Expanded background checks

[RobG]

I know that some local shops here charge between 35 and 50 dollars to do an FFL transfer which is basically what the expanded background check will require. Do you guys really think it's ok to increase your cost per gun for used guns by that much? I sure as hell don't. It's a free ticket to get raped by ffl holders to do transfers for private sales. No thanks.

Back in the day when I was required to do background checks to buy a gun it never took more than 15 minutes to get it done. Now I don't even have to worry about it. Just fill out the form and pay.

An unregulated extra charge argument seems legit. And if you regulated the price it might unfairly burden the FFL, but it is hard for me to believe that it costs the FFL that much to do a background check.

What do you mean by only filling out the form and paying? Do you mean the current background checks are essentially instantaneous?

 

[glass eye]

Because the anti's won't stop there...check this out from down under.

http://bowhunting-forum.com/showthread.php?9729-2-Bows-Seized

 

[Rat Fink]

An unregulated extra charge argument seems legit. And if you regulated the price it might unfairly burden the FFL, but it is hard for me to believe that it costs the FFL that much to do a background check.

What do you mean by only filling out the form and paying? Do you mean the current background checks are essentially instantaneous?

No but there are ways to never have to do a background check again and it's perfectly legal. In fact I encourage every legal gun owner do do such a thing and exercise their 2nd amendment rights every day. Make it part of your lifestyle, if you catch my drift.

 

[RobG]

No but there are ways to never have to do a background check again and it's perfectly legal. In fact I encourage every legal gun owner do do such a thing and exercise their 2nd amendment rights every day. Make it part of your lifestyle, if you catch my drift.

Well, are you going to keep us in suspense or tell us what it is?

 

[junior88]

if you have a concealed carry permit you do not have to submit to a background check at the point of sale because you passed the background check when you took the class to get the permit. you still have to fill out the 4473.

 

[junior88]

as far as what it costs an FFL to do a background check, it costs time. and we all know time is $. the paperwork that is involved in every transfer would surprise you. the more paperwork there is the more chance for mistakes. the 4473 is just the beginning, there is a lot behind the scenes that people don't see. when ATF comes by to do their audit they nitpick everything. one violation can lead to the FFL losing their license. our local gun shop charges $40 per transfer. if every transfer required a background check you can damn well better believe that price would go up.

 

[schmalts]

So, the liberals want to do something about gun control?? Here is a place to start. Look at this data (I know liberals don't like data but please try) and then look how many of these who were denied were prosecuted....
2010: 72,659 denials

34,459 felony convictions/indictments

13,862 fugitives

44 prosecutions (0.06 percent of denials)


2009: 67,324 denials

32,652 felony convictions/indictments

11,341 fugitives

77 prosecutions (0.11 percent)


2008: 70,725 denials

39,526 felony convictions/indictments

9,464 fugitives

105 prosecutions (0.15 percent)


2007: 73,992 denials

23,703 felony convictions/indictments

4,803 fugitives

122 prosecutions (0.16 percent)



2006: 69,930 denials

25,259 felony convictions/indictments

4,235 fugitives

112 prosecutions (0.16 percent)



2005: 66,705 denials

36.8 percent felony convictions/indictments

5.3 percent fugitives

135 prosecutions (0.20 percent)

 

[RobG]

So, the liberals want to do something about gun control?? Here is a place to start. Look at this data (I know liberals don't like data but please try) and then look how many of these who were denied were prosecuted....
2010: 72,659 denials

34,459 felony convictions/indictments

13,862 fugitives

44 prosecutions (0.06 percent of denials)


2009: 67,324 denials

32,652 felony convictions/indictments

11,341 fugitives

77 prosecutions (0.11 percent)


2008: 70,725 denials

39,526 felony convictions/indictments

9,464 fugitives

105 prosecutions (0.15 percent)


2007: 73,992 denials

23,703 felony convictions/indictments

4,803 fugitives

122 prosecutions (0.16 percent)



2006: 69,930 denials

25,259 felony convictions/indictments

4,235 fugitives

112 prosecutions (0.16 percent)



2005: 66,705 denials

36.8 percent felony convictions/indictments

5.3 percent fugitives

135 prosecutions (0.20 percent)

Let's try not to be insulting... BTW, I love data. That particular data set shows that background checks do prevent people from buying, but that there is some issue with prosecution. I'd like to see the data on how much the NRA has gutted the offices that are supposed to do those prosecutions. I know they've done their level best to keep what LaPierre calls the "jack booted thugs" (aka the BATF) from having any ability to do their mission.

 

[ismith]

So what exactly is the BATF's mission? Do you know?

 

[noharleyyet]

Let's try not to be insulting... BTW, I love data. That particular data set shows that background checks do prevent people from buying, but that there is some issue with prosecution. I'd like to see the data on how much the NRA has gutted the offices that are supposed to do those prosecutions. I know they've done their level best to keep what LaPierre calls the "jack booted thugs" (aka the BATF) from having any ability to do their mission.

