Church gun policy announced

[LoudmouthMormon]

15 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Individuals who are known to be so mentally incompetent that they can't even stand trial for their violent offenses can legally carry legally-acquired shotguns into places of worship.

 Federal Law  18 U.S.C. § 922(d) says is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” 

So, can you support your assertion?

Here - read the whole dang thing:

Quote

(d)It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) is a fugitive from justice;

(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

(5)who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by LoudmouthMormon

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

So, can you support your assertion?

Which of the above would have prevented the shooter (Keith Thomas Kinnunen) from legally acquiring a firearm and legally carrying it into the church?

From the article I linked it was said: "It’s unclear whether Keith Thomas Kinnunen’s extensive criminal record would have barred him from legally buying the shotgun he used during Sunday’s attack at the West Freeway Church of Christ in the Fort Worth-area town of White Settlement."

If it is unclear even after the shooting, how could it have been clear before the shooting?

The ATF has traced the firearm. Can we expect the person who sold him the shotgun to be charged? Where is this person that sold him the firearm and what sort of punishment can we expect they will receive?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 Federal Law  18 U.S.C. § 922(d) says is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” 

So, can you support your assertion?

Here - read the whole dang thing:

 

And are they required by law to actually do significant research to ensure an individual is none of these or are they supposed to be able to tell by sight or is it just something if they happen to know? (Serious question, not sarcastic)

Edited January 3, 2020 by Calm

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

So, can you support your assertion?

From another article:

Quote

 

Federal law defines nine categories that would prohibit someone from being legally allowed to own or possess a firearm. They include being convicted of any felony charge or misdemeanor domestic violence, being subject to a restraining order or active warrants, being addicted to drugs, and being involuntarily committed to a mental health institution or being found by a court to be “a mental defective.” However, it remained unclear whether Kinnunen qualified under any of the categories.

Despite a judge’s initial finding that Kinnunen was mentally incompetent to stand trial in Oklahoma, that wouldn't necessarily have prevented him from legally purchasing a firearm, said Edwin Walker, a Houston-based attorney for U.S. & Texas Law Shield, a company that provides legal protection to gun owners.

“If he had only misdemeanors and none of those were for domestic violence, and his competency had been restored by judicial decree, then yes, he would have been able to purchase a firearm,” Walker said.

 

and with the new laws in Texas, he also would have been able to legally carry that firearm into a church.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

So the shooter in the Texas church had a history of aggravated assault with weapons, arson and had warrants out for his arrest in other states.

In 2012, a district judge in Oklahoma ruled him mentally incompetent to stand trial and ordered him committed to a psychiatric facility for treatment. A forensic psychologist who examined him in 2012 wrote that “Kinnunen currently evidences signs that are consistent with a substantial mental illness and that meet the inpatient criteria of a ‘person requiring treatment.’” 

Kinnunen was charged with felony assault and battery with a dangerous weapon after he allegedly attacked the owner of a Chickasha, Oklahoma, doughnut shop, as well as third-degree arson charges for a separate 2011 incident in which he allegedly started a fire in a cotton field.

“Keith is a violent, paranoid person with a long line of assault and battery w/ and without firearms,” Glasgow-Voegle said in the petition. She also wrote that Kinnunen was prone to religious fanaticism and “says he’s battling a demon.” (source)

This is the real problem. Individuals who are known to be so mentally incompetent that they can't even stand trial for their violent offenses can legally carry legally-acquired shotguns into places of worship.

Legislation in some jurisdictions makes it possible to find someone guilty of a crime and mentally unstable, allowing him to be sentenced to a mental lockdown facility.  We have some particularly virulent killers in Utah who will never get out of the Mental Hospital where they are held in perpetuity.  It's a question of public safety, not of punishment.  Kinnunen was able to commit murder because we have lunatics in charge of the asylum.

[LoudmouthMormon]

9 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Which of the above would have prevented the shooter (Keith Thomas Kinnunen) from legally acquiring a firearm and legally carrying it into the church?

So Rajah, your original assertion: "Individuals who are known to be so mentally incompetent that they can't even stand trial for their violent offenses can legally carry legally-acquired shotguns into places of worship."

I'm unclear: Have you backed off from your original assertion about "individuals known to be mentally incompetent"?  Because individuals get known to be mentally incompetent, by being "adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution", which then makes it against the law to give that person a gun or ammunition.

I mean, if you want to change your assertion to something like "current laws don't go far enough", then whatever.  But I'd really like to know if you're still standing behind your original assertion or not.  It helps us understand if you're a serious part of the discussion, or just another poster with an agenda who will not budge, no matter what. 

