Skip to main content

At least one gun owner from Pennsylvania thinks so.

Larry Glick, former executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association, explains why universal background checks will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and keep Pennsylvania’s streets safer.
PA Gun Owner: Why Universal Background Checks Will Make Us Safer
by Lauren Santa Cruz and Allison Zelman
- Reporting for The Center for American Progress on September 20, 2013

In a brief post they featured this public education advertisement produced by the Center for American Progress and Ceasefirepa.org



Transcript is available here

There are two types of gun sales. You have what’s called a commercial gun sale, where if I wanted to go buy a firearm, I could go to Dick’s Sporting Goods or go to a local gun dealer and I would look at a gun and I’d say “I wanna buy that.”

Then the other sale is a private sale. I own guns, and let’s say as a friend, you were very interested in one of my guns. I can just transfer that gun to you—that long gun now, whether it’s a rifle or shotgun, I can just sell that to you.

PA state law requires that for every single handgun sale, there must be a background check on the buyer. But for assault rifles, shotguns, and long guns the law allows unlicensed sellers to sell those guns... No background checks. No questions asked.

Do you think that people who can legally own guns should be exempt from background checks?

This is an Open Thread.

Sponsored by The Firearms Law & Policy Group


We publish open threads on Sundays and Wednesdays.


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 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.

7:22 PM PT: SteelerGrrl has just published news in the Jonathan Ferrell shooting:



Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 12:37 PM PT:


Thank you everybody, who voted in the poll and who discussed the question of the diary.



Originally posted to Firearms Law and Policy on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 06:04 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

Poll

Do you think that people who can legally own guns should be exempt from background checks?

21%8 votes
18%7 votes
2%1 votes
2%1 votes
7%3 votes
5%2 votes
39%15 votes
2%1 votes

| 38 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

  •  Tip Jar (18+ / 0-)

    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

    by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 06:04:24 PM PST

  •  I wonder what the response to (5+ / 0-)

    a variation of the defense of searches would be.
    "If you're a responsible, law abiding citizen, why are you so opposed to background checks? What do you have to hide?"

    Nicht durch Zorn, sondern durch Lachen tödtet man. ~Nietzsche

    by somewierdguy on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 06:31:23 PM PST

    •  Hello somewierdguy, welcome to the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy, Glen The Plumber

      Firearms Law & Policy group.

      The requirement for background checks for commercial sales rests on the notion that a licensed gun dealer can not know the entire criminal background and other relevant history of everyone who walks through the door of their retail shop.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 06:45:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  thank you (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener, BvueDem

        and, unless that's an auto-comment everyone gets, I understand the need for background checks. I explained my meaning a little lower so as to clear up apparent confusion in my meaning.

        Nicht durch Zorn, sondern durch Lachen tödtet man. ~Nietzsche

        by somewierdguy on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:39:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We are a study group and try to welcome (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TRPChicago, Glen The Plumber

          new readers the first time they stop by. Among our members we have folks who hate guns, and those who grew up with guns.

          We don't take a stance on whether the Supreme Court was correct in Heller & McDonald. We just try to make sense of gun law & policy as it gradually gets reconciled on that scaffold.

          We try to give wide latitude for people to express their views and their frustration, and we like it when people explain how and/or why their views became what they are. I'll look for your comment down thread.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:47:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, indeed. (5+ / 0-)

      Essentially, the only people who benefit from the lack of background checks are those who would be denied access to guns if their backgrounds were checked.

      THus, the NRA and similar ilk are merely protecting the rights of violent felons and the criminally insane to have guns.  Nice, huh?

      •  Not at all the case. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, KVoimakas, theatre goon

        It saves both time and money and in some cases if the system is down it entirely prevents a purchase.

        •  Those are piffling concerns (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          reasonablegunsplz

          If implemented it shouldn't take a lot more time that  a credit check.  It also takes time and money to bury people and heal attack victims.   A lot more, as it turns out

          And if a purchase is delayed, that is a positive, not a negative

          These are typical concerns of the mindless gun lobby.  To these folks, saving lives is not worth it if there is any delay in getting your hands on their toys.  That is a monstrous attitude

          •  Are you for voter ID? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, CarlosJ, theatre goon

            Because those that are for it call the objections piffling concerns as well.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:19:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  umm (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero, TheFern

              Here's a clue:

              how many incidents of voter fraud have been documented?  Virtually none, while the impacts on voters are well documented.  (And I'm sorry, but voting is a vastly more important right than access to your toys).

              How many deaths from guns in the hands of felons and insane people?  Many many.  While the downside of delays in purchases are virtually zero

              In other words, your understanding of these issues is so minimal as to be troll like.  If you want to draw an analogy, try doing it to something even remotely plausible.

              Yet again, the illogical of the pro-death lobby shocks.

              •  Nonsense. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas, FrankRose

                Of course, labeling those who disagree with you in such a dishonest fashion as "the pro-death lobby" shows that you are not interested in a meaningful and honest discussion.

                You can assert as often as you'd like that others don't understand an issue, but the truth of the matter is that they simply don't agree with you.

                Rather a large difference -- again, at least for those interested in honest and meaningful discussion.

                "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

                by theatre goon on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 01:43:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Just calling a spade a spade (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TheFern

                  The lack of gun control kills tens of thousands a year.  We know this.  If you advocate for a policy, expect to be attributed with support for the outcome.  Similarly, if you support bank deregulation, people are rightly going to suggest your in favor of making the world safe for fraudsters or if you want lax oversight of oil companies I'm going to be pointing a finger at you when the policy results in big oil spills

                  If you advocate for a policy, then you can't dodge the charge that you also support the policy's outcomes

                  •  Nonsense. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FrankRose

                    You are making unsupported assertions and using those assertions to support your other unsupported assertions.

                    Just because you happen to believe it to be true has no bearing on reality -- and does not mean that those who support gun rights support murder.

                    No matter how many times you repeat it, it won't become true.  It will remain either an outright falsehood or a complete fantasy on your part.