Why don't you provide some then. Enough cat and mouse Rob...spit it out.

 

[RobG]

So what exactly is the BATF's mission? Do you know?

We are ATF.

A unique law enforcement agency in the United States Department of Justice that protects our communities from violent criminals, criminal organizations, the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, the illegal use and storage of explosives, acts of arson and bombings, acts of terrorism, and the illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products. We partner with communities, industries, law enforcement, and public safety agencies to safeguard the public we serve through information sharing, training, research, and use of technology.

http://www.atf.gov/about/mission.html

 

[schmalts]

Robb, really? 44 convictions last year? I doubt the NRA has anything to do with that but if they did, "GUTTED" is not the word, how about non-existent? 44?? a local municipality could handle that case load for crying out loud.
Regardless of who or what, the fact remains that more laws are just plain useless unless you enforce the ones on the book. Enforcement means throwing someone in jail. Now that, would deter those trying to get guns illegal. Making something "more illegal" never works.

 

[ismith]

http://www.atf.gov/about/mission.html

The BATF is a tax agency.

"ATF is the youngest tax-collecting Treasury agency, separated from the Internal Revenue Service by Treasury Department Order No. 120-1 (former No. 221), effective 1 July 1972."

http://www.atf.gov/about/history/atf-from-1789-1998.html

 

[exponentialpi]

Some choice comments from Karl Denninger on the topic since January...

And let's not mince words -- since you can only execute someone once, at the point a felon decides to commit murder all the other crimes, including the ones he commits to get the gun(s) he uses, are "free."

People don't buy guns because they want to commit violence. A person who wants to commit violent felonies doesn't give a damn about the law and will steal or otherwise illegally acquire all the guns he wants to use -- and then use them. It is particularly outrageous to argue over "gun control" in the context of murderers, since you can only give a criminal the needle or lock him up for life one time. Further, it's also silly to talk about magazine restrictions because with a bit of practice a bad guy can change them in a literal second or so.

Background checks will do nothing to stop gun violence. Lanza murdered his mother initially, aligning completely with Denninger's commentary.

He has a wonderful piece on the vote here.

 

[RobG]

Why don't you provide some then. Enough cat and mouse Rob...spit it out.

That was a rhetorical observation there Harley. I thought it was common knowledge that the NRA is working to limit the authority of the ATF, but maybe there is disagreement there. Do you NOT think the NRA is working to weaken them?

I'm not advocating a position here, just looking for a good argument against background checks, especially whatever made this bill so bad. Lack of funds to enforce it could be a reason, but I suspect that problem comes from the gun lobby. I'm willing to look at any information to the contrary.

rg

 

[ismith]

That was a rhetorical observation there Harley. I thought it was common knowledge that the NRA is working to limit the authority of the ATF, but maybe there is disagreement there. Do you NOT think the NRA is working to weaken them?

I'm not advocating a position here, just looking for a good argument against background checks, especially whatever made this bill so bad. Lack of funds to enforce it could be a reason, but I suspect that problem comes from the gun lobby. I'm willing to look at any information to the contrary.

rg

I know the NRA lobbied hard against the appointment of an anti-gun BATF director. Im not sure exactly why the BATF is even neccessary, the FBI's jurisdiction overlaps most if not all of their law enforcement "mission". I do find it interesting that the GCA of 1934 came about almost imediately after prohibition was repealed. Gotta keep those revenue agents employed!

 

[Blacktailbc]

Watching the news today, One of the disappointed gun control advocates sort of spilled it out......what I think makes most of us against stuff like expanded background checks. He said, (paraphrasing here) "It wouldn't have been much, but it would have been a start". Exactly. A start to what exactly?

 

[webejmn]

How about just enforcing the laws we have in place NOW! And giving real penaltys for breaking the rules!The justice system won't or can't so everyone thinks we need more laws cuz the ones we have now don't work. Keeps a lame a&& in a job. When in all truth the laws we have now will work if they were enforced and criminal penaltys were given in each and every case. JMO

 

[RobG]

He has a wonderful piece on the vote here.

meh, not wonderful Erik. IMO it was just a mindless blog rant. Besides, if your argument is that they will just get them anyway, why not make it perfectly legal for dangerous felons to buy guns? Is that your position?

BTW, I could respect a person who had the guts to take that point of view since it has merit and is consistent with an opposition to background checks.

 

[ismith]

That was a rhetorical observation there Harley. I thought it was common knowledge that the NRA is working to limit the authority of the ATF, but maybe there is disagreement there. Do you NOT think the NRA is working to weaken them?

I'm not advocating a position here, just looking for a good argument against background checks, especially whatever made this bill so bad. Lack of funds to enforce it could be a reason, but I suspect that problem comes from the gun lobby. I'm willing to look at any information to the contrary.

rg

Im calling BS.