, Kweisi [MD-7] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Mineta, Norman Y. [CA-15] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Mink, Patsy T. [HI-2] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Moakley, John Joseph [MA-9] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Molinari, Susan [NY-13] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Morella, Constance A. [MD-8] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-11] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 5/18/1993
    Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-2] - 10/12/1993
    Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 4/2/1993
    Rep Pelosi, Nancy [CA-8] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Porter, John Edward [IL-10] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Reed, Jack [RI-2] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Reynolds, Mel [IL-2] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Roemer, Tim [IN-3] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Romero-Barcelo, Carlos A. [PR] - 4/2/1993
    Rep Roukema, Marge [NJ-5] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-33] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Sabo, Martin Olav [MN-5] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Sangmeister, George E. [IL-11] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Sawyer, Thomas C. [OH-14] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Schenk, Lynn [CA-49] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Schroeder, Patricia [CO-1] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [VA-3] - 3/18/1993
    Rep Sensenbrenner, James, Jr. [WI-9] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Shepherd, Karen [UT-2] - 4/2/1993
    Rep Skaggs, David E. [CO-2] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Stokes, Louis [OH-11] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Studds, Gerry E. [MA-10] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Synar, Mike [OK-2] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] - 5/18/1993
    Rep Torres, Estaban Edward [CA-34] - 3/18/1993
    Rep Torricelli, Robert G. [NJ-9] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Traficant, James A., Jr. [OH-17] - 4/2/1993
    Rep Tucker, Walter R., III [CA-37] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Underwood, Robert A. [GU] - 9/8/1993
    Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Vento, Bruce F. [MN-4] - 3/18/1993
    Rep Visclosky, Peter J. [IN-1] - 6/16/1993
    Rep Washington, Craig A. [TX-18] - 4/2/1993
    Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Watt, Melvin L. [NC-12] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-29] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Wheat, Alan [MO-5] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Wyden, Ron [OR-3] - 3/4/1993
    Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 2/22/1993
    Rep Yates, Sidney R. [IL-9] - 2/22/1993

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:47:46 PM PST

  •  Those references are very useful! (5+ / 0-)

    The statutes you cite are the core of the Federal gun laws. The link to NICS contains a lot of information on background checks.

    It's easy to get bogged down by details in this area, but that is the way a great many laws are written and administered. To coin the phrases, both God and the devil are in the details.

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:55:27 PM PST

    •  Yeah - the simple Open Thread I had in mind (6+ / 0-)

      included the whole process, the customer, the dealer, the appeal, but I quickly realized it will take at least 3 diaries and probably many more.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 05:11:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It also will vary by state (3+ / 0-)

        For example, the legal requirements in MD are now far too strict.  

        To buy a pistol:
        1.  You must complete a background check costing $50
        2.  You must submit fingerprints via live scan, costing $60 plus take up to half a day off work because its not offered everywhere.  
        3.  Take a 4 hour class that includes live fire.  
        You then get a HQL after 30 days that is good for 10 years and permits you to buy any handgun on the MD Handgun Roster.  

        https://www.mdsp.org/...

        When buying a handgun, in addition to filling out the federal 4473, you are also required to fill out the MD77R which contains some of the same information but also gives the state police permission to check mental health records.  We affectionately call it the Crazy Paper.  In addition, once the handgun is purchased, there is a 7 day waiting period.  

        Maryland has one of the most restrictive firearms laws.  

        I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

        by DavidMS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 06:33:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  My sense is that Maryland has been strict on ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, enhydra lutris

          ... gun laws for a long time.

          You say the requirements are "far too strict." Of what you listed, what/which of these would you do: reduce the cost, cancel the fingerprint requirement, reduce or eliminate that required class, cancel the mental health disclosure, shorten the waiting period?

          The one I have the most trouble with, frankly, is that health disclosure. But mental health is commonly cited by gun advocates as a better and more productive area to devote money and energy to, than gun control and regulation measures. This suggests to me that even gun rights advocates would concede some connection of mental health reporting to gun transactions.

          I ask not to be argumentative, but to understand whether your key position is to relax and improve Maryland procedures or whether the combination is so burdensome that it should go in its entirety or nearly so.

          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:03:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  We started with the Woollard v Gallagher case (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            enhydra lutris

            It involves a challenge to Maryland's so-called "good cause" requirement for a concealed carry permit. Just 3 weeks ago, the Supremes declined to review the law.

