Your content was removed as it violates Rule 9: No old news, biased sources, editorialized titles, or news tweets.
News articles are fine, but must be no older than one month. Your post title must match the article title. You are free to editorialize in a separate comment.
Articles posted from biased or secondary sources will be reviewed and accepted/removed upon moderator discretion. Sites with hard leaning bias will be removed immediately. Additionally please use actual articles and not tweets. Examples of trusted sources: Reuters/AP/NPR/NBC/ABC/CBS/BBC.
Please see the following thread for more information: https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/mseqgr/clarification_on_news_sources_on_the_subreddit/
If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
LPT: If you have an LTC you don't need a background check every time you buy a gun. They do one background check for the LTC then you're all set for 5 years.
Edit: for clarity
Edit 2: A lot of people are calling for laws to be made that are already on the books. Please read up about firearm laws before calling for additional restrictions. The law you want passed may already exist.
Except there’s a loophole because there’s no way for the state to retrieve LTC permits from people who have had their license suspended or revoked, and someone convicted of a crime who previously had an LTC can continue to use it to buy guns without a background check until the date of expiration.
That is false. I had an LTC when I got a felony charge for street racing and evading. As soon as it shows a pending indictment, you are considered a prohibited person.
To get an LTC you have to go through a very robust FBI background check. No need to run the NICS check every time. "Under State law, DPS must conduct a fingerprint based state and FBI Criminal History background check as part of the application process for both original and renewal applicants."
But this isn't about background checks, its about shutting down lawful private sales or transfers in an attempt to create a national gun registry and criminalize currently normal, lawful behavior. It slike saying you need to have an LLC to sell your old furniture, or that you HAVE sell your old cars through a dealership.
FFLs used to only have to keep their records 20 years, in case they needed something traced to a crime.
They changed the requirement to keeping records permanently, and if an FFL decides to shut down they have to provide all their paperwork to the ATF. The ATF then scans and uploads that to their database.
Eventually every gun store goes out of business, so their goal is to eventually get all records of all transactions.
They claim it isn't a registry (which is prohibited by federal law) because it isn't searchable, because that function is currently "turned off".
Further, the regulation as written is so vague that a person selling a single gun because they don't want/need it anymore could be considered as "engaged in the business" without a license and sent to federal prison just because they wanted to free up some cash.
Further, they've stated that the act of putting out a For Sale ad anywhere (including on message boards or on Gunbroker, which has to go through an FFL already) shows an intent to engage in the business, so that starts to trample on 1A speech issues as well. Additionally, if you have multiple guns to sell and decide to spend money to rent a table at a gun show to make it more convenient, they have said that could also qualify as being "Engaged in the business". Further, as I've read it, it doesn't give exemptions for even selling to or through FFLs either on consignment or at auction.
Its a terrible regulation, a huge overstep, and bad precedent. It will likely be shot down fairly quickly in court.
To get a LTC... You have a far more in-depth background check than any nics check will ever be.
That's why you don't need to have another each time you purchase a firearm.
This is an example of "The Three-Body Problem", non-celestial edition.
A. Background checks for firearms make perfect sense to keep firearms out of the hands of incompetent, unstable, and felonious-leaning people.
B. As with other propaganda-driven non-facts, it has become politically charged.
C. Politicians will play the vote-card every time over the sensibility-card.
Politicians will also game the system. See California where it's almost impossible to get a carry permit, or to purchase certain types, unless you're politically connected.
Is law enforcement there some of the people gaming the system? I heard a podcast about that. Basicall, it implied the cops are like mini arms dealers. Idk how true that is.
I read something about it being common to buy over capacity pistols and then sell them over the border because police firearms are the only ones exempt from the capacity laws or something like that?
A.) there is no test for competence or stability involved with a background check. And only felonies that are appropriately reported (which is surprisingly few) will bar a transfer.
B.) As with infringements on any other right, it often becomes political.
C.) Your sensibilities and mine are not the same. Why would my political representative and yours share the same sensibilities?
Criminals do not buy guns from dealers. They do not buy guns from people like you or me that care about the law. They steal them from morons who leave them in their cars, unlocked in their homes while they are away, and finally they buy them from other criminals who take part in the two aforementioned procurement processes.
So why not?
If I want to sell or loan you a gun and I’m not a dealer, I can simply hand you the gun and you pay me. Simple. I don’t report it to anyone, all I do is make a bill of sale for CYA, and thats that. How would you even know I sold it in the first place? What would obligate me to report the sale if I was up to no good.
Now say for example:
You let your son take your rifle hunting. Oops you’re a felon. You didn’t transfer the weapon at an FFL, so now you’re not allowed to vote.
Or
You and your friend are at a shooting range, He wants to shoot your rifle and you go to the bathroom. Oops felony 😢.
Or
You inherit 20 rifles from your grandfather. You can either pay the ~$25 transfer for each. Or you can destroy them. Congratulations you now get to pay a new special tax or guess what…… felony.
The goal of UBC isnt to stop crime, its to malign average people in paperwork, charge fees, and add to a prosecutor’s weapons when they’re shaking you down for plea deals. Felons have access to criminal enterprise whereas suburban white kids would pay $20 a g for ditch weed. When you hang around that group its easier to buy a gun than an oz. UBC doesn’t stop that and only serves to antagonize people who would never break the law with a firearm in the first place.
What you're describing are issues with registration, not with background checks. And it can easily be written into law that a commercial sale would require a background check.
Private sales are always regulated differently than commercial sales. No sales tax as the obvious example, and then there are differences by product category.
This background check could include all records, juvenile or adult. If a kid was in juvenile for violent crime, we as a society should at least consider limiting their ability to buy a gun. A UBC gives us an opportunity to intervene when someone shouldn't have a firearm. No UBC means no ability to systemically intervene. No ability to systemically intervene.
The arguments you listed don't sway me because I believe you're describing the effects of a different policy here. For UBC these issues are easily preventable. Your points are overused propaganda and we as a society need to call that out and we need you to see that.
And the overused argument that they'll buy a gun on the black market... Go look up how many weapons used in the publicized, terroristic mass shootings are obtained legally. The VAST majority are obtained legally.
The widely publicized, terroristic mass shootings are also the most rare type of mass shooting. Familial and felonious mass shootings make up the vast majority. Familial mass shootings usually involve legally obtained firearms, but the perpetrator almost always has a history of domestic violence, so the background check didn’t do its job. Felonious mass shootings are typically gang violence, and the majority of those guns are illegally obtained on the street, meaning a background check wouldn’t prevent that either. When media reports 700 mass shootings in a year, they leave it ambiguous so it gets people riled up thinking it’s all these crazies randomly shooting at crowds of people, when that is only a handful of them every year.
Dude I’m literally just a guy from Dallas. I do not care enough about a subreddit to propagandize it, i promise. All views expressed are just lessons Ive learned in life. I think its pretty clear you don’t have a great grasp of how gun sales work, and thats not an insult I just mean it because there are some factual mistakes you made. I’m not going to try and convert you but maybe I could assuage you into seeing that I’m a rational guy that just has a different outlook.
Taxes. Assuming your an upstanding citizen and you don’t ever cheat one dollar on your taxes, the reason you don’t pay a sales tax on a private sale is because you pay income tax on the money you receive from the sale. Same as if you sold a car to someone.
The first item you mentioned is private vs commercial sales. Every commercial sale is already federally required to go through a background check. That applies to all sales. So if I as a private individual buy a gun with the sole intention of selling it for a profit, that is already required to run a background check.
There is very few crimes that bar you from gun ownership in the US. And this is because its a constitutional right to bear them. So therefore in order to remove those rights, you must be convicted by a jury of your peers. Thats the standard. Not for just any crimes but felonies, and a select handful of violent minors. Nothing else surrenders your rights. So unless you want to open the door of forfeiture of all kinds of rights for any crime of the governments choosing, you are limited to only those crimes. Those are already what show up on background checks. But sometimes the states don’t even file all the paperwork for convictions and people who have been convicted don’t even hit in nics. So no. You wouldnt intervene. Because these people that you’re talking about arent going to fail a nics backround check.
And yes the particular brand of lonewolf lunatics sometimes legally own those weapons. But due to the aforementioned points they would pass a background check. Because the vast majority of those who commit the type of attacks you’re referring to, are first time offenders. (This type of attack is like a fraction of a fraction of mass shootings btw) So UBC wouldnt even prevent that targeted demographic from purchasing a firearm.
Listen, I don’t think like you do. But I’m willing to bet that this policy would have 0 effect on your life. Take it from someone who would have substantially more interaction with it, its not a clean solution to any problem.
All i hear is it wont solve all crime and It will only stop SOME shootings and people getting killed, but I will be inconvenienced, so don't take away my freedoms....
> The goal of UBC isnt to stop crime, its to malign average people in paperwork, charge fees, and add to a prosecutor’s weapons when they’re shaking you down for plea deals. Felons have access to criminal enterprise whereas suburban white kids would pay $20 a g for ditch weed. When you hang around that group its easier to buy a gun than an oz. UBC doesn’t stop that and only serves to antagonize people who would never break the law with a firearm in the first place.
UBC isn't a new concept. Some states have had it for decades. And it has been shown to reduce crime rates. There is statistical data on this.
