Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maryland
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-09-2020, 12:34 PM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,114 posts, read 60,226,663 times
Reputation: 60714

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by westsideboy View Post
Thought experiment for a middle ground solution:

What about just imposing a strict liability on the seller? Meaning, if a seller chooses not to use the background system, and they end up selling a long gun to a prohibited person, they are criminally/civilly responsible under existing laws.

This would be a solution that allows the everyday routine transfer to hunting and sporting weapons among family members and friends, but creates a strong incentive to owners to not sell to people they don't know without using the background check system first.

In the end this idea could achieve both goals, to make sure guns aren't sold to people who are not legally allowed to own them, and imposes no additional burden on private sales between otherwise legal buyers and sellers.
The problem with that is that you and I, as private sellers, can't use the NICS system. Even now using the system or not, if someone sells/gives or otherwise transfers a gun to a prohibited person they are liable in addition to criminal penalties.

The woman who bought some of the guns used in the Columbine shooting was never charged for making a straw purchase. One provider was charged with two felony counts.

CNN - Gun provider pleads guilty in Columbine case - August 18, 1999
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-09-2020, 01:13 PM
 
2,180 posts, read 2,669,273 times
Reputation: 2601
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
How so? If they don't go through background checks now what makes you think they would in the future. They won't for the simple fact they can't pass them.

Yet, if this is passed, if I have a shotgun you wish to buy, and I know you're not a prohibited person, you would have to pay an additional $50 (and this being Maryland I doubt it would be that cheap) in order to buy it.

This whole "internet/gun show loophole" gun sale myth that's out there is just that, a myth. Internet sales have to go through a FFL holder and gun shows? Have you ever been to one? Well, I know you haven't. There is no loophole.
I honestly can't keep track of all the goalposts you're moving around. No, I haven't been to a gun show before. I'm not claiming to be the ultimate arbiter of proposed and existing gun laws. I would love to hear your opinion if you'd stop trying to score points and start trying to explain why Y and Z don't make sense but A and B do. Or maybe you just meant the thread to be a passing, glib comment and that's fine, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2020, 01:33 PM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,114 posts, read 60,226,663 times
Reputation: 60714
You're the goalpost mover.

Not being able to keep track isn't unexpected, your knowledge of firearms and related laws is minimal and you react on what you think and feel should be done.

I haven't been trying to "score points", it's just that you have the mindset that guns are bad and any way to limit them on the way to eliminating them has to be good, you've said that by the way, and it doesn't matter how many law abiding people get in the way because that's what has to be done.

It all goes back to the "problem" the proposed law solves. What is it? There isn't one. The adoption of this will only be to make people feel good that "something" is being done when, in reality, nothing needs to be done. The number of firearms used illegally that are face to face legal transfers is minimal. In fact, long guns are used rarely in any type of crime. Handguns are the firearms of choice for criminals and Maryland has some of the strictest controls on them in the US. Yet there are thousands of them in Baltimore that have been acquired outside regular background check required channels (and no, unlike long guns it's incredibly difficult for private individuals in Maryland to legally transfer a hand gun to another person). And handguns in Maryland are on a registry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2020, 01:37 PM
 
2,180 posts, read 2,669,273 times
Reputation: 2601
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
How so? If they don't go through background checks now what makes you think they would in the future.
It's all about accessibility. If you institute a law requiring background checks for private sales then some percentage of sellers will follow said law. Those guns are removed from the pool of firearms available to prohibited individuals, yes? The remaining pool of firearms available to prohibited individuals will be smaller and harder/more expensive to procure. Right? What's up for debate is whether that outcome is worth the hardship imposed upon residents as a whole. I tend to think yes, but I only know guns as something used to murder/maim/intimidate. Other parts of the state have guns for other reasons, too. Those are valid considerations.

Last edited by bufflove; 01-09-2020 at 01:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2020, 01:42 PM
 
2,180 posts, read 2,669,273 times
Reputation: 2601
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
You're the goalpost mover.

Not being able to keep track isn't unexpected, your knowledge of firearms and related laws is minimal and you react on what you think and feel should be done.

I haven't been trying to "score points", it's just that you have the mindset that guns are bad and any way to limit them on the way to eliminating them has to be good, you've said that by the way, and it doesn't matter how many law abiding people get in the way because that's what has to be done.

