IL Church Shooter had "arsenal" of guns

The BBQ Pit
121

Two things here:

  1. Federal laws do not apply to “private collectors” - vaguely defined by federal law as those “engaged in the business” of selling guns. I’ve been to several gun shows in my life (surprised? Like I said, I’m not gun-phobic.) and I’ve seen tables filled with someone’s “private collection”, some of them even advertising “private collector - no wait”. While this may have been a few tables amongst a majority of FFL dealers, if I were a wingnut wanting to get my hands on something to put lots of little holes in people, this is where I’d go. I consider this a loophole.

  2. However, in the interest of full disclosure, I was just now reminded by a gun-owning friend/coworker of mine that in 2000 Oregon actually closed the private seller gun show loophole. While it slipped my mind when I posted (since I haven’t been to a gun show since '99), I now recall I voted for this measure. Although at the time the incident I note upthread occurred (in '99), this restriction was not in place.

Here’s the kicker - my friend who told me about the loophole closure then gave me a little winky IM smiley, and said “it’s not a problem if you know where the parking lot is.” So there you go.

I could have been clearer here. When I say that the ATF rarely enforces the background check, I don’t mean by responding reactively to complaints. I don’t consider that enforcement per se, just response.

I mean that the ATF rarely performs the compulsory compliance inspection against a dealer’s past inventory logs and their recent background checks. I know for a fact they can’t require more than one inspection per year, and from what I’ve heard, a lot of dealers rarely get inspected (I know one current and one former FFL dealer, and I’ve asked them both about it out of curiosity).

I stand corrected - a search tells me that apparently they are required to have FFL licenses. This doesn’t reconcile with my personal experience - I’ve been in pawnshops on two occasions looking at guitars, and have seen suspiciously fast firearms transactions with no apparent background check. However, there’s nothing saying these weren’t illegal sales, and so I won’t blame the NRA for what may have been aberrations.

As far as I can tell, that bill a) that law did nothing to further constrain the ownership of guns due to mental health status - it only codifies the infrastructure for maintaining the records and removing incorrect records, and (this is the kicker):

Section 101 (last paragraph):
“Requires all federal agencies that adjudicate the mental health of individuals or commit such individuals to a mental institution to: (1) establish a program to allow such individuals to apply for relief from the disabilities to firearms ownership resulting from such adjudications or commitments; and (2) provide oral and written notice to any such individuals of the effect of a mental health adjudication or commitment on their ability to purchase or transport a firearm and their right to apply for relief from disabilities.”

and

Section 105:
“Requires states, as a condition of grant eligibility, to establish procedures to allow persons with disabilities relating to mental health status or commitment to obtain relief from such disabilities for purposes of firearms eligibility. Requires states to allow de novo review in state courts of denials of relief.”

In layman’s speak, this requires all federal agencies who might have anything to do with disqualifying a person from gun ownership on the basis of mental health to 1) make it so that said nutjob can contest this disqualification (states also), and 2) let them know in writing “hey, we think you’re too crazy to own a gun, but we’re letting you know that, and oh, by the way, here’s how you can try to have this decision reversed.”

If anything, this is a net-zero - while it does require federal agencies to work with states to “encourage the development” of the systems required to consolidate mental health info, it most certainly does nothing to advance the cause of keeping the guns out of the crazies hands.

You see, you’re trying to paint me as some ignorant gun-phobic commie wackjob who wants to take all your weapons away. I’m not ignorant nor am I gun-phobic - I’ve been through NRA safety courses, and while I don’t own, and won’t until my kids are out of the house, I’ve shot my fair share of guns.

No, I just want to keep the weapons out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them (and yes I think the government should reserve the privilege of deciding who shouldn’t). In addition, I believe that the second amendment is based on a cap-and-ball age reality (and IMO an obsolete citizen-state-federal government dynamic, but that’s another debate). Contrast 18th century firearms (2 rounds a minute on average) to our current technology (as fast as you can pull the trigger and reload) and most sane, rational folk would realize that we need to revisit the ideals embodies within the second, which for all intents and purposes has allowed more harm than good to our current society.

122

Right so either you support private sales, which you outlined, or you don’t. There is no “loophole” per se. Nothing changes within the confines of a show vs the parking lot or someone’s home. It looks like Oregon took the step of outlawing private sales at “gunshows”. I have no problem with that. Surprised?

