|
PeterCat posted:They are also disproportionately the perpetrators of gun homicides. That link doesn't support the claim you made unless there's a study it's linking to that you forgot to point at instead.
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
PeterCat posted:They are also disproportionately the perpetrators of gun homicides. uhh what is the point of this as a response to "black people are overwhelmingly victims of firearm homicide so gun control is weird to frame as being inherently racist" like this seems like a non sequitur at best and based on your comments on this page i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't just warmed over "black on black violence is the real problem!" but uhh you might want to explain yourself in more detail because it is very easy to get a wrong impression off this brief comment also as jaxyon said the math doesn't work out to support your claim so you probably should substantiate this argument more or retract it entirely e: oh PeterCat posted:I've seen plenty of articles talking about how black people "saved" the country by turning out in the 2020 election. If they want the credit for 2020 they can take the blame for 2016. never mind Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Jun 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
Washington Post has discussion of one potentially impactful aspect of the developing gun control deal: The gun deal could close the ‘boyfriend loophole.’ Here’s what it is.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 19:35
|
|
|
tl;dr: existing DV red flag laws only cover someone convicted of stalking or domestic violence against a partner they cohabit(ed) with, have a child with, or (once) married. the hope is that this bill will extend those laws to cover people stalking victims that they never had a relationship with and people in less permanently linked romantic relationships. it's not guaranteed that this will happen, chiefly because of republican opposition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2022 21:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Washington Post has discussion of one potentially impactful aspect of the developing gun control deal: Eh... I'm not too hopeful that support will remain since the language hasn't even been drafted yet. But, if they somehow pull this off in a meaningful way and get Manchin/10 Republicans to sign off on it, that would definitely be a big improvement. E: Looks like it's already falling off the rails https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1537552329016283142 quote:The lead Republican negotiator in US Senate dialogue toward a bipartisan gun safety bill walked out of the talks on Thursday, dimming the likelihood of a vote on the legislation before senators leave for a two-week July 4 recess. quote:But in the days since, the talks have become bogged down in disagreements over two main provisions: how to provide incentives to states to create so-called red flag laws, in which guns can be temporarily taken away from people deemed dangerous, and the “boyfriend loophole,” allowing authorities to block abusive spouses from buying firearms, but does not cover people who aren’t married. Kalit fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Jun 17, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2022 00:53
|
|
|
well, nevermind then i guess https://twitter.com/marianne_levine/status/1537576468297011201
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
Thread from Sen. Murphy summarizing Senate deal; note he has an incentive to talk this up, but I'll try to find the bill text when I'm back at my desk. https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1539380315201933314
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
Go figure that Toxic Masculinity: The Political Party is freaking the hell out about a potential law to keep you from getting guns if you abuse women.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
I am still reading through this bill but a lot of it is sunsetting funding for programs to be implemented at the state level. Meanwhile, at the state level, you have legislative efforts like Missouri attempting to nullify all federal gun laws within state boundaries. (Last I heard, a challenge was working its way through Missouri courts, with a separate federal challenge happening in parallel.) e: Since nobody linked it, here is the draft bill. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 00:34
|
|
|
The federal red flag laws are being expanded to add people convicted of domestic abuse who are in "a relationship between individuals who have or have recently had a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature," specifically excluding "a casual acquaintanceship or ordinary fraternization in a business or social context". Looks like covering stalkers or people under ROs is out. States have temporary funding to set up their own programs. There's also a massive overhaul to how FFLs work and idk if I'm really qualified to explain what's changed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The federal red flag laws are being expanded to add people convicted of domestic abuse who are in "a relationship between individuals who have or have recently had a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature," specifically excluding "a casual acquaintanceship or ordinary fraternization in a business or social context". Looks like covering stalkers or people under ROs is out. States have temporary funding to set up their own programs. "6/ The bill clarifies who needs to register as a federal firearms dealer, to make sure that every true commercial gun seller is conducting background checks. This provision could get thousands of additional guns sales into the background check system." Not quite sure what that means either but it might mean that the "gunshow loophole" is finally getting closed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:07
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:"6/ The bill clarifies who needs to register as a federal firearms dealer, to make sure that every true commercial gun seller is conducting background checks. This provision could get thousands of additional guns sales into the background check system." Oh, that part I can tell you. It's not getting closed, although the definition of gun dealer is getting a little more specific. The "gun show loophole" is that personal sales have a much smaller set of regulations, chief among them no background check, and sales at gun shows are frequently private sales. The existing loophole of FFL dealers transferring guns to their nominal private collection to sell them privately still exists (except in the states where this does not bypass FFL background checks or where such private sales are not allowed). The new wording for who is a dealer is: "the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection" or "a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism" (with a definition of "terrorism" that, among other things, specifically excludes American nationals and permanent residents).