                    And, as I don't choose to waste any more time on either your fantasies or your childish personal attacks, I'll wish you a lovely evening and let you have the last word.

                    Perhaps it will even be an accurate last word, but I won't be holding my breath.

                    Ta.

                    "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

                    by theatre goon on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 03:23:02 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I was unaware the mandating the (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, FrankRose, KVoimakas

            equivalent of a poll tax was now constitional or moral.

            Can you please elaborate on how you would decide what fee is appropriate for they government to impose on the exercise of a right?

            •  fee? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero, TheFern

              who said anything about a fee?

              So, tell me how defending the murder of all those children in Newtown and Chicago and everywhere else is moral.

              I'll tell you, moral is one ground gun nuts should never even try to venture on.  Yours is a cause of elevating selfishness regardless of the tragic costs to everyone else.

              •  Since no one here has... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas

                ...engaged in "...defending the murder..." of... well... anyone, then it would appear that your entire line of discussion here is simply dishonest.

                Of course, I'm not sure what else one should expect from someone engaging in repeated falsehoods and juvenile personal insults -- so my pointing out of your dishonest tactics would seem to be redundant.

                "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

                by theatre goon on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 01:45:29 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That is amusing (0+ / 0-)

                  Coming for a group that has trying to suggest that I support poll taxes, voter ID laws, the elimination of free speech and god knows what else

                  Still, the fact of the matter is that a group of people here oppose policies that could potentially prevent guns from falling into the hands of people with mental illness with predictable results.  Since the results are so predictable it is hardly a stretch to say that support for a pilot is also support for the predictable clear outcomes of that policy.  So there is nothing dishonest about that whatsoeer

                  •  You are, once again, incorrect. (0+ / 0-)

                    The actual reality is that there is a group of people here that opposes policies that you believe could potentially do various things.

                    It would appear that that particular group of people simply disagrees with you on the effects of policies that you endorse.

                    That being the case, you calling others "the pro-death lobby" or falsely claiming that they are defending murders is, in fact, dishonest.

                    This isn't particularly complex stuff here -- when people disagree with you, that doesn't mean that they support murder.  It simply means that they disagree with you.

                    Your falsehoods about them won't change that fact.

                    "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

                    by theatre goon on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 03:13:15 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  My cause is to allow every human (0+ / 0-)

                being access to the best tool humanity has ever found for protecting oneself agaisnt aggression.  You would have everyone be defenseless against those who would do them ill and create a vast inequality in the means of someone to resist raw naked aggression.  The little old lady who lives at the end of my block who assumes because of my race that I must be a criminal would be preyed on by actual criminals far more in a world with no firearms for her only defense would be to scream for help or attempt to resist with her tiny body while I being a tall and fit male would naturally dissuade aggressors.  However with arms she and I are made equally formidable.

                Equality, safety, and justice prevail when the criminals are more concerned about the immedeate consequences of their actions than with the potential gains their illicit actions may reward them.

                If you want to make a case against firearms then Chicago is a poor choice the laws are extrodinarily restrictive and yet they have so many murders.  You help me by presenting exactly the kind of world created when you disallow people from procurring the best means of defense.

                You claim to find murder horriffic yet you're so blind to the consequences of the course of action you propose that you can't even see the place that should be close to your utopia is the very example of why you would create a hell.

    •  "If you're a responsible, law abiding citizen, why (8+ / 0-)

      are you so opposed to warrantless wiretaps? What do you have to hide?"

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:08:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That was my point, (5+ / 0-)

        though I may be misinterpreting your reply.

        That's the line often brought up by people as an argument against the respect of privacy rights because, hey, if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't care!

        The problem is, privacy is a vital right for societal health and safety, just as background checks are, though obviously for different reasons.

        It's perfectly reasonable to expect the government, in it's various forms, to respect the privacy of citizens and pursue a warrant as the constitution requires when it suspects criminality.

        It's also perfectly reasonable to require background checks for weapons purchases, because it doesn't infringe on your right (privilege would be my word, but...), unless you've already forfeited it in the eyes of the law, or you plan to use said weapon in commission of a crime in short order. Yet it's treated as this vast Orwellian invasion of privacy and sovereignty of the individual at the hands of a totalitarian government that will crush your freedoms and make slaves of you if you don't own that ar-15.

        Nicht durch Zorn, sondern durch Lachen tödtet man. ~Nietzsche

        by somewierdguy on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:36:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reading comprehention failure on my part. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, theatre goon

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:45:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It is a right. It is even written (5+ / 0-)

          in the Bill of Rights to clear up any confusion.

          Do you also think that warrantless wiretaps are 'treated as this vast Orwellian invasion of privacy and sovereignty of the individual at the hands of a totalitarian government'?

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:50:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Can a right be taken away? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TRPChicago, LilithGardener, SoCalSal

            And I view it as something government should not be doing without probable cause, the wiretaps I mean. I support the "bar" that the government has to pass to get the right to violate my privacy. Why does a citizen think they should be free of the same requirements when we're talking about something that, by it's sole nature as a weapon, can prove dangerous to society?

            As for background checks and the constitution, the amendment reads "A well regulated militia", regulations for the public trust and safety are required. A background check is not going to deny you a firearm unless you've lost that right because you've done something bad, or the state has reason to believe you are a danger to the community.

            And as for any "confusion" the Constitution is a document of law, which is interpreted by judges thru case-law over the course of a legal systems lifetime. Over time, the interpretation of this law has changed as society has changed. Placing regulations on a right does not negate it. Making it illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre does not make it illegal to shout. The fear of any bar at all, because it's a slippery slope, is detrimental to society.

            Nicht durch Zorn, sondern durch Lachen tödtet man. ~Nietzsche

            by somewierdguy on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 08:01:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  What is written, Frank, what is written? That (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BvueDem, peterfallow

            anyone and everyone can just do all firearms things that they feel like? I and the entire judicial and law enforcement system have missed that one.

            Do you want to try to come back with something that makes some sense?

