Fed legislation introduced to require gun show background checks

[ericire12]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lautenberg-renews-push-to-shut-gun-show-loophole-2009-04-21.html

Several high-ranking senators led by Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) on Tuesday relaunched their push to require gun sellers to conduct background checks on purchases of all types of guns at state gun shows.

On the heels of the 10-year anniversary of the Columbine shootings the lawmakers pushed to close the gun show “loophole” that exists in more than 30 states.

These states do not require personal gun sellers, who are authorized to hawk their own firearms at gun shows, to conduct a background check on buyers of the guns. This allows people with criminal histories to easily obtain weapons like those used in the Columbine killings, according to lawmakers.

Measures similar to Lautenberg’s bill have passed the Senate twice before but have failed to pass the House because of pressure from gun lobbying organizations like the National Rifle Association, said Lautenberg, who was joined Tuesday by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

“There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole,” said Lautenberg, the bill’s sponsor. “The reason it’s still not closed issimple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington.”

The NRA strongly opposes requiring background checks on the personal sale of firearms, saying that such mandates could extend into gun deals that take place in the homes of Americans, which would infringe on the gun rights spelled out in the Second Amendment.

The NRA has also said that guns used in crimes, like those used in the killings at Virginia Tech nearly two years ago, are not usually purchased at gun shows.

Lautenberg called on his colleagues to support the bill, which he plans to introduce this week, but said he wasn’t thinking about whether or not it stands a better chance of passing this year.

But gun control advocates with the Brady Campaign heralded President Obama as a strong ally to getting the measure passed and signed into law this year.

“For the last eight years we haven’t had anyone in the White House who supported this,” said Paul Helmke, the group’s president. “The president supports it, Sen. (John) McCain (R-Ariz.) has supported it. It makes sense — we already do background checks for other gun sales; we ought to get this done.”

Attorney General Eric Holder, also faced with an increasing debate on reinstating a ban on assault weapons, has not actively addressed the gun show “loopholes.”

“These are issues that we'll have to discuss,” Holder said on CBS two weeks ago. “The president will be the one who will ultimately set policy: things that are politically salable and things that will ultimately be effective.”

Lautenberg on Tuesday also said that by tightening requirements of personal gun sellers at gun shows, law enforcement officials could more closely track firearms and possibly curb the number of weapons used by drug cartels in Mexico.

“Thirty percent of the guns that go to Mexico are bought at gun shows,” he said. “We don’t know whether they’re bought from unlicensed dealers, but logic would say let’s have some idea who it is that bought those guns and what their intentions might be.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has repeatedly said at congressional hearings on the increasing violence along the U.S.-Mexico border that he supports imposing the mandatory background checks at gun shows as a way to blunt the border violence.

“I think there are also legislative steps that we can take to strengthen this fight,” he said at a hearing last month. “If Congress, for instance, closed the gun show loophole that allows purchasers to circumvent background checks that occur at … gun stores, our government's work would be a lot easier and more effective.”

But Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Lieberman that she could not wait for Congress to take action.

“Anecdotally a number (of the guns used in Mexico drug violence) have been purchased at (U.S.) gun shows,” she said. “The issue for me … is that we need to act now and as you know that sort of a statute would take a while to wind its way through. I (have) to play the hand of cards I have, and the hand of cards I have allows me to do southbound seizures.”

[alfsauve]

I believe this is Senate Bill  843 filed yesterday by Lautenberg and co-sponsored by Kennedy and Shumer (of course) among others.

The bill is too new for THOMAS to have the text as of tonight, but hopefully in a day or two.

