One aspect of current gun purchase loopholes is the danger such transactions place on law enforcement officers. They are duty-bound to serve court summons and other official judicial orders. They are also bound to intervene in domestic disputes and other activities that involve potentially dangerous, armed persons.
The NRA and its supporters don't give a hoot about the safety of law enforcement personnel. They want everyone who desires to own a firearm to be able to acquire it. They say that states and the Feds should enforce existing laws; but they make this complicated and dangerous for those officers who must confront armed persons that should not have firearms.
Killing a law enforcement official has grave consequences not only for the officer's family but for the community as a whole. It costs taxpayers unnecessary funds if the shooter goes to trial. It creates an atmosphere of fear. And it places an undue burden on our law enforcement officials who must defend public safety and apprehend dangerous, armed individuals.
Our Congress could do something to lessen the chances that police can become the targets of armed individuals by passing universal background check laws that police could then enforce. While this will not eliminate all crimes committed with firearms, it will reduce their likelihood and also create a more respectful, peaceful community environment. The alternative? Maintain the status quo and enable felons to acquire guns through straw purchases.
9
When I get stopped for a traffic violation, the police can check for wants and warrants within minutes. When I browse the internet, I get ads for companies claiming they can run background checks on anyone immediately. Why, then, is it even possible for a background check for a gun purchase to not be complete after three days?
If there is to be any possible closing of this "loophole" there needs to be a simple and quick method of performing the background checks. The idea that a private individual buying from another private individual should have to wait days to complete a simple transaction will never fly.
5
There is no loophole. Federal law applies in the same way to everyone.
8
How about this? I sell you a gun. If, within a year, you use it in a crime, I am an accessory.
20
Every County in every state should be held to the following laws: Possessing an unlicensed firearm should be punishable by a mandatory minimum of 15 years in jail. No pleas allowed, no discretion by the prosecutor and no chance of parole. The second offense should carry a mandatory minimum of 25 years with the same restrictions. The same requirements should be applied to any and all sellers of firearms. Extensive background checks for all purchasers, mandatory waiting periods, notification of the sale to the FBI and local police authorities. No exemptions for private sales or transfers. Own a gun legally or go to jail.
7
It is my sense that many gun deaths (not planned mass shootings necessarily) are typically crimes of passion. One reasonable control I wonder why we haven't explored is predicating waiting periods on round capacity: 1/week per round that can be fired without reloading. 1/week per round for any additional magazine, belt feeder, or whatever ammunition loader you want to name can hold.
I honestly can't come up with a non-violent reason why you would need a gun in a hurry.
16
The fact that the minimum age to buy a gun in the United States is generally 18, but the minimum age to drink alcohol is 21, has always struck me as an interesting contradiction. I was a teenager in the 1960's when a fair number of states, including NY , had a minimum legal drinking age MLDA) of 18. Because of a large number of deaths due to drunken driving, by the late 1980's, every state in the country had raised the legal drinking age to 21. Almost all studies designed specifically to gauge the effects of drinking age changes show MLDAs of 21 reduce drinking, problematic drinking, drinking and driving, and alcohol-related crashes among young people.
It is sad and ironic that this legitimate concern for reducing the number of deaths caused by underage drinking and driving has not carried over to our efforts around gun control. What is the rationale for allowing a teenager to buy a gun or a rifle if we do not believe that individuals under 21 can be trusted to drink and drive a car? Whatever the Second Amendment does or doesn't provide for, it certainly doesn't explicitly protect the rights of people under 21 to buy and own guns. In addition to expanded background checks and a ban on all types of assault rifles, there should be a federal law that restricts gun ownership to people over the age of 21.
14
Maryland is a background check state. Even transfers between friends need to go through the process. Not sure about immediate family transfers.
There are cases where the owner transferring the firearm has been prosecuted for not doing the background check.
5
Before a person can legally drive a car, they must do several things. They must undergo driver training, pass a road test to demonstrate that they can safely operate a car, obtain a license, & purchase liability insurance to cover damages caused by improper use of the car.
Why is this necessary? After all, cars are not exactly weapons of mass destruction which serve no purpose other than to kill a large number of people easily & quickly. It is necessary because of respect for public safety. Yes, public safety is so important that we require a license to own a dog or to catch fish in a lake.
Our epidemic of gun violence is a major public health crisis. There can be no justification for having fewer restrictions on guns than we have for cars, dogs, or fishing.
The following measures would make everyone safer: Universal background checks before the sale of any gun, waiting periods on purchases, banning assault weapons, banning high capacity magazines, requiring training on the use of the gun, & obtaining a license which will enable authorities to better track weapons being used in crimes.
Every day we delay in instituting these commonsense measures just enables more avoidable gun deaths.
