CHL Stops Church Shooting

[divil]

The Columbus shooters received their firearms through a straw purchase by a friend who was of legal age to purchase through FFLs. IIRC, the friend was not charged and went on the Brady tour speaking out for background checks in 1999.

Columbine? I was reading about this recently - there were 3 people involved in acquiring the guns: two went to prison (6 years and 4 1/2 years I think) because it was a handgun, and the other one wasn't charged. She bought 3 of the 4 guns used in a private sale at a gun show (the 2 shotguns and the 9mm carbine). She wasn't charged with anything because she didn't make any false statements on a 4473 (since it was a private sale) and she didn't transfer any handguns to minors.

https://web.archive.org/web/20010221...003robyn.shtml

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Sequins

Despite this, I'm coming down on the opinion that it might be best if we simply open the NICS system to the general public and allow all citizens to call and run a background check at no personal expense, and mandate that they do so.

This idea has been discussed at length in the L&CR subforum, and IMHO it is a very bad idea for the following reasons:

• The system will be vulnerable to misuse, both from pranksters and trolls (picture SJW college students making tens of thousands of prank calls on Black Friday to sandbag sporting goods retailers during their holiday sales), and from ostensibly well-meaning folks using it to conduct spurious background checks on potential employees, dating partners, and so forth;
• The system will get badly bogged down by novices who don't have any idea what they're doing when they call;
• A big budget increase will be necessary to handle the additional call volume, particularly from the novices, and
• There is potential for serious and malicious criminal abuse, e.g. ex-spouse in a custody battle knows that his former spouse is a prohibited person due to an old drug conviction, and he "SWATs" her by pretending he's a gun-show seller, calling in a phony NICS check, and when she flunks, claiming that some other seller must not have called because she's already walking around with two AR-15s.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Sequins

Despite this, I'm coming down on the opinion that it might be best if we simply open the NICS system to the general public and allow all citizens to call and run a background check at no personal expense, and mandate that they do so. No 4473 or anything just the NICS check. This change would silence the private sale critics with no real reduction in rights or burden imposed if handled properly.

So then are all states going to end up like Washington (state), where you have to run a background check before you can lend your .22 plinker to your brother to take for a week on a camping trip, or even just for an afternoon at the range?

I think it would be a mistake to cave on this. Before we agree to ANY new laws, the usual suspects should focus on fixing the flaws in the Byzantine system they have already created. We have already had multiple Congresscritters in Washington (DC) proposing new laws to close "loopholes" that are actually already well covered by the existing laws. They have no idea what the current laws require and allow -- they just want to pass more new laws because ... well we have to do SOMETHING!

When do we just say, "ENOUGH, already," and admit that it's simply not possible to pass enough laws to absolutely prevent evil people from committing evil deeds? That has been a fact of life since before the beginning of recorded history. Someone who is determined will find a way. Look at this guy's history -- according to reports, while he was in a mental facility after beating his wife and stepchild, he was using the facility's computers to order guns that he wanted sent to a post office box so he could use them to shoot his commanding officer (actually, the report said "chain of command," so perhaps more than just his CO). And then he jumped a fence and boogied. How many laws were broken long before he acquired that first firearm in Colorado?

I read an article shortly after the Sandy Hook school shooting that ran down the number of laws that were broken in that one incident. Remember, the hue and cry then, as now, was to pass more laws. The article came up with 22 (yes, TWENTY-TWO) laws that were broken in the Sandy Hook incident. How can any sane, rational person believe that piling JUST ONE MORE law on top of those TWENTY-TWO laws that were broken could possibly have prevented the incident? That's just not logical or credible.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

I think it would be a mistake to cave on this. Before we agree to ANY new laws, the usual suspects should focus on fixing the flaws in the Byzantine system they have already created. We have already had multiple Congresscritters in Washington (DC) proposing new laws to close "loopholes" that are actually already well covered by the existing laws. They have no idea what the current laws require and allow -- they just want to pass more new laws because ... well we have to do SOMETHING!

Exactly.

A big part of the problem with making the current system (such as it is) work is that no one -- not the states, not the feds -- is willing to fund the reporting systems required to transfer information such as involuntary mental health commitments from state agencies to the NICS system. Until lawmakers are willing to spend the money to make the existing mechanisms work, passing new laws is the purest hypocrisy.

[rickyrick]

So then are all states going to end up like Washington (state), ....