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:31
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:"6/ The bill clarifies who needs to register as a federal firearms dealer, to make sure that every true commercial gun seller is conducting background checks. This provision could get thousands of additional guns sales into the background check system." It doesn't. Just like the "stop straw purchases" thing doesn't meaningfully impact straw purchases, which of course would require some magic pre-crime technology. Buying a gun is buying a gun, and passing a background check is passing a background check. What you do once you have that gun is beyond the scope of rational policing. Even if you required monthly checks of all registered firearms to prove they are still in your possession someone just goes "It got stolen" and makes a police report. Prove they knowingly trafficked it. You might, but that still doesn't stop the trafficking. It just punishes the crime that happened. The only real gun control in the bill is the boyfriend thing, which is entirely rational poo poo we should have had years ago and may help some people out. It's not perfect, and you can always throw out 'Here's how easily it can fail examples, but at least it's an actual thing done to keep dangerous people with clear intent to harm from having a gun. The rest is meaningless to gun control, but is still real nice to have. e: The gunshow loophole is also less relevant than most people think, as vast swaths of the country require background checks on all firearms purchases, or all handgun purchases in a wider number of states. It'd be nice if it was universal, but it's not really impacting much. Universal acceptance of standards still makes this poo poo easier to parse and deal with. Mulva fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:39
|
|
|
You seem to be doing the futility schtick again. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You seem to be doing the futility schtick again. The boyfriend thing is great and I said so? The rest is literally changing nothing about getting a gun. There is no step of any part of the process that is altered in the slightest. e: I'll go one step forward and say I never would have bet on the boyfriend aspect getting dealt with, and it's a legitimate achievement if it makes it into law. Mulva fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You seem to be doing the futility schtick again. ???? Who are you talking to? What is "the futility schtick"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:48
|
|
Mulva posted:The boyfriend thing is great and I said so? The other provisions also address and set up infrastructure to further address gun violence. You know that counts.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:54
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The other provisions also address and set up infrastructure to further address gun violence. You know that counts. I talked about that too when I said "The rest is meaningless to gun control, but is still real nice to have.". Like I'm sorry my language isn't glowing enough? This is a good bill as far as things go, and I hope it makes it. I'll throw some emojis in or whatever if that's not enough for you.   
Mulva fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
Let me be more specific, since you're doubling down on disingenuousness. If the argument that a given provision is futile is "people will just break the law", then you're making a bullshit argument about whether it will have an impact. "Just" filing a false police report, and, by your own acknowledgement, punishing the related crimes, has an impact on subsequent trafficking practices.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 02:02
|
|
|
Mulva posted:It doesn't. Just like the "stop straw purchases" thing doesn't meaningfully impact straw purchases, which of course would require some magic pre-crime technology. Buying a gun is buying a gun, and passing a background check is passing a background check. What you do once you have that gun is beyond the scope of rational policing. Even if you required monthly checks of all registered firearms to prove they are still in your possession someone just goes "It got stolen" and makes a police report. Prove they knowingly trafficked it. You might, but that still doesn't stop the trafficking. It just punishes the crime that happened. It's not just (meaninglessly?) fiddling around with the definition of "for profit". It also creates a new, consolidated crime of knowingly selling a gun to someone who intends to commit a felony, knowingly selling to another straw purchaser (which is AFAICT new), or knowingly sell or receive (the latter is new) a gun if that sale or receipt is a felony. This is a lot clearer than the previous laws on the subject, and AFAICT covers some of the corner cases. It's not "pre-crime" to have a new definition of a crime that includes proof of intent. It doesn't and can't possibly cover accidental straw purchasing (or intentional straw purchasing that can't be proven to be intentional), but... that's just how mens rea works. The bill also expands the definition of a gun dealer to include people who sell guns for criminal purposes regardless of whether it's for profit or not. I don't know how meaningful that is in practice. Discendo Vox posted:The other provisions also address and set up infrastructure to further address gun violence. You know that counts. The other provisions involve a lot of time-limited grants with objectives but not plans or mandates AFAICT. It's right to be skeptical of those. Discendo Vox posted:Let me be more specific, since you're doubling down on disingenuousness. If the argument that a given provision is futile is "people will just break the law", then you're making a bullshit argument about whether it will have an impact. "Just" filing a false police report, and, by your own acknowledgement, punishing the related crimes, has an impact on subsequent trafficking practices. It's also fair to be skeptical of the ATF when it comes to enforcing gun trafficking laws. This new one is stronger I think but there's history here, and pointing it out isn't "disingenuous" or a "futility thing". Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Let me be more specific, since you're doubling down on disingenuousness. If the argument that a given provision is futile is "people will just break the law", then you're making a bullshit argument about whether it will have an impact. "Just" filing a false police report, and, by your own acknowledgement, punishing the related crimes, has an impact on subsequent trafficking practices. .....did you really just say "If you are doing this thing that I invented that's bullshit"? Like my brother in Christ you can just argue against all the stuff I actually say, you do not have to invent an argument nobody made to get mad about. It's a simple point I made, nothing that was illegal is now legal, and nothing that was legal is now illegal. Other than the boyfriend thing it's mostly clarifying language and enumerating punishments for crimes that already existed. And to me the practical changes seem largely impactless. Straw purchasing is exactly as illegal as it was before. People that were straw purchasing are under roughly the same level of threat as they always were. Because hey, if you can prove the crime at all it universally involves a two party [At least] interaction. The person that got the gun and the person they trafficked it to. That's what the crime is. And in pretty much every case of it I've ever heard it also involves more crimes. It's not like "Hey this guy tripped and emptied his duffel bag of illegal guns!". It's "They were involved in a violent altercation related to drug trafficking and had an illegal gun" or something. So you are already on the hook for more poo poo than trafficking itself. It's always been high risk. And you are blowing up over....loving what? The idea that zero increased relative money or jail time added to a crime, that most of the criminals involved have never know the exact details of in the first place, is going to somehow meaningful impact gun control in some way? Ok. How in practical terms will a thing that nobody will ever know in detail impact the risk/reward of committing a crime? Like you must have strong, detailed thoughts considering how hard you came at me on this. I'd like to hear them. e: One big post or two smaller posts, the eternal quandry Cease to Hope posted:It's not just (meaninglessly?) fiddling around with the definition of "for profit". And that means what? Because lets say it's murder or drug trafficking or literally any crime. There are already crimes related to assisting those acts, and the default straw purchase could already be 10 years. At a certain point the potential penalty is "Multiple life sentences". Adding more multiple life sentences is practically meaningless. You are in jail forever, or you are in jail for DOUBLE forever. Who is like "One forever was fine, but I'm not risking double forever!"? Hence practically meaningless, rather than meaningless. It does something, I just don't know who that something impacts. And thus I don't see what it's going to change. Which is the point. To change something. The boyfriend thing is simple. You smack your partner, you can't get a gun and go aggro and shoot them. Guns you have are taken away. That changes something. This straw gun thing? Doesn't change anything I can see. quote:The bill also expands the definition of a gun dealer to include people who sell guns for criminal purposes regardless of whether it's for profit or not. I don't know how meaningful that is in practice. It's not. Again selling a gun for criminal purposes ties you up in a bunch of other poo poo, and we are getting into double super forever life sentences. There's only so many crimes you can throw at people before it's just numbers, and certain crimes like trafficking inherently come with ties to other crimes and other charges. Mulva fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 02:31
|
|
|
Mulva posted:And that means what? Because lets say it's murder or drug trafficking or literally any crime. There are already crimes related to assisting those acts, and the default straw purchase could already be 10 years. At a certain point the potential penalty is "Multiple life sentences". Adding more multiple life sentences is practically meaningless. You are in jail forever, or you are in jail for DOUBLE forever? Who is like "One forever was fine, but I'm not risking double forever!"