Las Vegas Shootings

[jackfaire]

If the government decides to go door to door searching for guns the a LOT of folks will die with a warrant or not.
Who do think the government will get to do these searches and confiscations?

I think that was their point. The fact that no one would and it would never happen. Yet it's the basis for the argument against any sane laws preventing people from getting the weapons they need to do things like Vegas.

The first response to any "let's figure out why this happens and how to stop it" is "no you can't because then they'll try to take all of our guns"

[Tanasi]

If the government decides to go door to door searching for guns the a LOT of folks will die with a warrant or not.
Who do think the government will get to do these searches and confiscations?

[s_stabeler]

I wondered if this would come up. If I may be blunt, if the government wanted to confiscate all guns, then they would be more likely to send people door-to-door searching. (yes, I am aware of the 4th amendment. However, pro-gun supporters already allege they have the right to own guns due to the 2nd amendment- so, if they are right, the government would be breaking two amendments, rather than one. not unrealistic. If they are wrong, the government could ban guns, then get search warrants.) If you used your guns to try to stop them, then that is not going to go well for you.

[Tanasi]

Except their records are paper. It's really hard to track infractions if you have to wade through physical reams of paper in audits. In many states however gun lobbyists have managed to get it made illegal to computerize records. If a gun store wanted to digitize their records of gun sales and the paperwork that goes along with them they would be in violation of laws designed specifically to make reinforcing current laws more difficult.

Dealers are required by the BATFE to only use approved Bound books to record their firearms transactions. I'm not sure if it was ever approved but some software developers were testing an electronic version. I keep a bound book and with my C&R license my book is subject to an annual inspection and believe me they check for removed pages. The pages are numbered and you'd better have one hell of a good reason for removing the page because you could get 5 to 10 years at club fed and $250K fines.
The computerization of purchase has to do with the BATFE of scanning and storing bound books that have been turned into the BATFE. Also the FBI isn't allowed to retain records of NICs checks I think for longer than 90 days. A big stink came about in he 90's because the FBI was indefinitely retaining those records when the law specifically says they can't.
The fear is that the "government" will start a list of gun owners and what they own. Some will say that owners are being paranoid but both NYC and CA registration lists have been used for confiscation purposes. Speaking for myself it's no ones business what I own nor is it my business what you own. Everything I have I acquired within the law, I have been offered "deals" that I thought were too good that I passed on after I asked for it to be NIC checked (stolen.)

[Greenday]

The store owners can also sell to a person legally w/o knowing it's actually a straw purchase. A straw purchase is when a person who can legally purchase guns does so with the intent on selling them to people who cannot legally purchase guns.

Should a store or person that in good faith the followed the laws regarding the product be held responsible when the product is used outside the law?
When does the responsibility end?
How many in this thread have actually bought a firearm or ammo?

What I'm saying (And it happens plenty according to what few studies have been done) is that stores who sell to Person A KNOWING they are going to turn around and give it to Person B are not getting punished. Because of laws protecting stores from being sued when someone buys a gun from the store and commits a crime with it, these stores knowingly aiding straw purchases don't get punished.

And I'm in the process of applying for my license to purchase.

[s_stabeler]

I actually also suspect that the Second Andendment was never intended to be as broad as it is currently interpreted.

A little history lesson here: up until sometime in the 19th century, it was actually a legal requirement in the UK to keep certain weapons in the house. (the specific weapons varied by your income) and I suspect it is that- those weapons were intended for use if necessary to defend the country- that the Founders had in mind- that people could be called up to defend the country at need, possibly instead of having a standing army.

Also, remember that this was the era when judicial duels were legal- even if they fell out of favour fairly soon afterwards. Killing someone over a matter of private honour is also no longer acceptable- however, there was a time when the right to issue a challenge was considered a fundamental right - because it was seen as some insults deserving death at the hands of the insulted. As such, I do believe that a conversation is needed about if the Second Amendment should be repealed or not. (however, for obvious reasons, it should not be disregarded in the meantime)

[jackfaire]

If a FFL holder knowingly sells or bypasses the law they are already liable according to current law. Licensed dealers that regularly "forget" to dot the Is and cross the Ts risk their license at the least and prison and/or fines at worst. There many rules and laws the licensed dealers must follow just on the federal level, then add on state, local and insurance carrier regulations.

Except their records are paper. It's really hard to track infractions if you have to wade through physical reams of paper in audits. In many states however gun lobbyists have managed to get it made illegal to computerize records. If a gun store wanted to digitize their records of gun sales and the paperwork that goes along with them they would be in violation of laws designed specifically to make reinforcing current laws more difficult.