 

[Rajah Manchou]

20 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

So Rajah, your original assertion: "Individuals who are known to be so mentally incompetent that they can't even stand trial for their violent offenses can legally carry legally-acquired shotguns into places of worship."

I'm unclear: Have you backed off from your original assertion about "individuals known to be mentally incompetent"?  Because individuals get known to be mentally incompetent, by being "adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution", which then makes it against the law to give that person a gun or ammunition.

I mean, if you want to change your assertion to something like "current laws don't go far enough", then whatever.  But I'd really like to know if you're still standing behind your original assertion or not.  It helps us understand if you're a serious part of the discussion, or just another poster with an agenda who will not budge, no matter what. 

Yes, my original assertion was "Individuals who are known to be so mentally incompetent that they can't even stand trial for their violent offenses can legally carry legally-acquired shotguns into places of worship." I've no reason to back away from that because the shooter in this case was once judged to be unfit to stand trial. Another judge in another state found him to be fit. 

I stand by my assertion and also by the one you've suggested, current laws don't go far enough. I've already budged in this discussion after @The Nehor and @Robert F. Smith made some good points. I've no agenda. 

Do you agree that current laws don't go far enough in preventing guns from ending up in the hands of those who shouldn't have them?

[Bob Crockett]

14 hours ago, Amulek said:

Only barkeepers are alcohol retailers - not alcohol manufactures.

If a bartender over-serves someone who says they are planning on driving home, why should that impose a legal liability upon Smirnoff, Jack Daniel's, Jim Beam, or any other alcohol manufacturer?

The manufacturer had no relationship with the individual and had no way of knowing the individual had any sort of intent to use their (perfectly legal) product negligently, so why should they be liable? 

 

You've made my point.  

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 1/1/2020 at 9:22 AM, ERMD said:

I see the Church policy as more of an effort to limit liability than anything else.  Note no one asks/checks if anyone is carrying.

Google "Sutherland Springs shooting."  This happened 15 miles from where I work, and many victims were brought to my Emergency Department.  The chances of this happening in any one place are small, but the threat is real.

...and becoming “more real” daily. 

[BlueDreams]

15 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The guy who pulled the trigger counts, the police and medical treatment were involved.  But how would the other two count as people who attempted?  How would the people who gather these statistics find out about them?  There's no hospital or police record.  If they sought counseling, counselors don't report them into any database.   

That's probably a good reason why attempts have a large range for estimations. It would likely depend on surveys given to more general populations or targeted populations (ones more likely to have a history of suicidality)  to get a general sense of the amount of attempts. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Do you agree that current laws don't go far enough in preventing guns from ending up in the hands of those who shouldn't have them?

Gun legislation is a place where individual liberty smacks up against societal desires.  One side starts from the perspective that the bill of rights is important and crucial, including the rights that protect us from the government imprisoning us or taking our stuff without due process.  The other side starts from the perspective that we should have seen this guy coming from a mile away and done something before he killed two people.  We crash in the middle.

Show me additional proposals that accomplish increased public safety without violating the 1st, 2nd, or 4th amendments in the Bill of Rights, and I'm all for it.

Show me additional proposals that erode our liberties without increasing public safety, and I'm very much against it.

Show me additional proposals that might erode some people's liberties a little, with an arguably possible increase in public safety, I'm probably against that as well, but I'll hear you out.

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

You've made my point.  

Huh?

 

[The Nehor]

Allow a longer period for firearm background checks. Too often buyers get an initial clearance because of the narrow time window but it is later found as the check continues that they should not legally have a weapon and many are not recovered. 

I suppose we could try to fix our culture so it does not lead to so much despair and anger but that sounds like a lot of work.

 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

[M]y original assertion was "Individuals who are known to be so mentally incompetent that they can't even stand trial for their violent offenses can legally carry legally-acquired shotguns into places of worship." I've no reason to back away from that because the shooter in this case was once judged to be unfit to stand trial. Another judge in another state found him to be fit. 

I thought the other judge in another state was at a different time as well.

Is mental competence something that can change over time? Such that someone who may, at one point, have been found to be incompetent might - with time and treatment - be found to be perfectly competent at some other point in the future?

If the answer is yes, as seems reasonable, then how should that go about impacting one's ability to legally acquire a firearm? Should a one-time break equate to a lifetime ban? Or should we, instead, look to the current state of affairs and make our determinations based on that?

 

[Dan McClellan]

On 1/1/2020 at 9:10 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Of course it is relevant. 

Let’s try to be transparent about what we are claiming.

I was pretty transparent about what I was claiming.

Quote

Private sales between individuals, purchases from legitimate sellers over the internet, in-state or out-of-state, etc. What I provided was for internet purchases from licensed dealers. Postal regulations are also relevant.

