Low on time at the moment and we're getting long, so I'll just hit your final questions.
I read a very good <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/16/the-threat-posed-by-gun-magazine-limits">article</a> on this recently I'll refer you to in the interests of time constraints on my end.
i can admit that magazine capacity is not likely to pass, and the current incarnation excepted and grandfathered too much existing hardware to be effective as a deterrent to criminal activities. the question was why does this specifically need some large concession to pass through Congress? the only possibility would be if it required all large magazines and drums to be turned in in exchange for an equivalent number of legally limited clips. at that point we are talking about taking people's guns in an abstract sense, but we both know it would never get to that point without a major fight, probably both legislatively and literally.
No point, as long as a person is not held legally accountable for what is done with a gun they bought which was lost or stolen, which would be unethical to do, I could go buy six guns and hand them off to criminals under the table for a 50% mark up and claim they were stolen if it ever came up. The re-sell issue is always tricky problem of who can buy what, as I mentioned to Ghav below, it sort of works for booze and smokes with kids, because they're consumable things you need a steady supply of, and even then the control it gives us is very limited and half-assed. You only need to buy a gun once a blue moon, not daily or weekly. But as i also said to him, background checks don't much bug me, I just view them as a waste of time, especially since I'm on the record for believing it is absurd not to let a 40 year old vote and own a gun because he spent ages 18-24 in jail for grand theft. There's nothing wrong with a background check option, felons, reformed or not, have little legit expectation of privacy about the fact that they were convicted of a crime.
My objection then is that I can't see it accomplishing much, yet it does represent an increased hassle for legal vendors and buyers, so it can easily be seen as red tape to know end or deliberate inconvenience to discourage gun ownership, so like Conceal permits it would all be about the language and specifics. I have no strong objection to this
every law has a loophole, even the strictest versions. it's a measure that's supposed to stop the least determined criminals from getting a weapon. i'm glad to hear you have no strong objections, as i think this is the single most important piece of the current crop of legislation.
What do you mean by better? That's very vague. The law is the law, and should be enforced, at the same time, 'better enforcement' can get Orwellian real fast. Also, existing law enforcement isn't under congressional purview, it's the DOJ, state/local that does that. I don't think a piece of legislation is likely to include 'better law enforcement' without a prefix of in the hope that this will allow...
currently, the ATF only inspects gun dealerships once every 5 years for compliance with the laws. at best, they can only bring license revocations for the worst offenders, and only after they have repeat violations. in other words, a problem dealership can be in full violation of federal law, and the ATF can't do anything but suggest they have their license revoked, which can take 2 years, during which time they can continue selling guns as though there is no investigation. i would like to see the ATF have the power to perform the yearly inspection that the law already requires of them, and the ability to shut down problem dealers more quickly as i mentioned in the previous reply.
As above, prosecution of people violating the current law is not congresses concern, it's a matter for the local prosecutor, unless its a federal law, in which case its a matter for DOJ, not congress. I'm not generally going to object to trying anyone for a law they appear to have broken. So you're right on that one, you don't need to bargain with us, but then I can't recall the GOP or NRA saying we shouldn't prosecute apparent criminal action, regardless if we happen to think a given law is unjust. The thing is, I don't know what you mean by a history of selling to criminals, if they are selling to convicted felons by the drove it is a different story then if they are selling to a non-felon who is reselling, or if the purchases are being made by non-felons who then go become felons. These are all very different cases, which is why I said some of those examples were vague. Without some very detailed specifics I don't know if Tom's Gun Hut is selling guns ten times as often to criminal because they want to or if because the area just happens to have 10 times as many criminals and is a good gun spot because the high crime rate makes a lot of non-criminals want guns too.
Devil's in the details. What phrasing of legislation did you have in mind to achieve better enforcement and prosecution of existing laws?
in the grand scheme of things, i don't think it matters what the end user does with the gun if it is done with full compliance of the law. there is a shop called "Realco Guns" which sold 2500 guns used in crimes in and around the DC area. in one famous case, a convicted felon who was not allowed to possess a weapon took his girlfriend into the shop with him, pointed out which gun he wanted, had her fill out the background check, and went home with the gun even though it was registered in her name. this is the type of activity i am talking about when i say there should be better enforcement of existing laws. but since you also asked about specific legislation:
#1: give the ATF a director. Obama included this as one of his executive orders, but so far it has yet to be implemented. republicans (along with a select few dems) have prevented the ATF from filling the director's position for about 5+ years now and it's time to let them do their jobs by filling the position.
#2: repeal the Tiahrt amendment and give the ATF the power to fully enforce existing federal gun laws and collect data on guns used in crimes and gun safety for the sake of improving gun safety and improving existing regulations.
#3: pass the current legislation dealing with gun trafficking and let the police go after straw sales.
this last one is something the NRA has historically refused to publicly get behind. the only reason i can think of for the lack of support is that it is in the NRA's best interests to allow criminals to continue to buy guns on the black market, or else the idea of a gun for self defense is not as powerful an argument as it otherwise would be. since the NRA gets a kickback on every gun sold in the US, it only makes sense they want more people to buy more guns. by allowing straw sales to go unchecked and unprosecuted, the NRA can stand on the side and say "look how dangerous our country is! criminals are buying guns on the street right in our neighborhoods! we need a gun for home defense to protect ourselves from this threat!"
i will point out that i don't believe you have ever made this argument, but it is the only reason i can think of for having rhetoric which says we should keep guns out of the hands of criminals while simultaneously preventing the prosecution of criminals buying guns illegally.
"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
*NM*
- 22/03/2013 07:35:13 PM
568 Views