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 08:17:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The Constitution gave a right to own a musket (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BvueDem, reasonablegunsplz

            How can the Constitution give a right to own weapons not yet invented?

            It is all absurd.

            •  By that token the Constitution doesn't grant (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ER Doc, theatre goon, Shamash

              the Right to be Mormon or any other religion invented after the writing of the Bill of Rights.
              the Right to reasonable search and seizure for phones, or the internet.
              the Right of Habeas Corpus, the right against cruel and unusual punishment for any action made a crime after the writing of the Bill of Rights.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 09:26:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wrong (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BvueDem

                Gun lovers always seem to rely on the bad analogy.

                •  How so? (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ER Doc, theatre goon, Shamash, CarlosJ

                  If your argument is that the Constitution doesn't cover things not invented at the time of it's writing, then none of those things I listed would be covered by the same criteria.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 09:36:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Your religion thing is obviously (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BvueDem

                    Just plain wrong.

                    And the Constitution does not give one the right to the internet and the telephone.  

                    •  How so? Mormonism wasn't invented at the time (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ER Doc, theatre goon, Shamash, CarlosJ

                      of the Bill of Rights; by the same criteria you are using it wouldn't be covered.

                      Do you think the Constitution protects people from warrantless wiretaps for the internet & the telephone?
                      I certainly do.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 09:47:04 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The Constitution gives me the right (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        BvueDem

                        To the internet in the same way the Constitution gives me the right to own a Tommy gun.

                        It is all nonsense.

                        •  That isn't the question. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          theatre goon

                          If you think the Bill of Rights and Constitution is limited to only things that existed when it was written, then you have to apply that same criteria to all the amendments.

                          Hence, no protections from cruel and unusual punishments for actions that weren't crimes at it's writing.
                          No 4th Amendment protections for phone calls, faxes or the internet.
                          No protections for religions invented after its writing.
                          No 3rd Amendment rights for houses with electricity or central heating.
                          No right to a speedy and public trial in front of a jury of peers for any action made a crime since 1791

                          Is that something you support?
                          I certainly don't.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 10:24:43 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

            •  The word musket isn't in the amendment (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose, theatre goon, CarlosJ, oldpunk

              The word arms is.  And the meaning behind the amendment is for the arms to be sufficient to combat international invasions, tyranny and for self defense.  That means the arms must be useful in fighting other armies, essentially.  In those days, it was muskets.  Today, American citizens have the right to own something comparable to what could be possibly used against them.  In other words, like it or not, American citizens have the constitutionally protected right to own military grade weapons.  That there are laws against that is an infringement.  I say all this in despite of how I feel about citizens owning any military grade weapon.  In that sense, there is a line that shouldn't be crossed (think shoulder fired missiles, etc).  But my line is still different than many on Kos.  

            •  The Constitution (and nothing else) (0+ / 0-)

              gives or grants rights.  Rights are inherent in every human on earth.  This is why they are self-evident.

      •  Hey, due, if everyone had a right to buy a gun, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener, BvueDem, peterfallow

        you'd have a point. On the other hand, everyone has a right to private phone calls.

        Oh, phone calls and guns are not the same? What a novel suggestion!

        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

        by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 08:11:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Rights can be taken after a jury of peers (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, ban nock

          finds someone guilty of a felony.

          Voting is also a right, but in much the same way that felons can't own guns, that right can and is repealed for felons in many states.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 08:39:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ^^^ This is flat out false wrt gun rights. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BvueDem, Glen The Plumber

            Most of the criteria that remove gun rights do not involve a jury, or a felony conviction or being adjudicated mentally ill.

            ATF - How to identify prohibited persons
            The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

            These categories include any person:

            •    Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
            •    convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
            •    who is a fugitive from justice;
            •    who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
            •    who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
            •    who is an illegal alien;
            •    who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;
            •    who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
            •    who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
            •    who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).

            [my bold]

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 08:52:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You missed a few bolds. (3+ / 0-)

              who is a fugitive from justice;
              who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

              But in any case; Allow me to rephrase:
              A citizen of the United States whom has been found guilty by a judge, jury or court marshal, or found in reasonable enough suspicion to face a court of law for a crime punishable by one year's imprisonment.

              The same criteria is held for the suspension of many rights (ie being imprisoned)

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 09:09:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  ^^ HR worthy - Repeating false information (0+ / 0-)

                FrankRose's comment above is repetition of false information.

                I can't HR because I'm the author.

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 09:20:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  How so? (4+ / 0-)

                  A fugitive and a person convicted of a misdemeanor is by definition convicted.

                  In any case I rephrased my statement after your objection.

                  You have shown that this statement you made upthread: "We try to give wide latitude for people to express their views and their frustration, and we like it when people explain how and/or why their views became what they are." is blatantly false.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 09:32:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Anyone can read the ATF link above (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BvueDem

                    in my first reply to you, or read my comment below listing all 14 prohibited categories for commercial transfers. No one need accept my word on it. There are state limits as well.

                    Perhaps you were just misinformed. The NRA repeats ad nauseum "felons and mentally ill." But now you know. Or at least you know where to look.

                    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                    by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 11:09:55 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Nonsense. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose

                  The information is completely accurate -- it was never claimed to be an exhaustive list of reasons one's rights can be taken away, only an example.

                  One version may have been awkwardly written, but even then, it was still accurate -- your objections here are nothing but quibbling for its own sake.

                  "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

                  by theatre goon on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 03:43:59 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I don't understand why you got so angry (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose, theatre goon, CarlosJ

                  Perhaps I missed something, but why did you take such exception to FR's post.  People make misstatements here all the time.  I didn't feel that his were intended to mislead.

                  Just about all gun owners know how the right to own a firearm can be lost.  Most non gun owners do not.  His post wasn't clear in showing that those people can lose their rights if convicted, have charges currently pending or have been charged in the past,regardless how the case was ultimately resolved (plea bargain etc) essentially any crime that CAN be punishable by over a year of imprisonment or domestic violence charges makes a person prohibited.  So it is possible to be charged with a crime and be facing 2 years in prison, but have the case plea bargained to probation.  That person is still prohibited from owning a gun.