But I was talking about private sellers, because the private sale loophole is an enormous gap in the legislation of most US states.

Quote

Access to the internet is what’s irrelevant. One can buy a gun from a neighbor or relative. Or from a shady guy in downtown Tacoma.

I don't know any neighbors with guns for sale, or any shady guys in Tacoma. Because I can get on utahgunexchange.com, though, I immediately have access to almost 500 used AR-15s being sold by private sellers within my state. Over a million guns a year are sold on the internet without background checks. 

Quote

Without worrying about federal, postal, or state laws. Washington is trying to tighten such regulations, but if a criminal or mentally ill person wants to get a weapon, there is no law that will prevent it.

This is simply false. Laws can mitigate accessibility in a number of different ways, from targeting trafficking in and out of states (tracetheguns.org actually shows the effectiveness of these laws), to clamping down on reporting lost or stolen guns, to empowering the ATF to do its job. Why do you think Hawaii has the lowest firearm mortality rate in the country, despite having among the highest rate of gun ownership? They have the strongest laws and they are an island you can't just import guns into in the trunk of a car. Targeting trafficking significantly reduces the availability of illegal guns. 

Quote

Even in Seattle, Chicago, LA, or New York.

Those cities have problems because of guns being imported from states with abysmal gun laws. Federal regulations would significantly reduce this. Here's a good discussion about the problem of trafficking from states with weak laws into states with strong laws:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffickers-smuggling-state-gun-laws.html

Quote

You and I would obey existing laws, but there are many who won’t. Those are the ones I worry about.

Then why do you support legislation that makes it so much easier for them?

Quote

Who here advocates for that? Does anyone advocate for that?

Do you support keeping private sale loopholes open? Because private sale loopholes indisputably make it easier for people who shouldn't have access to guns to access guns.

[Dan McClellan]

On 1/1/2020 at 9:29 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Heh.  

The private sale loophole indisputably makes it easier for people who shouldn't have access to guns to access guns, and there are numerous people out there fighting tooth and nail to preserve that loophole.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Dan McClellan said:

The private sale loophole indisputably makes it easier for people who shouldn't have access to guns to access guns, and there are numerous people out there fighting tooth and nail to preserve that loophole.

Well, some people don't think it's a "loophole." A loophole is something that is used to bypass the express purpose of the system. 

But there is nothing in the Constitution (i.e., the system) that empowers the federal government to regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms between private citizens in the first place.

So there's no such thing as a private sale "loophole" for firearms any more than there is a private sale "loophole" for lawnmowers, Pokemon cards, or anything else you might happen to find at a garage sale. 

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

The private sale loophole indisputably makes it easier for people who shouldn't have access to guns to access guns, and there are numerous people out there fighting tooth and nail to preserve that loophole.

Your original question was "why do gun legislation opponents want to make it easier for people who shouldn't have guns to access guns?"  Thank you for clarifying when you said "gun legislation opponents", you meant "numerous people".  And when you said "make it easier", you meant "preserving an existing legal activity".

It does lose a little melodramatic impact with your rewording, but there we go.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

I was pretty transparent about what I was claiming.

But I was talking about private sellers, because the private sale loophole is an enormous gap in the legislation of most US states.

Then let's fix it. At the same time we can fix the ability to buy a gun from a gangbanger in downtown Tacoma. How would you do that? I would suggest stiffening postal/UPS/FedEX etc. regulations.

Earlier, you said information I provided was incorrect. Where is this information wrong:

Quote

ATF ‘Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide’ (ATF P 5300.4) says:
(B9) May a nonlicensee ship a firearm by carrier?
A nonlicensee may ship a firearm by carrier to a resident of his or her own state or to a licensee in any state. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. In addition, Federal law requires that the carrier be notified that the shipment contains a firearm and prohibits common or contract carriers from requiring or causing any label to be placed on any package indicating that it contains a firearm. [18 U. S. C. 922( a)( 2)( A) and 922( e), 27 CFR 178.31]

(B8) May a nonlicensee ship a firearm through the U. S. Postal Service?
A nonlicensee may mail a shotgun or rifle to a resident of his or her own state or to a licensee in any state. Handguns are not mailable. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. A nonlicensee may not transfer any firearm to a nonlicensed resident of another state. The Postal Service recommends that longguns be sent by registered mail and that no marking of any kind which would indicate the nature of the contents be placed on the outside of any parcel containing firearms.

The section of the US Code that governs modern firearms is called Commerce in Firearms and Ammunition (CFA). This code is available online at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_09/27cfr478_09.html

Shipment by Unlicensed Persons
Any shipper who does not have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) is considered to be an ‘unlicensed person’. This section contains information on how unlicensed persons can ship firearms. If you have an FFL, please skip to the next section for shipping suggestions.

