During the State of the Union, Obama had several requests regarding gun control. One of them was requesting background checks:
Whenever people talk about universal background checks or closing the “gun show loophole” I wonder how they think this will be accomplished.
In the thread discussing the State of the Union, many people were in favor of background checks, changing the laws for gun shows and possibly even requiring registration for background checks to work.
This last post by Lobohan cuts to the heart of the matter. The only way for laws prohibiting private sales lacking background checks to work is for there to be a record of who owns what. Every gun would need to be registered to an individual. Otherwise, unless you caught someone in the act of selling a gun there is no way to prove a sale took place.
Even with registration, I could sell a gun to a friend and he could have it in his possession for years and there’s no way to prove that an illegal sale took place. Every time he encounters law enforcement and has the gun on him he can just say it belongs to me and he’s borrowing it or something. Unless registration means that only the registered owner can be in possession of the gun. Is that what anyone wants?
So, I’m curious. It seems that there are many on this board who want more background checks then are done now. (Currently only Federal Firearms License ‘FFL’ holders are required to do background checks. Private sales between regular people do not require a background check whether at a gun show or anywhere else.)
For those of you who want universal background checks, or something like it: How would it work? How would it be enforced?
Back to my hypothetical from the other thread: If I give my nephew a gun and don’t do a background check on him first, what should happen to me under such a system? How would I get caught? If my nephew gets pulled over speeding by a cop or checks in a deer to a game warden will they be checking that the gun belongs to him? If not, isn’t this law impossible to enforce?
I suspect what Obama is proposing isn’t really “universal” in the same way that Obamacare isn’t “universal”. Plenty of loopholes, including the “nephew loophole” (although that has a certain unsavory ring to it).
As to closing the “gun show loophole”, I’d support legislation that any person or business that sells more than x number of guns per year (where x could be 5 or 10 or 20) is classified as a “gun dealer”, and gun dealers would be required to conduct background checks for sales just like most sales at gun shops are now.
This wouldn’t affect most in-family transfers, and most gun-owners wouldn’t be affected because they sell less than x guns every year.
We can debate what number x should be, but this seems reasonable.
If you sell guns as a means to make money to support yourself, whether full time or as a part time hobby, you should be subject to background checks. I do hear stories about people you always see at gun shows and with a flyer at the gun range with ten guns for sale that are private sales. If you are selling guns by the dozen, you should get your FFL and be considered a dealer. Then you should be subject to the same background checks as other dealers.
But from the other thread we had folks who seemed to want checks on every transfer, even single transfers not involving money among family members. I’m genuinely at a loss as to how this could possibly work. Barring draconian measures there is just no way to enforce this.
CA currently requires all sales to have a background check. Handguns are registered but long guns and ‘other’ guns are not. Though the state recently passes long gun registry (dammit). All sales will go through an ffl. It makes it much harder and more expensive to buy guns non locally because the 10 day wait (CA req) means a ppt needs two trips to the ffl. Also ppt fees for non face to face sales have no price restrictions. If you attempt to buy a gun on gun broker or something the fee the ffl will charge you could eat I to any savings.
You can still obviously sell outside this process but that would be a felony and no legitimate person would buy or sell this way. Prior to the latest law inter familial transfers of long guns were exempt from any paperwork and pistols required a registry form with no background check.
One thing I’m noticing is that unless I’m reading the law wrong, there is an incentive to move into the state with lots of guns and sell them. This same situation exists in MA.
If you live outside of these states you can buy large capacity handguns that are banned in CA and MA. But you are legally allowed to then move into the state and keep them, since you aren’t buying them as a resident which wouldn’t be allowed.
Then, once you are inside the state legally with these guns you can sell them private party to someone else in the state. You can obviously do this at a huge markup because of the rare legal situation this is. You are selling something that a gun dealer is prohibited from selling.
So anyone moving to CA or MA from out of state would be crazy not to buy ten large capacity handguns for $500 each and then sell them for $1,000 each once in state.
Of course, you can buy and sell guns as private party transfers, but if you buy them “planning” to sell them that would make you a dealer and require and FFL. So it’s all about the state of mind of the person. Clear as mud.
I’m also not seeing anything on possession of guns in CA on their website or wikipedia.
If I want to sell my friend a gun I have to pay a $35 fee and wait ten days through a dealer. But what if I just want to loan it to him for a couple weeks because he’s going on a hunting trip?
Is it illegal for someone to possess a gun that isn’t legally owned by them in CA?
The Drudge Report is linking to This Story today. A memo has been obtained by the NRA from the Department of Justice pointing out what I outlined in my OP. You can’t have a universal background check system that works without registration.
Yes, CA laws for guns are pretty shit. Yay CA I hate you.
You have it sort of correct. There’s no such thing as a “large capacity handgun”. There are magazine restrictions in CA that limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds. This ban went into effect I believe in 1989. In CA it is illegal to buy, sell, import, transfer, or manufacture magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. Possession is perfectly legal, so all pre-ban mags are legal to own and use. When you go to the range, you will see tons of them and they don’t raise eyebrows ever. Even if the shooter is 18 years old and wasn’t old enough to own a gun at the time the ban went into place, you can easily wave that away saying the parents bought it for the child since there is no age requirement for magazine possession. Happy first birthday, Junior! Here’s 50 AR-15 magazines!