[mjr]

It seems like one of the big issues seems to revolve around wording of 2A. It reads, in full:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In the full context, what does "the right of the people" mean?

Remember, 1A, which says this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This also mentions "the right of the people".

So are we looking at two different definitions?

"The right of the people" is also mentioned in 4A, 5A (but in a singular sense, and it separates "person" from "militia") 10A in a way.

The rest generally refer to "citizens".

So I suppose the question, again, is one of wording.

[Tanasi]

If a FFL holder knowingly sells or bypasses the law they are already liable according to current law. Licensed dealers that regularly "forget" to dot the Is and cross the Ts risk their license at the least and prison and/or fines at worst. There many rules and laws the licensed dealers must follow just on the federal level, then add on state, local and insurance carrier regulations.
For private sellers laws vary state to state. Some states require nothing (the gun show loop-hole) some states require licensed dealers be involved.
Other than a few dealers stepping up and admitting they solder that goomer a firearm(s) not much has been said as to how he acquired his firearms. They're also saying he was using "bump-stop" stocks and the rifles weren't full-auto (I can't validate the accuracy so take that with a grain of salt.)
The only thing I know for sure that guy had to have a screw loose.

[s_stabeler]

The store owners can also sell to a person legally w/o knowing it's actually a straw purchase. A straw purchase is when a person who can legally purchase guns does so with the intent on selling them to people who cannot legally purchase guns.

That's why I suggested making the person who makes the straw purchase liable, since they definitely do know they are intended to go to someone not legally allowed to purchase a gun.

You don't know when a person might go off their rocker or have their guns stolen and subsequently used in a crime.

There's not a lot you can do about cases when someone genuinely does "go off their rocker", though I'll point out that all- or almost all, I can't remember how much Sandy Hook was planned out in advance by the shooter- actual mass shootings weren't actually a case of a sudden snap. All of them were planned out in advance.
As for someone having their guns stolen, that's true- which is why I suggested that requiring greater security on firearms might help, if that turns out to be the main source of firearms used in crime. At no point did i suggest the legitimate owner be liable.

I do, however, think that there is a specific circumstance when the store owner should be liable. If a store owner deliberately bypasses normal procedures for verifying a purchase is not a straw purchase- and/or normal background checks- then they should be liable on the grounds that it was a deliberate act by the storeowner not to follow usual procedures.

[Tanasi]

Should a store or person that in good faith the followed the laws regarding the product be held responsible when the product is used outside the law?
When does the responsibility end?
How many in this thread have actually bought a firearm or ammo?

[jackfaire]

Because in the end, as a society we decided that this is acceptable.

No we as a society did not. The supreme court and gun manufacturers redefined the 2nd Amendment. We as a society didn't get a say.

[Cia]

You can't always blame the gun store owners, I don't know if it's the same with long guns but with handguns the store owners have to call the FBI and report the purchasers information before they can walk out of the store with the gun.

The store owners can also sell to a person legally w/o knowing it's actually a straw purchase. A straw purchase is when a person who can legally purchase guns does so with the intent on selling them to people who cannot legally purchase guns.

You don't know when a person might go off their rocker or have their guns stolen and subsequently used in a crime.

[s_stabeler]

While I support gun control myself- and I suspect admitting that may well mean some people don't actually read what I say- I'll freely admit that what really needs to happen is identifying where the guns used are coming from- and tailoring legislation to choke off criminal's supply of guns. (for instance, if it's straw purchases, then off the top of my head, making the straw purchaser liable for what the gun was used for would help discourage the practice. If it's theft from legitimate owners, then require legitimate owners of guns to secure them better, and so on)

[TheHuckster]

Too much of the debate is about what gun control can and cannot prevent.

Yes, you can have all the gun control you want, and it isn't going to prevent all massacres. For all intents and purposes, this massacre probably wouldn't have been prevented from gun control. However it can still reduce gun crime through Greenday's moderate solution.

I don't want to take everyone's guns away. I think use of them for sport and even self-defense is something we should defend as a right. However, we really really need to tighten the regulations to help reduce gun crime, which is a rampant and pandemic issue. For all of these high profile events there are dozens of underreported events all over the place.

I just have problems with there being so much protection for those who sell guns. Because of laws protecting them, they can't be held responsible if someone purchases a gun to use a crime. Even if it's been an obvious straw purchase, holding gun shops responsible in court has been severely challenging.

I haven't done much research on the whole seller side of the issue, however it sounds like we are spending more time holding liquor stores accountable for selling Bud Light to 19 year olds than we are for gun store owners for selling guns to unauthorized people.