The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Giffords introduced a group of mostly Democratic former lawmakers, police chiefs and entrepreneurs that comprise the Granite State Coalition for Common Sense. They cited the number of Americans shot to death and the relative commonness of mass shootings as factors that beg action.

Capt. Mark Kelly, Giffords’s husband and co-founder of Americans For Responsible Solutions, said “loopholes” in state and federal law allow felons, domestic abusers and people who are “dangerously mentally ill” to buy guns without a background check at gun shows and online. Polling shows 85 percent of Americans would prefer that background checks are conducted for all gun sales, he said.

“We’re here to say it’s time for our leaders to finally do something about gun violence . . . that makes our country stand out in the worst of possible ways,” said the retired Navy veteran and NASA astronaut.

On Regulation
 

We favor root cause mitigation for violence prevention, stronger mental health care, addressing poverty, homelessness and unemployment rather than focusing on prohibiting or restricting one tool.

This includes opposition to the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, as well as restrictions on magazine capacity and this view is directly related to our preference on an enforcement approach to regulation.

 

We favor enforcement of existing regulations over the creation of new regulatory schemes.

We believe that additional regulation is too often political window dressing and does not serve to resolve the ills for which it is claimed as a cure. This includes the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, as well as proposed restrictions on magazine capacity.

 

We favor increased, accurate reporting by states for NICS reliability.

States should be provided with incentives to increase accurate reporting. Additionally, certain federal programs can and should share information with one another on items such as mental health state (Social Security Disability, for instance) and federal drug testing results. There also needs to be an appeal process for items innaccurately or inappropriately persisted into the records of individuals.

 

We are in favor of mandatory safety testing as a condition of licensing for CCW

Demonstrating proficiency is less expensive for the applicant than mandatory training, we believe this mitigates any arbitrary financial barriers to a permitting process. So long as permits are the law of the land, there should be some uniformity to them, allowing for a national reciprocity framework.

 

We favor minimum standards based national CCW reciprocity

In our opinion, this preserves states rights and doesn’t impose standardless permits on states that don’t want them.

sikacz wrote:This is my beginning point:

On Regulation
 

We favor root cause mitigation for violence prevention, stronger mental health care, addressing poverty, homelessness and unemployment rather than focusing on prohibiting or restricting one tool.

This includes opposition to the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, as well as restrictions on magazine capacity and this view is directly related to our preference on an enforcement approach to regulation.

 

We favor enforcement of existing regulations over the creation of new regulatory schemes.

We believe that additional regulation is too often political window dressing and does not serve to resolve the ills for which it is claimed as a cure. This includes the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, as well as proposed restrictions on magazine capacity.

 

We favor increased, accurate reporting by states for NICS reliability.

States should be provided with incentives to increase accurate reporting. Additionally, certain federal programs can and should share information with one another on items such as mental health state (Social Security Disability, for instance) and federal drug testing results. There also needs to be an appeal process for items innaccurately or inappropriately persisted into the records of individuals.

 

We are in favor of mandatory safety testing as a condition of licensing for CCW

Demonstrating proficiency is less expensive for the applicant than mandatory training, we believe this mitigates any arbitrary financial barriers to a permitting process. So long as permits are the law of the land, there should be some uniformity to them, allowing for a national reciprocity framework.

 

We favor minimum standards based national CCW reciprocity

In our opinion, this preserves states rights and doesn’t impose standardless permits on states that don’t want them.

It's familiar to many here.

I'm not in favor of new laws just to say "something" has been done.

shinzen wrote:I think a lot of people are open to a UBC. However, as noted above, the proposed implementation of said UBC isn't workable. There is zero reason for an FFL to have to be involved in the transaction. And as Dispo pointed out, the way the argument has been framed is disingenuous at best, as they are using any and all major events to push for one, even though the events that have happened wouldn't have been impacted in the slightest by the proposed legislation, which is where it really falls down.

It's been said before, but it bears repeating. Let's imagine that tomorrow we have the ideal for everyone UBC. Easy for private individuals to use, low/no cost, and a pre-approval code can be obtained and verified before meeting up with someone so a simple ID verification and good to go. Then another terrorist event happens or something similar.

Then what? At what point are we going to stop proposing legislation just to "do something" and start working on things that will actually make a difference?

inomaha wrote:If they would stop pulling out the same tired false arguments about loopholes, people might take them more seriously.

Where I'm at, you're required to have a handgun purchase permit to buy a handgun. It's $5 and good for 2 years. Most private sales I've done recently have required the person to have a CCW permit or a handgun purchase permit. Rifle, shotgun, or handgun. Private individuals don't want to deal with felons so they use the handgun system to screen them out.

That seems like a decent compromise. Basically a "I'm not a Felon" card that could be used for purchasing guns, general ID, or voting. Take all the background check money and put it into making that system free to the common person. It takes away all the voter disenfranchisement issues too, because to cut out voters they would have to cut out potential gun owners.