? Hence practically meaningless, rather than meaningless. It does something, I just don't know who that something impacts. And thus I don't see what it's going to change. Hold up, hold up. You're just factually wrong on the law on this one. The main difference is that it makes it easier to charge people, and adds a new crime of selling a gun to someone who you know is going to commit an unspecified felony. The main change is that every knowing link in a trafficking chain is now individually culpable for a crime, rather than needing to prove that they were all conspiring together or that someone is part of a conspiracy to lie on a FFL check (ATF Form 4473). Picture a trafficking chain. The dealer Adam is selling to the straw purchaser Barbara, who is selling to the additional straw purchaser Charlie, who is selling to the prohibited possessor Donna. Right now, the crimes are Adam, for aiding and abetting Barbara in lying on her FFL form if he knows that Barbara intends to give or sell the gun to a prohibited possessor, or intends at the time of the A-B sale to immediately resell the gun. (Since Charlie is not a prohibited possessor, this is nearly impossible to charge in practice unless Adam can be shown to be party to a conspiracy with Charlie or Donna.) The A-B sale is legal even if he knows Barbara intends to immediately dispose of the gun, since that isn't considered lying on ATF Form 4473 question 21a. (Otherwise, buying a gun from a dealer with the intent to give it as a gift would be a crime.) Barbara is committing a crime by lying on her FFL (assuming she is lying and didn't just change her mind the moment she walked out the door), but isn't committing a crime by selling to Charlie unless she knows specifically that Charlie intends to sell to Donna (which would be aiding and abetting a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 922(d)). Charlie is committing a crime under 18 U.S. Code § 922(d) and Donna is committing a crime under 18 USC § 922(g) or (n), and nothing changes for Charlie or Donna unless Donna is beating her non-cohabiting partner. Under the bill, Adam is now culpable if he has reason to believe Barbara is going to change her mind, rather than snapshotting Barbara's intent at the time of the sale. This makes it a lot easier to go after dealers. It also makes it easier to go after intervening links in a chain of straw purchases: Barbara is now culpable if she has reason to believe that Charlie is going to traffic the gun to a prohibited possessor. Previously the B-C sale was legal even if she knew C intended to resell it. Previously, you had to tie Barbara to Donna in a conspiracy; now Barbara is culpable for selling guns down the line. Additionally, let's say Donna is a legal possessor but intends to commit a crime. Right now, that's not a crime for anyone unless they can be shown to be Donna's accomplice. Under the bill, that's a crime for everyone, and a serious one, a felony with up to 25 years imprisonment. Right now, selling a gun recklessly to a legal possessor who's clearly about to commit a crime is very hard to charge; this new bill's standard is "knowing or with reasonable cause to believe". This is a big new change, and, again, making this a separate crime rather than needing to include someone in a conspiracy makes it easier to charge traffickers. It also beefs up the penalties for everyone, going from 10 years up to 15 years, plus the new rider for selling/trafficking to someone about to commit a crime. It also adds a new uncapped fine of up to twice the gross profits from trafficking. These are very fiddly changes, and most of the improvements are cutting out corner cases and requiring more responsibility to know your buyer. This is good. It's not revolutionary, but it is good. Mulva posted:It's not. Again selling a gun for criminal purposes ties you up in a bunch of other poo poo, and we are getting into double super forever life sentences. There's only so many crimes you can throw at people before it's just numbers, and certain crimes like trafficking inherently come with ties to other crimes and other charges. I think the main effect is that it makes you culpable in the ways dealers are culpable even if you're a private citizen. I'm not sure that does anything with the new trafficking law that applies as much to private sales as dealer sales, though. It's also possible I'm misunderstanding this part. Also, I think you're exaggerating "double super forever life sentences" here. Armed robbery or aggravated assault are not life sentence crimes. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 04:00
|
|
|
I had a big post but it's a simple point, so I'll just say it: Name one actual crime where only this law would prosecute a real person who was previously getting away free. Or, barring that, name any given evidence that there is a criminal trend of dealers that are selling to people who they think are sketchy who are not also sure the person is sketchy because they have first hand knowledge of that person's crimes. As a bonus, say how you'd go about proving that that doesn't involve proving another crime that already exists. It's masturbation fodder for law nerds, and specifically law nerds who have never bought a gun and are not envisioning what the process actually is. Buying a gun, getting a background check, they are not massive long term projects that are having you spend hours having a deep conversation with your firearms dealer. If you say more than 20 words to the guy about your personal life you are on the higher end, just like any other consumer purchase. How are you actually collecting evidence that the dealer had knowledge of ill intent? "I HATE ABORTION CLINICS!" and a few bottles of Everyclear in a bag as they walk in? A guy shadowing the person constantly going "No not that one, THAT one, also I hate the Jewish conspiracy to steal our children and destroy our democracy!"