                  FR came here to post factual and honest information, IMO.  That he may not have articulated himself completely doesn't mean he intended to intentionally mislead, again, IMO.

                •  a little quick on the hr button don't you think? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose, theatre goon

                  disagreement is not false info.

                  If you truly want a discussion you have to at the very least allow opinions different than your own, I would think you would go further, you can't ever hope to change opinions if you aren't prepared to change your own. Threatening to hr simply for a different opinion only shows how very far you have to go to even have a polite discussion.

                  “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

                  by ban nock on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 08:50:18 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Those all still involve due process (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose, theatre goon

              Under indictment - court action
              fugitive from justice - warrant for arrest - court action
              illegal alien - not a US Citizen, rights don't apply
              dishonorable discharge - official gov't action
              renounced citizenship - not a US Citizen, rights don't apply
              Subject to court order - court action
              convicted of misdemeanor or domestic violence - court action.

              You're splitting hairs.  Rights are taken away through due process, which is broader than just jury verdicts, felonies and being committed.

              The point is, due process.  Gun rights are taken away for very specific reasons.

              •  This is the point of the diary, thx Norm (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Norm in Chicago

                for breaking it down.

                Rights are taken away through due process, which is [much] broader than just jury verdicts, felonies and being committed.
                Many people have absorbed the ALEC/NRA mantra of "felons and mentally ill" and some repeat ad nauseum, "innocent until convicted..." Perhaps the poll Q was too oblique for experienced gun owners and those who already know the law. The subject of the diary and question in the poll invited readers to think about how does anyone know who else can legally own guns. In other words, who is in a position to legally know the answer to all the questions on form 4473?

                Except for your own minor children, can you vouch for all the other categories that lead to a firearms disability, when you personally decide to sell a gun to someone else?

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 08:30:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Did you see my point on FOID (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon

                  Firearms owner ID card, required in Illinois for all legal gun owners.  For all the due process actions in your list, that FOID card would be taken away in court.  Note, I still believe in innocent until proven guilty, but if a judge orders the FOID be revoked as a precaution pending trial, I'm fine with that.

                  Then, if I go to sell a gun to someone, I ask to see their FOID card.  If they have it, then it hasn't been taken away through due process, and they are a legal gun owner.

                  As for the illicit drug category, since I favor full legalization of all drugs, it's none of my business, I'm not going to drug test anyone.

                  Simple, yes?

                  •  That would be a good diary topic (0+ / 0-)

                    We all have an interest in any kind of licensing/permit scheme that enables sanctioning of sloppy/negligent/irresponsible gun handling and discharges. (Such as the example you gave in another comment).

                    My limited understanding of the Illinois FOID card is that it's an experimental approach that hasn't been tried anywhere else.

                    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                    by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 10:01:17 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Very few places, actually almost none. And still (3+ / 0-)

            there are zero persons, with a criminal conviction, or without, who have no 4th Amendment "Search and Seizure" rights.

            So your own argument (as is so often the case with you) detroys your own argument.

            Congratulations once again.

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 08:54:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You better define "almost none" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon

              Seeing as how every state with the exception of Maine and Vermont prohibits felons from voting while in prison. Nine other states disenfranchise felons for various lengths of time following the completion of their probation or parole.

              So your own argument (as is so often the case) is provably wrong.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 08:58:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And even Maine and Vermont totally, completely (0+ / 0-)

                extinguish 2A for all incarcerated persons, and every person on probation, and every person on parole.

                Absolutely pathetic!

                It's supposed to be "apples to apples", not bunny rabbits to baseball bats.

                There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 06:36:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Searching Law-Abiding Citizens (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CarlosJ

      A couple of months, while waiting for my commuter train to take me to my job, the Transit Police stopped me and searched me.  They have been doing this to New Yorkers since around 2005.

      I was offended: I am a law-abiding citizen, why do you need to search me?

      So I am against blanket searches when it comes to commuter trains.

      But...I am for blanket searches for gun sales: do background checks for all gun transfers.

      I confess: my thinking is not logical or consistent.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 06:57:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It takes a strong character (0+ / 0-)

        to admit a flaw in thinking.  I commend you for demonstrating such strength though the next task , resolving that conflict, takes strength it takes less than the one you've taken.

        Good luck.
        Nameste.

  •  certainly (0+ / 0-)

    and, in accord with the first part of the 2nd amendment, all gun owners should serve in the military, at least the National Guard (A well regulated militia). And that in itself will act as a background check. You want to own a gun?  Then do something good for your country and yourself, and join the military, where our country will teach you how to properly use and handle a firearm.

    It takes more testing, licensing, etc., to own and operate a car than it does to own and operate a gun. So why not just apply the same procedures and tests for cars, to gun regulation?

    "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

    by azureblue on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 06:37:26 PM PST

    •  Because RKBA is a constitutionally enshrined civil (9+ / 0-)

      right, not a privilege like driving.

      I'll leave your misreading of the second amendment to someone else.

      •  So are rights to speech, assembly, press (6+ / 0-)

        protections from search and seizure.

        ALL of them are subject to reasonable limitations, and NONE of them are absolute.

      •  The constitution is not a shrine. It's a living (5+ / 0-)

        document that has been and will be changed.

        The 27 words of death no longer support the Preamble

        We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

        Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

        by 88kathy on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 06:55:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Depends on who you are. Who loses driving "rights/ (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        88kathy, LilithGardener, peterfallow

        privileges" for life? Who loses firearms "rights/privileges" for life?

        Come on KV, stop bullshiting the folks! This shit is already perfectly clear to you, and you can't stand for everyone else to learn the truth that you know so well.

        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

        by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 08:22:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  First, you don't lose a driving 'right' because (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose, theatre goon, ER Doc

          it is not a right.

