No, this isn’t loser pays. Awards of attorney fees are complicated, however generally defendants in civil rights suits (local, state, and federal governments) may recover attorney’s fees from the plaintiff only if the court finds that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. If the plaintiff’s claims are at least arguable, have some evidence, and are brought in good faith the prevailing defendant will not recover attorney’s fees. SeeHughes v. Rowe. This is not so if the plaintiff prevails. In those cases, where a plaintiff prevails in a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C section 1983. In some circumstances, an additional fee enhancement can be awarded if the case was specific and required specialized skills. Again, this is a complicated area. In any case, I’m sure smaller towns do not want to pay millions of dollars in attorney fees and the threat of litigation can be a motivating factor. This is what happened in Sacramento.
Why is it necessary to know if the required background check occurred? A law abiding person will not sell to another without it, and a person intent on criminal activity will. Basically, the status quo, except in this case, there would be a means to conduct background checks on ALL sales. Isn’t that what gun control advocates want? If they don’t want universal background checks and instead want a registry, it’s transparently dishonest to reject the user driven NICS checks.
I hope people are wising up to their scam. At least Virginia in last week’s election rejected the two candidates that Bloomberg dumped a bazillion dollars on.
Then why make background checks required? Why not just have the Coburn bill?
I don’t know wtf gun control advocates want or think they want. Giving people access to NICS is a good way to prevent the transfer of a gun from a law abiding citizen to a criminal. It doesn’t work so well with straw sellers.
There is a reasonably good chance that the Republicans pick up Virginia (and a few other swing states) next year just on the gun control issue. I expect to see “leaked” photos of Hillary Clinton going duck hunting in Pennsylvania somewhere.
This is basically my point. If background checks was all that was wanted, the Coburn bill would be sufficient. Since that was rejected, the conclusion that more is wanted is clear. That’s why we don’t have universal background checks, and aligns pretty well to my position that all manner of gun control should be opposed because not doing so allows gun control advocates to get closer to their goal. If they really wanted universal background checks, they could have had them already.
Universal background checks for lawful sales = Coburn bill. Does that increase the number of checks, decrease them, or would they remain the same? I think it increases them.
Nothing prevents straw sales, except to the extent they get pushed to other illegal sale venues. All legal sales would have a background check. All illegal sales would still be illegal. That sounds like an improvement, but it was a non-starter with gun control folks because they want registration.
Of course I agree with this and the Coburn bill would have been an improvement to gun safety. The fact that the gun control folks opposed the bill tells me that they don’t know what the fuck they are doing.
To the extent you think 10 years in prison is a deterrent to selling a $500 gun for $1000, it will deter straw sales. There is a pool of guns in criminal hands. We just need the number of guns flowing into that pool to be smaller than the number of guns being removed from that pool.