‘Historic’ action by justice department closes ‘doggone dangerous’ loophole in Biden administration’s fight against gun violence
The sale of firearms on the internet and at gun shows in the US will in future be subject to mandatory background checks, the justice department said on Thursday as it announced a “historic” new action to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.
The closing of the so-called gun show loophole, which exempts private transactions from restrictions that apply to licensed dealers, has long been a goal of the Biden administration, and is specifically targeted in the rule published in the federal register today.
…
The White House estimates that 22% of guns owned by Americans were acquired without a background check and that about 23,000 more individuals will be required to be licensed as a dealer after the rule’s implementation.
Can you enforce a background check on every sale without a national gun registry?
LiberalGunNut™ here. I sure as hell don’t want a national registry. As we slide further into fascism, you want a man like Trump knowing who has what?
And no, it really can’t be enforced. Guys like me will obey the law and other won’t, just as it is now.
As a liberal gun owner myself I agree with you 100%. The closet thing to enforcement, I think, would be what I posted earlier: hold the seller legally liable in some sense for any crime committed with a gun that was sold to an individual without a background check. Add additional penalties for if the background check would have disqualified the buyer from purchase.
Obviously the sale would have to be proven, but that’s the only thing I can come up with to “enforce” or encourage compliance.
Further, you could pass laws to hold gun owners liable for not reasonably or responsibly securing their firearms in a similar fashion. Sure if someone breaks into your house, prys open your safe or lock box and takes your gun, then you are protected. But if you let your 18 year old have cart blanche access to all of your guns (unlocked or maybe given him access) and he shoots up a school? You are an accessory/liable/criminally negligent.
I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know what that law would need to look like but it does seem like some level of progress.
We just got our first case law for just that - meet the Crumbleys.
I’m on board for safe storage laws and enforcement for those that break them, but it will be interesting seeing how this comes out from appeals, given the manslaughter charge.
This has always been my conundrum.
Do we give into the “sacrifice your liberty for safety” type thinking or do we see the actions of a man like Trump for what it really is: writing on the wall for something much worse to come.
One day it won’t be a buffoon like Trump, it will be a calculated and intelligent person. It’s not a conspiracy theory anymore, Trump showed us the cracks in the foundation, we can choose to ignore it whenever the guy in office wears a blue tie, or we can take note for whats to come.
But again, on one hand, kids dying isn’t cool, but on the other, setting ourselves up for a potential systematic oppression also sounds pretty bad. We have enough systematic oppression as it is
Not to say Trump is my sole factor for having these beliefs, I’ve always tangled with the issues of safety and liberty when it comes to gun laws.
The thing is, kids dying is a cultural and social problem, not a gun problem. Mass shootings didn’t start until the early 90s and they didn’t really become “popular” until after Columbine. Mass shootings have been accessible and practical for far longer than that.
I want to stop then as much as the next person, but the source of the problem is the isolation and perceived injustice of a particular demographic within whom mass shootings are a popular form of lashing out. E.G. “They’ve made me feel small and impotent for too long! I’ll show them how much of a man I really am!” Taking away the guns, even if it were practical, would just cause a shift in tactics (see: Toronto van attack).
We need to make these people feel valued and supported. We need to fix so many different aspects of our social services and economic landscape. The problems they’re facing are the same problems a lot of other people are facing, so fixing them would lead to a better life for a huge pile of people.
Even without a registry, that makes selling it without a check a clear crime.
Now as long as the seller “doesn’t know” the buyer can’t pass a background, that gives them plausible deniability. Which has the unintended effect of sellers not even asking the name of the buyer.
If every “private seller” knew they were breaking the law, and there was a good chance they’d be prosecuted if caught, they’d be a lot more likely to follow the law and go thru a FFL.
We don’t need to only do something that works 100% of the time, working 90% is still pretty good too…
I wonder if you could make it where you could be considered an accessory to a crime if you sold a gun without a background check to a person who then committed a crime with it.
But I hear you, dont let perfection be the enemy of good.
That wouldn’t be reliable to trace gun ownership history without the GOP-contested national gun registry. I’d even be for a “states’ rights” solution similar to how vehicle ownership is tracked via the Title with the state’s DMV. It will never be perfect, but “not perfect” shouldn’t be the blocker of “any action at all”.
We have that in Mich, for pistols anyway. Which is kinda surprising since this state is otherwise very pro-firearm (no waiting period, no mandatory safety stuff, etc)
Failure to update a transfer for a pistol in Michigan is a misdemeanor, so it’s not that oppressive, just really annoying.
That’d be quite a bunch of bullshit if they did. Those should stay two separate laws with two separate punishments.
Most of us who private sale do not sell to people who don’t have ccws, or aren’t in good standing with the communities we all take part in. On top of that, criminals will not follow this law and those that do will just do what they already do. Straw purchases.
I have never witnessed any seller give any thought to wether the buy had a CCW or not.
I have. Multiple times.
It does seem like a reasonable cya for selling to some one but I’ve just never seen it happen. The attitude around me tends to be indifference at best and more often contempt for performing any inquiries into the buyer’s eligibility.
Anecdotal, but I’ve read comments in the past exactly like OPs.
I get that argument “on paper” but i don’t know that there is evidence to support that in reality. I’d probably say most people already responsibly sell their guns, but there are plenty of people who don’t do any due diligence.
Those well intentioned people don’t have the tools to properly do a background check to confirm and those people that just don’t do any due diligence would both benefit from this type of law.
Obviously criminals who have no intent to ever comply would still do their thing, but it would be a good thing to give the well intentioned people the ability and requirement to do their due diligence.
Also, it sounds like those people that don’t sell to non-ccws already tacitly support this idea. They are using a CCW as a proxy for a background check.
We really do need a registry.