It happened in Oregon in a public manner when the pastor gave an AR15 won in a raffle to someone to hold until it could be destroyed and it wasn’t enforced

[SonOfScubaDiver]

I heard on the news yesterday that, in the last 10 years, the military has only submitted one domestic violence conviction to the FBIs database. The reason for this is because the military justice system does not have a separate domestic violence charge. It's covered under assault. So, if a soldier gets a bad conduct discharge for domestic violence, it goes into the records as an assault charge, which does not bar him from purchasing guns. A dishonorable discharge, for any reason, does bar soldiers from buying guns. That's a pretty big loophole that needs to be addressed.

[DaleA]

It happened in Oregon in a public manner when the pastor gave an AR15 won in a raffle to someone to hold until it could be destroyed and it wasn’t enforced

Well yes, but the pastor was a vocal, out spoken gun CRITIC who did not like guns at all, so of course the law was not suppose to target HIM and, of course, when it was revealed who he was, there were, again OF COURSE, there were no charges filed.

(where is the dripping sarcasm icon?)

[rickyrick]

I don’t think it should’ve been enforced, really, wouldn’t have done anything for the greater good. I don’t think it should be a crime for an adult to gift a gun to his pops either.
However, there’s a possibility that some rules were already in effect that weren’t followed.
The guy was a time bomb and may have still gotten a gun, who knows at this point.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

I don’t think it should’ve been enforced, really, wouldn’t have done anything for the greater good.

Doesn't matter.

My great-grandfather, the law professor, taught us that laws that are enforced selectively or arbitrarily and capriciously are worse than no laws at all, because selective enforcement creates disrespect for the rule of law. If a law is enacted that doesn't contain exceptions, then it must be enforced with no exceptions. If it isn't, nobody knows when and where it will be enforced and when and where it will be ignored. If the people who enacted the law didn't want it to apply to anti-gun men of the cloth, they should have written that into the law.

[JohnKSa]

...laws that are enforced selectively or arbitrarily and capriciously are worse than no laws at all, because selective enforcement creates disrespect for the rule of law. If a law is enacted that doesn't contain exceptions, then it must be enforced with no exceptions. If it isn't, nobody knows when and where it will be enforced and when and where it will be ignored.

YES! I agree completely.

I do NOT agree with all the laws we have on the book, but I do feel VERY strongly that they should ALL be impartially and uniformly enforced just as they are written.

Not only does selective/capricious/arbitrary enforcement cause disrespect for the laws, it also creates a situation where the system and the people in the system can legally discriminate against some citizens by enforcing the laws against them while not enforcing the laws against others.

The gun control laws passed in the South after the Civil War were a perfect example. They were never meant to be enforced against whites--there's even a quote from a FL judge explicitly stating that fact.

If a law exists, it needs to be enforced all the time and against all offenders.

If society doesn't want that law enforced or thinks that uniform/universal/impartial enforcement is problematic then it needs to be taken off the books.

[44 AMP]

If society doesn't want that law enforced or thinks that uniform/universal/impartial enforcement is problematic then it needs to be taken off the books.

I so agree, however, in the real world it so seldom happens. Laws are almost never taken off the books. Enforcement may be abandoned, but the laws themselves almost always stay on the books.

I believe laws supporting slavery and the "Jim Crow" laws have actually been removed, but many, many other laws remain, and simply are not enforced.

The more amusing ones are often collected and published in "stupid laws that still exist" type lists.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I so agree, however, in the real world it so seldom happens. Laws are almost never taken off the books. Enforcement may be abandoned, but the laws themselves almost always stay on the books.

The key word being "almost."

Two or three decades ago I was heavily involved in getting a stupid state law (unrelated to firearms) repealed in my state. It was a law that had been on the books for over 80 years, and in that time had resulted in NO convictions. It was enforced very sporadically. It was also written so poorly that very few people even understood what it really said. The most recent time someone was charged, it went to trial. The prosecution went through its dog and pony show, after which the defense said simply, "The defense moves to dismiss."

The judge asked what the grounds were, and the defense attorney explained that the law, parsed to its essence, prohibited two specific actions. None of the testimony produced by the prosecution in any way showed that the defendant had engaged in either of the two prohibited actions. The judge considered for about a minute, read the law again, and said "Case dismissed."

After that, a group, of which I became a part, started a drive to repeal the law. We were successful in our first try.

It can be done, but you have to do your homework and you have to know who the key legislators are and how to approach them.