The statute of limitations on this crime is 3 years. From my understanding, very few if any individuals have been convicted of this crime because it’s impossible to prove. And also, when your springs wear out you can buy magazine parts kits to repair your legal pre-ban mag. The parts kit has 100% of the parts to construct a new magazine, but it will ship to you disassembled. As long as you are not replacing 100% of the parts at the exact same time, you have not manufactured a magazine, simply repaired your existing one.
CA has what’s called a “Safe Handgun Roster”. You have it right pretty much. If you are an individual you can sell off-roster handguns through PPT as long as you are not a dealer. LEO can also purchase off-roster handguns and later sell them to individuals through PPT, though if seen as a business they will be in trouble, probably.
You can loan your weapon to someone who is not a prohibited person for up to 30 days before it is considered a transfer in CA. If you commit a crime with a pistol that is not registered to you (presumably also a long gun when the long gun registry takes effect) you are subject to additional penalties.
If you’d like to read more about CA specific laws, this is a great source of information. The Calguns Foundation is a leading advocate in the legal battles in CA and has often partnered with other organizations like SAF in nationwide litigation.
Your desire to not be a felon? I’m not sure if there are any specific efforts but law abiding people will follow the crappy rules and bitch about them while they do it. And advocate for change of course.
You say this is draconian, but I don’t see how it’s all that different from cars. All drivers are registered with a unique ID number. All vehicles are registered with a unique ID number. There’s a database that matches drivers to vehicles. All sales have to go through a central registrar.
There are some differences – I’m not required to do background checks on people who buy my cars, and I have no way of ensuring that the sale has gone through. But for as often as I sell cars, I’d have absolutely no problem driving down to the BMV with the buyer and conducting the transaction in person.
Likewise, if I gave a car to my nephew he’d still have to go down and register it. I see no problem with that.
The only other difference would be something like California’s “after 30 days of loaning it’s considered a transfer” rule. There are laws about how long you can drive your new car without registering it, but AFAIK there’s no law saying you can’t borrow a car indefinitely (although your insurance company would want to know the details).
I don’t see how the current vehicle registration system is draconian, even if it were modified to look more like a proposed gun registration system.
Background checks can be effective without registration but I think it makes a LOT more sense WITh registration. So I support both.
If you give it to a friend or relative without a background check? Call it an infraction (like a speeding ticket) maybe a misdemeanor. Selling it without a background check, a felony.
This only becomes relavant if there is some other reason to trace the gun. But if your nephew is in possession of a gun, they must have a gun license.
As always, the law abiding are inconvenienced and the those who couldn’t care less to follow the rules continue to break them. Has there been any data shown to show the effectiveness of the registry or background checks in reducing gun violence?
I often see on these threads the comment that requiring all guns to be registered is no different that requiring all cars to be registered.
However, with cars, I don’t think you have a relatively significant group out there just salivating about using this as the first step towards confiscating them. With guns you have a much different situation -
Scenario: You have a pistol you want to sell to Some Dude.
Option 1: You and Some Dude go to a licensed firearms dealer and he performs a background check on Some Dude and you pay him $15 and then sell the gun. The background check is logged and recorded, as is the gun serial number.
Option 2: You and Some Dude go to a licensed firearms dealer and he performs a background check on Some Dude and you pay him $15 and then sell the gun. The background check is logged and recorded, but the gun serial number is not.
Option 3: You and Some Dude go to a licensed firearms dealer and he performs a background check on Some Dude and you pay him $15 and then sell the gun. The background check is not logged, and neither is the gun serial number.
Option 3 keeps people who fail the background check from purchasing a gun. But doesn’t do much else.
Option 2 keeps the gun from those that fail the background check, and also acts as a list of how many gun transactions this person is involved in.
Option 1 has the background check, but also keeps the info of the type of gun and the specific serial numbers. It’s basically registration. Which I’m fine with.
I don’t know why you don’t think that the NFA has been effective in keeping machine guns out of the hands of criminals (the source of the majority of gun violence). If I could prove to you that a gun registry and liceing requirements would significantly reduce the number of guns in criminal hands, why would you oppose it? Licencing and registration are VERY likely to be constitutional and make a lot of sense if you are concerned about the criminal use of firearms.
Cite on the salivation part? We have had registration of machine guns for 80 years and no confiscation yet. Is this a long term con game where they lull us into a sense of comlpacency by letting us “get away” with owning registered machine guns so that they can push for universal registration later on AND THEN confiscate all the guns?
I am asking for real data on the effectiveness of the CA system since inception. I am aware of what it is supposed to do. If this system is effective, there should be some numbers somewhere that are bucking national trends to show that Cali is a safer place since implementation.
Dude. This is CA. We’re fucking crazy. No need for evidence, the state legislature just likes to ban shit because they can. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.