          Secondly, those who lose firearm rights for life include convicted felons, people with domestic violence convictions, and those adjudicated mentally ill. SOMETIMES there's a way to get your rights back but that's dependent on the state.

          •  Whenever you have to cite a "distinction without (0+ / 0-)

            a true difference", grace dictates that you refrain.

            On the other hand, I don't see any grace. From you, I just never see any grace!

            But that's not enough. Then you cite the exceptions to prove your rule.

            Remember the old saying "for every Rule there's an Exception, including this one". Why do you always insist on plucking out obscure exceptions, and then demanding that you be entitled to use them to concertely validate your long list of inane "RKBA" Rules?

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 06:47:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Losing your rights via due process is an obscure (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon

              exception?

              Seriously? Dude, you're not making any sense.

              •  Go over the whole comment stream. You start out (0+ / 0-)

                arguing that it's easier to lose rights than privileges. Then I point out that rights so easily lost are not the sturdy variety of rights (i.e "pissant RKBA rights") that you claim for them, and then you end by saying "I didn't say what I said"?

                RKBA clearly holds only a minor place in the pantheon of "civil rights" in our country (to the extent that it really is one at all)!

                I suggest that you maybe look for another alter to worship at.

                There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                by oldpotsmuggler on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 08:02:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually, my statement was that firearms (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon

                  shouldn't be regulated like cars because RKBA is a constitutionally enshrined civil right. Driving is not. The right  to keep and bear arms can be removed like any other right: through due process. Removing driving privileges is significantly easier (see: lots of traffic tickets).

                  •  Yeah, gosh, you know the only thing that my (0+ / 0-)

                    conviction and 25 year sentence (well, really, two federal felony cases over the years, but then again the second one carried thirty years, and I only got probation, it's a long story) got me, besides the record. itself, was RKBA banishment. No other rights lost, and, something I'm sure you'll find astonishing, not even any privileges.

                    "2A, The Pissant Right".

                    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                    by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 06:22:44 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  People who legally own guns (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        The questions asks:

        "Do you think that people who can legally own guns should be exempt from background checks?"
        To which I respond: "How do you know if someone can legally own a gun?"  Well, duh...through a background check.

        Now about the 2nd Amendment: the 2nd amendment does not apply to al -  it applies only to citizens of the USA.  So, at minimum, a background check should be done for any who wants to buy a gun to make sure the 2nd amendment applies to them.

        Now despite the wording of the 2nd amendment, there are some citizens of the USA who are not allowed to buy and use guns: minors, convicted felons, etc.  And despite the wording of the 2nd amendment, there are many guns that it is illegal to sell and use in the USA: machine guns, bazookas, howitzers, etc.  So it makes sense that a background check be done in advance of ALL gun transfers, commercial and private to make sure: a) the person receiving the gun is a US citizen; b) is legally allowed to own and use a gun; c) and the gun they are receiving is legal to sell in the US.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 06:41:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Would you fill out a little detail (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy, Glen The Plumber

      on the testing & licensing scheme you have in mind?

      Welcome to FL&P, asureblue

      Our group includes a broad range of views re the Supreme Heller & McDonald decisions interpreting the 2A to mean that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, that is separate from militia service.

      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.
      Care to share why you reject SCOTUS' interpretation.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 06:53:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The USA isn't Starship Troopers. (6+ / 0-)

      Military service isn't a prerequisite in order to receiving rights.

      There is a reason why the 2nd Amendment has been applied the way it has for the entirety of its existence.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:11:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Militia membership is not mandatory (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, KVoimakas, FrankRose, ER Doc

      Point to the words in the 2nd Amendment that state that militia membership is mandatory to own a gun, and that the guns are owned by the militia.

      You can't, because a militia is not the military. Soldiers do not have the Right to keep and bear their arms. The government owns and keeps the guns used by the military, not the soldiers.

      But the 2nd specifically says they it is the People who keep the guns.

      As for joining the military, even the National Guard can be deployed overseas and be forced to fight in illegal wars for profit. Are you saying that to secure my rights, I have to go over to Iraq and kill innocent people?  No thank you.

      Want me to join a militia?  Fine, give me a non deployable domestic only militia to join, and I will. But I don't have to join to be able to own a gun.

  •  Your poll question... (6+ / 0-)

    doesn't seem to follow from your diary title. If we already know a person is legally able to own firearms then a background check is pointless.

    To be first in the soil, which erupts in the coil, of trees veins and grasses all brought to a boil. -- The Maxx

    by notrouble on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 06:51:08 PM PST

    •  Many people are legally able to buy deadly weapons (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

      without a background check.

      Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

      by 88kathy on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 06:56:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep, like knives (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, theatre goon

        A 14 year old girl just stabbed her 11 year old sister to death with a kitchen knife.
        http://www.dailyherald.com/...

        Tell me, are you going to now call for locks in every kitchen to keep assault knives out of the hands of children?

        Do your gun rules apply here?  Should the parents of this girl be forbidden to ever own another knife, since they weren't responsible knife owners?

        And finally, who do you blame for this murder?  The knife or the 14 year old girl who used it?

        •  Wow that doesn't happen every day. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          With guns, it does. Gun FAIL and Gun Crazy.

          Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

          by 88kathy on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:03:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Happens over 4 1/2 times every day. (3+ / 0-)

            In 2011 there was 1694 murders committed with knives.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:45:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Irrelevant (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CarlosJ, theatre goon

            Want some more examples:
            http://www.nydailynews.com/...
            http://oaklawn.patch.com/...
            http://www.mlive.com/...
            http://www.wate.com/...
            http://www.kmov.com/...

            Five murders right there that never had nationwide press conferences to say "If only we had more knife control, they'd still be alive".

            One of my biggest issues with the anti-gun crowd, as I've told you, is how much more they care about a gun murder than a non-gun murder.

            Killed with a gun: National tragedy, talk about it for a week.
            Killed with a knife:  Bah, who cares, "hardly ever happens".

            Nope, murder is murder, dead is dead.  You think that mother is telling herself, "Well, at least my daughter didn't shoot her sister and commit a gun crime"?