The most important thing to know is that you must only ship guns to a licensed dealer. If the buyer is not a licensed dealer, he will have to make arrangements to ship the item to a dealer in his state.

Before you ship a gun, the buyer must fax or mail you a copy of the dealer’s signed FFL license. You can only ship the gun to the address on the license. You must inform the carrier that the package contains a firearm. Of course, the firearm cannot be shipped loaded; ammunition may not be shipped in the same box. You should take the copy of the signed FFL with you when you take the item to be shipped in case the shipper wishes to see it.

Quote

I don't know any neighbors with guns for sale, or any shady guys in Tacoma. Because I can get on utahgunexchange.com, though, I immediately have access to almost 500 used AR-15s being sold by private sellers within my state. Over a million guns a year are sold on the internet without background checks. 

The following are the utahgunexchange.com instructions. Seems to me they require all the legal stuff I have mentioned before. I guess I'm not reading their disclaimer correctly. Could you please explain where I am going wrong?
 

Quote

SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE - GUNS PURCHASE TERMS & CONDITIONS

It is the customer's responsibility to follow all Federal, State, and Local Laws. All firearms MUST be picked up by the BUYER (ACTUAL PURCHASER) at your selected Sportsman's Warehouse store or chosen Independent Firearm Dealer (“FFL”). A valid U.S. and/or state government-issued identification document, or combination of government-issued documents, which reflect the buyer's current residential address, must be presented at the selected store location prior to the completion of any firearm-related paperwork and background check initiation. The actual purchaser must be 18 years of age or older to purchase rifles and/or shotguns. The actual purchaser must be 21 years of age or older to purchase handguns and/or firearm receivers, frames, silencers, or pistol-grip only firearms. Certain states have stricter laws regarding a firearm buyer’s age and Sportsman's Warehouse complies with such requirements.

Depending on the selected store location and firearm type, additional identification credentials may be required. The actual buyer must personally fill out BATFE Form 4473 as well as any applicable state and/or local forms. Upon completion of all required forms, Sportsman's Warehouse or the Independent Firearm Dealer ("FFL") will conduct a required background check on the buyer (actual purchaser) in accordance with Sportsman's Warehouse policies and all Federal, State, and Local Laws. Sportsman's Warehouse or the Independent Firearm Dealer ("FFL") will generally accept a valid ATF-approved NICS exempt firearms permit in lieu of the background check. In certain states, a fee is associated with the background check; the purchaser is responsible for this fee and it is paid at the store location. For any additional questions pertaining to waiting periods, the background check process, and/or the firearm transfer process, please consult the firearm laws of the state where your desired pick-up store is located as well as your home state, county, and city. For your reference, please consult the following publications: ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide and ATF State Laws and Published Ordinances - Firearms.

Customers wanting to have firearms shipped to an Independent Firearm Dealer “FFL” not listed on our website (Sportsmans.com) are required to contact Sportsman’s Warehouse Customer Service. Sportsman’s Warehouse will make shipping arrangements if the Independent Firearm Dealer “FFL” meets the company’s criteria. Firearm transfers to Independent Firearm Dealers “FFL's” are subject to an FFL transfer fee (charged by the independent firearm dealer), applicable taxes (if required), background check (if required), background check fee (if any), and waiting period (if any). A customer selecting an independent firearm dealer for shipment/transfer must certify that they are the actual buyer/transferee before purchase. This information will be provided to the participating firearm dealer. Independent firearm dealers may have additional firearm transfer policies; complying with these will be the responsibility of the customer and independent dealer.

At this time, Sportsman’s Warehouse is not shipping/transferring firearms to Independent Firearm Dealers “FFL’s” in Washington D.C. and locations outside of the 50 United States.

Customers wishing to have firearms shipped to a Sportsman's Warehouse store from third-party locations (i.e. non-Sportsman's Warehouse facilities) r

SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE - GUNS PURCHASE TERMS & CONDITIONS

It is the customer's responsibility to follow all Federal, State, and Local Laws. All firearms MUST be picked up by the BUYER (ACTUAL PURCHASER) at your selected Sportsman's Warehouse store or chosen Independent Firearm Dealer (“FFL”). A valid U.S. and/or state government-issued identification document, or combination of government-issued documents, which reflect the buyer's current residential address, must be presented at the selected store location prior to the completion of any firearm-related paperwork and background check initiation. The actual purchaser must be 18 years of age or older to purchase rifles and/or shotguns. The actual purchaser must be 21 years of age or older to purchase handguns and/or firearm receivers, frames, silencers, or pistol-grip only firearms. Certain states have stricter laws regarding a firearm buyer’s age and Sportsman's Warehouse complies with such requirements.