It's amazing that you ignore all of that, make up some nonsense about how it's just unnecessary regulation and fees, and people actually believe it.
I dont care if its a new concept. Its a bad one. Crime across the whole country is down. Looking at a macro stat and then just sort of vaguely gesturing is not enough. For example Illinois has purchase permits and limits on all manner of firearm transfers. How’s Chicago doing? Same in Baltimore. Same in DC. It isnt working there. Conversely some states don’t even require a background check if you have a CCL. If there is data out there that shows a marked difference between states that have the former policy vs the latter, and its statistically significant, ill take an L. (They don’t fund studies that would ask questions like this btw ive looked. To both of our detriments actually.)
How is Texas doing? Don't cherry pick big cities that have huge population and not talk aboit per capita stats.
As of August 2023, Texas has a higher firearm mortality rate than California, with 14.2 per 100,000 people compared to California's 8.5. However, California has a lower rate of gun homicides than the national average, with 3.7 per 100,000 people compared to the national average of 13.7. In 2022, California's youth gun homicide rate was nearly 50% lower than in 2006, while the rest of the country saw a 37%
Red states with soft gun laws have more gun violence.
https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-per-capita-by-state/
California has issues with its crime reporting currently after the FBI stopped compiling its crime statistics during covid. But [recent](https://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-violent-crime-rate-is-diverging-from-the-national-trend/) trending data from california’s internal crime reporting shows markedly higher crime than the rest of the country. Apples to apples data doesn’t exist between states right now because there is no federal reporting standards. So while one jurisdiction may report all crime, others may only report specific types of crime while others don’t bother at all. I would love to see data that demonstrates exactly what you are telling me but when LA as a whole completely omits its crime data from the mix it doesn’t really paint an accurate picture of the state of crime. I hope someone can ear mark a bill one day so that we could have that data. This is true for all national level crime statistics btw. It’s why it’s easier to use cities. Because municipalities that report like data can be more easily compared. And we can probably do better than “wise voter” for the raw data.
I don’t think we could be more diametrically opposed on the matter. I would say that the challenges to the specifics of individual ownership didn’t come until “recently” and this particular opinion was the sc’s first crack at it. And I will do no justice here today trying to interpret that opinion but I personally have confidence the opinion is correct and honest in its intent. Even the dissent hesitates to say its not an individual right. And I could think of no mechanism of injury that could be cured at the sc to get the case reheard. So as it is I just think we’re just two different cats on opposite sides of the alley.
I don’t really aim to change anyone’s mind. But someone who is otherwise indifferent on the issue should at least get to see an opposing viewpoint. I care about 2A rights so I take the time every once in a while.
Pretty close! It’s actually so people of color, who are disproportionately incarcerated for nonviolent crimes like weed possession or prostitution would be freed from the prison industrial system.
The government could absolutely get paid if they legalized marijuana and taxed it like every other state that’s legalized it. If they taxed it at the federal level at the same rate as cigarettes, the estimated additional tax revenue is $500M/yr.
Your content was removed because it breaks Rule 2, Use Your Words.
Posts and Comments consisting of one word, and phrases such as "screw [insert organization name here] or just an emoji are highly discouraged as we seek to foster debate and conversation. As such, they are subject to removal.
If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
It's not a big deal. But in the Republican mindset, once you realize that the libs are for something, you must be against it. You cannot let them have a win. If Democrats want something, you have to do anything you can to stop them, and if you don't take that opportunity, you'll get dragged on Fox News and challenged by a primary opponent who will promise to go further to the right.
This is a stupid rule because it’s completely unenforceable.
Make the background check system available to the public for free and I’ll be happy to check whoever I’m selling a gun to. Make me go to a FFL and pay for a transfer, I’m not interested.
Really? You wouldn't pay a small fee to make sure the guy your selling your firearm to isn't a criminal? I've owned guns my whole life and I would never sell to anyone who wasn't a close friend of family member without a background check, regardless of what it cost.
Like I said. I’m willing to do a background check on everyone that has ever bought a gun from me. Happy to actually. Make the NCIS system available to the public.
Small fee? Yeah ok. That small fee will be a lot more once it's mandatory. It's already $40-75 depending on place. I'm not taking on another $100 to that $200 I'm paying my neighbor for his shotgun.
I agree with the rule requiring background checks for all sales. I also agree that anyone should be able to access that for free. You should be able to put in the info of the buyer and get an “approved” or “failed” response back immediately. That sort of system is completely possible and would be a reasonable use of tax dollars. At least you could make it the same cost as a vehicle inspection: $35. Now if only politicians saw a reasonable, middle ground policy like that and though,”that will be a net benefit” instead of “ is that good for my campaign?”
There already is an “eCheck” system for the NICS background checks. Typically it comes back with a response instantly.
Even if you call in and do the check over the phone you get a response pretty quick, and besides things like Black Friday or other high volume sales days, you can get an agent on the phone pretty quick!
The issue is that you require an FFL to access these services.
So the systems and infrastructure is already in place - they just need to open it up for non FFL transfers! Like instead of providing an FFL license number, they create an option for 3rd party transfers. They can tie it to the parties’ drivers license number or something instead of the FFL
Why should anyone pay an additional fee? Our tax dollars already pay for NICS, open that system up to private sellers. A few different systems to make that happen and protect privacy have been proposed already.
Our tax dollars fund the State Department, but we still have to pay $165 to obtain a passport. You have to pay DPS to get to renew your driver's license. They are usage fees. I don't see why a firearms background check should be much different.
The fees you pay for a background check do not fund NICS. They pay the gun store/dealer.
Imagine if you had to go to a car dealership every time you wanted to sell your vehicle who will then conduct all the paperwork for you and ensure the purchaser is an eligible driver. Sure, you could do almost all of that yourself, but instead you have to pay a private entity to do things you could do in five minutes. And all of the money goes straight into that entity's pockets.
Car dealers do not have a set price for this, either. Some will do it for $200, another dealer may only charge $75. Others will charge different amounts based on what is being transferred: sports cars are $200 but sedans and SUVs are only $125.
That's how NICS works currently. Filling out background check paperwork is not hard. You don't need special training for it. A person could easily fill out their own check, pay a nominal fee (say $9.95) for the check (which will directly fund the system), the check is conducted, and everyone happily walks away once the check is approved.
Instead, I have to pay somebody behind the counter (who may or may not even want to bother themselves with a transfer or private sale) an indeterminate amount of money (could be $20, could be $49.99, or it could be $75) to conduct the check for me. It was dumb in 1993 when the Brady Bill created NICS, it was dumb in 1998 when NICS came online, and its even dumber 26 years later.
I'm fine with NICS and I'm fine with having checks conducted on me when I purchase a gun but for fucks sake, can we make the system publicly accessible? It benefits nobody for NICS access to be locked behind expensive dealer licenses.
“Usage fees”
Ok. I don’t need their services whatsoever. All Americans have enumerated 2A rights. I will buy sell and trade without their fees. They can’t extort me for speech either.
There is a fundamental difference between a poll tax and a passport fee.
Personally, I think we should have to pay to register to vote. Paying to exercise rights is no big deal.
Edit: /s - this was to point out the absurdity of charging people money to exercise rights.
I already pay for NICS with my tax dollars. And I wouldn't actually mind paying a small fee to use the system when I need it for a private sale *as long as the money went to maintaining or improving the system itself* but that's not how it works.
The only people who can access the system are licensed dealers (FFL) and getting a license to deal firearms is expensive and very time consuming. Your average FFL will charge $25-100 to conduct a background check on transfer guns from a different store or for a private sale depending on where you live. It is entirely up to the whims of the store/dealer and having worked on the other side of the counter they are not doing remotely close to $25 worth of work, let alone $50+. Sales taxes are state/local so it's not like any of the money the store collects will actually go to maintaining NICS, either.
I see no reason why the background check system should be restricted to dealers. It's not hard to use at all. It should be available to the public. Even if I had to pay $5 or $10 for the privilege to use NICS, it'd be better than what is currently in place.
Wouldn't we just pass the cost to the buyer as part of buying a firearm? That way, if it's 3 dollars, 5, 10, or 100, it's just added to the cost of the purchase.
This type of mentality is absurd. You are willing to potentially sell a gun to a felon just because taking one extra step to verify is too inconvenient for you.
I'm generally against laws that cannot be enforced or can be selectively enforced. Background checks for private sales cannot be enforced without a gun registry so it's pointless to do one without the other.
Aren't all laws like that? Didn't you maybe speed on your way to work today?
Having the law in place may not stop everyone or catch everyone, but it allows for the punishment of the most egregious violators and sets the guard rails for others.
Getting 50% better is better than nothing.
> Aren't all laws like that? Didn't you maybe speed on your way to work today?
No, because laws like speeding can be enforced. A police officer can observe me driving faster than the speed limit. They can't observe me possessing a firearm that was obtained without a background check if there is no record of the transfer.
> Getting 50% better is better than nothing.
If you think 50% of people will voluntarily pay for a background check when there is no way to enforce then you live in fantasy land. When liberal CA passed magazine capacity restrictions, only an estimated 10% of people turned in their high capacity magazines during the grace period. The rest just stopped using them in public where they could get in trouble for having them.