            Concealed Carry Law Petitions SCOTUS - Woollard v. Gallagher DENIED cert

            I thought Mr. Woollard was a pretty sympathetic plaintiff but I guess the Supremes aren't ready to take on concealed carry permit laws yet. They declined to review NY's "good cause" CCW law last Spring, Kachalsky v. Cacace.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:16:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Wipe it and start from scratch (3+ / 0-)

            Firstly end MSP being Point of Contact for background checks and submit mental health records to NICS on a weekly or better basis.  

            Secondly, require any hunter or firearm safety class for any firearms purchase.  This means NRA, IWLA, etc.  If the legislature wants specific requirements, create a sample curriculum.  

            Third, require a 72 hour waiting period on the first purchase transaction for a through background check but not on subsequent transactions as you already own a gun.  I don't know how that will work with MSP not being POC for NICS checks.  

            Fourth, add an affidavit to the 77R declaring that the firearm is not being purchased on behalf of another person.  Or that it is being purchased on behalf of another person with a spot to write in their name and other relevant information for the background check.  This will make prosecuting straw purchases very simple.  

            This will be much simpler and provide an equal level of public safety protection while reducing the burden on the general public.  

            I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

            by DavidMS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:45:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for outlining a relatively simple (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker

              and streamlined plan. To start from scratch, do you mean just for Maryland or would you support a federal law with the steps that you describe? I'm talking about a national law and process that would replace the complicated patchwork of rules in each state?

              Isn't there a catch-22 of the effect of Heller? We usually think a constitutional right should be the same throughout the whole country. As I understand it, implementing what you describe would require a few states to amend their constitutions, right?

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 09:20:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  There is only one national change required (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker

                if its an MD only project and that has to do with how the BATFE processes applications to implement the 72 hour waiting period for the first purchase.  

                There is nothing to stop states from implementing protections of basic rights differently.  For instance, voting though not explicitly protected in the Constitution is viewed as a basic right but within limits each state can chose how to draw districts, finance campaigns, select voting machines, etc.  

                Alternatively going all federal would be interesting but I can't see anyone liking the outcome.  

                I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

                by DavidMS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:05:51 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Hi David, am curious what you think about (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          enhydra lutris

          the Woollard case. We introduced it a few weeks ago, Concealed Carry Law Petitions SCOTUS - Woollard v. Gallagher DENIED cert

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:07:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bit suprised (3+ / 0-)

            Given that two federal appeals courts came to different conclusions, I'm surprised that the high court did not take the case.  

            Getting an MD CHL is effectively impossible.  Interestingly enough the licensing requirements were changed as part of the AELR hearing that approved the regulations implementing SB281.  It was as if they were preparing to eventually loose and be forced to issue licenses on a non-discriminatory basis.  

            I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

            by DavidMS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:52:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  ALER Video (2+ / 0-)

          Here is a video from the ALER Hearing to implement SB281.  

          http://mgahouse.maryland.gov/...

          This should answer most questions about the law.  I just summarized.  

          I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

          by DavidMS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:54:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Wouldn't it be fun to see those same requirements (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DavidMS

          applied to the First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments?

          Who'd be cheering then, I wonder....

          Your hate-mail will be graded.

          by PavePusher on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 06:12:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for stopping by, Tom (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      enhydra lutris, BlackSheep1

      I just realized I never said hello to anybody who dropped in tonight!

      Divided attention... sigh

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:05:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  last night new gun laws were passed... (7+ / 0-)

    in a neighboring town.

    stolen guns must be reported within 48 hours, gun locks or safes are required, max 10 round mags, log ammo sales.

    the NRA is threatening lawsuits...

    "Sunnyvale taxpayers should consider whether they want to foot the legal bill to push the social agenda of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose gun control advocacy group is behind Measure C," NRA attorney Chuck Michel said in a statement on the group's website.
    well it passed with over 66% of the vote.

    even though a very safe city...

    That argument doesn't hold water with the gun-control advocates. Newtown, Conn., had a low crime rate. So did other cities where gunmen have pulled out firearm and blasted away others in the seemingly safe suburbs.

    "We're a safe city, but it needs to start somewhere," Spitaleri said. "It's just like the ban on plastic bags -- it started somewhere."