Depending on the selected store location and firearm type, additional identification credentials may be required. The actual buyer must personally fill out BATFE Form 4473 as well as any applicable state and/or local forms. Upon completion of all required forms, Sportsman's Warehouse or the Independent Firearm Dealer ("FFL") will conduct a required background check on the buyer (actual purchaser) in accordance with Sportsman's Warehouse policies and all Federal, State, and Local Laws. Sportsman's Warehouse or the Independent Firearm Dealer ("FFL") will generally accept a valid ATF-approved NICS exempt firearms permit in lieu of the background check. In certain states, a fee is associated with the background check; the purchaser is responsible for this fee and it is paid at the store location. For any additional questions pertaining to waiting periods, the background check process, and/or the firearm transfer process, please consult the firearm laws of the state where your desired pick-up store is located as well as your home state, county, and city. For your reference, please consult the following publications: ATF Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide and ATF State Laws and Published Ordinances - Firearms.

Customers wanting to have firearms shipped to an Independent Firearm Dealer “FFL” not listed on our website (Sportsmans.com) are required to contact Sportsman’s Warehouse Customer Service. Sportsman’s Warehouse will make shipping arrangements if the Independent Firearm Dealer “FFL” meets the company’s criteria. Firearm transfers to Independent Firearm Dealers “FFL's” are subject to an FFL transfer fee (charged by the independent firearm dealer), applicable taxes (if required), background check (if required), background check fee (if any), and waiting period (if any). A customer selecting an independent firearm dealer for shipment/transfer must certify that they are the actual buyer/transferee before purchase. This information will be provided to the participating firearm dealer. Independent firearm dealers may have additional firearm transfer policies; complying with these will be the responsibility of the customer and independent dealer.

At this time, Sportsman’s Warehouse is not shipping/transferring firearms to Independent Firearm Dealers “FFL’s” in Washington D.C. and locations outside of the 50 United States.

Customers wishing to have firearms shipped to a Sportsman's Warehouse store from third-party locations (i.e. non-Sportsman's Warehouse facilities) require prior approval from the receiving Sportsman's Warehouse location. Such transfers are subject to an FFL transfer fee, applicable taxes (if required), background check (if required), background check fee (if any), and waiting period (if any). Firearms will only be transferred in accordance with all Sportsman's Warehouse policies. The FFL transfer fee is $50.00 for non-California locations. The FFL transfer fee for California locations is $100.00.

The FFL transfer fee is $50.00 for non-California locations. The FFL transfer fee for California locations is $100.00.

FIREARM BUYER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

• I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER (PURCHASER) OF THE FIREARM(S) ON THIS ORDER, AND SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE WILL ONLY TRANSFER THE FIREARM(S) TO THE ACTUAL BUYERWITH VALID U.S. IDENTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE POLICIES, ALL FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS.
• I UNDERSTAND THAT THE FIREARM(S) I HAVE PURCHASED WILL BE SHIPPED TO OR BE AVAILABLE AT MY SELECTED SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE STORE OR MY SELECTED INDEPENDENT FIREARM DEALER ("FFL") AND MUST BE PICKED UP BY ME (THE ACTUAL BUYER) AND THAT MY VALID U.S. PHOTO IDENTIFICATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT WILL BE VERIFIED AT THE STORE PRIOR TO DELIVERY OF ANY FIREARM(S).
• I DECLARE THAT I AM 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER IF BUYING A LONG GUN*; OR THAT I AM 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER IF BUYING A HANDGUN AND/OR OTHER TYPE OF FIREARM. THE BUYER'S AGE WILL BE VERIFIED DURING THE FIREARM PAPERWORK PROCESS. *SOME STATES MAY IMPOSE ADDITIONAL AGE RESTRICTIONS.
• I UNDERSTAND IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS REGARDING FIREARM TRANSFER AND OWNERSHIP.
• I UNDERSTAND THAT ADDITIONAL STATE BACKGROUND CHECK FEES MAY APPLY (E.G. TRANSFERS TAKING PLACE IN CA, CO, NV, OR, TN, UT, VA, ETC.) AND WILL NEED TO BE PAID BY ME AT THE STORE LOCATION.
• I UNDERSTAND THAT IF MY BACKGROUND CHECK IS NOT APPROVED, A REFUND WILL BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE REFUND POLICIES. ANY ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK FEES AND/OR FFL TRANSFER FEES ARE NON-REFUNDABLE.
• I UNDERSTAND THAT AFTER THE FIREARM IS TRANSFERRED TO ME, THE SALE IS CONSIDERED FINAL AND THE FIREARM IS GENERALLY NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RETURN.
• I UNDERSTAND THAT ANY WARRANTY CLAIMS MADE AFTER TRANSFER WILL BE HANDLED BY THE MANUFACTURER AND/OR AUTHORIZED WARRANTY REPAIR FACILITY. SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE WILL COVER REASONABLE SHIPPING AND INSURANCE FEES FOR FIREARM WARRANTY AND/OR REPAIR CLAIMS MADE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE FIREARM TRANSFER. AFTER 30 DAYS, THESE FEES WILL GENERALLY BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUYER.
• I UNDERSTAND THAT UNCLAIMED ORDERS AFTER 30 DAYS WILL BE CONSIDERED CANCELLED.
• BY PURCHASING A FIREARM FROM SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE, I AGREE TO ALL OF THE ABOVE DECLARATIONS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS.

