Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your link explains why it the measure would end up wasting the LE resources. They already know when the check fails, and they could look up the person who made the attempt, but they dont bother.
Quote:
"It is a federal crime for felons and other prohibited gun purchasers to attempt to buy a gun. The (U.S.) Department of Justice, however, has not been prosecuting people who fail background checks at licensed gun dealers, leaving them free to buy from unlicensed sellers who don’t conduct checks – including largely anonymous Internet sales."
"In 2009, the Federal Bureau of Investigation referred more than 71,000 such cases to ATF, but U.S. attorneys ultimately prosecuted only 77 of them."
And Mr Steube's proposed amendment did not mention ICE.
Is Mr Steube's proposal supposed to raise red flags about an individual? I can see that that would be the result, but what exactly is law enforcement supposed to do? Do some states have laws that would allow prosecution of someone for trying to buy a firearm? I am sincerely asking.
Social Security number is optional on the current application for a background check.
Applicants are asked if illegally or unlawfully in the US. In absence of a positive response from the applicant, how would the database know who was in the US legally vs illegally?
When an applicant is denied, the licensed seller has no obligation to do anything beyond communicating the denial and recommending the denied applicant seek legal counsel, if it is believed the denial is a mistake.
They are under no obligation to detain and doing so would be impractical.
Why would a convicted felon, let alone an illegal alien, who wants a gun, choose to attempt to buy one from a licensed dealer given the ease of buying off the street?
Never understood why the NRA so staunchly opposed universal background checks.
Because they become a waste of time and resources when the bad guys don't go through the legal channels to buy guns. Background checks are not done if a gun is purchased on the street by your average Joe Drug Dealer, even if sellers are REQUIRED to do this.
When an applicant is denied, the licensed seller has no obligation to do anything beyond communicating the denial and recommending the denied applicant seek legal counsel, if it is believed the denial is a mistake.
They are under no obligation to detain and doing so would be impractical.
Right, they can't shift the burden of law enforcement on the dealers shoulders. The Feds perform the check, so they ALREADY know which ones fail. If they want to act on that information, they do not need additional laws to do that.
If they want to act on that information, they do not need additional laws to do that.
Go read the amendment, the system will be notifying local law enforcement or ICE. The law is essential if you want to do this because the very first thing that will happen when ICE or local law enforcement is notified is some lawyer will be suing them because it's not in the law.
Go read the amendment, the system will be notifying local law enforcement or ICE. The law is essential if you want to do this because the very first thing that will happen when ICE or local law enforcement is notified is some smart ass lawyer will be suing them because it's not in the law.
I do not have to read it again. The Feds ALREADY have the information, so if they want to start enforcing the laws, they already have the information they need, and they can share it with ICE, or whoever else they want. As the statistics show they hardly ever act on the information.
No need for new laws then the existing laws already cover what you need.
Right, they can't shift the burden of law enforcement on the dealers shoulders. The Feds perform the check, so they ALREADY know which ones fail. If they want to act on that information, they do not need additional laws to do that.
If I wanted to buy a gun and did not meet the legal requirements to do so, no way am I going to make application for a background check.
The Fed is free to follow up with anyone who lies on the application or is otherwise found to be unqualified.
If I wanted to buy a gun and did not meet the legal requirements to do so, no way am I going to make application for a background check.
The Fed is free to follow up with anyone who lies on the application or is otherwise found to be unqualified.
I doubt they do.
The follow up on a small fraction of the cases, but you are right, a convicted felon, or illegal alien would buy their guns on the street or a gunshow.
The follow up on a small fraction of the cases, but you are right, a convicted felon, or illegal alien would buy their guns on the street or a gunshow.
Another "gun show loophole" myth believer. Don't you guys ever get tired being dishonest?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