    NBC Bay Area

    We are not broke, we are being robbed...but we can fight back...#KosKatalogue

    by Glen The Plumber on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 05:43:00 PM PST

    •  Stolen guns must be reported within 48 hours (5+ / 0-)

      Yeah, Sunnyvale, California!

      It couldn't possibly be the voters choosing for themselves?! I

      It must be Bloomberg's fault!

      Interesting news. I note that, as a New Yorker, Bloomberg is frequently such an asshole that it's easy to hate him for that alone. Is it just me, or does it seem the NRA is trying to turn "Bloomberg" into an epithet.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 05:49:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fascinating opposition from the NRA - it'll cost (5+ / 0-)

      ... ya, because we're gonna pile on with litigation, and you're gonna have to pay lot in legal bills.

      Why does this not sound like it will win a lot of converts?

      2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 06:06:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That and their shove it up your nose open carry (3+ / 0-)

        demonstrations. I think they have not thought this process through.

        Why is it easier to buy a gun than it is to register to vote in most states?

        by 88kathy on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 06:48:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, but those folks are really skilled at ... (3+ / 0-)

          ... lobbying. And lobbying, even in their hands, requires nuance and clever argumentation. Yet we don't see this in LaPierre's public speeches.

          Sure, they're bullies ... but in the back rooms, I doubt they come across that way with everyone they get to vote with them. Am I being naive or missing something?

          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:22:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  In the last year these open carry demonstrations (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            are something new. Guns were basically flying under the radar except for a crazy event every couple of years. Now wild and crazy guns are in everyone's face. Either a crime or a demonstration. But someone is always waving a gun around for one reason or another.

            The only reason I even knew what a gun show was is because I had close friends that were very big in that scene. They went all over the country and had worked their way up over the years to the very best tables in all the shows. My friends actually were winding down the gun portion of their business in the 90s. It was becoming not so exclusive. They mostly quit except for a few high end collectors they had known for years.

            I thought everyone was like them. I have a real different opinion now.

            Why is it easier to buy a gun than it is to register to vote in most states?

            by 88kathy on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:40:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ah, public exercise of a Constitutional Right.... (10+ / 0-)

              really gets up your nose, doesn't it?

              They went all over the country and had worked their way up over the years to the very best tables in all the shows.
              It was becoming not so exclusive. They mostly quit except for a few high end collectors they had known for years.
              I thought everyone was like them. I have a real different opinion now.
              It all went down the crapper once the proles realized they could participate too, eh?  

              And thus the elitism rears its' ugly head....

              Your hate-mail will be graded.

              by PavePusher on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 06:22:51 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You seem absolutely certain that (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                88kathy, Glen The Plumber

                public carry is a constitutional right. Is that just your personal opinion, or do you have any judicial opinions you can cite to support that view?

                As I pointed out somewhere else recently, even having a right established by a court doesn't mean there are no time, manner, place, and who restrictions.

                The example I gave was in New York State women have a right to go topless in public the same way men do. E.g. a woman sunbathing topless in Central Park can not be arrested for doing that. But that doesn't mean any woman can walk into a church topless, walk down the street topless and create a public disturbance, or let their 17 year old daughter go topless on her way to/from school, etc.

                Having the basic right doesn't preclude time, manner, place, and who restrictions when exercising the right bumps up against others' rights to go about living their lives.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:30:22 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'd like to see how you claim that (4+ / 0-)

                  carrying in public isn't a constitutional right. The bear in "bear arms" seems very clear.  Exactly how does this "bump up against other's rights" let alone infringe them?

                  •  "The bearer of arms must be ready" - see Heller (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    88kathy, Glen The Plumber

                    We are a study group based on the premise that the 2A as interpreted in Heller and McDonald is now the definition of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

                    We welcome our readers posting links and referring us to materials they used to form their opinions. And we are willing to read any court opinions or legal scholarship in support of the claim that the scope of the 2A includes a right to carry in public.

                    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                    by LilithGardener on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 08:51:15 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  The standard is "prurient interest" (7+ / 0-)

                  The example I gave was in New York State women have a right to go topless in public the same way men do. E.g. a woman sunbathing topless in Central Park can not be arrested for doing that. But that doesn't mean any woman can walk into a church topless, walk down the street topless and create a public disturbance, or let their 17 year old daughter go topless on her way to/from school, etc.

