Federal HR1217 - bipartisan bill for background checks

[treadlightly]

Sponsored by Republican Representative King of New York, HR1217 is a bill "To protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and provide a responsible and consistent background check process." I think Democrat Thompson of California co-wrote it.

A bill to protect rights, to prohibit those who shouldn't participate and close the so-called gun show loophole.

With protection like that, we don't need gun grabbers. I am all for prohibiting those who shouldn't have guns from getting them. Unfortunately, down the road "we", meaning national leadership, would decide none of us should have guns.

Better by far to have one nitwit dancing the Macarena in the town square with an assault rifle than universal gun prohibition, which would make some legislators do their happy dance, and others write very stern letters of protest. None would stand up and be truly counted when it hit the fan.

For instance, on March 2nd, State Senators sent a letter to Washington asking for relief from Medicaid cost. I think the problem is Federal requirements will push Medicaid from 18% of the State's budget to 33%, or something like that. Maybe it's Medicare - but the protest is over Federal health care requirements going through the roof for Texas.

There are two possible results from the letter. The most likely is the letter will go in the White House's recycle bin along with their junk mail and nothing will come of it.

The worst is that Texas will succeed - and that will be bad because there will be bargaining or political capital expended in the victory. If we gain something, it will be at the cost of another banana peel farther down the slippery slope.

A true victory would best come from a letter starting out with, "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary..."

That, of course, would be unthinkable. We rush to assure the Federal government such extremism is off the table, and encourage them to put us to the test so we can show, again and again and again, how nothing will prompt so much as discourtesy from our lawmakers.

Or so I see it. Maybe I'm just jaundiced. Or maybe a 3 AM crisis call from work toppled my natural optimism. if so, I'll get better.

[cb1000rider]

With protection like that, we don't need gun grabbers. I am all for prohibiting those who shouldn't have guns from getting them. Unfortunately, down the road "we", meaning national leadership, would decide none of us should have guns.

Honestly, and I know that is not a popular opinion here, I think the "private sale" loophole is a flaw. You can't say that we have a system of background checks if it's perfect legal for non-retail sales to have no checks whatsoever. In fact, as it stands right now, the retail check is simply a waste of time (and money). It's a law that only impacts legal gun owners that are authorized to have firearms, which makes zero sense. And in the very few off-cases where we have someone who shouldn't have a gun try to buy one, there is very little actual enforcement on the back end of that attempted crime. It's just another "feel good" system that costs money.

Personally, I think every taxpayer should get a "bill" from the federal government for all the dumb stuff we're doing - a bill for the retail background check system, a bill for the last 40-years of the war on drugs, all of it... I think that would wake up a public that mostly chooses to ignore what's going on.

I don't equate a real background check (one that works across all transactions) to be a "gun grab". I understand why it's unpopular. I also understand why the current system is the subject of complaint and ridicule, because it is, of course, a ridiculous assertion to say that we have an overall transactional system that really does much to keep guns from criminals. We DO have the right laws on the books - but as many of you know in relation to other ridiculous gun laws - laws without appropriate checks and the right means of enforcement are essentially worthless paper.

The reality is in Texas that there is no real background check system. I can go out on Texas gun trader and buy whatever I want without so much as someone looking at my ID. I'm not complaining about it - it's pretty convenient and I like how it works. Buying retail or buying via transport is a lot more burdensome, but if I was a bad guy - the loop hole is huge.

I honestly think that this will eventually happen. The NRA is powerful. Conservatives currently have the majority of political power in Texas. However, the law really doesn't "work" - nor does it make sound logical sense. Those things can't exist in conflict forever. I think it's a matter of time, especially with the media making spectacularly big deals about gun violence....

I get the slippery slope argument. I also see it as an excuse to do nothing when you know that the current system is broken. I hear that "we" won't compromise because the other side won't compromise. None of those reasons is enough glue to hold it in place forever.

[jmra]

With protection like that, we don't need gun grabbers. I am all for prohibiting those who shouldn't have guns from getting them. Unfortunately, down the road "we", meaning national leadership, would decide none of us should have guns.

Honestly, and I know that is not a popular opinion here, I think the "private sale" loophole is a flaw. You can't say that we have a system of background checks if it's perfect legal for non-retail sales to have no checks whatsoever. In fact, as it stands right now, the retail check is simply a waste of time (and money). It's a law that only impacts legal gun owners that are authorized to have firearms, which makes zero sense. And in the very few off-cases where we have someone who shouldn't have a gun try to buy one, there is very little actual enforcement on the back end of that attempted crime. It's just another "feel good" system that costs money.

Personally, I think every taxpayer should get a "bill" from the federal government for all the dumb stuff we're doing - a bill for the retail background check system, a bill for the last 40-years of the war on drugs, all of it... I think that would wake up a public that mostly chooses to ignore what's going on.

I don't equate a real background check (one that works across all transactions) to be a "gun grab". I understand why it's unpopular. I also understand why the current system is the subject of complaint and ridicule, because it is, of course, a ridiculous assertion to say that we have an overall transactional system that really does much to keep guns from criminals. We DO have the right laws on the books - but as many of you know in relation to other ridiculous gun laws - laws without appropriate checks and the right means of enforcement are essentially worthless paper.

The reality is in Texas that there is no real background check system. I can go out on Texas gun trader and buy whatever I want without so much as someone looking at my ID. I'm not complaining about it - it's pretty convenient and I like how it works. Buying retail or buying via transport is a lot more burdensome, but if I was a bad guy - the loop hole is huge.

I honestly think that this will eventually happen. The NRA is powerful. Conservatives currently have the majority of political power in Texas. However, the law really doesn't "work" - nor does it make sound logical sense. Those things can't exist in conflict forever. I think it's a matter of time, especially with the media making spectacularly big deals about gun violence....

I get the slippery slope argument. I also see it as an excuse to do nothing when you know that the current system is broken. I hear that "we" won't compromise because the other side won't compromise. None of those reasons is enough glue to hold it in place forever.

I agree the system is broken, but we need to work our way back up the slope not slide further down. You don't fix a law that never should have been a law by giving it more teeth.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The GCA 1968 and all amendments, as well as the NFA should be repealed. Gun laws, if any, are issues that should be dealt with in the states, subject to the protections of the Second Amendment. The growing divide between the northeast (and California) and the rest of the country on virtually every social and fiscal issue is further proof that opinions vary widely on gun control laws, thus making federal involvement improper.

The only background check that should be required of a firearms purchaser is the display of a voter registration card. Felons cannot get them because they cannot vote.

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

The GCA 1968 and all amendments, as well as the NFA should be repealed. Gun laws, if any, are issues that should be dealt with in the states, subject to the protections of the Second Amendment. The growing divide between the northeast (and California) and the rest of the country on virtually every social and fiscal issue is further proof that opinions vary widely on gun control laws, thus making federal involvement improper.

The only background check that should be required of a firearms purchaser is the display of a voter registration card. Felons cannot get them because they cannot vote.

Chas.

....unless they are here illegally..... then they can get anything they want, apparently.

That said, it ought to be a standard of legislative ethics that, with the specific exceptions of fundamental civil rights issues and/or national security (and I'm not so sure about national security), whenever there is a deep divide on an issue between different regions of the nation, Congress, the Court, and the Executive should bow the heck out and leave it up to state and local governments to sort out.

[txcharvel]

The GCA 1968 and all amendments, as well as the NFA should be repealed. Gun laws, if any, are issues that should be dealt with in the states, subject to the protections of the Second Amendment. The growing divide between the northeast (and California) and the rest of the country on virtually every social and fiscal issue is further proof that opinions vary widely on gun control laws, thus making federal involvement improper.

The only background check that should be required of a firearms purchaser is the display of a voter registration card. Felons cannot get them because they cannot vote.

Chas.

Brilliant!

[jmra]

[cb1000rider]

The growing divide between the northeast (and California) and the rest of the country on virtually every social and fiscal issue is further proof that opinions vary widely on gun control laws, thus making federal involvement improper.

I'd point out that I could claim the exact opposite. Giving too much sovereignty we end up with a patchwork of gun laws. There has to be a minimum standard. On a 1000 mile road trip, I spend hours reviewing laws, taking notes, then appropriately breaking down firearms in to separate compartments with various combinations of locks and in-accessible locations. I've got to make sure I don't have a rifle clip that's illegal somewhere... It's ridiculous. There are states that that I detour for hours to avoid (Illinois).

The only background check that should be required of a firearms purchaser is the display of a voter registration card. Felons cannot get them because they cannot vote.

That makes sense to me, although I'm not sure that felons actually get them taken away at the time of arrest. Require the same thing on private gun sales and create a simple internet system for lookup/validation.. That's reasonable, low bar, and makes sense.

[RPBrown]

The GCA 1968 and all amendments, as well as the NFA should be repealed. Gun laws, if any, are issues that should be dealt with in the states, subject to the protections of the Second Amendment. The growing divide between the northeast (and California) and the rest of the country on virtually every social and fiscal issue is further proof that opinions vary widely on gun control laws, thus making federal involvement improper.

The only background check that should be required of a firearms purchaser is the display of a voter registration card. Felons cannot get them because they cannot vote.

Chas.

Charles, I usually dont disagree with you but after a period of time some felons get their voting rights back. I know of a few that are felons (non-violent) in crimes that happened several years ago and now have voting rights. They do not have the right to purchase a gun but have voters registration cards.
This is why the system needs to be fixed. I think non-violent felons should be able to protect themselves after their time is served and all paroles and probation's are complete. Just my .02

[TexasCajun]

Repealing the current slate of gun control laws is unlikely at best, although I'd love to see it. Rather than create more laws that won't really accomplish their intended goals, I'd like to see the current laws be actually enforced until we can beef up the penal system to the point at which we can permanently remove repeat violent offenders from society. Once the criminals that have proven to be beyond redemption are removed from the equation, we can remove most if not all of the restrictions on firearms ownership because they wouldn't be needed anymore. At that point, people who aren't in prison would have either never committed a serious crime or redeemed themselves sufficiently after having served their sentence.

