Why are background checks such a nonstarter?

[Daan]

But ms maggie wants to use examples that she thinks support her irrational fears, and when shown that the example does not support her hysteria, she never replies.

She wanted to use the case of some mental patient from PA who went to NM and bought a regulated firearm without a background check, which he used to shoot up a clinic in Pgh.

However, upon closer look we learn that the sale was already illegal under the GCA of 1968. The seller in NM illegally sold the two guns.

Does she actually think that a background check law (in addition to the laws already in place designed to prevent it) would have stopped the illegal sale?

The grab-nutters are desperate - they see the numbers, they know these measures are not going to get through the House. They'll resort to lies to support their hysteria, as we've seen all too often in this thread.

If John McCain is right, it won't get through the Senate either.

I believe his response on the issue was a flat "NO".

.

[ms maggie]

It was already a crime for the private seller in NM to sell the regulated firearms to the out of state resident.
And it has been a crime to do so for 45 years.

I guess they're not "catching on too quickly" are they?

In a pre-arranged meeting last spring in New Mexico, John Karnis legally sold a young man two handguns, an extra ammunition clip and ammo for $810.

The cash transaction in an Albuquerque strip mall, resulting from a newspaper classified ad, took only 10 minutes to complete. At the time, it was an uneventful meeting [B]in a state where private parties can sell guns anywhere they choose without background checks and paperwork.

In New Mexico, a handgun sale between private parties can be made if the buyer is 18 or older, is not a convicted felon and is a resident of the state, but there is no background check. By contrast, in Pennsylvania, the buyer in a private handgun sale must be 21 with no criminal or mental health commitment history. The buyer and seller must complete paperwork about their backgrounds that is then processed by a licensed gun dealer who performs a computerized background check


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...#ixzz2HxvUFfel

Last time. The buyer had a fake NM ID and a history of mental illness. Which a background check would have uncovered.

Mr. Karnis said Mr. Shick showed him an identification card from New Mexico; it was not a driver's license, but he can't remember where it was from. He asked Mr. Shick if he was a convicted felon, and he said, "No." He did not ask him if he had been committed to a mental institution because the state's law for gun sales does not require a seller to do so.

Four months earlier, Mr. Shick tried unsuccessfully to purchase a gun in Portland, Ore., but was blocked because he had been committed to a mental institution in that city in January 2010. That commitment -- which Port of Portland police petitioned for after Mr. Shick assaulted an officer and yelled nonsensically -- precluded him from buying a weapon from gun dealers in that state. In Oregon, as in Pennsylvania, those who have been committed to a mental facility cannot possess firearms.


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...#ixzz2Hxx8pJd2

[Jeebus]

Last time.

...and is a resident of the state.

Last time.

[ms maggie]

...and is a resident of the state.

Last time.

He wasn't a resident of NM. A background check would have made that plain, as well as his commitment history.

You are illustrating the problem--the laws are inadequate and a swiss cheese attempt to regulate. This guy who sold a non-resident with a history of mental illness guns, he didn't break any laws--he claims he saw some kind of ID, interestingly enough not a drivers license--which elegantly highlights the problem.

[Jeebus]

He wasn't a resident of NM.

Which made the sale illegal under the existing GCA of 1968, a law that has been in place for 45 years, yet not followed.

You are illustrating the problem--the laws are inadequate and a swiss cheese attempt to regulate. This guy who sold a non-resident with a history of mental illness guns, he didn't break any laws--he claims he saw some kind of ID, interestingly enough not a drivers license--which elegantly highlights the problem.

You also illustrate the problem with criminals who illegally sell regulated firearms-they ignore the law.

The seller already broke one Federal Law by selling to an out-of-state resident, what makes you think he would have submitted the buyer to a background check?

News flash - people engaged in crimes are called criminals. Criminals by definition are people who do not obey laws.

Of course.

[ms maggie]

Which made the sale illegal under the existing GCA of 1968, a law that has been in place for 45 years, yet not followed.



You also illustrate the problem with criminals who illegally sell regulated firearms-they ignore the law.

The seller already broke one Federal Law by selling to an out-of-state resident, what makes you think he would have submitted the buyer to a background check?

News flash - people engaged in crimes are called criminals. Criminals by definition are people who do not obey laws.

Of course.

He did not break NM law. He asked for ID and claims he got it. There is no paperwork to fill out, no background check. So if he is shown a fake ID, oh well.

Note, the seller has not been arrested or prosecuted. Again, oh well.

This guy tried to buy from a private seller in Oregon but because of the laws re background checks in Oregon, he was turned down.

[Jeebus]

He did not break NM law.

He broke a FEDERAL law when he sold a regulated firearm to an out of state resident.

If the ID was fake, it was STILL illegal.

Why can't you understand that?

[ms maggie]

He broke a FEDERAL law when he sold a regulated firearm to an out of state resident.

If the ID was fake, it was STILL illegal.

Why can't you understand that?

I understand the law is a joke. Is the seller in jail? No. Was he prosecuted? No. Was he fined? No. His word that he asked for an ID is sufficient under this "law".

[Jeebus]

I understand the law is a joke. Is the seller in jail? No. Was he prosecuted? No. Was he fined? No. His word that he asked for an ID is sufficient under this "law".

So instead of trying to pass another law that may be ignored, why not enforce the one that is already here?

BTW - were any of the Mexicans in F&F gun sales by the US Govt subjected to background checks?