                  The 17 year old daughter is a minor person under statute,
                  and that means a whole different body of law comes into play.
                  I'd opine the church or street charge of "public disturbance" has been settled law.  Often ignored, but none the less settled law.  The continued enforcement against topless women, who are not doing so with intention of creating "prurient interest", has resulted in civil compensation in the order of several thousand dollars.

                  More than 10 years later, Jill Coccaro was arrested in 2005 on Delancey Street for going topless, but sued the city and received $29,000 in a settlement.
                  ~ The Village Voice 2011

                  Case Decision:
                  http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

                  Appellants and the five other women who were arrested with them were prosecuted for doing something that would have been permissible, or at least not punishable under the penal laws, if they had been men -- they removed their tops in a public park, exposing their breasts in a manner that all agree was neither lewd nor intended to annoy or harass. As a result of this conduct, which was apparently part of an effort to dramatize their opposition to the law, appellants were prosecuted under Penal Law § 245.01, which provides that a person is guilty of the petty offense of "exposure" when he or she "appears in a public place in such a manner that the private or intimate parts of his [or her] body are unclothed or exposed." The statute goes on to state that, for purposes of this prohibition, "the private or intimate parts of a female person shall include that portion of the breast which is below the top of the areola."[n 1] The statute thus creates a clear gender-based classification, triggering scrutiny under equal protection principles (see, Craig v Boren, 429 US 190).
                  My use of bold below.
                  Viewed against these principles, the gender-based provisions of Penal Law § 245.01 cannot, on this record, withstand scrutiny. Defendants contend that apart from entrenched cultural expectations, there is really no objective reason why the exposure of female breasts should be considered any more offensive than the exposure of the male counterparts. They offered proof that, from an anatomical standpoint, the female breast is no more or less a sexual organ than is the male equivalent (see, e.g., J McCrary, Human Sexuality [1973] 141). They further contend that to the extent that many in our society may regard the uncovered female breast with a prurient interest that is not similarly aroused by the male equivalent (but see Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female [1953] 586-587; Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in Human Male [1948] 575; Wildman, Note on Males' and Females' Preference for Opposite-Sex Body Parts, 38 Psychological Reports 485-486), that perception cannot serve as a justification for differential treatment because it is itself a suspect cultural artifact rooted in centuries of prejudice and bias toward women.
                  Mere possession and display of female breasts, carried in public; in a non-commercial, non-threatening manner, appears to be protected both as an act, and as a manner of protest, against a perceived bias in the law.

                  The nexus of this public right, carried into a public space, used by a religious organization or for the purposes of worship; where the faith requires women to be dressed conservatively to fully concealed - would be a Constitutional challenge.  (an open-air religious service comes to mind)
                  Private right to public space, verses the free exercise thereof clause of the First Amendment.

                  Private rights, extending to private property, not held in-common, would render those private rights moot. As the collective (religious organization) has an accepted tenet against such behavior, and holds title or lease to the property.

                  Much the same holds for the Second Amendment, and the right to Open Carry.
                  If a firearm held in the hands, while in public spaces, in a manner indicating imminent use, I'd opine there's a perceived threat warranting police action.
                  Slung or holstered, regardless of visibility, is not an indication of imminent use.
                  That I, holding title or lease to a private property, may deny access to that property by topless women and persons displaying firearms - is settled law.
                  Unless she's breastfeeding a dependent child.
                  That's protected.

                  Publicly breastfeeding a 45 year old man, as "that's our kink" isn't protected, as it fails the prurient interest test.

        •  Good evening Kathy, nice to see you tonight. nt (3+ / 0-)

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:11:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for dropping by Glen (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      enhydra lutris, Glen The Plumber

      I just realized I never really greeted all our guests this evening so I'm doing that now....

      We should diary this story about Sunnyvale.

      That law about reporting lost or stolen guns to the police is long overdue. I can hardly believe fewer than a dozen states require it. Seems like a no brainer to me.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:09:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So, this would seem to indicate... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker

      a requirement to do a full inventory of one's property every 48 hours.

      I wonder how they intend to enforce that?

      Your hate-mail will be graded.

      by PavePusher on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 06:16:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is a guaranteed loss for the City. (2+ / 0-)

      California has state preemption of firearms regulation. The State government is the only entity in California that can enact gun laws.