 

Quote

This is simply false. Laws can mitigate accessibility in a number of different ways, from targeting trafficking in and out of states (tracetheguns.org actually shows the effectiveness of these laws), to clamping down on reporting lost or stolen guns, to empowering the ATF to do its job. Why do you think Hawaii has the lowest firearm mortality rate in the country, despite having among the highest rate of gun ownership? They have the strongest laws and they are an island you can't just import guns into in the trunk of a car. Targeting trafficking significantly reduces the availability of illegal guns. 

Hawaii...the Aloha state that's filled with tourists trying to be happy and Hawaii residents trying to make them happy?? Everyone is stoned on pakalolo and doesn't care.

Quote

Those cities have problems because of guns being imported from states with abysmal gun laws. Federal regulations would significantly reduce this. Here's a good discussion about the problem of trafficking from states with weak laws into states with strong laws:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffickers-smuggling-state-gun-laws.html

Key word....smuggling.

Quote

Then why do you support legislation that makes it so much easier for them?

Do you support keeping private sale loopholes open? Because private sale loopholes indisputably make it easier for people who shouldn't have access to guns to access guns.

Where have I supported such legislation?  This is the second time you have made this false accusation.

I am in favor of strict, enforceable, and meaningful background checks for purchasers, but private person to person sales. theft, and "smuggling" are almost impossible to prevent. Washington now has a "keep it locked up law" that will penalize legal owners whose weapons are stolen or used by unauthorized persons if they are not stored in a secure place. Short of knocking on doors and inspecting private homes pf registered users, it's pretty much useless. 

Edited January 3, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Dan McClellan]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Your original question was "why do gun legislation opponents want to make it easier for people who shouldn't have guns to access guns?"  Thank you for clarifying when you said "gun legislation opponents", you meant "numerous people".  And when you said "make it easier", you meant "preserving an existing legal activity".

It does lose a little melodramatic impact with your rewording, but there we go.

The first priority of gun legislation proponents is closing the private sale loophole, so I am indeed referring to "gun legislation opponents," and that "existing legal activity," which is not a legal activity in several states, makes it shockingly easy for people who shouldn't have access to guns to access guns. You've yet to actually log a criticism of the substance of my concern.

[Dan McClellan]

All the information you shared previously that said all online gun sales had to go through FFLs is false.

Quote

The following are the utahgunexchange.com instructions.

No, those are Sportsman's Warehouse's instructions. You clicked on a banner ad at the top of the website and accidentally copied and pasted the policies of Sportsman's Warehouse. 

Quote

Seems to me they require all the legal stuff I have mentioned before. I guess I'm not reading their disclaimer correctly. Could you please explain where I am going wrong?

I just did. 

Quote

Hawaii...the Aloha state that's filled with tourists trying to be happy and Hawaii residents trying to make them happy?? Everyone is stoned on pakalolo and doesn't care.

Right, I forgot that Hawaii has no crime or criminals.

Quote

Key word....smuggling.

Yes, that's how people transport guns from states with weak laws to states with strong laws. Eliminating states with weak laws makes smuggling a lot more complicated.

Quote

Where have I supported such legislation?  This is the second time you have made this false accusation.

You support it right here:

Quote

I am in favor of strict, enforceable, and meaningful background checks for purchasers, but private person to person sales.

Quote

theft, and "smuggling" are almost impossible to prevent.

Unilaterally, year, but no one is so laughably naive as to suggest we can absolutely eliminate all smuggling. The goal is mitigation, which is how we reduce firearm mortality and save lives.

Quote

Washington now has a "keep it locked up law" that will penalize legal owners whose weapons are stolen or used by unauthorized persons if they are not stored in a secure place. Short of knocking on doors and inspecting private homes pf registered users, it's pretty much useless. 

