Apply background checks for gun purchases to voting

Then present any and all citations of exactly where these arguments have been made, and by whom. Present the quotes to back up and verify your argument, and prove that it is indeed factual.

 

Your argument seems to be that illegal transfers occur because criminals ignore the laws regarding illegal transfers, so we should make legal transfers illegal to somehow reduce illegal transfers.

 

It isn't supposed to make sense to reasoned people.

 

They take advantage of holes in the system. Like private sales. Closing those holes will make it harder for them to obtain weapons, driving up costs, and, as we all know, higher costs leader to lower sales.

YOUR ideas on the other hand create an actual gold mine of weapons easily obtainable with little or no risk and at no premium over normal sales channels. That's why the criminals and terrorists love the NRA.

 

I doubt Dems anymore than Pubs believe a national ID/voting card is a bad idea.

"Papers, please"

 

By "closing those holes" you do indeed mean making currently legal actions illegal. Most criminal get their guns from straw purchases, corrupt FFL diversions, illegal street sales and theft, all of which are already felonies and none of which will be affected by any requirement to conduct background checks for private sales. Without comprehensive registration, you can't even enforce UBCs. The intended purpose of UBCs isn't to stop bad guys from selling to bad guys; it's to prevent transfers from good guys to bad guys. We have no reason to even care if good guys transfer to other good guys. Higher costs only matter if the demand is flexible. That's not a certainty.

Please explain how locking up criminals that we catch or can actually catch "creates a gold mine". I want to enforce the laws that we have now, like 4473 violation, straw purchases, and actually getting arrested for a gun crime.

 

There are no holes in the system. The federal government DOES NOT have authority to regulate private party firearm sales. That authority would come from the state the sale occurred in.

 

That, and any such regulation is unenforceable, absent universal registration.
This is their goal.
We do not wonder why.

 

Except that such is not the case. In fact it is known by yourself that such is not the case, otherwise evidence supporting such claims. There are no loopholes being exploited that make a sale legal, there are only laws that are being broken.

In the state of California, there are no private sales of firearms. Every transaction must go through a federally licensed dealer, and a background check performed. Every single firearm must be registered to the legal owner through the state, no exceptions. The state of California has a record of every legal firearm that is owned, who owns it, and where they keep it, no exceptions.

Despite all of the above facts, the ATF has determined that the majority of firearms found in possession of criminals within the state of California, were originally sold in the state of California to begin with, in compliance with all of their various restrictions.

https://www.atf.gov/docs/163532-caatfwebsite15pdf/download

Approximately forty five percent of all the firearms retrieved in the state of California, came from the state of California to begin with. The second highest amount originated in the state of Arizona, and amounted to less than four percent of the total. This is followed by the state of Nevada at less than three percent. Of the remaining twelve states, percentages amount to one percent or less.

This means that thousands of those who underwent a background check, testified that they were the intended purchaser of the firearm, and registered the firearm in their name, turned around and trafficked these firearms to known criminals in a manner that is known to be illegal, all with no regard for the legal consequences of their actions.

So what pray tell. Exactly what loopholes are in place in the state of California, that are being exploited by criminals and terrorists?

 

You mean selling guns to people who shouldn't have them?
You mean selling guns as an unlicensed dealer?
You mean selling guns to and through strawmen?

Yeah, making all that illegal.

Of course you will say we can't get every strawman so we should just not even try which is exactly what the criminals and terrorists want you to say.

 

Yeah, they do.

Check the ruling used by the government as authority to regulate marijuana.

<Mod Edit- Rule 3>

 

UBCs won't affect the acquisition price of guns from straw purchases or FFL diversions at all, nor of theft.

 

The law requiring gun dealers to perform an nics check on all buyers is derived through the commerce clause. The commerce clause does not give congress authority to regulate commerce within a state. Commerce that does not cross state lines is regulated my that state. The fed can't even use the commerce clause to regulate marijuana. It is the right of the state to criminalize or decriminalize marijuana use. The fed cannot force a state to enforce federal law. It is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. The fed also cannot enforce state laws without permission of the elected sheriff of the county.

 

Raise the cost on firearms that are known to be used in terrorist, and criminal, activities, via a tax. For example if a particular sidearm is used more then another type, tax the sh*t out of it. Like the cigarette tax.

 

... and violate the constitution.

 

Sure it will in combination with limits on quantities for people who are not licensed dealers and similar regulations.

But you think it won't stop every illegal transaction so we should just not even try.

Terrorists and criminals are big supporters of your position.

 

You obviously did not look up the SCOTUS ruling that brings in state pot transaction under federal control.

Some help for the willfully ignorant...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

"Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity."

In that totally tortured logic you buying a gun in Texas, for example, could impact the price of guns in, say, Florida therefore it's an interstate commerce thing.

Yeah, crazy logic but that's what lawyers do.

 

Limitations on purchases? What will you think of next.

Terrorists and criminals will continue to buy the guns they want through straw purchases, corrupt FFLs and illegal street sellers who get their guns from the first two sources.

The Pulse shooter passed a background check. The San Bernardino shooters used a straw purchaser. UBCs don't stop people with no criminal records.

I'd love to have Sen Tom Coburn's background check process in place. It would allow good guys to easily vet potential buyers and not sell to bad guys. That's the only useful purpose of UBCs - to prevent good guys from selling to bad guys. We don't care about transfers between good guys and bad guys will ignore the requirement. Without comprehensive registration it's all voluntary, anyway.

 

That's the same reasoning that says the government could restrict the growing of tomatoes in your backyard for home consumption because of its possible impact on interstate trade. It's a blatant abuse of power not intended by the Framers.

 

Not feasible. Most criminals don't purchase via retailers so the impact would be just a pass-through from the straw buyer. Most of these transactions are private party and in most cases they won't collect taxes.

Plus, taxing is probably unconstitutional if its intent is to limit legitimate supply.

 

So, if you're going to buy, oh, say, more than 2 firearms per month you need to register as a licensed dealer.

What's the problem?

 

Don't talk to me. Talk to the "conservatives" on the court.

 

Why would I need to register as a licensed dealer to buy more than two guns? That in and of itself doesn't make me a licensed dealer.

Are you aware of the requirements to be an FFL?

 

Don't feed the troll