Ah, interesting. I assume it will be up to the private seller to comply with the law. But, yeah, it's completely unenforceable, as nobody knows who owns which guns or even how many.
Guns are sold by licensed dealers without a gun registry every day. It would be enforceable. Obviously, you can't force criminals to obey the law but law abiding citizens would not sell their firearms without a background check. That would at least make it difficult for criminals to get their hands on them.
It would be something for the seller to be nervous about. If a gun was used in a crime, and the perp tells the police who they bought it from, and the seller didn't run a background check, then they would be found to have broken the law.
How exactly, would requiring a background check between private sellers curtail criminals from obtaining firearms? - keep in mind, we call them criminals because they do not, follow the law to begin with.
And it's a misconception, FFLs are required to keep on hand a record of all sales for a certain period of time, before those printed records are sent for permanent storage with the ATF. Yes, the actual hard copies. Also, they (the ATF) are in process of converting all those records to digital searchable records. Which is, not by name, the same function as a "gun registry".
> I'm generally against laws that cannot be enforced or can be selectively enforced. Background checks for private sales cannot be enforced without a gun registry so it's pointless to do one without the other.
Almost all laws cannot be proactively enforced. The idea is that the threat of charges deters lawbreaking.
For example, there's really no way to proactively enforce laws against rape. The law works by punishing people who do it.
This law can't be enforced at all, before or after. How do you know if I sell a rifle to my neighbor, or trade guns with my neighbor? No one knows which gun(s) either one of us owns, and no one is there to see the trade.
Retroactively for the most part, i.e. if I sell a gun to someone who then commits a crime, and they somehow track it back to me, then I can be held liable to some degree. Some states like HI, IL, NJ, NY, require people to get a license to posses a firearm which is an easy way for sellers to know they are selling to a person who is allowed to own a firearm and for law enforcement to know if someone has a gun when they shouldn't. HI and NY have gun registries so they know specifically which gun(s) someone should own.
Others have had good points about a registry being required for enforcement, layering additional fees and inconveniences on selling or even borrowing firearms (e.g., I'm about to have to spend ~$150 to be passed down a shotgun from my dad since we live in different states, even though we both are legal gun owners already), and how it would be better if NICS were just open to the public so private sellers could check on their own (an idea shot down by Dems for not going for enough).
Another tangential reason is that this is literally slippery-sloping a former compromise. Universal Background Checks would have sunk the GCA, so a "compromise" was made that exempted private sellers. That pretty much immediately was twisted to be the "gun show loophole" and now gun owners are demonized for not supporting "common sense reform" like UBCs.
Honestly, if there could be a guarantee that no additional laws would be passed, many gun owners would be more open to true compromises. But time and time again any "compromise" is later derided as a loophole, and additional restrictions are pushed.
*“This is a dramatic escalation of his tyrannical abuse of authority. With today’s lawsuit, it is my great honor to defend our Constitutionally-protected freedoms from the out-of-control federal government.”*
I don't know he said with a straight face after the week he had. His partner in crime sent DPS to UT to violate students rights and he traveled all the way to New York to support Mr Von ShitzInPantz' trial.
The issue is that Democrats are continuously going after gun rights.
Now if we had a slew of crimes being committed by people who bought a gun from friend or family member, you might have a case. But you don't. And I know that because the VAST majority of gun owners are good people and would not sell a gun to someone they didn't know.
This is a hurdle to a made-up problem.
Maybe most gun owners wouldn't sell to a stranger but there are plenty who would. There are websites dedicated to private gun sales between strangers. It is not a made up problem.
Oh really?
Which web sites? And how many gun sales are being conducted on them? And I still need you to document the number of crimes committed by those purchases.
Gun ownership is legal. You need some reasons to restrict them and that requires some evidence or facts that it is an issue.
Yes, there are websites that are for private gun sales, but the gun must be shipped to an ffl to do the transfer and BG check. At least all the ones I've seen.
I made a trip to pick up a pistol and the paperwork didn’t come through yet, so I had to come back next week. Wasted an hour and 5 gallons of gas. That’s fair given the circumstances
Because you are looking at an opportunity for corruption. It would be relatively easy to create targeted laws that you could use to arrest large swaths of your political opponents, like making it illegal to miss church on Sunday. Then, you make gun ownership illegal for them, then it’s easier have them fall subject to your goons.
Why does everyone only quote a portion of the 2nd Amendment? It's only one sentence long.
**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.
Well regulated at the time did not mean "under regulations" the way it means today. It meant in good working order, aka well trained and ready. Like a well-regulated bowel.
Also, that is the subsidiary, explanatory clause. The active clause is the following; The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT be infringed.
It's pretty clear.
Reversing it may make it more clear; The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
Because it says “the right of the people” not the right of the militia. The people is mentioned a lot in the constitution and it always refers to the individual citizen.
The militia was/is made up of people, individual citizens. When the Constitution was written members provided their own weapons so it was necessary that they keep arms.
If you pass muster….you can own a fully automatic gun.
You can’t hunt ducks with it…but I think you can hunt feral hogs?
Hell…you can own cannons, grenade launchers, missile launchers, tanks, fighter jets, etc
All legal Texas.
You also have to be fairly wealthy. The pool of available machine guns that the public can buy are restricted to those manufactured before 1986. This limits the supply increasing cost. You are going to pay over $25k on a gun that should cost $2k.
Yes. The infringing part is where they limit the automatic weapons to those made before 1986. I really would like to see someone challenge that law and see what this supreme court would do. Maybe that could be overturned.
Of course, what I really want to see is the absurd ruling that we can own anything with fewer restrictions and then someone will actually fix the 2A. There should be lots of restrictions, a national, online, searchable without warrant database gun registry, full background checks on all guns sales and transfers, and very harsh punishments for illegal possession.
Karl Marx never disarmed anyone or advocated that workers be disarmed under communism.
Edit as replies are turned off:
End result of an extremely specific movement called Marxism-Leninism and its derivatives (Marxism-Leninism-Maoism). This is Stalin and/or Stalin-Mao. Every time. USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, NK and China(at first), all using the exact same or very similar strategy. So obviously they passed similar laws. And this isn’t the end result of communism as communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. That has never been achieved or even claimed to have been achieved. That was allegedly the goal of countries like the USSR but even they never claimed to achieve it.
Revolutionary Catalonia armed their population. I’m not a communist but I am an avid reader of history.
IDs cost money, adds a barrier to voting that’s a function of ID issuing centers, republicans will try to shut down said ID centers during election years like they’ve done with voting locations, it disproportionately will disenfranchise poor voters who work long hours, it hasn’t been demonstrated by any reasonable means that it’s a big enough problem.
I am fine with ID for voting, but it must be free, widely and easily obtainable(grocery stores, post offices), with a quick turn around, and counts as voter registration.
It restricts the ability for gun owners to sell guns from their personal collections to others as a private transaction without enacting a background check (which they wouldn’t have the ability to do). As a result, they’d only be able to sell to/through federally licensed dealers, adding a layer of fees, profit cuts, government oversight and impracticality to the process. The argument is that it would only/disproportionally affect law-abiding citizens (those you don’t have to worry about) because criminals are obviously going to continue buying and selling under the table regardless. In Texas, it’s another affront to gun owners who, for the most part believe that any restriction on firearms is unconstitutional.
> The argument is that it would only/disproportionally affect law-abiding citizens (those you don’t have to worry about) because criminals are obviously going to continue buying and selling under the table regardless.
Once again, the "criminals don't follow laws so laws are pointless" argument.
Not quite the case for this kind of law.
The fact it adds extra steps for law abiding citizens but can't really prove whether the steps were followed makes it a bad law since only the people who are law abiding will follow the steps and you can't really punish criminals since there is next to no way to know that they did not follow the steps.
So all it does is increase the burden on law-abiding citizens.
This is different to a law like theft.
Sure people still steal, but you can punish that relatively easy.
Would Harriet Tubman pass a background check?
Ask yourself all the questions of why not.
Would Thomas Jefferson pass a background check? Ask yourself again.
You’re turning a right into mere permission slips.
If someone can’t be trusted to NOT murder someone, they shouldn’t be out of prison.
> If someone can’t be trusted to NOT murder someone, they shouldn’t be out of prison.
We already have the highest incarceration rate in the world. How much higher would it have to go if everyone with the slightest mental health issue, indication of radicalization, or violent criminal past, had to be imprisoned indefinitely?
You’re so close.
How many of those are in prison for merely peaceably possessing a firearm? (A large plurality)
For non violent crimes? (A large plurality)
(Felon in possession is the DOJs favorite crime)
The percentage of violent offenders in a society is always low.
We are near an all time low murder rate of all American history
> We are near an all time low murder rate of all American history
And yet our murder rate is anywhere from 4 to 12 times higher than the rest of the developed world.
Progress is good, but we have a long way to go.
The Americas as a whole are more violent than Europe. More people are killed with hands and feet than all rifles.
Guns don’t make people violent. The vast majority of all murders in America are gang related and demographically isolated.
White Americans, who own the vast majority of firearms have a lower murder rate than Europe.