27
It seems no matter which way you twist or turn America’s addiction to guns the only real, effective, & lasting solution will be a Constitutional Amendment abridging 2nd Amendment ‘rights’ and that will not happen under the current administration or Congress and not, perhaps, under any administration or Congress. It’s all up to whether American voters are more powerful then the gun-manufacturing lobby and the N.R.A. Repeal of the 2nd Amendment remains very desirable and very politically impossible.
6
@Lewis Sternberg You do not have to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The only legal guns should be ones that fire one bullet at a time before they have to be reloaded by hand.
6
The problem is that the "Universal Background Checks" proposed; to be enforced they would require a national registry of firearms, who owns them, and where they are. That was opposed by our founding fathers and is the first step to government enforced confiscation. Most criminals buy off the real black market or use stolen guns. Private sellers online usually make out a bill of sale and get your DL# so if the gun ever came back to a crime they could prove they sold it and who you are. Trust me I know. And retailers online require an FFL to send it to so you will have to get a background check form 4473 Have any of y'all actually ever bought a gun? I don't mean to sound cliche, but this truly is a moral issue. Its a parenting issue, a issue where these people need support to get them from the path we are on. Instead society wants to blame the gun which needs someone to operate it, instead of looking in the mirror at ourselves. And do your research on the CDC and FBI websites before you believe any narrative from anyone. My opinion? the best way to end these shooting would be to label any mass shooter a domestic terrorist. No trial no discussion. You eliminate the threat at the crime scene, you put them in a body bag at the crime scene. You bury or cremate them in a private ceremony at sea. No discussions no pictures. If they don't get the attention they crave, there is no longer an incentive to commit the crime or a narrative for the perpetrator to draw attention to.
6
@Will - That does not do much to prevent the crime. Killing the mass shooter does not bring back his victims to life. Hunting and home protection don't need more than a trusty shotgun, bolt action rifle and a 44 Special revolver....maybe 2 of them. Where is the need for semi-automatic weapons in civilian hands ??
4
@Norman Canter, M.D.
It wouldn't in the beginning, Your right, It wouldn't bring back any victims. But, after a few times the incentive and appeal of being on T.V. and being "famous" would no longer be happening. Remember this has precedent, this is what we did with Osama Bin Laden. We have to make it so they don't get the publicity they get. These kids who do this just want to be seen it seems like in a psychological sense. And in a realist view point, there will always be murders and violence. It's been here since the beginning. It doesn't matter what the tool or lack of tool may be, evil exists. It's more than just the object. And at least you are not against the idea of defending life and family. I disagree on the semi auto weapon argument. Handguns are far more used in crimes as far as firearms go. So if we allow one class to be banned, then the next step would be to ban those next. Then all firearms. It's deeper than what most people realize. Plus according to the FBI and CDC resources, the A.W.B of 1994 had no noticable effect on violent crime or firearms deaths. Again, the criminal will use whatever they can to cause their carnage. Just like the 22 people killed in China a few years back or the 4 killed in California last week both of which instances were commited with knives. We've seen vehicles used as weapons. Do you at least agree that it's not the tool that perpetrated the crime? We can't punish the 99% who abide by the law to get the criminal.
4
Here is a plan for getting control of privately owned WMDs that I think is fully constitutional.
Enact federal legislation that includes ALL of the following for it to be effective:
1. Set federal firearms manufacture, importation and ownership standards that detail exactly what specifications handguns, rifles and shotguns and their accessories including ammo, clips, magazines, sights, and suppressors must meet and cannot exceed to be legal in the U.S. This would include manufacturing all cartridges with material developed for one-time use only to prevent individuals from reloading ammunition and a provision that no clips or magazines may be manufactured, imported or owned that exceed a 10 round capacity.
2. Outlaw the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer from person to person, and ownership of any handgun, rifle, or shotgun that can accommodate more than 10 cartridges without a removable clip or magazine.
3. Establish severe mandatory fines AND jail time for any violations of this law.
4. To encourage owners to turn in illegal weapons create a generous federal buy-back program and set a date certain by which all such weapons must be turned in.
5. Create a standing $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone in the possession of banned firearms and advertise it widely on radio, TV and on the Internet that the reward will go into effect the day following the last day of the Buy-Back Program.
1
Mail order gun purchases were banned after Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy with a rifle he had purchased through a mail-order house for less than $30. How are internet purchases not also covered by this ban?
3
Or "Why There Are So Many Gun Deaths in This Country"
There is no "loop hole".
A loop hole is a way to legally accomplish your goal.
HE BROKE THE LAW.
Terrible story. Simply awful.
3
Craigslist ads (especially in more rural areas) often use phrases such as "...will trade for bang sticks...", "...things that go bang..." or just "bang". All of these are references to the unregulated online trading or selling of guns. I have reported these illegal ads to Craigslist for years when I come across them.
3
I think online gun purchases should be banned.