      I'm sure the Sunnyvale City Council knew that, but I guess it's easier to blow taxpayer dollars on elections and lawyers than to tell activists "no", even when that's the only answer that's true.

      --Shannon

      "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
      "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

      by Leftie Gunner on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:25:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks for this...I'm gathering info for next (0+ / 0-)

        Wednesday's open thread on these new laws.

        from what I'm reading...in CA cities and counties can enact laws except on licensing and registration...

        In California and Nebraska, local governments retain authority to regulate firearms and ammunition, but the state legislature has expressly removed this authority in certain areas.

        California: California expressly preempts local governments from regulating in the areas of registration or licensing of firearms; manufacture, sale or possession of imitation firearms; and licensing or permitting with respect to the purchase, ownership, possession or carrying of a concealable firearm in the home or place of business. In other areas, courts have found that local governments have a great deal of authority to regulate firearms and ammunition in their communities. For example, courts have rejected preemption challenges to many local firearms and ammunition laws, including ordinances regulating junk guns, the location and operation of firearms dealers, and the sale and possession of firearms and ammunition on county-owned property.

        Smart Gun Laws

        p.s...please feel free to PM me links or info related to these new laws. :7)

        We are not broke, we are being robbed...but we can fight back...#KosKatalogue

        by Glen The Plumber on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:13:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This may not be the best vehicle to say this, but (6+ / 0-)

    ... the absolutism of the NRA and its most hardened supporters is a turnoff for those of us who have genuine concerns about the proliferation of guns and the potential they present for deadly violence.

    We may have more solutions than there are problems, but we are trying to think through the possibilities. We are trying to balance the rights of gun owners with measures that many of them seem to agree with and accept.

    The NRA, on the other hand, clutches at the polar extreme. Scorched earth, take no prisoners, our way or we'll sue you ... And we'll insult your judgment by saying you're voting this way because a New York mayor told you to.

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 06:29:01 PM PST

    •  the NRA has turned me off (4+ / 0-)

      for a long time and it is that absolutism that does it. I watched as LaPierre took over what had been an organization dedicated to gun safety and training and redirected it to increasing profits for gun manufacturers. I know a lot of people who like me had their first introduction to firearms at NRA ranges and learned how to be safe and are just bewildered at what it has become. I don't personally know anyone who supports what they are doing now but I do know a whole lot who are not dues paying members anymore. What I haven't figured out is how to counter what they're doing, I agree that it lacks sanity.

      "If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there." Lewis Carroll

      by Wordsinthewind on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 06:55:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It seems to me that back then they needed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        enhydra lutris

        gun owners, but over more than two decades they were able to implement their goals through ALEC and they don't really need a majority of gun owners' support anymore. I suspect they have clout now because they have ALEC legislators in every state legislature and in the US Congress.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:27:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And they use classic constituency politics... (3+ / 0-)

          ... As in, "Folks back home will be asking you about this, Congressman. They're pretty heated up. Here, take a look at the e-mails we got from your voters ..."

          This is not unheard of, by the way. The Chamber does it, as do car dealers, bankers ... the beat goes on and on. Is it effective? Sometimes. And if for no other reason than it flies cover. The office holder can tell his colleagues that he has to vote that way because Voters!

          Flurries of postcards and petitions (am I telling tales here?) have very little impact. They're form correspondence, solicited in groups and delivered in bulk. They may show strength of feeling, but it's nothing like the influence of a smiling lobbyist with a back home accent in your office the day of a committee meeting or a few hours before a vote sharing insights about what people back home and in the capitol are thinking. (And Yes, they know whip counts better than the office holder!)

          OK, well ... We're off track from the Open Thread, I've run of beer ... and even though I may have started this, I gotta fold. I'll catch back up with you in the morning!

          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:59:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Had people not been trying to destroy... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker

      this Constitutional Right, the NRA would still be as it was before LaPierre.

      Reap what you sow, eh?

      Your hate-mail will be graded.

      by PavePusher on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 06:26:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've heard there is a group at Daily Kos (0+ / 0-)

        that believes Dems talking about guns is to blame for....

        Perhaps you should diary your evidence for that claim and publish it with that group. Just an idea.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:54:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Form 4473 mentioned in the video (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    enhydra lutris

    This form will come up again and again and again. It's important for n00bs to become familiar with what it's for and who must fill it out.