? Because considering the amount of time the process involves it'd have to be that clear to prove anything. Who is the dealer that had any idea that a person was a threat that also wasn't personally connected to the purchaser? Where was that hole in our legal system coming from, psychic dealers all over the country? What do you imagine IN REALITY this law will do that couldn't be done before? quote:Also, I think you're exaggerating "double super forever life sentences" here. Armed robbery or aggravated assault are not life sentence crimes. One, armed robbery absolutely can get you life in some places. Two, the entire point of this conversation has you on the hook for multiple crimes. It's not aggravated assault, it's aggravated assault and possession of an illegal firearm. Which top of my head is like 30 years if they really decide to nail you. And then there's whatever nonsense they want to hit you with, and whatever other crimes you may have committed. There wasn't a lack of crimes you could throw at someone in this situation that was holding back law enforcement. And you could make it sixteen life sentences and still give someone 5 years, out in 1 and a half, if you want to them to flip on someone else and get an easy conviction. So I say, again, what was the hole this law is filling and what do you think it will change? Because as I've made clear I think those answers are "It's not covering any new acts" and "I don't imagine anyone is going to change their behavior over it.". What do you imagine it will do, and how? There are good things in this bill. This isn't one of them. It's not bad either, it's just fiddling. Mostly to say they did something I'd imagine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 05:02
|
|
|
Mulva posted:I had a big post but it's a simple point, so I'll just say it: Name one actual crime where only this law would prosecute a real person who was previously getting away free. I mean I just laid out for you why straw purchasing is so hard to prosecute and a bunch of situations where it's now easier to make a case. You're saying that there's something that people could be charged with, but the fact that the mens rea requirement is now much lower is a significant change. The closed hole is that it was very difficult to charge people with gun trafficking or straw purchasing before and now it will be easier, because you only need to show that the gun is knowingly or recklessly sold down a line of traffic to a crime, not that the seller was specifically aware that the next possessor was lying on 4437 or is a prohibited possessor. This is on top of expanding prohibited possessors to include more cases of DV. That's a clear-cut new case. It's not enough. But "enough" is a line on the far side of Heller.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 05:14
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I mean I just laid out for you why straw purchasing is so hard to prosecute and a bunch of situations where it's now easier to make a case. Yeah, but rephrased that's saying "Here's a bunch of made up examples where this law could be good!". So once again quote:because you only need to show that the gun is knowingly or recklessly sold down a line of traffic to a crime How do you do that? When the average interaction is measured in what can be a handful of minutes, how do you prove any form of malfeasance by a dealer? What, specifically, would you look for? As I said I think the only thing it could be is the type of RADICALLY over the top poo poo I talked about. Like a guy just flat out walking in and saying "I'M GOING TO MURDER EVERY PERSON I SEE WITH THAT GUN, THAT ONE THERE, SELL ME THAT ONE!". The actual interactions between buyer and seller are just as banal as those for a washing machine or car. What, they seemed shady and had needle marks? These are not investigators, these are not psychiatrists, and even if they were they do not have a great deal of time spent with any buyer. Unless there is a preexisting relationship, how are you proving anything?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 05:28
|
|
|
Mulva posted:These are not investigators, these are not psychiatrists, and even if they were they do not have a great deal of time spent with any buyer. Unless there is a preexisting relationship, how are you proving anything? The main difference is that right now you can have a preexisting relationship and even know for a fact that the next seller is selling it down the line and it's not illegal unless you are (a party to) lying on a 4437 or the actual specific final gun crime itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 10:26
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The main difference is that right now you can have a preexisting relationship and even know for a fact that the next seller is selling it down the line and it's not illegal unless you are (a party to) lying on a 4437 or the actual specific final gun crime itself. ......yes, and that's still true. 12004 isn't particularly wordy, no part of it penalizes you for just selling to someone you know is going to resell. It specifically only delineates drug trafficking, terrorism, and felonies. Technically any crime of less than a year punishment isn't even a problem, if you know someone is going to take it and fire it off wildly in their neighborhood to piss people off you'd have to hope someone gets super aggro in charging the guy if they want to go after the dealer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 10:58
|
|
|