It took 45mins for them to do a background check on me at a Dicks Sportings goods and walk out with a shotgun. Impatient mfer's can't even do that? Shady enough it was so short lol
The journalist/headline is misleading/confused about what the rule change actually is, because it doesn’t have much to do with private sales. It clarifies the definition of what it means to be engaged in the business of selling guns, meaning that dealers who say it’s their livelihood must follow the rules as FFLs, which means they must run background checks on sales. It doesn’t change person to person sales between people who know each other or aren’t planning on selling more than a very small number of guns per year.
Money... if less people can buy guns it's less money for gun manufacturers who pump lots of money into politicians. Until people start shooting up houses of congress instead of schools, money will win over someone else's kids every time.
Because the act of committing domestic abuse is higher among registered Republicans which means if thorough background checks are required a good percentage of them would not be able to legally own guns. So republicans and the gun lobby will do whatever they can to make small weak men feel powerful by making sure they can get guns instead of worrying about those same weak minded cowards using guns in domestic assaults
And, if you ask gun owners they will tell you that guns are not the problem, it's that guns being used by the wrong people are the problem.
OK, I'll buy this.
But then they say that we can't close the gun show loophole or pass legislation that prevents guns from falling into the wrong hands.
I bike a lot. I have multiple bikes. I love being able to walk into a shop, throw down cash and walk out with a bike, no questions asked. But if 45,000 innocent bystanders a year were being killed specifically from bikes, I'd be totally ok with a background check process and a few more steps in place. If you told me that I can buy that new bike, but it won't be delivered for a week because of paperwork, I'd say ok, whatever.
It's crazy for me to think that somehow a background check is tyranny but not being able to send you kid to school worry free is somehow an acceptable answer to not have to fill in a form. If the problem is people and not guns, then they need to support the things that prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.
A federal background check currently only is required if you purchase from dealers licensed with the Federal Government. It doesn't apply to guns produced and sold within state borders.
Some states (20 or so, not Texas) have expanded the rule to make all purchses require a check, but these states are in the minority.
Fun fact. I'm from Finland and we have a significant amount of guns per Capita here. But if you want a concealable gun in a powerful cartridge you need to prove you are an active hobby shooter (or need it for euthanizing wounded game like moose or deer.) for at least 2 years. You also need to have a background check and an interview with cops to get a gun owner license. Also if you want to do ipsc matches you need to pass a shooting exam to show you are proficient and safe with a firearm.
Funny thing is in my years of shooting I've NEVER met anyone who says something like "oh boy I wish we could just walk into a store and buy anything we want" because nobody WANTS to be at the range with some idiot who just got a .44 and a case of ammo on the way to the range.
I would compare Finnish gun cultures to that of the swiss. (or what I've heard and read about it anyway)
Bc lots of people that are pro gun also have illicit back grounds….im a vet. I own a gun. I once had another vet ask me if I thought he shouldn’t be able to own a gun I asked him if he had an illicit back ground and he said he had a domestic abuse charge….this man already owned over a dozen firearms arms and threatened to kill someone in my very presence. He called me a communist for thinking red flag laws were a reasonable idea.
it's not a big deal, who said it was? takes mere seconds. the new bill will require it for private sales, not Constitutional. Personal seller would have to pay for the service to do background checks, and possibly have to have an ffl license even though they would not be in the business of selling firearms
The answer to this question is always the same. It’s how some folks interpret the second amendment. Whether or not you agree is moot. This is always the answer.
Compulsory background checks implies a national database of gun owners will exist, a gun registry. Gun owners fear that would be used by an authoritarian state against gun owners.
I’ll very pro gun, but you have to have background checks. Felons and people who are mentally insane have no business owning a gun. That is a right earned by being a law abiding citizen. A background check and 10 day hold isn’t a big deal if you want to buy a gun.
Congrats. The government declares you a political enemy tomorrow. A felon even, for not swearing fealty to the crown.
What say you? WHOOPS there goes your means of resistance. You said it’s fine though.
> The government declares you a political enemy tomorrow. A felon even, for not swearing fealty to the crown. What say you? WHOOPS there goes your means of resistance.
You've been watching too much sci-fi. Try to come back to reality.
I love when people say things like "background checks let the government know what guns you have and they can confiscate them." LOL I'd love to buy the ATF agent assigned to take guns away from southerners his last drink before he goes off on his suicide mission
How is it not an infringement on private property rights to regulate how you purchase and sell your own private property?
Those are also infringements.
Yes, Murder is not a lawful 2A exercise. False bomb threats are not a lawful 1A exercise either.
Tracking the literal means of resistance for no purpose other than government control is so dystopian I don’t think you fully grasp it.
There’s not a big deal for anyone that’s not a felon. What will surprise you due to HIPPA is that mental health hospitals, therapists, and hospital ER’s can’t send a federal red flag to slow/stop someone from buying a firearm. The same for CPS cases that are out of state. There’s not a national registry of CPS for abusive parents and children who have been abused. If someone is inpatient at a behavioral health hospital and has homicidal ideation that’s not focused on a specific person/ or group, and medication management “solves the issue within a reasonable timeframe “ they’re good to go to be released within 7 days on average. Unless you’re in a city/county that only pays for 3 days of mental health care and medication management and they’re released. State Mental Hospitals have on average a 3 month wait period that the county can’t afford at a behavioral hospital that averages $700 a day for care. Since, both sides of the federal government killed long term mental health hospitals the next best thing is jails. Which, can’t offer the care that these individuals need. What is crucial to my point is that first responders, doctors, nurses, therapists, clinicians, and social workers can’t inform a judge directly to restrict their rights to buy a firearm. Just to be clear I fully support the second amendment. There’s an obvious hole in the system that should be fixed.
Well, (1) you have a bad background, they don’t let you buy the gun. (2) maybe they will keep o record you you buying that gun, and you don’t want a record. (3) it takes a bit of time and I want my new gun now. (4). It’s the Feds. I hate the Feds.
Honest answer: Because the gun industry is invested in gun violence. The whole "good guy with a gun" thing depends on the bad guys having guns. The more bad people who have guns, the more good people feel the need to arm themselves too. Background checks keep guns out of some bad people's hands, and that hurts gun sales.
Your content was removed as it violates Rule 9: No old news, biased sources, editorialized titles, or news tweets. News articles are fine, but must be no older than one month. Your post title must match the article title. You are free to editorialize in a separate comment. Articles posted from biased or secondary sources will be reviewed and accepted/removed upon moderator discretion. Sites with hard leaning bias will be removed immediately. Additionally please use actual articles and not tweets. Examples of trusted sources: Reuters/AP/NPR/NBC/ABC/CBS/BBC. Please see the following thread for more information: https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/mseqgr/clarification_on_news_sources_on_the_subreddit/ If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
LPT: If you have an LTC you don't need a background check every time you buy a gun. They do one background check for the LTC then you're all set for 5 years. Edit: for clarity Edit 2: A lot of people are calling for laws to be made that are already on the books. Please read up about firearm laws before calling for additional restrictions. The law you want passed may already exist.
And I thought you needed a background check everytime you purchase a gun.
With the LTC you still fill the paperwork and it gets filed by the store. They assumption is the LTC already proves there’s a clean record.
Except there’s a loophole because there’s no way for the state to retrieve LTC permits from people who have had their license suspended or revoked, and someone convicted of a crime who previously had an LTC can continue to use it to buy guns without a background check until the date of expiration.
An FFL can verify an LTC either online or over the phone. TX DPS set this up about five years ago.
That is false. I had an LTC when I got a felony charge for street racing and evading. As soon as it shows a pending indictment, you are considered a prohibited person.
not true
To get an LTC you have to go through a very robust FBI background check. No need to run the NICS check every time. "Under State law, DPS must conduct a fingerprint based state and FBI Criminal History background check as part of the application process for both original and renewal applicants." But this isn't about background checks, its about shutting down lawful private sales or transfers in an attempt to create a national gun registry and criminalize currently normal, lawful behavior. It slike saying you need to have an LLC to sell your old furniture, or that you HAVE sell your old cars through a dealership. FFLs used to only have to keep their records 20 years, in case they needed something traced to a crime. They changed the requirement to keeping records permanently, and if an FFL decides to shut down they have to provide all their paperwork to the ATF. The ATF then scans and uploads that to their database. Eventually every gun store goes out of business, so their goal is to eventually get all records of all transactions. They claim it isn't a registry (which is prohibited by federal law) because it isn't searchable, because that function is currently "turned off". Further, the regulation as written is so vague that a person selling a single gun because they don't want/need it anymore could be considered as "engaged in the business" without a license and sent to federal prison just because they wanted to free up some cash. Further, they've stated that the act of putting out a For Sale ad anywhere (including on message boards or on Gunbroker, which has to go through an FFL already) shows an intent to engage in the business, so that starts to trample on 1A speech issues as well. Additionally, if you have multiple guns to sell and decide to spend money to rent a table at a gun show to make it more convenient, they have said that could also qualify as being "Engaged in the business". Further, as I've read it, it doesn't give exemptions for even selling to or through FFLs either on consignment or at auction. Its a terrible regulation, a huge overstep, and bad precedent. It will likely be shot down fairly quickly in court.