And at the same time, we should quit criminalizing minor offenses. What sense does it make to equate murders, rapists, and child molesters with someone who fills out a form incorrectly??

[VMI77]

King, another GOP snake.

[VMI77]

With protection like that, we don't need gun grabbers. I am all for prohibiting those who shouldn't have guns from getting them. Unfortunately, down the road "we", meaning national leadership, would decide none of us should have guns.

Honestly, and I know that is not a popular opinion here, I think the "private sale" loophole is a flaw. You can't say that we have a system of background checks if it's perfect legal for non-retail sales to have no checks whatsoever. In fact, as it stands right now, the retail check is simply a waste of time (and money). It's a law that only impacts legal gun owners that are authorized to have firearms, which makes zero sense. And in the very few off-cases where we have someone who shouldn't have a gun try to buy one, there is very little actual enforcement on the back end of that attempted crime. It's just another "feel good" system that costs money.

Personally, I think every taxpayer should get a "bill" from the federal government for all the dumb stuff we're doing - a bill for the retail background check system, a bill for the last 40-years of the war on drugs, all of it... I think that would wake up a public that mostly chooses to ignore what's going on.

I don't equate a real background check (one that works across all transactions) to be a "gun grab". I understand why it's unpopular. I also understand why the current system is the subject of complaint and ridicule, because it is, of course, a ridiculous assertion to say that we have an overall transactional system that really does much to keep guns from criminals. We DO have the right laws on the books - but as many of you know in relation to other ridiculous gun laws - laws without appropriate checks and the right means of enforcement are essentially worthless paper.

The reality is in Texas that there is no real background check system. I can go out on Texas gun trader and buy whatever I want without so much as someone looking at my ID. I'm not complaining about it - it's pretty convenient and I like how it works. Buying retail or buying via transport is a lot more burdensome, but if I was a bad guy - the loop hole is huge.

I honestly think that this will eventually happen. The NRA is powerful. Conservatives currently have the majority of political power in Texas. However, the law really doesn't "work" - nor does it make sound logical sense. Those things can't exist in conflict forever. I think it's a matter of time, especially with the media making spectacularly big deals about gun violence....

I get the slippery slope argument. I also see it as an excuse to do nothing when you know that the current system is broken. I hear that "we" won't compromise because the other side won't compromise. None of those reasons is enough glue to hold it in place forever.

Maybe I'm just confusing "is" and "should" in your argument but the flaw seems to be an assumption that the people who advocated the system want it to work. It's a generous assumption but it is negated by how the law is actually enforced (or not enforced). If the anti gun advocates really wanted to prevent criminals from acquiring guns, and the system was intended to be anything other than window dressing and a way to snare the law abiding, they'd be expending some effort in tracking down and prosecuting the criminals who get caught attempting to buy guns.

There would also be very harsh sentences for street thugs caught with illegal weapons, especially in places like New Jersey, Maryland, NYC, and DC. However, the most vigorous prosecutions and harshest sentences are reserved for those who have no criminal records and make mistakes while attempting to follow the law.

[VMI77]

The GCA 1968 and all amendments, as well as the NFA should be repealed. Gun laws, if any, are issues that should be dealt with in the states, subject to the protections of the Second Amendment. The growing divide between the northeast (and California) and the rest of the country on virtually every social and fiscal issue is further proof that opinions vary widely on gun control laws, thus making federal involvement improper.

The only background check that should be required of a firearms purchaser is the display of a voter registration card. Felons cannot get them because they cannot vote.

Chas.

Charles, I usually dont disagree with you but after a period of time some felons get their voting rights back. I know of a few that are felons (non-violent) in crimes that happened several years ago and now have voting rights. They do not have the right to purchase a gun but have voters registration cards.
This is why the system needs to be fixed. I think non-violent felons should be able to protect themselves after their time is served and all paroles and probation's are complete. Just my .02

We used to say that those who served their time had paid their debt to society. I know the sentiment wasn't sincere, but I agree with you that non-violent felons should have their rights restored after completing their sentences. This is true more now that it ever was as our government continues to criminalize acts that were never criminal in the past.

[rbwhatever1]

I think it hilarious we're talking about creating new Laws for criminals to obey. The only thing new Laws create is new crimes and new criminals.
Those old criminals are still here. Must be something else entirely going on...

[Charles L. Cotton]

The growing divide between the northeast (and California) and the rest of the country on virtually every social and fiscal issue is further proof that opinions vary widely on gun control laws, thus making federal involvement improper.

I'd point out that I could claim the exact opposite. Giving too much sovereignty we end up with a patchwork of gun laws. There has to be a minimum standard. On a 1000 mile road trip, I spend hours reviewing laws, taking notes, then appropriately breaking down firearms in to separate compartments with various combinations of locks and in-accessible locations. I've got to make sure I don't have a rifle clip that's illegal somewhere... It's ridiculous. There are states that that I detour for hours to avoid (Illinois).

As you point out, you already have a patchwork of gun laws, if you want to consider state to state. No federal law, other than the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 has worked to protect Second Amendment rights, so there's no reason to expect a change in future years. I also said state laws should be subject to the Second Amendment.

Chas.