Mulva posted:......yes, and that's still true. 12004 isn't particularly wordy, no part of it penalizes you for just selling to someone you know is going to resell. It specifically only delineates drug trafficking, terrorism, and felonies. It's a violation if you know someone is going to sell it to down the line to someone who will commit an at-the-time-of-the-sale unspecified crime or to an unspecified prohibited seller, whereas right now they need to prove you are a party to a specific crime or else a specific lie on a 4437. It's lowering the mens rea requirement, like I said. Also, right now if a dealer sells to someone they know to be a straw buyer, it's not a crime unless they know this specific gun is being bought for resale, because that's the standard for a lie on 4437. Under the bill, simply knowingly selling to someone you know to be a straw buyer in general is a violation. This is something dealers skate on all the time ATM.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 11:40
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It's a violation if you know someone is going to sell it to down the line to someone who will commit an at-the-time-of-the-sale unspecified crime or to an unspecified prohibited seller, whereas right now they need to prove you are a party to a specific crime or else a specific lie on a 4437. It's lowering the mens rea requirement, like I said. And I said "There is no reality in which you would catch someone for this new law that you wouldn't catch them for nine other things before this.". Circles are fun, lets keep going in this one. quote:Also, right now if a dealer sells to someone they know to be a straw buyer, it's not a crime unless they know this specific gun is being bought for resale, because that's the standard for a lie on 4437. Under the bill, simply knowingly selling to someone you know to be a straw buyer in general is a violation. This is something dealers skate on all the time ATM. Of course it's a crime. It's probably a bunch of crimes depending on circumstances, but even base it's a crime. Straw buying is illegal, and accessory isn't a thing that just started existing with this bill. Knowingly procuring a firearm for a felony isn't magically a thing that people were just flying on because of some gotcha exception, you know that right? There is no exception to being an accessory to a crime because you have an FFL. Where the gently caress are you getting your statistics on this mass of FFL dealers that are just handing out guns to people they know to be illegally purchasing them and just walking away from it because gosh darn it, there just isn't a law against that? Mulva fucked around with this message at 12:10 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 12:08
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Knowingly procuring a firearm for a felony isn't magically a thing that people were just flying on because of some gotcha exception, you know that right? For one, yes. People were skating on it all the time because of that gotcha exception. You are arguing that someone could, conceivably, be charged for a crime. You're not wrong, but it doesn't reflect the actual reality. In practice current law makes it extremely difficult to make a case, so charges are relatively rare even when the relationship is really blatant. (Admittedly, a lot of this is due to the fact that the ATF is generally incompetent, plus political/cultural pressures that discourage investigation. That part won't change. ACAB and usually lazy to boot, ofc.) For another, you're fixated on a strict A-B sale when the change is that it's easier to prosecute each link in the chain of A-B-C-D-etc. Right now, it becomes increasingly more difficult to charge someone as an accomplice as the relationship becomes more diffuse, making it harder to argue someone is involved in a crime in a second-, third-, fourth-order way. (The fact that you're talking about being an accessory kinda gives me the impression you don't have any idea what you're talking about, too.) We're going in circles because you're refusing to meaningfully engage with what changed, in pursuit of an argument that nothing changed. That's on you. It's not hard to compare numbers of rejected 4473 (not 4437, whoops) applications (a half million annually) to actual prosecutions for those violations (hundreds). And these are all clear-cut cases of people attempting to buy guns illegally. It's a reasonable extrapolation to look at that and assume that the anecdotes of the ATF letting people skate are part of an unmeasurable systemic problem. I am not exactly making a big claim here, either. This is cutting back the corner cases on a small part of the larger problem. Making it a little bit harder for prohibited possessors to get guns isn't dealing with first-time crimes or crimes of passion, which are common, or suicide, which dwarfs homicide by two to one. Tackling the real cause of the problem, that guns are everywhere and outnumber people at this point, lies on the far side of Heller. It's nice that blatantly shady dealers and straw purchasers are a little easier to go after but the practical impact is going to be small.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 13:00
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It's not hard to compare numbers of rejected 4473 (not 4437, whoops) applications (a half million annually) to actual prosecutions for those violations (hundreds). And these are all clear-cut cases of people attempting to buy guns illegally. It's a reasonable extrapolation to look at that and assume that the anecdotes of the ATF letting people skate are part of an unmeasurable systemic problem. Do you have any data on the basis of rejection? There's all sorts of room for confounding factors here, it seems like quite a leap from "government rejected a form" to "hundreds of thousands of crimes just being ignored apparently."
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 16:32
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Do you have any data on the basis of rejection? There's all sorts of room for confounding factors here, it seems like quite a leap from "government rejected a form" to "hundreds of thousands of crimes just being ignored apparently." The ATF doesn't collect it. The tracking on this is horrible, in large part because the current laws are so indirect and require so much charging people with conspiracy to do thus-and-such or as accomplices for this-or-that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Do you have any data on the basis of rejection? There's all sorts of room for confounding factors here, it seems like quite a leap from "government rejected a form" to "hundreds of thousands of crimes just being ignored apparently." Here is the FBI's NICS operations report for 2020-2021. The info you're looking for starts on page 18. All but a few of those reasons are just yes/no boxes on the form where the person would've checked the wrong box. The number of appeals and their success rate is a poor approximation for an error rate, but that's in there as well. (edit: here is where I got that report, if you really want to dig.) You may also find useful as background this GAO report from a few years back for 2017 that includes some interesting state level data. Here is a Washington Post article by D&D favorite Glenn Kessler which includes some more sourced information. It's paywalled but incognito mode worked for me. (It also talks about Hunter Biden a lot because basically anyone using drugs recreationally is probably lying on their 4473s, and Hunter Biden's name gets clicks.) I have no idea if there are any cases working their way up trying to test the waters with a different court, but given some of the prior conversation it's also worth mentioning that ATF's ability to even go after straw purchasers via form 4473 was the subject of a 5-4 decision with Kennedy as a swing vote in 2014. Here's the wikipedia article for the case. The Scalia dissent would have had it that the only person the ATF can ask about, at all, on the form is the person at the sales counter because that is the actual person buying the gun, theories of agency relationships be damned. Clear statutory authority here would, of itself, be useful even if duplicative of the status quo, because there are now more conservative loons on the Supreme Court who might be interested in crippling regulatory authority over firearms by whatever means. Not sure if the draft bill does that, I haven't read it yet. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jun 22, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:because there are now more conservative loons on the Supreme Court who might be interested in crippling regulatory authority over firearms by whatever means New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen Syllabus posted:Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. Pp. 8–63. e: added some other parts of the syllabus that, on reading through, are pretty important. Italics theirs, bolding mine. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Jun 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
the tl;dr is that "may issue" CC permits are now "shall issue" effective immediately, and there's now a calvinball historical basis test that a literally century-old law does not meet. not the worst possible ruling because it left most of new york's gun licensing law intact, but it's open season for federal appeals courts to legislate from the bench, and basically guarantees SCOTUS will be ruling on guns again in the next few years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
I've been assured that a legally armed citizen can't stop a shooting, but there it is. https://mynews4.com/news/nation-wor...jTkI4XyUetrBC6A NBC posted:CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — A woman in West Virginia fatally shot a man who began firing an AR-15-style rifle into a crowd of people that had gathered for a party, authorities said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 03:19
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:I've been assured that a legally armed citizen can't stop a shooting, but there it is. Who has claimed that this can never happen? I don't recall anyone ITT making that claim....
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:I've been assured that a legally armed citizen can't stop a shooting, but there it is. It does happen but it's exceedingly rare. For every instance that it happens there's probably 100 instances of someones kid finding their gun and blowing their head off by accident.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 03:30
|
|
|
There are probably more times the cops shot the good guy with a gun than a good guy with a gun stopped anything and lived. And also yeah it's a numbers game it's vanishingly rare not never ever happens ever. Though I still see people repeating the laughable hundreds of thousands or millions for defensive gun uses a year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 12:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:There are probably more times the cops shot the good guy with a gun than a good guy with a gun stopped anything and lived. And also yeah it's a numbers game it's vanishingly rare not never ever happens ever. Though I still see people repeating the laughable hundreds of thousands or millions for defensive gun uses a year. Oh yea, especially when that Harvard study found that most self-reported defensive gun use cases were invalid and/or the guns were used to intimidate/escalate arguments Kalit fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Jun 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 13:03
|
|