            This nation has a violence problem.  We are violence crazy not just gun crazy.  Instead of addressing the root causes of violence, you just want to focus on one weapon while ignoring all the other lethal options.  Address violence, and you address all murders.

            •  If it can just save 1 childs life (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Norm in Chicago

              we have to do it furz da childrenzzzzz!!!!!!

              picture of momas and grandmothers out there crying on the block

              Emotion Emotion Emotion!  Disregard logic, common sense, perspective, statistics, and anything regarding the developed adult human mind.  Let your FEEEEEELZ be the guide.

              If one must abandon their rationality to arrive at a conclusion I can state very comfortably that it is the incorrect and likely immoral conconlusion.

    •  Who knows? (3+ / 0-)
      If we already know a person is legally able to own firearms then a background check is pointless.
      The private sales exemption is premised on selling/trading/giving a gun to someone who you know can legally own guns. In practice it operates as a don't ask/don't tell loophole.

      Background Check 101 - What is a Strawbuyer?

      Prohibited Transfers

      You MAY NOT sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited from possessing or receiving a  firearm. Do not sell or otherwise transfer a firearm and do not contact NICS if you have reason to believe that a person seeking to obtain a firearm is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm.

      Note: If a person answers “No” to Item 11.a or 12 of Form 4473, or answers “Yes” to one or more questions in Items 11.b through 11.l of Form 4473, that person has given you reason to believe he or she is prohibited and the transaction must be stopped.

      You MAY NOT sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition to any of the following prohibited persons or in the following circumstances:

      1. Straw Purchaser: A “straw purchaser” is a person who is not the “actual buyer” of the firearm; that is, a person who obtains a firearm for another person. Straw purchases are a primary source of firearms used in crime. If you suspect that a transaction is a straw purchase or there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the potential sale—such as one person picking out the firearm, handling the firearm, and providing the payment for the firearm while another person completes the Form 4473—you should not sell the firearm. Similarly, if one person attempts to purchase a firearm, NICS denies or delays the attempted purchase, and another person with him or her attempts to buy the same firearm, you must not complete this sale.

      2.  Person Under Indictment: A person “under indictment” includes any person who has been charged by indictment or information in any court with a crime for which he or she may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 1 year.

      3.  Person Convicted of a Crime Punishable by Imprisonment for a Term Exceeding 1 Year: This prohibited person category includes any person who has been convicted of a felony or other crime for which the person could have been sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year—EVEN if the court actually placed the person on probation or sentenced the person to a term of imprisonment for 1 year or less.

      4.  Fugitive from Justice: A fugitive from justice is a person who has fled from any State to avoid prosecution for a crime (felony or misdemeanor) or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding.

      5.  Unlawful Drug User or Drug Addict: This prohibited person category includes any person who unlawfully uses—or is addicted to—marijuana, depressants, stimulants, narcotic drugs, or other controlled substances. Alcohol is NOT considered a controlled substance.

      6.  Adjudicated Mental Defective or Person Involuntarily Committed to a Mental Institution: This prohibited person category includes any person who has EVER been adjudicated by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease, a danger to himself or herself or to others or to lack the mental capacity to contract or to manage his/or her own affairs. This category also includes any person who has been subject to a finding of insanity in a criminal case, including a finding that he or she is incompetent to stand trial. Also included is any person who has EVER been formally committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This category does NOT include a person committed to a mental institution solely for observation or a person who was voluntarily admitted to a mental institution.

      7.  Person Dishonorably Discharged from the Military: A person is considered dishonorably discharged only if he or she was separated from the Armed Forces of the United States as a result of a dishonorable discharge or a dismissal adjudged by a general court-martial. This prohibition does NOT include persons with a bad conduct discharge or any other less than honorable discharge.

      8. Person Subject to a Restraining Order: This prohibited person category includes any person who is currently subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner, child of the person, or child of the intimate partner OR engaging in other conduct that would place the intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the intimate partner or child. The court order must meet the specific requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) to be prohibiting.

      9. Person Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence: This prohibited person category includes any person who has EVER been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence regardless of the title of the offense. The offense must meet the definition of “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33). Note: Unlike other prohibited person categories, law enforcement officers purchasing firearms for official use are NOT exempt from this prohibited person category.

      10. Person who has Renounced U.S. Citizenship: A person has renounced his or her United States citizenship if he or she takes formal steps to renounce her/his citizenship before a diplomatic or consular officer or before an officer designated by the Attorney General during a time of war.

      11. Aliens Illegally or Unlawfully in the United States: This prohibited person category includes any person who unlawfully entered the United States or who illegally remains in the United States after his or her authorized period of stay has expired.

      11a. Nonimmigrant Aliens: A nonimmigrant alien is an alien who is lawfully in the United States on a temporary basis for purposes of travel, business, study, etc. The term does NOT include a permanent resident alien (someone who possesses a “green card.”) A nonimmigrant alien may only purchase or receive a firearm if he or she: (a) was admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or presents a valid hunting license or permit issued by a State; (b) qualifies as a foreign diplomat, official, or law enforcement officer as defined at 18 U.S.C. § 922(y)(2); or (c) has received a waiver of the prohibition from the Attorney General.

      12. Sale of a Firearm or Ammunition to a Person Under Age 18: You may not sell or deliver a firearm or ammunition to a person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is less than 18 years old.

      13. Sale of a Handgun or Handgun Ammunition to a Person Under Age 21: You may not sell or deliver a firearm other than a rifle or a shotgun—or ammunition other than rifle or shotgun ammunition—to a person who you know or have reasonable cause to believe is less than 21 years old. A firearm frame or receiver is not a rifle or shotgun and may not be sold to a person under 21 years old.

      14. Sale in Violation of State Law or Published Ordinance: You may not sell or deliver a firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or possession would be in violation of a State law or published ordinance.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:14:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In Minnesota that is a crime (4+ / 0-)

        It is a crime for a private seller to transfer/sell a weapon if they KNOW the recipient is a prohibited person.  Period.