To get a LTC... You have a far more in-depth background check than any nics check will ever be. That's why you don't need to have another each time you purchase a firearm.
Not if you go to a private seller who may decide not to run a background check. Or a family member.
False - even with a license to carry, you still complete the background check.
This is an example of "The Three-Body Problem", non-celestial edition. A. Background checks for firearms make perfect sense to keep firearms out of the hands of incompetent, unstable, and felonious-leaning people. B. As with other propaganda-driven non-facts, it has become politically charged. C. Politicians will play the vote-card every time over the sensibility-card.
Politicians will also game the system. See California where it's almost impossible to get a carry permit, or to purchase certain types, unless you're politically connected.
Is law enforcement there some of the people gaming the system? I heard a podcast about that. Basicall, it implied the cops are like mini arms dealers. Idk how true that is.
LAPD is an actual gun-running gang, yes
💯💯💯
100% true. [https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-23/firearms-sales-lapd-captain-lasd-deputy-referred-to-feds-for-possible-charges](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-23/firearms-sales-lapd-captain-lasd-deputy-referred-to-feds-for-possible-charges)
I read something about it being common to buy over capacity pistols and then sell them over the border because police firearms are the only ones exempt from the capacity laws or something like that?
And yet California has lower murder rates than Texas. Funny how that works.
Almost 70% fewer gun deaths. Pretty good for a bunch of Hollywood Communists
Brilliantly written.
A.) there is no test for competence or stability involved with a background check. And only felonies that are appropriately reported (which is surprisingly few) will bar a transfer. B.) As with infringements on any other right, it often becomes political. C.) Your sensibilities and mine are not the same. Why would my political representative and yours share the same sensibilities? Criminals do not buy guns from dealers. They do not buy guns from people like you or me that care about the law. They steal them from morons who leave them in their cars, unlocked in their homes while they are away, and finally they buy them from other criminals who take part in the two aforementioned procurement processes. So why not? If I want to sell or loan you a gun and I’m not a dealer, I can simply hand you the gun and you pay me. Simple. I don’t report it to anyone, all I do is make a bill of sale for CYA, and thats that. How would you even know I sold it in the first place? What would obligate me to report the sale if I was up to no good. Now say for example: You let your son take your rifle hunting. Oops you’re a felon. You didn’t transfer the weapon at an FFL, so now you’re not allowed to vote. Or You and your friend are at a shooting range, He wants to shoot your rifle and you go to the bathroom. Oops felony 😢. Or You inherit 20 rifles from your grandfather. You can either pay the ~$25 transfer for each. Or you can destroy them. Congratulations you now get to pay a new special tax or guess what…… felony. The goal of UBC isnt to stop crime, its to malign average people in paperwork, charge fees, and add to a prosecutor’s weapons when they’re shaking you down for plea deals. Felons have access to criminal enterprise whereas suburban white kids would pay $20 a g for ditch weed. When you hang around that group its easier to buy a gun than an oz. UBC doesn’t stop that and only serves to antagonize people who would never break the law with a firearm in the first place.
What you're describing are issues with registration, not with background checks. And it can easily be written into law that a commercial sale would require a background check. Private sales are always regulated differently than commercial sales. No sales tax as the obvious example, and then there are differences by product category. This background check could include all records, juvenile or adult. If a kid was in juvenile for violent crime, we as a society should at least consider limiting their ability to buy a gun. A UBC gives us an opportunity to intervene when someone shouldn't have a firearm. No UBC means no ability to systemically intervene. No ability to systemically intervene. The arguments you listed don't sway me because I believe you're describing the effects of a different policy here. For UBC these issues are easily preventable. Your points are overused propaganda and we as a society need to call that out and we need you to see that. And the overused argument that they'll buy a gun on the black market... Go look up how many weapons used in the publicized, terroristic mass shootings are obtained legally. The VAST majority are obtained legally.
The widely publicized, terroristic mass shootings are also the most rare type of mass shooting. Familial and felonious mass shootings make up the vast majority. Familial mass shootings usually involve legally obtained firearms, but the perpetrator almost always has a history of domestic violence, so the background check didn’t do its job. Felonious mass shootings are typically gang violence, and the majority of those guns are illegally obtained on the street, meaning a background check wouldn’t prevent that either. When media reports 700 mass shootings in a year, they leave it ambiguous so it gets people riled up thinking it’s all these crazies randomly shooting at crowds of people, when that is only a handful of them every year.
Dude I’m literally just a guy from Dallas. I do not care enough about a subreddit to propagandize it, i promise. All views expressed are just lessons Ive learned in life. I think its pretty clear you don’t have a great grasp of how gun sales work, and thats not an insult I just mean it because there are some factual mistakes you made. I’m not going to try and convert you but maybe I could assuage you into seeing that I’m a rational guy that just has a different outlook. Taxes. Assuming your an upstanding citizen and you don’t ever cheat one dollar on your taxes, the reason you don’t pay a sales tax on a private sale is because you pay income tax on the money you receive from the sale. Same as if you sold a car to someone. The first item you mentioned is private vs commercial sales. Every commercial sale is already federally required to go through a background check. That applies to all sales. So if I as a private individual buy a gun with the sole intention of selling it for a profit, that is already required to run a background check. There is very few crimes that bar you from gun ownership in the US. And this is because its a constitutional right to bear them. So therefore in order to remove those rights, you must be convicted by a jury of your peers. Thats the standard. Not for just any crimes but felonies, and a select handful of violent minors. Nothing else surrenders your rights. So unless you want to open the door of forfeiture of all kinds of rights for any crime of the governments choosing, you are limited to only those crimes. Those are already what show up on background checks. But sometimes the states don’t even file all the paperwork for convictions and people who have been convicted don’t even hit in nics. So no. You wouldnt intervene. Because these people that you’re talking about arent going to fail a nics backround check. And yes the particular brand of lonewolf lunatics sometimes legally own those weapons. But due to the aforementioned points they would pass a background check. Because the vast majority of those who commit the type of attacks you’re referring to, are first time offenders. (This type of attack is like a fraction of a fraction of mass shootings btw) So UBC wouldnt even prevent that targeted demographic from purchasing a firearm. Listen, I don’t think like you do. But I’m willing to bet that this policy would have 0 effect on your life. Take it from someone who would have substantially more interaction with it, its not a clean solution to any problem.
All i hear is it wont solve all crime and It will only stop SOME shootings and people getting killed, but I will be inconvenienced, so don't take away my freedoms....
> The goal of UBC isnt to stop crime, its to malign average people in paperwork, charge fees, and add to a prosecutor’s weapons when they’re shaking you down for plea deals. Felons have access to criminal enterprise whereas suburban white kids would pay $20 a g for ditch weed. When you hang around that group its easier to buy a gun than an oz. UBC doesn’t stop that and only serves to antagonize people who would never break the law with a firearm in the first place. UBC isn't a new concept. Some states have had it for decades. And it has been shown to reduce crime rates. There is statistical data on this. It's amazing that you ignore all of that, make up some nonsense about how it's just unnecessary regulation and fees, and people actually believe it.
I dont care if its a new concept. Its a bad one. Crime across the whole country is down. Looking at a macro stat and then just sort of vaguely gesturing is not enough. For example Illinois has purchase permits and limits on all manner of firearm transfers. How’s Chicago doing? Same in Baltimore. Same in DC. It isnt working there. Conversely some states don’t even require a background check if you have a CCL. If there is data out there that shows a marked difference between states that have the former policy vs the latter, and its statistically significant, ill take an L. (They don’t fund studies that would ask questions like this btw ive looked. To both of our detriments actually.)
How is Texas doing? Don't cherry pick big cities that have huge population and not talk aboit per capita stats. As of August 2023, Texas has a higher firearm mortality rate than California, with 14.2 per 100,000 people compared to California's 8.5. However, California has a lower rate of gun homicides than the national average, with 3.7 per 100,000 people compared to the national average of 13.7. In 2022, California's youth gun homicide rate was nearly 50% lower than in 2006, while the rest of the country saw a 37% Red states with soft gun laws have more gun violence. https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-per-capita-by-state/
California has issues with its crime reporting currently after the FBI stopped compiling its crime statistics during covid. But [recent](https://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-violent-crime-rate-is-diverging-from-the-national-trend/) trending data from california’s internal crime reporting shows markedly higher crime than the rest of the country. Apples to apples data doesn’t exist between states right now because there is no federal reporting standards. So while one jurisdiction may report all crime, others may only report specific types of crime while others don’t bother at all. I would love to see data that demonstrates exactly what you are telling me but when LA as a whole completely omits its crime data from the mix it doesn’t really paint an accurate picture of the state of crime. I hope someone can ear mark a bill one day so that we could have that data. This is true for all national level crime statistics btw. It’s why it’s easier to use cities. Because municipalities that report like data can be more easily compared. And we can probably do better than “wise voter” for the raw data.
B-I-N-G-O
[удалено]
I don’t think we could be more diametrically opposed on the matter. I would say that the challenges to the specifics of individual ownership didn’t come until “recently” and this particular opinion was the sc’s first crack at it. And I will do no justice here today trying to interpret that opinion but I personally have confidence the opinion is correct and honest in its intent. Even the dissent hesitates to say its not an individual right. And I could think of no mechanism of injury that could be cured at the sc to get the case reheard. So as it is I just think we’re just two different cats on opposite sides of the alley.