It seems that the ATF investigates only if one of two conditions are met. A gun is used in a crime and is linked back to the FFL that sold it or the dealer reports any of their inventory stolen. Both of which are major red flags.

In my state, since I have a concealed weapons permit, I am exempt from a background check at time of sale. Perhaps yours has similar rules.

I have done no such thing. I simply pointed out that your rhetoric fell in nicely with the OP’s initial point.

Which is the position of the same NRA that you complained about earlier…

And I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. Considering that overwhelming majority of privately owned guns are never and have never been, and will never be used in any sort of crime, I think that the sane and rational types are on the other side of your argument.

123

I’m not surprised that you don’t have a problem with it, especially since you don’t live in OR. However, I was quite surprised when the NRA vociferously opposed this measure (look about halfway down for the late Mr. Heston’s statement in opposition) - the measure made perfect sense to me, as gunshows provide a concentration of private sellers that make it easy for someone to purchase a weapon without a check. And personally, I do believe that the vast majority of private firearms sales (regardless of venue) should be subject to (gov’t funded) background checks - I see the lack thereof as a “loophole”.

Guns aren’t cars, houses, boats, or livestock. Generally speaking they are the most efficient killing devices available to the general public - they are indeed a tool, but for killing stuff. So explain to me how private transactions involving cars, houses, boats, and livestock require some kind of governmental oversight, and a gun does not? Just because the second amendment grants the right to bear arms? In and of itself, the Second does not preclude the right of the government to regulate arms sales to any extent necessary to maintain the safety of the union - while DC v. Heller (wrongly, IMO) precludes the local banning of certain federally legal types of firearms, it says nothing about registration, mandatory background checks, etc.

From this DoJ report (emphasis mine): “According to the ATF Director, for the ATF to ensure compliance with federal firearms laws, FFLs should receive a compliance inspection at least once every three years. However, the ATF is currently unable to even begin to meet that goal. We found that most FFLs are inspected infrequently or not at all.”

So according to the DoJ, FFL dealers should be inspected, but rarely are - I’d call that a lack of enforcement.

I can’t find any specific cites, but I just checked with my buddy and his CCW permit doesn’t waive the background check with dealers.

(For context, your original comment was in response to my remarks about the NRA: “Just keep blaming those kooks instead of facing reality. It’s much easier that way”.)
So let me get this straight: you’re equating my disdain of the NRA - which no one can deny has fought tooth and nail nearly every effort to constrain gun ownership - with the wild-eyed hyperbole of calling three guns and a half a box of ammo an “arsenal”. I already agreed that the comments presented in the OP are evidence of a gun-phobic attitude in the media and the left wing. How exactly does my “rhetoric” fall in line with this attitude?

I’ll drop the “thanks, NRA” sarcasm and make myself perfectly clear on this: I disagree with the NRA’s constant opposition to any attempts to constrain gun ownership, simple as that - a perfect example was their illogical opposition to restricting ownership to accused domestic abusers a few years ago. If you want to claim that the NRA does not oppose gun ownership constraints, or that somehow, they are justified in their constant near-unfailing opposition, that’s one thing. But to say I’m “blaming the kooks instead of facing reality” is flippant and just plain wrong.

Did you even peruse the text of that law the NRA promoted? Did you even read what I had to say on it? They did not introduce any new mental health boundary conditions to preclude gun ownership. The only actual requirements laid out by this bill call for the following: federal agencies to aggregate disqualification data to the AG’s office (nearly irrelevant, since most disqualifications - especially regarding mental health status - would presumably occur at a state level); federal and participating state agencies to create a grievance process for those disqualified based on mental health status; and federal agencies to proactively notify those affected individuals upon their disqualification based on mental health status. Do I need to say more?

I’ll say it again - this law does nothing to advance the cause of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. If you want to contest that point, please read the law and provide cites.

But that’s not my point - I agree with you that the overwhelming majority of firearms aren’t used in crimes (or used in accidents). So what? The benefits of legal gun ownership in my opinion to not outweigh the costs to society as a whole. I’d like to have more than just opinion to go on, but both sides of the debate have obfuscated the real facts and statistics to the extent that it’s difficult to find any real data to go on.

I do believe I have an informed opinion (although I don’t think I’ll convince you of that) - I am familiar with firearms, and generally understand the social issues at play.

In fact, I have some first-hand experience. My dad has owned guns primarily for self-defense all my life. Whe I was a kid, he had a gun stolen from a secured lockbox while we were out. Given that he’s never used his weapons in self-defense, my dad’s gun ownership has served only to put one more gun into illegal circulation, and has protected no one.