        Another thing I discovered recently;
        In states where medical marijuana or recreational marijuana is legal, users of the drug are PROHIBITED BY LAW, from purchasing a firearm.  Should any dealer know, or suspect, a customer is a marijuana user, they would be breaking the law (firearm transactions are governed by federal law) by completing a transaction (if they know), and will not, if they just have suspicions.

        •  Its a crime to knowingly transfer to a prohibited (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon

          person in every state.

          The law already criminalizes the action and criminalizes attempts at remaining wilfully ignorant.

          A check on the exercise of rights is simply a literacy test with another name and will serve to disefranchise minority groups from the exercise of that right.  Had enough of that in my family in history.  We've had Jim Crow and I don't want Gun Crow either.

  •  Yeah, I didn't quite get the question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber

    I mean, the seller wouldn't know if the buyer was legally able to own firearms unless there was a background check, right?  Answering "Yes" to the question is basically either saying that you don't really think a check should be required or you just believe in the honor system where nobody who is prohibited would try at all.  

    Makes no sense.  

    FWIW, I voted "No, but with an exemption for antique collectors".  I mean, we need UBCs, but if we found a way to strictly define what exactly constituted an "antique" (and perhaps even a "collector"), then I'm not really very concerned about psychotic guys with muskets shooting up the local mall...though it used to be that tri-cornered hats weren't really indicative of anything problematic either, so I might have to rethink that.  

    •  Perhaps the poll Q was too oblique (3+ / 0-)

      I posted the prohibited transfer categories upthread. Even if two people have known each other their whole lives, individuals are unlikely to know all the answers to the questions on form 4473.

      Suppose my partner gets a PO against me tomorrow. Are all my friends and family in a position to know that fact right away? No, of course not.

      Suppose I have a secret illegal business going, and there is a warrant issued for my arrest. Are all my friends & family in a position to know that right away? No, of course not.

      Suppose I renounced my citizen ship 5 years ago. Are all my friends and family in a position know about that? I say No, of course not. Unless I tell them, how would they know?

      Etc.

      The video between the question in the title and the question in the poll was to help newbies and others understand the terms private sales and commercial sales and for people to think about the actual law.

      The rationale that underpins the private sale exemptions from background checks is the idea of transferring a gun from your private collection to someone you know very well can legally own guns.

      In practice, the honor system is a huge loophole where "Don't ask/don't tell" is the rule.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 08:28:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re background checks for Curios & Relics (3+ / 0-)

      The background check exemptions for those with a Curios & Relic license is a slightly different matter. They undergo a background check when they apply for their license and must keep a bound book log of all the guns they acquire or disburse. C&R guns are 50 years old and not modified.

      You may have missed our diary on heirloom guns: Should heirloom guns be exempt from a Criminal Background Check?

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 08:31:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber
    Do you think that people who can legally own guns should be exempt from background checks?
    Lacking a background check, there is no way to determine that they are legally entitled to own guns, so the question borders upon nonsense.

    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 Jan 22, 2014 at 07:45:59 PM PST

    •  Absurd requirement or obvious requirement (3+ / 0-)

      The video between the question in the title and the question in the poll was to help newbies and others understand the terms private sales and commercial sales and for people to think about the actual law. Apparently the video in between was not sufficient to connect the dots.

      You are correct.

      Lacking a background check, there is no way to determine that they are legally entitled to own guns,[...].
      Yet, that is exactly the rationale that underpins the private sale exemptions from background checks. And the background check exemptions for those with a Curios & Relic license.

      I posted the prohibited transfer categories upthread even if two people have known each other their whole lives, individuals are unlikely to know all the answers to the questions on form 4473.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 08:17:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  UPDATE to the diary - News in the prosecution of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, BvueDem

    the Jonathan Ferrell case - SteelerGrrl has just published a diary.

    Grand jury fails to indict officer in Jonathan Ferrell shooting - DA to resubmit the case

    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

    by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:53:39 PM PST

  •  Do cops and ex-cops fail the background check? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon, FrankRose

    Or do they all pass, no questions asked?  Because cops are well trained to be fast draws and accurate shots. They're trained to demand absolute obedience, be aggressive and don't react well to back talk. And they have an annoying habit of shooting unarmed civilians.

    Given what just happened in that Florida movie theater, no, a universal background check doesn't make me feel any safer.  It doesn't do what you think it does.

    But to answer the question, those who can legally own guns would pass the background check, by definition.  So if they're exempt, there's no actual impact. What's the difference?

    •  This diary is about background checks (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy, peterfallow

      as defined in Title 18 of the US Criminal Code, Section 922(g) & (d). It's not about concealed carry permits or background checks for police officers.

      Background checks for all gun transfers would make it harder for people on the list below to buy guns in the gray market, aka "private sales." Perhaps you weren't aware that most of the criteria that remove gun rights do not involve a jury, or a felony conviction or being adjudicated mentally ill.

      ATF - How to identify prohibited persons
      The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

      These categories include any person:

      •    Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
      •    convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
      •    who is a fugitive from justice;
      •    who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
      •    who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
      •    who is an illegal alien;
      •    who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;
      •    who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
      •    who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
      •    who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).

      [my bold]

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 09:11:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  About use of controlled substances (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon

        No, it doesn't make me feel safer that an alcoholic with rage issues can buy a gun under this code, but a calm relaxed pot smoker cannot.

        Tell me, how would a background check determine if a person smokes an ocassional joint?  Should all gun sales come with a drug test? But not for alcohol of course. Because none of the people in the gun fail diaries are ever drunk...