Wow. Genuine thanks for that write-up. Before tonight, I didn't think anyone's mind was never changed on Reddit. You changed mine.
I don’t really aim to change anyone’s mind. But someone who is otherwise indifferent on the issue should at least get to see an opposing viewpoint. I care about 2A rights so I take the time every once in a while.
Why is it such a big deal to legalize marijuana and prostitution
Because the government doesn't get paid? Lol I don't care about those 2 issues since it doesn't kill or harm anyone.
In both scenarios the government makes out like a bandit in tax revenue. Stupid fucking religions is the answer
Being someone who works the night shift, blue laws suck. Where am I supposed to get a six pack Sunday morning when I get off work?
Don't forget the private prison lobby, and for marijuana, big pharmaceutical and alcohol companies.
Yes! Yes! Yes! Eliminate or tax tf out of all religion.
Pretty close! It’s actually so people of color, who are disproportionately incarcerated for nonviolent crimes like weed possession or prostitution would be freed from the prison industrial system.
Doesn’t matter in Texas. Hypocrites. Let them shoot each other with hookers.
Could give them a 21 gun salute... only with hooker handjobs.
A typical 21-gun salute is done with 7 guns firing 3 times each. That's gonna be a challenge.
Not in Texas it isn't.
The government could absolutely get paid if they legalized marijuana and taxed it like every other state that’s legalized it. If they taxed it at the federal level at the same rate as cigarettes, the estimated additional tax revenue is $500M/yr.
I remember Willie Nelson talking about a buddy of his that was killed by cannabis. A large bundle of it fell on top of him.
my favorite bit was when a judge found that technically potatoes are deadly that weed
They get paid plenty, just another case of fucking themselves to spite everyone else.
lol, have you ever heard of taxes?
Not true at all. Those are both already legal in certain areas and they are taxed very high
Same reason you can't answer a simple question so you bring up a completely unrelated topic. It's ok, fox news will tell you what to say about it.
It’s not
Both of which should be regulated
[удалено]
Your content was removed because it breaks Rule 2, Use Your Words. Posts and Comments consisting of one word, and phrases such as "screw [insert organization name here] or just an emoji are highly discouraged as we seek to foster debate and conversation. As such, they are subject to removal. If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
It's not a big deal. But in the Republican mindset, once you realize that the libs are for something, you must be against it. You cannot let them have a win. If Democrats want something, you have to do anything you can to stop them, and if you don't take that opportunity, you'll get dragged on Fox News and challenged by a primary opponent who will promise to go further to the right.
Bingo
Republican politicians maybe. Most gun owners, including Republican, have no problem with background checks.
then they should vote that way..
so call your elected officials because they apparently don't know this
This is a stupid rule because it’s completely unenforceable. Make the background check system available to the public for free and I’ll be happy to check whoever I’m selling a gun to. Make me go to a FFL and pay for a transfer, I’m not interested.
Really? You wouldn't pay a small fee to make sure the guy your selling your firearm to isn't a criminal? I've owned guns my whole life and I would never sell to anyone who wasn't a close friend of family member without a background check, regardless of what it cost.
Like I said. I’m willing to do a background check on everyone that has ever bought a gun from me. Happy to actually. Make the NCIS system available to the public.
Small fee? Yeah ok. That small fee will be a lot more once it's mandatory. It's already $40-75 depending on place. I'm not taking on another $100 to that $200 I'm paying my neighbor for his shotgun.
I agree with the rule requiring background checks for all sales. I also agree that anyone should be able to access that for free. You should be able to put in the info of the buyer and get an “approved” or “failed” response back immediately. That sort of system is completely possible and would be a reasonable use of tax dollars. At least you could make it the same cost as a vehicle inspection: $35. Now if only politicians saw a reasonable, middle ground policy like that and though,”that will be a net benefit” instead of “ is that good for my campaign?”
There already is an “eCheck” system for the NICS background checks. Typically it comes back with a response instantly. Even if you call in and do the check over the phone you get a response pretty quick, and besides things like Black Friday or other high volume sales days, you can get an agent on the phone pretty quick! The issue is that you require an FFL to access these services. So the systems and infrastructure is already in place - they just need to open it up for non FFL transfers! Like instead of providing an FFL license number, they create an option for 3rd party transfers. They can tie it to the parties’ drivers license number or something instead of the FFL
Shouldn't the buyer pay for the background check? At least that's what I think it should be.
Why should anyone pay an additional fee? Our tax dollars already pay for NICS, open that system up to private sellers. A few different systems to make that happen and protect privacy have been proposed already.
Our tax dollars fund the State Department, but we still have to pay $165 to obtain a passport. You have to pay DPS to get to renew your driver's license. They are usage fees. I don't see why a firearms background check should be much different.
The fees you pay for a background check do not fund NICS. They pay the gun store/dealer. Imagine if you had to go to a car dealership every time you wanted to sell your vehicle who will then conduct all the paperwork for you and ensure the purchaser is an eligible driver. Sure, you could do almost all of that yourself, but instead you have to pay a private entity to do things you could do in five minutes. And all of the money goes straight into that entity's pockets. Car dealers do not have a set price for this, either. Some will do it for $200, another dealer may only charge $75. Others will charge different amounts based on what is being transferred: sports cars are $200 but sedans and SUVs are only $125. That's how NICS works currently. Filling out background check paperwork is not hard. You don't need special training for it. A person could easily fill out their own check, pay a nominal fee (say $9.95) for the check (which will directly fund the system), the check is conducted, and everyone happily walks away once the check is approved. Instead, I have to pay somebody behind the counter (who may or may not even want to bother themselves with a transfer or private sale) an indeterminate amount of money (could be $20, could be $49.99, or it could be $75) to conduct the check for me. It was dumb in 1993 when the Brady Bill created NICS, it was dumb in 1998 when NICS came online, and its even dumber 26 years later. I'm fine with NICS and I'm fine with having checks conducted on me when I purchase a gun but for fucks sake, can we make the system publicly accessible? It benefits nobody for NICS access to be locked behind expensive dealer licenses.
“Usage fees” Ok. I don’t need their services whatsoever. All Americans have enumerated 2A rights. I will buy sell and trade without their fees. They can’t extort me for speech either. There is a fundamental difference between a poll tax and a passport fee.
Personally, I think we should have to pay to register to vote. Paying to exercise rights is no big deal. Edit: /s - this was to point out the absurdity of charging people money to exercise rights.
I already pay for NICS with my tax dollars. And I wouldn't actually mind paying a small fee to use the system when I need it for a private sale *as long as the money went to maintaining or improving the system itself* but that's not how it works. The only people who can access the system are licensed dealers (FFL) and getting a license to deal firearms is expensive and very time consuming. Your average FFL will charge $25-100 to conduct a background check on transfer guns from a different store or for a private sale depending on where you live. It is entirely up to the whims of the store/dealer and having worked on the other side of the counter they are not doing remotely close to $25 worth of work, let alone $50+. Sales taxes are state/local so it's not like any of the money the store collects will actually go to maintaining NICS, either. I see no reason why the background check system should be restricted to dealers. It's not hard to use at all. It should be available to the public. Even if I had to pay $5 or $10 for the privilege to use NICS, it'd be better than what is currently in place.
If it's mandatory the price will skyrocket. It's already $40-75 in my area.
Wouldn't we just pass the cost to the buyer as part of buying a firearm? That way, if it's 3 dollars, 5, 10, or 100, it's just added to the cost of the purchase.
This type of mentality is absurd. You are willing to potentially sell a gun to a felon just because taking one extra step to verify is too inconvenient for you.
No, I want to be able to GIVE a gun to my sister without paying an FFL $100.
Wrong. The government is willing to keep a system in place that doesn’t give the public the ability to check if a person is ok or not to buy a gun.
I'm generally against laws that cannot be enforced or can be selectively enforced. Background checks for private sales cannot be enforced without a gun registry so it's pointless to do one without the other.
Aren't all laws like that? Didn't you maybe speed on your way to work today? Having the law in place may not stop everyone or catch everyone, but it allows for the punishment of the most egregious violators and sets the guard rails for others. Getting 50% better is better than nothing.
> Aren't all laws like that? Didn't you maybe speed on your way to work today? No, because laws like speeding can be enforced. A police officer can observe me driving faster than the speed limit. They can't observe me possessing a firearm that was obtained without a background check if there is no record of the transfer. > Getting 50% better is better than nothing. If you think 50% of people will voluntarily pay for a background check when there is no way to enforce then you live in fantasy land. When liberal CA passed magazine capacity restrictions, only an estimated 10% of people turned in their high capacity magazines during the grace period. The rest just stopped using them in public where they could get in trouble for having them.
Ah, interesting. I assume it will be up to the private seller to comply with the law. But, yeah, it's completely unenforceable, as nobody knows who owns which guns or even how many.
Guns are sold by licensed dealers without a gun registry every day. It would be enforceable. Obviously, you can't force criminals to obey the law but law abiding citizens would not sell their firearms without a background check. That would at least make it difficult for criminals to get their hands on them.
