General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsQuestion here! Is background checks at GUN SHOWS a state or federal issue?
Can each state set there own background check rules?
essaynnc
(799 posts)1. During the first couple of years of the Obama Administration, democrats controlled congress and the presidency. What gun control legislation was enacted then, or if not, why not? I hear that certain type of ammo were outlawed, etc. I hope that there was more.
2. Can't states enact gun control legislation on their own? Or is this a gray area due to 2nd amendment rights interpretation? If not, why not??????
Thanks for any input.........
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,392 posts)Feel fairly certain that if any kind of gun control legislation had been proposed, it probably got killed in the Senate by Republicans and/or Blue Dog Democrats. If anything, I think that some gun restrictions were actually loosened.
I do remember that gun sales were quite strong during Obama's Presidency because of perpetual right-wing fears that President Obama- because he's a Democrat- was going to be a "gun-grabber" (just like all the rest of us)
sarisataka
(18,483 posts)1- not much
2- states can, and do, enact gun control legislation. The only thing a state may not enact is a de facto ban on firearms
Alea
(706 posts)The answer is no. We waited until we lost the House and lost the super majority in the Senate. Then blamed repubs for not doing anything on gun control.
To be fair, we only had a super majority in the Senate for a few months, but during that time we could have passed every bit of gun control legislation anyone ever dreamed of. Why didn't we? Because we wanted to win in 2012, and unlike people here that don't want to admit that gun control loses votes, the congress critters know it's true. Easier to kick the can down the road and blame the other party when they don't do anything. IMO we lost the Senate in 2014 partly because of gun control attempts we tried after Sandy Hook.
Your second Q, yes states can. Look what Connecticut and NY did, and of course California. Going too far though means SCOTUS gets involved and starts slapping wee wees. So far SCOTUS hasn't taken on any of those cases. I think Heller was the last one they heard and we all know how that turned out.
billh58
(6,635 posts)is that all licensed gun dealers must perform a background check regardless of where the transaction takes place.
Gun sales by private unlicensed individuals don't require a background check, hence the term "gun show loophole" which refers to gun sales that take place in parking lots and back alleys around gun shows.
sarisataka
(18,483 posts)An FFL dealer must conduct a NCIS background check if he sells a gun at a gun show, his store, house or Walmart parking lot.
Non-FFL gun sellers are prohibited from NCIS conducting background checks.
A state may legislate that all sales at gun shows require NCIS background checks. Then the show organiser must provide a FFL dealer who may conduct checks on behalf of non-licensed sellers
bluestarone
(16,859 posts)Who prohibits a non-ffl gun seller from doing NCIS background cks????? TY for ur answer
hack89
(39,171 posts)You can take it to a FFL to do it for you - that is what RI mandates.
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)It's often violated by private sellers, though.
hack89
(39,171 posts)when you don't know where all the guns in America are.
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)However, such laws make sales without checks much more difficult at gun shows. The laws, however, do nothing about sales between two individuals. Such sales might be illegal, but there is zero enforcement of that, since there is no gun registration requirement.
All firearms should be registered, with transfers recorded and penalties for unregistered firearms.
The NRA doesn't like that idea. I don't give a damn! If Minnesota instituted a firearms registration law, I'd register my firearms. No problem. I have no reason that would cause me any hesitation in doing so.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and if it did, it would be undercut by massive resistance. I would register mine simply because an arrest would make me unemployable. Many others would simply ignore the law like we see in CT and NY.
More to the point, with 300,000,000 unregistered guns in America, criminals could get all the guns they need.
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)300,000,000 is closer.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)It would be very expensive.
Unlike cars you cant pass that cost on to the owners, because there is no Constitutional right to own a car. Just like we cant charge people to register to vote we cant charge them to register all guns.
Now, look at places where it has been tried. Start with Canada and see what it cost them before they gave up and decided it was a waste of money.
No think if that money is actually best spent that way, or on programs that attack the root causes of violence by addressing things like poverty, domestic violence and better access for health care. The same amount of money spent that way would do far more to reduce misuse of guns than the same money spent registering guns and people who 99.99% are not any risk of harming anyone.
sarisataka
(18,483 posts)A person must provide an FFL number.
One of the ideas for UBC is to change it so anyone may access NCIS by providing identifying information on themselves and the buyer.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)Feds do not require a Federal Firearms License and therefore no background checks made on private sales of firearms. A great majority of the "tables or booths" at gun shows are considered private sellers and not firearms dealers.
Guns shows are frequently conducted in NRA friendly states where the state is unlikely to pass laws that supersede the Fed permission. In addition, for the remaining states that may even consider taking on the NRA and the private seller (who will argue the Fed rule is on their side), there is a lack of will to take on that inevitable firestorm of a law suit.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)The vast majority of dealers at gun shows are not private sellers but are licensed dealers.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)MineralMan
(146,254 posts)Those laws work just fine. Private sellers or collectors just process the sale at a booth set up by an FFL holder for that purpose. It slows things down a little, and there's a fee involved, but that's it.
Some states don't have such a law. You'll find more gun shows in those states, as a general rule.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)That way even if a sale isnt at a show or where a dealer is available the dealer can do ten right thing.
That said, there are states where this has been the law for a long time and it doesnt affect crime much at all, if it has any effect.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Feds regulate licensed gun dealers and sales that cross state lines. State regulates intrastate private sales by non-gun dealers.
Cities and states can mandate that every sale at a gun show has to have a background check. Several cities and states have done that.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Federal law says that:
Any gun sale that crosses a state line must go through a dealer. A handgun can not be bought unless a person is in their state of residence. A long gun can be bought outside a state of residence.
A licensed FFL dealer must perform a background check on every sale, no mater what or where.
In state private parties may make sales between each other as long as they dont sell to a prohibited person. However at the same time a private person cannot access the NICS database to do a background check.
States can mandate that all sales must have a background check.
Several states have those laws. So in those states there is no legal way to obtain a gun without a background check. California, Illinois, Maryland, New York and many others are in that list.
The actual effect on gun crime from mandating full background checks is minimal if any if you study those states.