15
@Templer
They are banned. He didn't buy it on line, he found a seller on line.
4
@Templer
Technically, legal sales through a gun store are regulated. Background checks can be improved somewhat and Red Flag laws can be improved.
The problem in person-to-person sales (whether alcohol, drugs, guns, or sex) is compliance.
Just because it is illegal doesn't mean people stop doing it.
8
@Templer, the House bill that has been sitting on Mitch McConnell's desk since the Dems passed it earlier this year. It would close this loophole if it became law.
3
"Know your Customer" Laws apply to banks selling financial services due to money laundering and tax evasion. Banks probably insure themselves against getting it wrong. Why not apply these same laws to all gun sales?
1
The Republican Party and the National TerroRist Association support gun lawlessness and a national shooting gallery.
The Guns Over People party refuses the most basic, humane and civilized rules, which effectively makes them aiders and abetters of a significant number of homicides.
A universal background check is not a radical idea.
Gun insurance is not a radical idea.
Mandatory gun training is not a radical idea.
A gun waiting period is not a radical idea.
Banning weapons of war from the streets is not a radical idea.
And yet the radical Republican Party refuses to implement them, remaining silent as 90 Americans drop dead every single day of the year from gun shots.
Decent people do not vote for Guns Over People.
November 3 2020.
36
@Socrates
Happy to support better background checks, Red Flag laws, etc.
The entire fantasy gun deal strains credulity. There are several premises:
1. So-called 'assault weapons' offer a unique capability.
2. The sky is falling re deaths by this unique capability (numbers are small in a nation of 320+ million).
3. If this unique capability goes away, everything will be OK.
If you read the mass casualty events, the alienated/maladjusted use a variety of weapons. Remember Whitman in Texas tower? Luby Cafeteria?
How can somebody kill 9 people in 30 seconds? Can be done easily with a revolver....or a shotgun ....or
The Secret Service analysis suggests these folks seek infamy by attacking high PR value, soft targets. Sadly, we give them lots of headlines and personal recognition.
There are lots of sociological, demographic, economic, and health issues driving aberrant behavior. We don't like discussing those things.
I applaud your passion. Passing laws re alcohol, drugs, sex, etc. means compliance and enforcement become significant issues.
7
@CW What you fail to appreciate is that the use of an assault style weapon does far more than the lives taken or injured. It's a form of terrorism. Read up on the Hispanics of El Paso and elsewhere who now feel at any moment dozens can be gunned down in mere seconds. These weapons have no place in a civil society. None whatsoever.
9
Do something. Better yet, do many things. Our nation can be safer with sensible gun laws.
1
@A, the House's bill closes this loophole but the Senate won't take it up. Call your senator
I have a feeling we’re going to look back on this era, at this particular issue (among the myriad of others) and think “what on earth were we thinking?”
Why would we arm regular citizens, and continue to do so, as the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that having more guns in a society leads to more gun violence? It’s like we’re debating the morality/ethics/science of letting your toddler do drugs when it’s clearly asinine at best, and extremely destructive (and lethal) at worst.
Letting your toddler do drugs = bad
Private citizens owning guns = bad
Why do we continue to let this happen?
3
@Alex
Well over 100 million gun owners hunt, target shoot, collect, and defend themselves with guns.
These headline grabbing deaths are statistically tiny.
I strongly support evidence-based countermeasures.
Cheers
6
Background checks are political hay of the same nature as any other knee-jerk legislation. Do people who are denied an arms purchase because of one then decide not to buy a gun?
7
No one would want 20% of drivers on the road without a license, insurance or education so why do gun owners support 20% of guns being purchased with zero check???
3
@Wilson
You've obviously never been to traffic court.
2
Crickets....from the gun rights crowd.
This story doesn't play to their strengths...or their false narrative that "we already have all the laws we need."
It's time the rest of us call these people out for the selfish people they are. Believing their hobby and their warped sense of self-preservation trump everyone else's safety.
Beat the one issue crowd (2nd Amendment).
Vote Democrat.
3
So, duh, mandate background check for ALL gun sales, and while you’re at it, BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS COMPLETELY. These are both no brainers. If you want to find the gun loopholes, just ask a Republican.
18
@RealTRUTH
The challenge lies in defining this mythical beast.
If I take a 1940 Remington semi-auto rifle and add an adjustable stock, better sights, a better grip, and Picatinny rails, is it now a magically more lethal, military-grade "assault rifle"?
All gun sales through a dealer do have a check. The problem is folks steal guns and/or sell to each other and/or have a friend illegally buy the gun.
6
What this country needs is a ban on the sale and possession of military assault-style weapons with high magazine capacity. If you are a gun owner explain to me other than a total waste of money, what does owning a firearm do for you? Do yourself and your community a favor turn your firearms in to local law enforcement officials. By doing so you will make America a safer place to work and live. Not only that you will feel better about yourself. You will cleanse your spirit of a dark and terrible burden. LAY DOWN YOUR ARMS.