Is an ATF Form 4473 required when an unlicensed person sells or disposes a firearm?

No. The ATF Form 4473 is required only for sales or dispositions by a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer.

[18 U.S.C. 923(g); 27 CFR 478.124]

Q&A Category: 
ATF Form 4473
Last Reviewed September 4, 2015

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:I'm not against background checks. That's what they are pushing for. I think the logic that “Universal background checks will lead to registration, which will lead to gun confiscation. Period.” is a gun lobby talking point with no basis in fact. The 2A mob needs to take Red Dawn off endless loop and get some fresh air.

rascally wrote:I wonder how many of the people talking about the "gunshow and internet loophole" have ever actually tested it for themselves?

Catalyst wrote:I'm not opposed to UBCs either. But I believe it should come with some compromise. After all aren't the Antis asking for a conversation? So sure lets have the conversation. I support UBC as long as there is a push for National Reciprocity. And from here on out...anytime they want additional restrictions or controls, we should get additional rights such as doing away with silencers being an NFA item for example.

I'm all for having a conversation and compromise. I'm no longer for just outright lets give up everything to appease anyone.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

inomaha wrote:If they would stop pulling out the same tired false arguments about loopholes, people might take them more seriously.

Where I'm at, you're required to have a handgun purchase permit to buy a handgun. It's $5 and good for 2 years. Most private sales I've done recently have required the person to have a CCW permit or a handgun purchase permit. Rifle, shotgun, or handgun. Private individuals don't want to deal with felons so they use the handgun system to screen them out.

That seems like a decent compromise. Basically a "I'm not a Felon" card that could be used for purchasing guns, general ID, or voting. Take all the background check money and put it into making that system free to the common person. It takes away all the voter disenfranchisement issues too, because to cut out voters they would have to cut out potential gun owners.

Not sure where you are at but that is not universal. It will continue to be brought up as a loophole as long as there are places where you can buy a gun and walk out with a firearm with no background check. Granted most of these issues are State issues, but it doesn't help the overall issue.

sikacz wrote:Where? Link please. (Where weapons can be bought without Federal compliance).
Are you referring to private sales? This is not a loop hole.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/atf-for ... es-firearm

Is an ATF Form 4473 required when an unlicensed person sells or disposes a firearm?

No. The ATF Form 4473 is required only for sales or dispositions by a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer.

[18 U.S.C. 923(g); 27 CFR 478.124]

Q&A Category: 
ATF Form 4473
Last Reviewed September 4, 2015

Federal law does require the form on all transactions that cross state lines. Private sales are face to face and do not require a form or background check. Is this the "loop hole"?

sikacz wrote:Just for clarification, who is the "2A mob? Is it perhaps anyone who supports the second amendment? Or is it a more select group? Seems a bit wide at the moment.

Catalyst wrote:I'm not opposed to UBCs either. But I believe it should come with some compromise. After all aren't the Antis asking for a conversation? So sure lets have the conversation. I support UBC as long as there is a push for National Reciprocity. And from here on out...anytime they want additional restrictions or controls, we should get additional rights such as doing away with silencers being an NFA item for example.

I'm all for having a conversation and compromise. I'm no longer for just outright lets give up everything to appease anyone.

Catalyst wrote:I'm not opposed to UBCs either. But I believe it should come with some compromise. After all aren't the Antis asking for a conversation? So sure lets have the conversation. I support UBC as long as there is a push for National Reciprocity. And from here on out...anytime they want additional restrictions or controls, we should get additional rights such as doing away with silencers being an NFA item for example.

I'm all for having a conversation and compromise. I'm no longer for just outright lets give up everything to appease anyone.

atxgunguy wrote:

Catalyst wrote:I'm not opposed to UBCs either. But I believe it should come with some compromise. After all aren't the Antis asking for a conversation? So sure lets have the conversation. I support UBC as long as there is a push for National Reciprocity. And from here on out...anytime they want additional restrictions or controls, we should get additional rights such as doing away with silencers being an NFA item for example.

I'm all for having a conversation and compromise. I'm no longer for just outright lets give up everything to appease anyone.

Agreed on all counts. We've all been vetted and should have more privileges for going the extra mile with Uncle Sam.

DispositionMatrix wrote:

atxgunguy wrote:

Catalyst wrote:I'm not opposed to UBCs either. But I believe it should come with some compromise. After all aren't the Antis asking for a conversation? So sure lets have the conversation. I support UBC as long as there is a push for National Reciprocity. And from here on out...anytime they want additional restrictions or controls, we should get additional rights such as doing away with silencers being an NFA item for example.

I'm all for having a conversation and compromise. I'm no longer for just outright lets give up everything to appease anyone.

Agreed on all counts. We've all been vetted and should have more privileges for going the extra mile with Uncle Sam.

To keep things in perspective, the RKBA is actually a right, regardless of how much gun restrictionists promote the idea it is a privilege.