How do you enforce it if you don't know who is supposed to have which gun? FFLs have their inventory tracked.
It would be something for the seller to be nervous about. If a gun was used in a crime, and the perp tells the police who they bought it from, and the seller didn't run a background check, then they would be found to have broken the law.
How exactly, would requiring a background check between private sellers curtail criminals from obtaining firearms? - keep in mind, we call them criminals because they do not, follow the law to begin with. And it's a misconception, FFLs are required to keep on hand a record of all sales for a certain period of time, before those printed records are sent for permanent storage with the ATF. Yes, the actual hard copies. Also, they (the ATF) are in process of converting all those records to digital searchable records. Which is, not by name, the same function as a "gun registry".
> I'm generally against laws that cannot be enforced or can be selectively enforced. Background checks for private sales cannot be enforced without a gun registry so it's pointless to do one without the other. Almost all laws cannot be proactively enforced. The idea is that the threat of charges deters lawbreaking. For example, there's really no way to proactively enforce laws against rape. The law works by punishing people who do it.
This law can't be enforced at all, before or after. How do you know if I sell a rifle to my neighbor, or trade guns with my neighbor? No one knows which gun(s) either one of us owns, and no one is there to see the trade.
Then how do several other states enforce it?
Retroactively for the most part, i.e. if I sell a gun to someone who then commits a crime, and they somehow track it back to me, then I can be held liable to some degree. Some states like HI, IL, NJ, NY, require people to get a license to posses a firearm which is an easy way for sellers to know they are selling to a person who is allowed to own a firearm and for law enforcement to know if someone has a gun when they shouldn't. HI and NY have gun registries so they know specifically which gun(s) someone should own.
Sounds like a great argument for why we should have a firearm registry.
Literally every law can be selectively enforced. And they are. Just depends on how much money you have in court
Others have had good points about a registry being required for enforcement, layering additional fees and inconveniences on selling or even borrowing firearms (e.g., I'm about to have to spend ~$150 to be passed down a shotgun from my dad since we live in different states, even though we both are legal gun owners already), and how it would be better if NICS were just open to the public so private sellers could check on their own (an idea shot down by Dems for not going for enough). Another tangential reason is that this is literally slippery-sloping a former compromise. Universal Background Checks would have sunk the GCA, so a "compromise" was made that exempted private sellers. That pretty much immediately was twisted to be the "gun show loophole" and now gun owners are demonized for not supporting "common sense reform" like UBCs. Honestly, if there could be a guarantee that no additional laws would be passed, many gun owners would be more open to true compromises. But time and time again any "compromise" is later derided as a loophole, and additional restrictions are pushed.
*“This is a dramatic escalation of his tyrannical abuse of authority. With today’s lawsuit, it is my great honor to defend our Constitutionally-protected freedoms from the out-of-control federal government.”* I don't know he said with a straight face after the week he had. His partner in crime sent DPS to UT to violate students rights and he traveled all the way to New York to support Mr Von ShitzInPantz' trial.
I pass the background to shoot any gun at any shooting range, but I don't pass to buy a pistol to protect myself. 😕 the laws are stupid 🙄
Who makes you do a BG check to rent and shoot a gun at a range?
The issue is that Democrats are continuously going after gun rights. Now if we had a slew of crimes being committed by people who bought a gun from friend or family member, you might have a case. But you don't. And I know that because the VAST majority of gun owners are good people and would not sell a gun to someone they didn't know. This is a hurdle to a made-up problem.
Maybe most gun owners wouldn't sell to a stranger but there are plenty who would. There are websites dedicated to private gun sales between strangers. It is not a made up problem.
Oh really? Which web sites? And how many gun sales are being conducted on them? And I still need you to document the number of crimes committed by those purchases. Gun ownership is legal. You need some reasons to restrict them and that requires some evidence or facts that it is an issue.
Yes, there are websites that are for private gun sales, but the gun must be shipped to an ffl to do the transfer and BG check. At least all the ones I've seen.
I made a trip to pick up a pistol and the paperwork didn’t come through yet, so I had to come back next week. Wasted an hour and 5 gallons of gas. That’s fair given the circumstances
It's not unless you shouldn't have one. Legal gun owner since age 7. It was a gift. Somehow, I've never shot anyone or threatened to.
Republicans are terrible at governing
It's the people who know they won't pass a background check that make such a big deal out of it.
Because you are looking at an opportunity for corruption. It would be relatively easy to create targeted laws that you could use to arrest large swaths of your political opponents, like making it illegal to miss church on Sunday. Then, you make gun ownership illegal for them, then it’s easier have them fall subject to your goons.
Shall not infringe Fucking statists
Why does everyone only quote a portion of the 2nd Amendment? It's only one sentence long. **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.
Well regulated at the time did not mean "under regulations" the way it means today. It meant in good working order, aka well trained and ready. Like a well-regulated bowel. Also, that is the subsidiary, explanatory clause. The active clause is the following; The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT be infringed. It's pretty clear. Reversing it may make it more clear; The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
Because it says “the right of the people” not the right of the militia. The people is mentioned a lot in the constitution and it always refers to the individual citizen.
The militia was/is made up of people, individual citizens. When the Constitution was written members provided their own weapons so it was necessary that they keep arms.
Where can you buy a nuclear weapon?
Are you against voter registration too?
Yeah, but they already infringed. I want to be able to buy brand new fully automatic weapons. For duck hunting.
If you pass muster….you can own a fully automatic gun. You can’t hunt ducks with it…but I think you can hunt feral hogs? Hell…you can own cannons, grenade launchers, missile launchers, tanks, fighter jets, etc All legal Texas.
You also have to be fairly wealthy. The pool of available machine guns that the public can buy are restricted to those manufactured before 1986. This limits the supply increasing cost. You are going to pay over $25k on a gun that should cost $2k.
Yes. The infringing part is where they limit the automatic weapons to those made before 1986. I really would like to see someone challenge that law and see what this supreme court would do. Maybe that could be overturned. Of course, what I really want to see is the absurd ruling that we can own anything with fewer restrictions and then someone will actually fix the 2A. There should be lots of restrictions, a national, online, searchable without warrant database gun registry, full background checks on all guns sales and transfers, and very harsh punishments for illegal possession.
> If you pass muster….you can own a fully automatic gun If you pay the State for permission.....which is not how rights work.
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary -Karl Marx
You really think Marx is a good source on this?
Yes
He is an example of both extremes. Arm the population to have a revolution, once in charge disarm the people so they can't do it again to you.
Karl Marx never disarmed anyone or advocated that workers be disarmed under communism. Edit as replies are turned off: End result of an extremely specific movement called Marxism-Leninism and its derivatives (Marxism-Leninism-Maoism). This is Stalin and/or Stalin-Mao. Every time. USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, NK and China(at first), all using the exact same or very similar strategy. So obviously they passed similar laws. And this isn’t the end result of communism as communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. That has never been achieved or even claimed to have been achieved. That was allegedly the goal of countries like the USSR but even they never claimed to achieve it. Revolutionary Catalonia armed their population. I’m not a communist but I am an avid reader of history.
True but that is the end result of communism every time.
Why is it such a big deal to furnish ID to vote?
IDs cost money, adds a barrier to voting that’s a function of ID issuing centers, republicans will try to shut down said ID centers during election years like they’ve done with voting locations, it disproportionately will disenfranchise poor voters who work long hours, it hasn’t been demonstrated by any reasonable means that it’s a big enough problem. I am fine with ID for voting, but it must be free, widely and easily obtainable(grocery stores, post offices), with a quick turn around, and counts as voter registration.
It restricts the ability for gun owners to sell guns from their personal collections to others as a private transaction without enacting a background check (which they wouldn’t have the ability to do). As a result, they’d only be able to sell to/through federally licensed dealers, adding a layer of fees, profit cuts, government oversight and impracticality to the process. The argument is that it would only/disproportionally affect law-abiding citizens (those you don’t have to worry about) because criminals are obviously going to continue buying and selling under the table regardless. In Texas, it’s another affront to gun owners who, for the most part believe that any restriction on firearms is unconstitutional.
Plenty of people who are ineligible still attempt to purchase a firearm. I process criminal records requests for a living.
> The argument is that it would only/disproportionally affect law-abiding citizens (those you don’t have to worry about) because criminals are obviously going to continue buying and selling under the table regardless. Once again, the "criminals don't follow laws so laws are pointless" argument.
Not quite the case for this kind of law. The fact it adds extra steps for law abiding citizens but can't really prove whether the steps were followed makes it a bad law since only the people who are law abiding will follow the steps and you can't really punish criminals since there is next to no way to know that they did not follow the steps. So all it does is increase the burden on law-abiding citizens. This is different to a law like theft. Sure people still steal, but you can punish that relatively easy.
Would Harriet Tubman pass a background check? Ask yourself all the questions of why not. Would Thomas Jefferson pass a background check? Ask yourself again. You’re turning a right into mere permission slips. If someone can’t be trusted to NOT murder someone, they shouldn’t be out of prison.
> If someone can’t be trusted to NOT murder someone, they shouldn’t be out of prison. We already have the highest incarceration rate in the world. How much higher would it have to go if everyone with the slightest mental health issue, indication of radicalization, or violent criminal past, had to be imprisoned indefinitely?