Ah, so all the law-abiding citizens who ought to have all the access to guns precisely because of how unbelievably law-abiding they are are not going to abide by the law? Even if half of them do it just because it's the law, it will reduce the number of lost and stolen firearms available to traffickers. 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

The first priority of gun legislation proponents is closing the private sale loophole [...]

Well, to be fair, that isn't really the first priority of all gun legislation proponents...

 

[Rajah Manchou]

10 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Gun legislation is a place where individual liberty smacks up against societal desires.  One side starts from the perspective that the bill of rights is important and crucial, including the rights that protect us from the government imprisoning us or taking our stuff without due process.  The other side starts from the perspective that we should have seen this guy coming from a mile away and done something before he killed two people.  We crash in the middle.

Show me additional proposals that accomplish increased public safety without violating the 1st, 2nd, or 4th amendments in the Bill of Rights, and I'm all for it.

Show me additional proposals that erode our liberties without increasing public safety, and I'm very much against it.

Show me additional proposals that might erode some people's liberties a little, with an arguably possible increase in public safety, I'm probably against that as well, but I'll hear you out.

I think I'm mostly satisfied with the laws the way they are now so long as they are enforced, and those that break them (including anybody in any state who sells firearms to those who should not have them) are held accountable.

Are you for, or against, all the conditions set in Federal Law  18 U.S.C. § 922(d)?

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

All the information you shared previously that said all online gun sales had to go through FFLs is false.

No, those are Sportsman's Warehouse's instructions. You clicked on a banner ad at the top of the website and accidentally copied and pasted the policies of Sportsman's Warehouse. 

I just did. 

Right, I forgot that Hawaii has no crime or criminals.

Yes, that's how people transport guns from states with weak laws to states with strong laws. Eliminating states with weak laws makes smuggling a lot more complicated.

You support it right here:

Unilaterally, year, but no one is so laughably naive as to suggest we can absolutely eliminate all smuggling. The goal is mitigation, which is how we reduce firearm mortality and save lives.

Ah, so all the law-abiding citizens who ought to have all the access to guns precisely because of how unbelievably law-abiding they are are not going to abide by the law? Even if half of them do it just because it's the law, it will reduce the number of lost and stolen firearms available to traffickers. 

Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding about the ad. It is misleading. 

I noticed that they recommend using a bill of sale for private transactions.

Quote

NOTE: Under Federal law, you CANNOT sell any firearm to a person who is not a resident of Utah in a private party transaction, unless a Federal Firearms Licensee (a gun store) performs the transfer.

It is HIGHLY recommended that you use a bill of sale and that you verify the person buying or selling the firearm is a Utah resident with valid identification. As of March 2013 you are allowed to perform a private party transfer via a local FFL if you wish. The only records created are held privately by the shop and yourself, and there is no waiting period once the background check is completed.

The comments about Hawaii were obviously facetious.

Regarding smuggling, it is following the law of supply and demand. If there is a demand someone will step up to fill it legally or illegally. Gun traffickers break all kinds of laws to meet demand. Finding the most effective ways of dealing with this is difficult.

Did you catch the typo? Apparently not from the quote you provided. I caught yours... “year”, but I understood what you were trying to say. What I said was “I am in favor of strict, enforceable, and meaningful background checks for purchasers, but private person to person sales. theft, and "smuggling" are almost impossible to prevent.” The period after sales should be a comma followed by the lower case theft. You stopped at the period and came to the wrong conclusion. I favor any law that supports reasonable and enforceable background checks; however, I don’t know how those could be implemented with person to person private sales. Contrary to your accusations, I oppose any law that would make it easier for  dangerous unstable people to obtain weapons.

This was a lesson learned during Prohibition. Marijuana laws in our state reflect this.p also. Legalizing sale and possession has not eliminated the black market. Legal sellers just undercut the legal prices. Usage is increasing.

Did I laughably suggest we can absolutely eliminate smuggling? No.

While most states do not have restrictions on private person to person sales, some do, and Washington has one of the strictest laws. Responsible gun owners hopefully will follow the laws of their respective states. Less conscientious people won’t.

Quote

Washington Code. All private firearms transfers must be done through a federally licensed firearms dealer, which requires a background check (with some exeptions, including tranfers between relatives). Sale on hold until buyer is cleared, or 10 business days have passed.

As far as I can tell, Utah has no such restrictions. Is buying a weapon from a private party ad on utahgunexchange.org different than other private purchases?