It all goes back to the "problem" the proposed law solves. What is it? There isn't one. The adoption of this will only be to make people feel good that "something" is being done when, in reality, nothing needs to be done. The number of firearms used illegally that are face to face legal transfers is minimal. In fact, long guns are used rarely in any type of crime. Handguns are the firearms of choice for criminals and Maryland has some of the strictest controls on them in the US. Yet there are thousands of them in Baltimore that have been acquired outside regular background check required channels (and no, unlike long guns it's incredibly difficult for private individuals in Maryland to legally transfer a hand gun to another person). And handguns in Maryland are on a registry.
No one is arguing that long guns are as big of a problem as handguns. There's obviously a reason why handgun regulations were addressed first. I don't see this conversation going anywhere. Now you're just fighting straw men while moving the goalposts. It's almost as if we aren't going to fix gun control laws today, or something. Oh well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2020, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Cumberland
6,957 posts, read 11,230,346 times
Reputation: 6162
Quote:
Originally Posted by bufflove View Post
I think that makes sense. And, like most misdemeanors, would be the ultimate effect of the law. If a friend (immediate family is exempt, as currently written) sells me, a law abiding citizen, a rifle and it's never used in the commission of a crime then 1. law enforcement is highly unlikely to find out about the sale and 2. even if they did the fine imposed would be negligible.

If, rather, this is the third time someone's been caught selling shotguns out of their trunk to William Munny and Omar Little then I'd hope a judge would consider using the upper end of the penalty range (5 years imprisonment).

I don't think you can "just imposing a strict liability on the seller" without passing a law such as that proposed. I'm not a lawyer, but without outlining a circumstance in which the sale is illegal I don't think you could reasonably hold the seller criminally responsible for any subsequent outcomes. E.g. if I buy heroin from someone and die then charging the seller w/manslaughter makes sense because the sale was illegal and implies complicity. If I buy a gumball from someone and choke and die then charging the seller w/manslaughter doesn't make sense because the sale wasn't illegal and doesn't imply complicity.
I am thinking of it more like statutory rape laws. It doesn't matter under the law if the minor passes themselves off as an adult, or even has a convincing fake ID. It is the responsibility of the other party to make 100% sure the person isn't a minor. In this case, the long gun seller would have the strict liability to make sure the buyer can pass the background check. It is up to the seller how far they go to make sure they cover themselves.

You could probably use existing gun sellers as a proxy to do the background check. That is what happens now with handguns purchases out of state; the out of state store transfer them to a MD gun shop, which completes the sale, and takes their cut.

I am not sure what laws would have to be passed. Obviously the goal would be to inconvenience the fewest legal buyers and sellers, while making it less likely a prohibited person would be able to purchase the long gun.

Again, just an idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2020, 06:25 AM
 
58,749 posts, read 27,092,933 times
Reputation: 14186
Quote:
Originally Posted by bufflove View Post
Baud9600's comment? It doesn't make sense to me. The bill would make it illegal for individuals to privately SELL shotguns and rifles w/o initiating a background check, correct? That's completely different from existing laws re: the unlawful purchase/possession of a firearm by, e.g., a violent felon, right? Like how there are separate laws making it illegal to sell cocaine and making it illegal to possess cocaine.
"The bill would make it illegal for individuals to privately SELL shotguns and rifles w/o initiating a background check,"


Many who do NOT support the 2nd amendment do NOT agree with, "the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be INFRINGED"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2020, 06:17 PM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,114 posts, read 60,226,663 times
Reputation: 60714
An update for one piece of legislation:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2020...-consideration
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2020, 08:19 PM
 
18,579 posts, read 10,582,951 times
Reputation: 8601
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
How so? If they don't go through background checks now what makes you think they would in the future. They won't for the simple fact they can't pass them.

Yet, if this is passed, if I have a shotgun you wish to buy, and I know you're not a prohibited person, you would have to pay an additional $50 (and this being Maryland I doubt it would be that cheap) in order to buy it.

This whole "internet/gun show loophole" gun sale myth that's out there is just that, a myth. Internet sales have to go through a FFL holder and gun shows? Have you ever been to one? Well, I know you haven't. There is no loophole.
I was out at Chantilly a week ago and I will say they is not suppose to be a loophole but I saw with my own eyes thing going down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2020, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Mount Airy, Maryland
16,181 posts, read 10,323,045 times
Reputation: 27355
I am in full support of the 2nd Amendment. I want law abiding citizens to have the right to purchase long guns. I also strongly support a law that will make it more difficult for violent criminals to purchase these guns and I do not see how those 2 opinions conflict in any way what so ever. If you are not mentally ill or have a violent past I have no idea why you would be so upset over this bill. And no "thou shall not infringe" is not a viable argument to a law meant to reduce the ability for the bad guys to purchase long guns. This won't effect your ability to purchase what you want, the law abiding gun owner will simply not be infringed upon
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maryland

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:51 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top