    Lying on this form is at the heart of another case that has petitioned the Supreme Court, Abramski v. US

    ATF Forms 4473

    What a Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer Must Do:

    You must obtain a completed Firearms Transaction Record (Form 4473) for each and every sale or other transfer of a firearm to a non-licensee. It is your responsibility to ensure that each Form 4473 is completed correctly in accordance with the instructions on the form. The correct completion of these forms enhances traceability of firearms.

    Correctly completing ATF Forms 4473 is one of the most important things you can do to ensure that ATF can trace crime guns.

    This form must be completed when you:
    1.    sell or trade a firearm;
    2.    return a consignment firearm;
    3.    return a pawned firearm;
    4.    loan or rent a firearm for use off of your licensed premises; or
    5.    otherwise transfer a firearm to a non-licensed person.

    Note:
    You must transfer the firearm to the person who completed the Form 4473 and NOT to a spouse, relative, or other representative of that person

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 06:56:18 PM PST

  •  I've been through the process in 2 states (4+ / 0-)

    Back in 1993 I went through the process of obtaining my gun permit in New York City.  IMO, the process was ridiculous, even then.  After voluminous paperwork was submitted, along with pictures etc., I was subject to an interview.  This was SOP and occurred 6 months into the process.  I forgot when I was fingerprinted, it may have happened at the beginning of the process or during the interview.  I was finally issued my permit after another 6 months of waiting.  1 year processing time in total.  This allowed me to purchase 2 handguns.  So, I bought my carry and my BUG.  I purchased them both new, but still had to report downtown, at 1 police plaza, and turn the guns over for inspection.  They returned them later that afternoon.  I was told that each of them were fired and ballistic samples were taken.  My guns were now registered and my permit showed the make and serial number on it.  IMO, this process violates the constitution.  It was an unreasonable process.  I was repeatedly asked why I needed a handgun.  I answered then "because I hadn't married a cop"

    Fast forward to last week.  I took up residency in the great state of Minnesota.  My 2 guns, just by being in my possession, in my home, are legal.  In NY, just owning/possessing, without removing them from your home, is a felony.  Punishable by a mandatory, minimum, 1 year sentence.  The permitting process is quite different here.  In order to apply for my carry/purchase permit, I was first required to take a course demonstrating hand gun proficiency (in safety, storage, shooting and knowledge of all applicable laws). That 1 day course cost $100.  A separate permit can be obtained just for the purchase of firearms, required for purchase from anyone other than private parties, but does not allow for carrying.  After receiving my certificate, I completed my carry application and submitted it directly to the Hennepin county sheriffs office, along with another $100.  Minnesota is a SHALL issue state, as opposed to a may issue state.  That means that if I meet the requirements that Lilith posted above, they MUST issue the permit.  That process will not take longer than 30 days (they said usually 3 weeks.  Outlying, less possible counties here is 10 days).  Essentially, the entire process, from class to carry can be done in 31 days or less.  No finger prints were taken.  Because I am going to get my permit in the mail, I can only assume that finger prints will not be taken. There is no registry in this state.  IMO, there is no need for the govt to know what I have.  If I've met their requirements, that should be enough. To me, the Minnesota model should be universal throughout the country.  This permit, btw, now allows me to carry in over 20 states.  The demonstration of all handgun competency, the mental and criminal checks make it a robust system.  Of course, it can't mitigate what could theoretically happen to an individual in the future (mental disorders, etc), but this process thoroughly vets a persons past history.  30 days is a reasonable time.

    Now, there is one concerning feature that should be addressed.  The gun shows.  The majority of these sellers are private parties.  They rent a table for $30 and they are allowed to set up shop.  Any 21 year old with a Minnesota drivers license can walk in and purchase a firearm without a permit or check.  It's considered a private sale.  I'd like to see Minnesota's permitting process universally applied and I'd like for all sales of firearms, private or otherwise, be subjected to a permitting process..  I think with this process, it makes waiting periods obsolete.  A permitted person will already have had to wait 30+ days.  Once that threshold has been met, any additional waiting isn't necessary.  Besides, its already been demonstrated that they've met the strict requirements.  If gun show sales required permits, both waiting periods and redundant back ground checks become obsolete as well.  

    Just my .02c about my life experiences.

    •  Thanks for stopping by angryallen (2+ / 0-)

      and for giving us a detailed account of the process in two jurisdictions. A year does seem ridiculous. That was in the mid 90s. Do you know if it's still that long in NYC?