Beside the obvious problem, what I fear is that, while it sounds innocuous the whole thing turns on the definition of a "gun show".  (the devil's in the details)   In other words, the gun-banners, don't want to appear to be going after ALL private transfers, just those "awful" gun show transfers.   (I know I don't have this bill's exact wording but working off of previous attempts.)    And here's the rub.   How can you say something done privately between two individuals such as a gun transfer, is illegal when done in a more public setting?  The 1st amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble.   So previous bills have tried to penalize the gun show itself if the rules aren't followed.  Ah, so besides being another step in the direction of total registration (read that regulation), bills like this one also tread on the 1st amendment by several restricting peaceable assembly. 

The definition of "gun show" will become the key.  It's not a stretch to define "gun show" as a real or virtual connection/meeting of 2 or more people were the germination of the idea of a transfer of a firearm is initiated.    Think about how all encompassing such a definition would be.   "Virtual"  being any electronic exchange of communications including DRTV, Gun Broker or even FaceBook.   Most any conversation, which is public, could be turned into a "gun show", ipso facto, if it later culminates in a gun transfer.   The definition doesn't say the transfer actually takes place at "the show", just that the parties institute the idea that they have an interest in said transfer.   This prevents buyers and seller at a show from performing the transfer later as a loophole itself.

This is bad legislation on many fronts.

[twyacht]

The slippery slope just got a coat of Teflon,....

[tumblebug]

Feint left with the 9th circ & swing right with 843

[fightingquaker13]

Indeed, I think we might be having a gun show right now. At least if we look to the classified sections (where rumor has it that a really nice vintage browning 12 gauge squareback was for sale ). If it were just at commercial gun shows, where the organizer could easily pay to set up a table and 4-5 phones to process the 443s for all transactions, there would be little room to argue. The problem is that this an attempt to go after private party transfers period.
FQ13

[Sponsor]

[Sgt Z Squad]

Am I missing something, isn't that already required before a weapon can be sold at the show? In Connecticut, the seller (either private or commercial) has the onous placed on them to insure the buyer is able to purchase the firearm.

[tombogan03884]

This would eventualy wind up with ALL sales needing a NICS check, whether commercial of private. Thats far more extreme than "Making sure the buyer can own one", It would mean every transfer would have to go through a dealer.

[blackwolfe]

Several reasons to have background checks at gunshows.  One being to get current "paper" on any guns that may be out of the loop.  Currently all NICS checks must be done by a FFL.  An FFl has to log the acquistion and disposition in his bound record book.  This would leave a recent paper trail to follow when forced registration and confiscation come to bear.  Also there is a move to again extend the holding period for NICS checks records to 90 days and I would not be surprised if there was a push to also start to include S/N in the NICS checks, with the NICS checks records accidently being retained past the experation point on that forgotten government backup computer.

Another reason is to drive up the cost of private sellers.  Since a private seller can't do a NICS check, he has to pay a dealer to do so, adding to the cost of that great old NIB flat top that you found at the gunshow.  I also would not be surprised to see the feds starting to charge for NICS checks  The idea is make it cost more to discourage buyers.  Fewer buyers= greater cost to the sellers, so prices go up, and fewer sellers going to the shows and on and on.  THe ultimate goal is to close down gunshows, by closing down the so called gunshow loophole.

[TAB]

I don't have a prob with back ground checks on all gun sales( have to do it here anyways and have for along time)  What bothers me is being charged for the back ground check and having a "cooling off" period.  You should be able to walk out with it..  no more then say 15 mins for the back ground check.

its a simple data base check, your either on the no-no list, or your not.

[tt11758]

Lautenberg on Tuesday also said that by tightening requirements of personal gun sellers at gun shows, law enforcement officials could more closely track firearms and possibly curb the number of weapons used by drug cartels in Mexico.

“Thirty percent of the guns that go to Mexico are bought at gun shows,” he said. “We don’t know whether they’re bought from unlicensed dealers, but logic would say let’s have some idea who it is that bought those guns and what their intentions might be.”

If there's no background check, or transaction record at gunshows, how the f*** does he know that 30% number.  One more case of some anti-gun asshat pulling a number out of his ass and nobody calling him on it!!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR