Campaign to close gun background check loophole launched

[jpak]

Source: Bangor Daily News

BANGOR, Maine — A new coalition of law enforcement officials, gun violence survivors, sportsmen, gun owners and gun violence prevention advocates launched a campaign Saturday in support of a November referendum to require background checks for nearly all firearms sales in Maine.

The group, Mainers for Responsible Gun Ownership, held a gathering on Harlow Street to spread the word about the referendum, which was sponsored by South Portland residents Judi and Wayne Richardson. Their daughter, Darien Richardson, was shot with a pistol while she slept in her Portland apartment in January 2010 in a homicide case that has never been solved.

Criminal background checks are required by the federal government for gun sales at licensed gun shops and retailers in Maine, but the law has a loophole that allows private sales to go forward without them.

“That means felons, domestic abusers and other dangerous people can easily buy guns anonymously from unlicensed sellers — including at gun shows, through classified ads and from strangers they meet online — [with] no background check required, no questions asked,” the coalition’s spokesman David Farmer said in a release about the event. “The Maine Background Check Initiative would close this loophole by requiring that everyone buying a gun in Maine get the same background check, no matter where they buy it or who they buy it from.”

<more>

Read more: http://bangordailynews.com/2016/05/14/news/bangor/campaign-to-close-gun-background-check-loophole-launched/

---

Backlash Begins

FU NRA

yup

[Thinkingabout]

1. This is a good start.

[Duckhunter935]

2. That is always the problem

[stone space]

26. Why is starting a problem? It's way past time to get started.

[Duckhunter935]

27. What's the end?

We started nearly one hundred years ago.

[stone space]

28. "No, we can't!" (nt)

[Duckhunter935]

30. Very true you can't

And have not

[stone space]

31. Do you believe that Zimmerman should be allowed to keep his gun?

Very true you can't

And have not

Let's see just how extreme you are in your "No, we can't" message that you peddle here on DU.

[Duckhunter935]

32. Was he found guilty by a jury of his peers?

If he is not prohibited by federal or state law, how would you remove a right? For the record, he is a thug and an asshole.

[stone space]

34. So you support Zimmerman's ongoing "right" to his gun with a shout of "No, we can't!"

That tell's me all I need to know about your scream of, "Don't even start! No we can't!"

Was he found guilty by a jury of his peers?

If he is not prohibited by federal or state law, how would you remove a right? For the record, he is a thug and an asshole.

Let's all cry NRA tears for the rights of Zimmerman's gun, the very gun that he used to gunstalk and murder Trayvon Martin in cold blood with.

[Duckhunter935]

35. I support our legal system and the rule of law

I think Zimmerman Is an asshole thug that was found not guilty and still has his rights under the Constitution. What other rights are you for taking?

[stone space]

37. The "rights" of AR-15s to be openly carried by terrorists at #OCCUPYPHOENIX encampments.

I support our legal system and the rule of law

I think Zimmerman Is an asshole thug that was found not guilty and still has his rights under the Constitution. What other rights are you for taking?

There could have easily been a massacre that day. That park was filled with families with children.

[Duckhunter935]

38. Do not agree with those idiots

They do a disservice to RKBA. No laws were broken and I do not think anyone has ever been injured in one of these Constitutionally protected and allowed free speech protests.

[stone space]

39. No laws were broken until the massacre. Until then, you supported this neo-nazi's right to terrorize

No laws were broken

Before the massacre, you and your NRA ilk pretended and insisted that there was no danger.

That tell's me all I need to know about your scream of, "Don't even start! No we can't!"

[FULL] Shocking JT Ready 911 Call (White Supremacist Kills Toddler and Family)

[Duckhunter935]

41. Moving the goalposts again, lol

First it was Zimmerman, when you failed to lure me with that you went with an open carrier with a rifle that broke no laws. Now you link to a murderer.keep moving those posts. And how does this pertain to the OP?

I support free speech, even speech I strongly disagree with. Murder is against the law and I oppose that, whether it is done with a weapon, rope, hands, club, bat or any other item.

[stone space]

43. You were never objecting to goalposts. You were objecting to a starting line.

What you have demonstrated here is merely how extreme and how completely out of touch with reality your desire to NOT even get started truly is.

In post #35, you asked me for another example, so I gave you one, and once again, you flunked the test. That's not moving any goalposts. That's just demonstrating that you have no starting line, just as your initial post #2 suggested.

What other rights are you for taking?

Want to ask me again?

[NickB79]

45. How do you arrest someone if they've broken no laws?

You keep lamenting the fact that we didn't stop a massacre before it started.

How do you legally detain someone when they haven't committed a crime? You're proposing a system out of the movie "Minority Report", where we criminalize potential behavior before said behavior has become reality via mind-reading/seeing the future in some way.

How do you do this within the confines of the current legal system? What you're proposing goes far beyond any piece of gun control legislation.

[stone space]

46. One could make terrorism illegal. But that would upset the NRA's "No, we can't!" crowd here on DU.

How do you arrest someone if they've broken no laws?

You keep lamenting the fact that we didn't stop a massacre before it started.