2
I’m shocked! No, no I’m not.
One solution: repeal the Second Amendment. It is a dangerous anachronism. The amendment was never intended to confer an inalienable right of private gun ownership - and had not been so construed until Scalia’s tortured reading of the text in 2008. Private gun ownership must be a rare privilege, not a presumptive right that is all but impossible to limit or take away. As now construed, the Second Amendment must be repealed. It already has cost tens of thousands of lives. The carnage must stop.
5
@chambolle - There is no need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Re-interpretation is what is needed. And logical and common sense limitations on firearms with the most important consideration being the safety of ordinary citizens.
"Online gun sales" and buying a gun (online by default) through Facebook are two different things. "Online gun sales" are conducted by federally licensed dealers. These weapons have to somehow make it to the owner and that is accomplished by the mechanism of shipping them to the closest federally licensed dealer to the buyer. It is against federal law to mail guns USPS; one must send them Fed Ex, UPS, or through another private shipper, marked as firearms. Then the buyer arrives at the local federally licensed dealer where the buyer completes ATF form 4473 and the background check is done at that time. If the buyer has a CWP and passes the background check, he/she walks out with the weapon. If he/she does not have a CWP, there is a three day wait (or longer) as well as passing the background check. It would be easier for the government to confiscate every gun in the US than to control Facebook. If you think Facebook is a benign entity, then consider yourself complicit. BTW, the vast majority of background checks are completed in a few minutes; only rarely are they not resolved in the 3 day period. A dealer handling a transfer from a legitimate online sale is only looking at a small transfer fee .
7
There is a simple solution: ban the online sales of weapons.
Even better, ban all private sales of weapons. Force the owner to sell his weapon to an authorized weapon dealer who then must perform a background check on any purchaser.
2
So are we proposing that anyone who has an addiction cannot buy a gun? How about the 25% of Americans who smoke pot? The Dayton killer was a daily user of controlled substances? And the man who killed nine people at a Charleston, S.C., church in 2015 was able to buy his gun after a background check failed to immediately reveal that he had admitted possessing a controlled substance, which should have prevented the purchase. How about including a drug screen for the purchase of any gun? Without it our background check will not have any teeth and people with drug additions and mental health issues will still get guns?
1
@Just 4 Play - Limiting the type of weapons in the hands of civilians makes more sense than bringing back prohibition. Although the mixture of alcohol and firearms might be responsible for some of the road rage tragedies that we hear about.
1
Just to be clear: the article stems from a recent mass shooting; cites five mass shootings; in each case, the shooter passed a background check. The article advocates (I mean, “reports”) for a policy that would not have prevented the shootings in the first place. Got it. Thanks, NYT.
20% of the U.S. population lives between Boston and NYC. For the rest of us, we enjoy out civil rights just fine.
8
This whole discussion is getting so old, the simple fact that there’s more of a paper trail and more training verification required for a person to buy and drive a car in this country than to own a weapon is simply insane. The Second Amendment shouldn’t trump our Constitutional right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
1
@William B. Winburn
The Second Amendment is a restriction on the power of government to deprive the people of rights under the color of law. It does not grant any right.
You have no “constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” That is from the Declaration of Independence.
Governments have deprived citizens of more life and liberty than any other cause. Private arms are a check upon that.
Anyone who sees this as ludicrous should take a look at the 18 years of one-year campaigns in Afghanistan against men armed with rifles.
6
I own 10 guns, including an AR-15, and it was definitely too easy to get my guns. I am not for banning assault weapons, but maybe we should have the same regulations that we have for machine guns. You can still buy a machine gun in America but it's going to cost you $20,000 minimum and you are going to have to get a ton of permits and licenses. No one has used a machine gun to commit a crime in decades, so these regulations work by only allowing responsible people to own machine guns. These kinds of regulations would have the added benefit of making my AR-15 worth a lot more money, so it's a win win for AR owners. I'll tell you that if the government comes to confiscate my weapons there is no way they will be getting my AR, but if regulations allow me to license and keep my AR and make my AR worth 5 times more money than I'd be willing to do it.
As for online sales, no one is allowed to buy a gun online unless its through a licensed dealer already, so anyone connecting on FB and picking up a weapon from a non-licensed owner is already breaking the law. Seems to me that FB needs to be forced to ensure that any sales on its platform align with currently existing laws, but we all know FB doesnt like following the laws since its goal is to become a de facto government, so perhaps we need to ban FB from allowing people to sell weapons period.
Every time I've bought a gun I had a background check, but whatever loopholes there are still on that definitely need to be closed.
5
@Jacqueline Evidently “online” sales are already illegal. What will you do then?
Why don't we make murder illegal, too?
3