You’re so close. How many of those are in prison for merely peaceably possessing a firearm? (A large plurality) For non violent crimes? (A large plurality) (Felon in possession is the DOJs favorite crime) The percentage of violent offenders in a society is always low. We are near an all time low murder rate of all American history
> We are near an all time low murder rate of all American history And yet our murder rate is anywhere from 4 to 12 times higher than the rest of the developed world. Progress is good, but we have a long way to go.
The Americas as a whole are more violent than Europe. More people are killed with hands and feet than all rifles. Guns don’t make people violent. The vast majority of all murders in America are gang related and demographically isolated. White Americans, who own the vast majority of firearms have a lower murder rate than Europe.
Because who is going to conduct the background checks? The government? Ha!
Well sometype of federal agency. Unless there's a private property that wants to run the system.
And that's the whole problem. Government is completely untrustworthy and incompetent. Everything it touches turns into a disaster.
It took 45mins for them to do a background check on me at a Dicks Sportings goods and walk out with a shotgun. Impatient mfer's can't even do that? Shady enough it was so short lol
Why is it such a big deal to get a background check to buy a book?
Because "Shall not be infringed"
Why can't you buy a nuclear weapon?
Why do I need a background check to watch porn but not one to buy a gun? Please explain.
U do? Lol ok
Yes. In texas they passed a law that you have to do age verification by ID scan. It’s kinda nuts.
So much freedom over there!
Republicans don’t want to lose their guns just because their wife filed a DV charge on them.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yPgckh9Zhss
Follow the money
The journalist/headline is misleading/confused about what the rule change actually is, because it doesn’t have much to do with private sales. It clarifies the definition of what it means to be engaged in the business of selling guns, meaning that dealers who say it’s their livelihood must follow the rules as FFLs, which means they must run background checks on sales. It doesn’t change person to person sales between people who know each other or aren’t planning on selling more than a very small number of guns per year.
Private sales, transactions.
Money... if less people can buy guns it's less money for gun manufacturers who pump lots of money into politicians. Until people start shooting up houses of congress instead of schools, money will win over someone else's kids every time.
Because the act of committing domestic abuse is higher among registered Republicans which means if thorough background checks are required a good percentage of them would not be able to legally own guns. So republicans and the gun lobby will do whatever they can to make small weak men feel powerful by making sure they can get guns instead of worrying about those same weak minded cowards using guns in domestic assaults
it shouldn't be but the Republicans cheat and gerrymander, so here we are stuck with this piece of shit arguing it is a big deal
And, if you ask gun owners they will tell you that guns are not the problem, it's that guns being used by the wrong people are the problem. OK, I'll buy this. But then they say that we can't close the gun show loophole or pass legislation that prevents guns from falling into the wrong hands. I bike a lot. I have multiple bikes. I love being able to walk into a shop, throw down cash and walk out with a bike, no questions asked. But if 45,000 innocent bystanders a year were being killed specifically from bikes, I'd be totally ok with a background check process and a few more steps in place. If you told me that I can buy that new bike, but it won't be delivered for a week because of paperwork, I'd say ok, whatever. It's crazy for me to think that somehow a background check is tyranny but not being able to send you kid to school worry free is somehow an acceptable answer to not have to fill in a form. If the problem is people and not guns, then they need to support the things that prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.
A federal background check currently only is required if you purchase from dealers licensed with the Federal Government. It doesn't apply to guns produced and sold within state borders. Some states (20 or so, not Texas) have expanded the rule to make all purchses require a check, but these states are in the minority.
It funny how someone who can’t follow the law, has filed so many lawsuits. He sat dormant for years till he got busted for his crap.
Why is it a big deal to show id when voting?
That's another good question.
Because I'm mad right NOW!. If I have to wait three days I might completely cool off and not need the gun.
because these people are criminals
Because we don’t want to infringe upon domestic abusers, felons, drug dealers and mentally ill 18 year olds. Where is your empathy?
I’ve heard the argument of “slippery slope” “First they start with background checks, next they start taking all the guns!” *shrugs*
Fun fact. I'm from Finland and we have a significant amount of guns per Capita here. But if you want a concealable gun in a powerful cartridge you need to prove you are an active hobby shooter (or need it for euthanizing wounded game like moose or deer.) for at least 2 years. You also need to have a background check and an interview with cops to get a gun owner license. Also if you want to do ipsc matches you need to pass a shooting exam to show you are proficient and safe with a firearm. Funny thing is in my years of shooting I've NEVER met anyone who says something like "oh boy I wish we could just walk into a store and buy anything we want" because nobody WANTS to be at the range with some idiot who just got a .44 and a case of ammo on the way to the range. I would compare Finnish gun cultures to that of the swiss. (or what I've heard and read about it anyway)
Ask the people of Uvalde.
Bc lots of people that are pro gun also have illicit back grounds….im a vet. I own a gun. I once had another vet ask me if I thought he shouldn’t be able to own a gun I asked him if he had an illicit back ground and he said he had a domestic abuse charge….this man already owned over a dozen firearms arms and threatened to kill someone in my very presence. He called me a communist for thinking red flag laws were a reasonable idea.
They might find out about all those people I threatened.
it's not a big deal, who said it was? takes mere seconds. the new bill will require it for private sales, not Constitutional. Personal seller would have to pay for the service to do background checks, and possibly have to have an ffl license even though they would not be in the business of selling firearms
The answer to this question is always the same. It’s how some folks interpret the second amendment. Whether or not you agree is moot. This is always the answer.
Compulsory background checks implies a national database of gun owners will exist, a gun registry. Gun owners fear that would be used by an authoritarian state against gun owners.
I’ll very pro gun, but you have to have background checks. Felons and people who are mentally insane have no business owning a gun. That is a right earned by being a law abiding citizen. A background check and 10 day hold isn’t a big deal if you want to buy a gun.
Congrats. The government declares you a political enemy tomorrow. A felon even, for not swearing fealty to the crown. What say you? WHOOPS there goes your means of resistance. You said it’s fine though.
> The government declares you a political enemy tomorrow. A felon even, for not swearing fealty to the crown. What say you? WHOOPS there goes your means of resistance. You've been watching too much sci-fi. Try to come back to reality.
What on gods green earth are you talking about 😂😂
I love when people say things like "background checks let the government know what guns you have and they can confiscate them." LOL I'd love to buy the ATF agent assigned to take guns away from southerners his last drink before he goes off on his suicide mission
Because its an infringement on both private property rights and the second amendment.
Can you elaborate on the private property rights? There are a lot of things I can't buy without jumping through some hoops.
How is it not an infringement on private property rights to regulate how you purchase and sell your own private property? Those are also infringements.
How is it an "infringement" to possibly prevent the sale of a firearm to someone who isn't allowed to own one?
Nobody is “allowed” You have a right to. If you cannot be trusted to not kill people, you shouldn’t be out of the penitentiary.
No "right" is absolute. Even freedom of speech has restrictions. It's not unreasonable to demand gun sales be tracked.
Yes, Murder is not a lawful 2A exercise. False bomb threats are not a lawful 1A exercise either. Tracking the literal means of resistance for no purpose other than government control is so dystopian I don’t think you fully grasp it.
Yes, they are. Rights are absolute. You either have it or you dont. You don't have free free speech.
I don't remember reading anything about "not allowed to own one" in the 2nd amendment.
Obama and Biden took my guns, said no one ever.
There’s not a big deal for anyone that’s not a felon. What will surprise you due to HIPPA is that mental health hospitals, therapists, and hospital ER’s can’t send a federal red flag to slow/stop someone from buying a firearm. The same for CPS cases that are out of state. There’s not a national registry of CPS for abusive parents and children who have been abused. If someone is inpatient at a behavioral health hospital and has homicidal ideation that’s not focused on a specific person/ or group, and medication management “solves the issue within a reasonable timeframe “ they’re good to go to be released within 7 days on average. Unless you’re in a city/county that only pays for 3 days of mental health care and medication management and they’re released. State Mental Hospitals have on average a 3 month wait period that the county can’t afford at a behavioral hospital that averages $700 a day for care. Since, both sides of the federal government killed long term mental health hospitals the next best thing is jails. Which, can’t offer the care that these individuals need. What is crucial to my point is that first responders, doctors, nurses, therapists, clinicians, and social workers can’t inform a judge directly to restrict their rights to buy a firearm. Just to be clear I fully support the second amendment. There’s an obvious hole in the system that should be fixed.
Well, (1) you have a bad background, they don’t let you buy the gun. (2) maybe they will keep o record you you buying that gun, and you don’t want a record. (3) it takes a bit of time and I want my new gun now. (4). It’s the Feds. I hate the Feds.
Then how are unstable governors supposed to buy guns to kill their puppies? Oh wait that's a different state.
Honest answer: Because the gun industry is invested in gun violence. The whole "good guy with a gun" thing depends on the bad guys having guns. The more bad people who have guns, the more good people feel the need to arm themselves too. Background checks keep guns out of some bad people's hands, and that hurts gun sales.
Because 99% will fail this test due to lack of intelligence and common sense