      What do you think about the laws passed in Sunnyvale yesterday, that Glen posted up thread?

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:22:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The NYC process (4+ / 0-)

        Is remarkably even worse today.  Wait times are longer.  I have even heard that every permit is denied now after the interview.  Some people give up at that point.  Those that are persistent appeal and eventually get it.  I'm not really active in the "gun community" (they aren't really my type of people, lol) so I'm not exactly sure of today's precise procedures.  I do know that folks with celebrity or high profile status get their permits today, much like in the mid 90's, very quickly.  And the poor bar owner in a bad neighborhood still has to close up shop every morning at 2am while carrying home the days cash and is an easy target to the thugs who know the community intimately.

        No, I missed the other thread that you referred to.

        •  It's in comment earlier in this Open Thread diary (0+ / 0-)

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          I don't accept this as an example of the problem. Recced even though this given example reads like a movie scene or a fantasy based on 1970s or 1990s crime.

          And the poor bar owner in a bad neighborhood still has to close up shop every morning at 2am while carrying home the days cash and is an easy target to the thugs who know the community intimately.
          There are thousands of business that are open late, or close late and they don't have seem to have a compelling need to carry the cash out in the middle of the night.

          Our hypothetical bar owner has all the same options, if they have a criminal background or mental health history that precludes carrying a gun in public. Install a safe in the bar, and go to the bank during daylight hours is one option.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 08:04:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Most bar owners I know (0+ / 0-)

            Close the business down and sleep all day.  Then report for the night shift.  Why should that guy change how that business has been run for 100 years?  (I know this through experience).  It's also a fact that the majority of carry permit holders operate businesses such as this.

            So, are you saying that running a predominately cash business isn't a good enough reason to carry a gun (when in fact "no reason" is constitutionally necessary?  Because that reason is precisely enough in the most restrictive state in the country, as well.

          •  I think what you're missing here is the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kasoru

            difference in treatment based on class and/or wealth of the applicants. What it boils down to is, people who might actually have real need for a firearm for self-defense are refused permits while the wealthy and connected sail right through the process. It's not like that's exactly a new thing in NYC either.

    •  Why do you object to a registry? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 09:16:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I object to the registry (4+ / 0-)

        For a few reasons but most paramount is its nobody's business.  The govt already knows I am armed, assuming I am a law abiding citizen and completed the comprehensive process.  We have seen recently over the last year or two that the govt will not protect my right to privacy when confronted with en masse FOIA requests.  

        Furthermore, the govt doesn't need to know specifically what or how many I owe to be effective in monitoring permit holders future behavior.  In the unlikely case that a permit holder is arrested subsequent to obtaining the permit, depending on the particular crime, then, at that they time, they could ask about the guns and take appropriate action.  The argument about a registry keeping track of ownership of handguns can be defeated by the adoption of universal permitting practices.  We would know then that my handgun could only be legally sold to another permit holder.  So the micro management of the particulars is unnecessary because its understood that the buyer has already completed the comprehensive process.

        Finally, IMO, the only reason for a registry is to ultimately enable authorities the opportunity to violate the constitution while pursuing confiscatory actions.

    •  Can we apply the same requirements to voting? (0+ / 0-)

      Why or why not?

      Your hate-mail will be graded.

      by PavePusher on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 06:28:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. Voting is a fundamental human right. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        We need to move in the other direction, easing up on restrictions on voting.

        In fact, I would fully support the Right To Vote Amendment proposed by Reps. Mark Pokan and Keith Ellison.

        SECTION 1: Every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.

        SECTION 2: Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.

        As far as the legal voting age goes, I would also be inclined to follow Argentina's lead on this and lower it to 16.
    •  Just a follow up (0+ / 0-)

      Received my minnesota carry permit today in the mail.  Paperwork was submitted on October 28th.  The date on the permit is November 5th.  It seemed kinda fast to me so I called the guy who I took the course with.  He said sometimes in the smaller, rural counties these permits can get approved in about 2 weeks.  In Hennepin county, the most populated county, is always between 3 and 4 weeks.  He's never heard of someone being permitted in 1 week.  And although it didn't ask on the application, perhaps it was helpful to the sheriffs office that I told them I had been permitted in the most restrictive state in the country previously.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site