  •  Some observations (5+ / 0-)

    Some people have taken a position on private, non-commercial sales that they are a secret plot by people like me to funnel guns to criminals, made possible by government inaction on the subject:

    The word "private sales" is code for a "Don't ask/Don't tell" honor policy that facilitates transfer of guns from legal owners into the gray market where they can be easily transferred into the illegal gun market.
    the private sales exemption is a loophole so big that the French farming industry could drive all their tractors/trucks through it without even forming single file.
    Personally, I find this to be a curious definition of "loophole", since private sales of firearms have been a part of American firearms ownership since the settlers stepped off the Mayflower. But I hear that Newspeak is all about making words mean what you want them too, so calling this a "loophole" is plus-good. And implying that when my father gives me one of his father's rifles that he is helping facilitate transfer of guns to the illegal gun market? Double-plus-good. I can't imagine any way that anyone could ever find that offensive. I'm not up on the latest trends, so I'm guessing that "guilt by association" is what all the coolest liberals are getting into these days.

    Crazy kids. Now get off of my lawn.

    Less snarkily, people on both sides are ignoring an important aspect of documenting legal ownership. Loss. Theft, fire, any sort of insurable loss. You can't just say "I owned 73 valuable guns and they all melted down in the fire, so pay me." If for no other reason, most homeowner policies have a maximum cap for that sort of property damage (guns) that might realistically be three or two or even only one gun worth of reimbursement (my illegal-gun-dealing-father just bought (privately) an R93 Blaser with a Zeiss scope for $2500 and that was an excellent price).

    If you want a potential loss to be covered by insurance, you need to prove you had the property to be lost in the first place, demonstrated in a manner acceptable to the insurer. At the very least, proof of purchase (even for a private sale), and a scribbled note of "one rifle, sold for $500" probably won't clear the bar.

    •  Loophole - Mirriam Webster (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber

      Thx, Shamash for a helpful illustration of newspeak.

      loop·hole
      noun ˈlüp-ˌhōl\

      : an error in the way a law, rule, or contract is written that makes it possible for some people to legally avoid obeying it

      Full Definition of LOOPHOLE
      1
      a :  a small opening through which small arms may be fired

      b :  a similar opening to admit light and air or to permit observation

      2
      :  a means of escape; especially :  an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded

      Examples of LOOPHOLE

          She took advantage of a loophole in the tax law.

          His attorney has been hunting for a loophole that would allow him to get out of the deal.

          tried to close a loophole in the new legislation

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:11:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Link for definition of loophole (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:11:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Excellent! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas, theatre goon, FrankRose

        A helpful clarification of how something that has always been in place (legal individual firearm sales) and later codified into law is not a "loophole".

        The law on such sales is certainly not an omission or ambiguity, it was put there deliberately. It is not an error, it was meant to be that way. It was created and voted into being by a majority of House Democrats (2:1 margin) at a time when the House as a whole was D-majority and Senate Democrats (3:1 margin) when the Senate was D-majority and signed by a Democratic president. Doesn't sound very loophole-ish to me.

        It does not allow conduct that was previously disallowed. If a person chooses to break the law, the fact that the law is there to be broken does not make the law flawed. For instance, although speed limits are not universally and instantly enforced, I have never considered myself to be exploiting a legal loophole if I drive at 26mph in a "25mph school zone".

        So yeah, you're right. Not a loophole and the people using that word are clearly trying to redefine it for political purposes. Thx.

        •  Thx, It is really important that readers become (0+ / 0-)

          educated on this important point.

          Please proceed...

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 12:36:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No need to proceed (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, FrankRose

            Your providing of the definition and me providing the history of the law in question is really all that any rational person with a moderate grasp of the English language needs to determine whether or not the occasional private sale in accordance with the specific dictates of a law addressing just that topic is an appropriate use of the word "loophole".

  •  Require Firearm Owners ID for private sales (0+ / 0-)

    In Illinois every gun owner is required to have a valid Firearm Owners ID (FOID) card to legally own a gun.  Any due process action that would revoke gun ownership rights would also revoke the FOID card.  Thus, everyone who has an FOID is legally allowed to own guns.

    So if I want to make a private gun sale to someone, I don't need to do a background check, I just need to ask to see their FOID.  Closes the private sale loophole quite nicely.

    •  OT - (3+ / 0-)

      just a heads up; did you mean to hide rate the Clawson tip jar or did your cursor slip? If it was the latter I thought you might want to know.



      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Wee Mama on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:39:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How is that system working out, so far? nt (0+ / 0-)

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:13:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fine I think (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        In my town a guy was arrested for shooting a gun in his backyard.  Thought he was shooting at a coyote, shot his neighbor's german shepherd instead.  The cops took his FOID card away.  There's the accountability you want.

        So if a private seller demands to see the card, he doesn't have one, no sale.

        •  That sounds like accountability, but I seem to (0+ / 0-)

          be missing something about how the revocation process works.

          Suppose you're my neighbor and I've known you many years. I want to sell a gun to you, and don't know that your FOID was revoked last week but you haven't actually surrendered your card yet. How do I as a private citizen verify that an FOID card hasn't been revoked?

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:58:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's not how it works. Cards are siezed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            Say your neighbor had a domestic violence order of protection issued against him.  When that order goes into effect, his FOID is seized - physically removed.  It makes no sense to revoke the FOID but then allow them to keep the card.

            Just like a DUI. The drunk driver isn't told driving privileges are revoked, but allowed to keep his driver's license.  The license is seized, right then and there.

            FOID is the same, best of my knowledge.  Any court action that removes gun ownership rights would physically take the FOID card immediately.

            All private sellers are required to see the FOID, and the FOID must be physically on a person for that person to legally buy a gun.  Can't claim one left it at home.

            So if a person physically has their FOID card, they're a legal gun owner.

            But to have a double check, should be pretty easy to have a 1-800 number or internet website where an FOID # can be entered and quickly get back a yes/no on it.

            •  As I noted in reply above - Daily Kos readers (0+ / 0-)

              would benefit from a tutorial of the process and how the Illinois Legistlature intended the scheme to work. Wrinkles in implementation sometimes reveal what's wrong/right with a concept, or show that it's unworkable despite the best intentions.

              We can be certain that some with strong intent to circumvent or abuse the system will find all the possible ways.

              "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

              by LilithGardener on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 01:19:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site