The GQ part of this is: do people selling or otherwise transferring ownership of a firearm to another individual currently bare any civil or criminal liability if the weapon is used in a crime?
I am pretty sure that there are laws against making straw purchases of firearms, but I don’t know how easy or how often those are enforced. I may be wrong.
FFL holders are required to conduct an instant background check against purchases (plus any addition restrictions a given state imposes), but private individuals are not (the so-called gun show loophole, although most sellers at shows are FFL holders).
The GD part of this, what, if any, liability should they face and under what conditions? I think we can all agree that straw buyers should face some sort of legal sanction if they don’t already. Should someone selling their gun through a classified ad face criminal or civil liability if the purchaser uses the gun in a crime? Should an FFL holder? Should someone who failed to lock up his guns be liable if the guns were stolen?
So much of what you’re discussing depends on the prosecutor being able to prove what the seller knew the purchaser was planning to do with the weapon at the time of the sale. Absent proof of the seller’s knowledge of the buyer’s criminal intent, I couldn’t really support any liabilities assigned to the seller. YMMV
I am neither American nor a gun owner, but it would be ridiculous to blame even an insincere ( straw purchase ) seller for what another does with it. I believe they are currently prosecuting some regular registered gun-sellers for this.
Should such a law not apply to everything sold ? If I sell a kitchen knife and a regular domestic tragedy ensues, how would I prevent it ? If I sell a table and the purchaser throws it from a window and kills someone, what concern is that of mine ? And for how long should such a law apply ? Should 80-yr-olds be prosecuted for things they sold 50 years before ? A legal purchase once completed is the end of the matter for the seller
Liquor store owners don’t get sued when the guy who buys their booze gets drunk and crash into someone, unless the person was either already drunk, underage, or indicated they were buying for someone who was underage.
Why would gun sellers be treated differently.
Beyond that, what percentage of murders are committed by people who legally purchased the guns legally?
My understanding is that it’s a really small percentage.
Just a wag on my part but I would have thought the number was quite high. I can’t prove anything but would be quite curious to see what actual research says.
If the gun seller, be it a person at a gun show or a traditional gun store, knowingly sells to a straw purchaser, and the ultimate purchaser commits a crime with the gun then the store should be liable. This was the scenario in Minnesota, there was strong evidence that the gun store knew they were selling to a straw purchaser. When you fail to uphold regulatory and legal requirements of your profession, and it can directly associated with injury to another person I’d argue legal liability makes sense.
Someone who fails to lock up guns that are then stolen and used in a crime should not be liable. No realistic system of locking guns up is theft immune in any case, and we shouldn’t generally make property owners liable for things that a thief does with their stolen property.
Someone who fails to lock up guns that are then used by a child in the house to wound/kill themselves or another, should be held liable.
Hard, spin-free figures are difficult to come by. According to the US Justice Department,
Cite. Another source says that another 40% get their guns from friends or family, but I couldn’t find any confirmation, and the source cited has somewhat of an agenda.
Two federal statutes– 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) – are the primary laws under which straw purchases are prosecuted.
First, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) prohibits any person:
*n connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition.
Subject to limited exceptions, 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) imposes criminal penalties, such as fines and imprisonment, upon any person who:
[K]nowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by [federal firearms law] to be kept in the records of a person licensed under [federal firearms law] or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of [federal firearms law].
For private party sales, KNOWINGLY SELL, GIVE OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF ANY FIREARM ORAMMUNITION TO ANY PERSON WHO FALLS WITHIN ONE OF THE ABOVE CATEGORIES [prohibited persons]:
18 USC § 922(d). Punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.
Straw purchasers are illegal source buyers. Isn’t that precisely the question?
Well, yes, but I read Shodan’s source as implying that gun shows were not a significant source of the sort of guns we’re talking about (since it goes on to mention that only 2% are bought “from a flea market or gun show.”) On the other hand, it would be unfair to impute all 40% to gun shows.
There are absolutely laws against making straw purchases. Every gun store I go to has a variety of big signs explaining how very illegal it is. Like the article says.
There are specific federal and state laws that grant immunity to gun dealers, on the premise that a person who lawfully sells a firearm cannot and should not be held liable for a crime committed with that firearm. These laws already include exceptions: A person who sells a firearm knowing that the gun will be used to commit a crime (or knowing that the buyer is ineligible to own a gun)forfeits their immunity.
The logic is pretty clear: Making guns is legal. Selling guns is legal. Why should anyone be sued for doing something they legally had a right to do?
Further, this question touches on my big complaint about gun control: Punishing one person for a crime another person commits is flagrantly immoral under any legal system. People can only be punished if they, themselves, are guilty of a crime. If I sell a piece of property to another person, and they commit a crime, that is not by concern because once it leaves my possession it is, by definition, no longer “my property.” The same holds true for guns that are stolen: If you break into my house and steal my property, in what way can I be held responsible for what you did with it? You are, after all, the thief who stole it from me. Anything you did with it is, by definition, without my knowledge or permission.
Laws like this are a reaction to a truly disturbing trend in our legal system of trying to hold other people responsible for every mishap that befalls you. People need to stop trying to blame everyone else for their problems and start blaming the person who actually decided to commit the crime.
I think the percentage purchased from FFL holders is small, but the percentage purchased from non-FFL holders is probably high, if not the majority of transfers.
FFL holders are doing some sort of due diligence when calling into the instant background check system (forgot the acronym).
Sellers without one are not, and as far as I know, can’t even if they want to.
The question was, what percentage of murders are committed with legally purchased guns? AFACIT the answer is “not most”. The guns are either stolen (10-15% according to one estimate), bought from an illegal source, or were straw purchases. As Bone says, straw purchases are illegal, so they wouldn’t be included in the category of “legally obtained guns”.
This is 25 years old, deals only with handguns, and doesn’t address the number of murders, but
I don’t know if the 40% of an earlier cite, of those who obtained their guns from a family member or friend, includes straw purchases or not. I also don’t know if it includes “stole it from a family member or friend” along with “was given it by another gang member”, and if so, where the family member or friend got it.
What I was trying to figure out is illegal vs. legal, not gun show vs. all others. But there aren’t good figures readily available.
Plus, how would one classify that crazy kid a few years ago, who shot his mother and stole her guns and shot up a school, or whatever it was? (googles) Lanza was his name, at Sandy Hook.
I don’t know for sure, but I think most people convicted of murder have criminal records which makes it extremely unlikely they’d be able to legally purchase handguns.