Not sure what your last paragraph means. I don’t know if there has been a run on gun safes since the new laws were passed or if there has been a reduction in gun thefts. It’s questionable that the new laws will reduce the number of lost guns. It has proven to be a difficult law to enforce. It is unpopular because it reduces the ability of the owner to access a weapon quickly in an emergency. Before the vote, the laws were opposed by almost all state and local law enforcement agencies. Over half of Washington county sheriffs are refusing to enforce them, many saying they are unenforceable. The laws are being challenged in the courts.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Dan McClellan]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding about the ad. It is misleading. 

I wouldn't expect anything less from a website facilitating the transfer of thousands of firearms a year with no background checks whatsoever.

Quote

I noticed that they recommend using a bill of sale for private transactions.

Yes, they recommend it to protect the seller from liability in case the buyer commits a crime. You'll find not a ton of them use the bill of sale, but all it is is a promise that the person signs that they can pass a background check. Also, the NOTE you also quoted is a bit of a misrepresentation of federal law. You cannot KNOWINGLY sell a firearm to someone from out of state without an FFL intermediary. There is no law that requires private sellers to confirm identity or residency. 

Quote

The comments about Hawaii were obviously facetious.

Obviously.

Quote

Regarding smuggling, it is following the law of supply and demand. If there is a demand someone will step up to fill it legally or illegally. 

Then why does the demand always correlate so strongly with the strength of anti-trafficking legislation?

Quote

Gun traffickers break all kinds of laws to meet demand. Finding the most effective ways of dealing with this is difficult.

Which is why we've been studying it for decades and implementing all kinds of different laws to see which ones are the most effective.

Quote

Did you catch the typo? Apparently not from the quote you provided. I caught yours... “year”, but I understood what you were trying to say. What I said was “I am in favor of strict, enforceable, and meaningful background checks for purchasers, but private person to person sales. theft, and "smuggling" are almost impossible to prevent.” The period after sales should be a comma followed by the lower case theft. You stopped at the period and came to the wrong conclusion. I favor any law that supports reasonable and enforceable background checks; however, I don’t know how those could be implemented with person to person private sales. Contrary to your accusations, I oppose any law that would make it easier for  dangerous unstable people to obtain weapons.

Thanks for the clarification. They are easy to implement. You just make the law and implement it. It's kinda like we have laws about how fast you can drive on the road, even though most people don't obey them. We still have them. We don't throw our hands up and say, "how could we possibly guarantee that every last driver never exceeds the speed limit? We just shouldn't have any."

Quote

This was a lesson learned during Prohibition. Marijuana laws in our state reflect this.p also. Legalizing sale and possession has not eliminated the black market. Legal sellers just undercut the legal prices. Usage is increasing.

Marijuana and guns are incredibly different kinds of products. Why have we not heard about any criminals using fully automatic machine guns in our country for several decades? Part of it has to do with the fact that you can't grow machine guns in your attic. 

Quote

Did I laughably suggest we can absolutely eliminate smuggling? No.

You keep using language that suggests laws are only useful or implementable if they entirely eliminate the problem.

Quote

 

While most states do not have restrictions on private person to person sales, some do, and Washington has one of the strictest laws. Responsible gun owners hopefully will follow the laws of their respective states. Less conscientious people won’t.

As far as I can tell, Utah has no such restrictions. Is buying a weapon from a private party ad on utahgunexchange.org different than other private purchases?

 

It is not. Many of the private sellers even explicitly advertise that they perform no background checks.

Quote

Not sure what your last paragraph means.

It's intended to highlight the hypocrisy of people insisting they're fighting entirely and exclusively for the rights of law-abiding citizens, but then turn around and insist that laws about storage and loss are useless because none of those law-abiding citizens will abide by those laws. Many people will obey the law without the police coming in and confirming they're obeying the law, and even thought it clearly won't be all of them, it will reduce to some degree the availability of irresponsibly stored guns to the illegal market. 

Quote

I don’t know if there has been a run on gun safes since the new laws were passed or if there has been a reduction in gun thefts. It’s questionable that the new laws will reduce the number of lost guns. It has proven to be a difficult law to enforce. It is unpopular because it reduces the ability of the owner to access a weapon quickly in an emergency. Before the vote, the laws were opposed by almost all state and local law enforcement agencies. Over half of Washington county sheriffs are refusing to enforce them, many saying they are unenforceable. The laws are being challenged in the courts.

These are objections born of ideology, not of actual dispassionate analysis. One sheriff, for instance, says the new bill defines a firearm "that doesn't exist," since the legislation defines a "semi-automatic assault rifle" in a way that describes "every self-loading rifle that ever existed." By "doesn't exist," he seems to mean, "is quite specific and clearly does exist, but is more broad than I like."

The NRA filed a lawsuit, and they will lose. 

Edited January 4, 2020 by Dan McClellan