This experience, combined with the several families I’ve known affected by accidental gun deaths, gun suicides and gun homicides, and the zero that I’ve known to ever use a gun in self-defense, tells me that gun use does more harm than good to society. And even still, I don’t advocate eliminating private gun ownership - I only desire some combination of the following: every legal transaction be monitored, all firearms be registered, and/or background checks enforced at all levels, for both dealer and private sales. How many accidental gun deaths, suicides, and murders would be prevented by the steps I lay out above? And how selfish do you have to be to continue fighting such measures?

While I am not under the illusion that this would keep guns out of criminals’ hands, I do believe the net gain in lives saved would outweigh the cost - which is what exactly? You can’t buy a gun right frickin’ now? And with no pesky paperwork?

124

I forgot perhaps the most important part of this - I would like to see mandatory safety courses (or proof of prior course experience) required for all gun purchases.

125

The key word in your comment there is accused. If you start from the premise that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, and further, that no person should be deprived of fundamental rights without due process, then opposition to the abridgement of a fundamental right on an accustaion is not necessarily a bad thing.

Much of the opposition to The War on Terror is based on this premise, that accusations are insufficient cause to abridge fundamental human rights.

It’s a position I don’t voice adequately, but one which I am in agreement with.

But considering the scope, and ramifications, of domestic violence, the idea that the accused should at least surrender their firearms is not entirely unreasonable. Should the accusation prove to be false, the speedy return of the formerly accused’s property should also not be an issue.

126

You make a very fair point, and frankly I hadn’t thought about it like that before - abridging one’s right to own guns based on an accusation of domestic violence may indeed be unconstitutional, based on the prevailing interpretation of the “due process” clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. That said (and it seems you agree), such an abridgment also seems like common sense, given the correlation between domestic abuse and gun violence against women. But there’s no overriding “common sense” clause in the constitution, so I’ll give you this point.

This is where you all and I disagree - while gun rights advocates seem to think that the Second Amendment is inviolate, in my opinion, the Second is far less relevant today than it was in 1787, based on the original intent to allow states to maintain a “well-regulated militia”. While it wasn’t a mistake for our founding fathers to codify this right into our Constitution back then, a lot has changed (technologically and sociologically) in 220 years - far more than anyone could have predicted back then. And (again, in my opinion) these changes necessitate a fresh look at the right to keep and bear arms.

So let us agree to disagree on my opinion. I doubt the Second will be changed any time soon, so I can’t and won’t tell you that you are legally wrong - I am the one with a legally untenable viewpoint. I just hope that at some point clear-eyed prudence (leavened with a healthy dose of compassion for our fellow man) will prevail over blind jurisprudence to some extent.

That said, let me also say thank you for such a reasoned response, ExTank. I don’t often engage in gun threads, due to the often-fervent nature of the discussion on both sides - I’m more of a Game Room/Cafe Society kind of guy. I only came in here to share my opinion and personal experience with mental illness and guns (wow, that didn’t come out right). I knew, being the Pit and given the topic, there would be some back and forth. But your comments were concise (something I occasionally have a problem mastering), cordial, and straight-forward, and to be honest, actually got me to thinking on my position on that issue. Well-played, sir. And happy shooting with your new weapon. :slight_smile:

127

You’re welcome.

And you might be surprised at the level of restrictions on firearms I would be ready to tolerate. In theory.

Licensing comprising mandatory safety is one item I wouldn’t mind seeing. Registration of firearms is another. Enhanced restrictions on private sales is also not a bad thing IMO.

However…

There are too many people in Congress and other places of political power who merely see such measures as stepping stones. This isn’t “gun nut” paranoia; these are there own words, and their legislative voting record, publicly accessible to anyone who wants to look.

People like Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer and Biden, Pelosi, Clinton (both!), etc., etc.

People like “The Honorable” William J. Hughes, who employ underhanded legislative tactics to further their agenda.

And, ultimately, Pres. B. Obama. Not that he’s much worse than Bush the Elder. At least ith Pres. Obama, we know where we stand; the Bush’s have been fair-weather friends at best.

There are altogether too many voices, too many legislative votes, who are vocally opposed to any form of firearm ownership beyond heavily restricted, closely monitored, single-shot, low-powered rifles and shotguns “suitable only for sporting use,” for me to be comfortable with accepting in practice what I may be comfortable with in principle.