[NickB79]

47. I fail to understand what your point was with that post

You mentioned how one could make a law declaring terrorism illegal. Terrorism is already illegal. If you engage in an act of terrorism, or attempt to assist known terrorist groups, you have broken the law and can be arrested. In fact, here in my state of Minnesota, we just convicted several individuals for aiding the terrorist group ISIS: http://www.npr.org/2016/06/03/480657648/federal-jury-finds-three-somali-americans-guilty-of-consipiring-to-join-isis

The FBI built a solid case, with substantial evidence to substantiate their assertion that these men were assisting a known terrorist organization and thus committing a federal crime.

What you are proposing (denying individuals their constitutionally protected rights without having committed any crimes first) would be analogous to detaining men and women simply because they are Muslim, because they MIGHT assist ISIS even if there is no evidence they have done so.

Like I said in a different post, your position that we find a way to revoke constitutionally protected rights without evidence of a crime having been committed is dangerously close to that of Donald Trump.

[NickB79]

44. Then propose a legal way of taking them that passes legislative muster

Don't like assault rifles? Get a law introduced to ban them, get a majority of legislators to sign it, then get it past the Supreme Court. That is how the legal process in our nation works. We've had numerous pieces of gun control legislation pass through this method, so it's not impossible to do.

What you're proposing is to take away something that is currently legal, from people who have broken no laws, on speculation of what they MIGHT do in the future, because you don't agree with the way our justice system and legislative system currently works.

What you're proposing is more akin to Donald Trump's fevered imagination of America should be.

[hack89]

7. That is the attitude that creates problems for gun control. nt

[Thinkingabout]

8. Maybe for you, there is not anything wrong with background checks, currently there is a big loop

hole and it needs to be closed. This will not hurt a decent gun owner or a future gun purchaser.

[beevul]

10. It isn't a loophole.

Congress did NOT intend to regulate private sales with the brady bill.

This is about sneaking in registration.

[hack89]

12. Not talking about that.

I support UBCs - my state has them. It is the "it's a good start" comment I was referring to.

[alex_giger]

20. Universal Background Check Referendum Results in a Handgun Ban

...for 18-20 (i.e. under 21) year olds.

"This will not hurt a decent gun owner or a future gun purchaser."- Thinkingabout

NOT TRUE.

If Maine voters were to pass this background check referendum, they would be imposing a handgun ban on 18-20 year olds (i.e. under 21) -- even fully vetted Maine concealed carry permit holders in this age group.

-- Maine residents 18 and older can own handguns
-- Maine residents 18 and older can apply for a concealed carry permit.

However, gun dealers can not transfer a handgun to any person under 21 years old, and if this referendum were to pass, gun dealers would have a monopoly on all gun transfers.

Fortunately, the Maine Secretary of State knows all about this fundamental incompatibility between current state law and this proposed referendum.

This is likely to come as a shock to the proponents of this referendum - especially when they see the final version of ballot question from the Maine Secretary of State that references this handgun ban (and the Class C and Class D crimes that will be created to ensnare Mainers that innocently violate the detailed and arcane gun transfer requirements).

[jpak]

24. Good - I hope this happens and the felons lose their gun rights

forever

yup

[Hoyt]

3. If Gungeoneers peek out of the their compound, they'll tell us there is no loophole.

Last edited Sat May 14, 2016, 09:36 PM - Edit history (1)

The NRA, and its largely white wing membership, will agree.

[hack89]

6. That is not correct

We understand the law. We understand that private sales extend beyond gun shows.

[Duckhunter935]

36. All some know us name calling, insults and penis jokes

They would be better to learn how the law works and basic firearms operations

[red dog 1]

4. A majority of NRA members favor background checks, but NRA leadership opposes background checks

In a January 2013 poll done by two entities at Johns Hopkins University - the Dept. of Health Policy Management and the Center for Gun Policy and Research, "nearly 74 percent of NRA members supported requiring background checks for all gun sales"..yet, the NRA opposes ANY new gun laws.
A CBS-New York Times poll, also from 2013, "found that background checks on all potential gun buyers were favored by 85 percent of all NRA households>"
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/mar/18/lena-taylor/most-nra-members-back-background-checks-all-gun-pu/


K&R, thanks for posting, jpak

[Skittles]

5. NRA pimps for gun manufacturers

not gun owners - many NRA members REALLY do not understand that

[alex_giger]

22. President Obama - Greatest Gun Salesman of ALL TIME

"NRA pimps for gun manufacturers" - Skittles

Interesting Infographic:

http://ammo.com/articles/obama-still-greatest-gun-salesman-in-america-infographic

[jpak]

51. Ammosexual bullshit don't go 'round here

yup

[beevul]

11. They polled 169 nra members.

It is doubtful that the viewpoints of 5 million people can be extrapolated accurately from 169 examples.

Plus, nobody asked how anyone would feel about background checks for private sales, if gun registration is included.

Thus, the poll is basically useless for other than propaganda purposes.

[red dog 1]

13. "5 million people"?

I don't think so.


On January 5, 2016, the NRA described itself as "more than 5 million members strong."

"But the truth of those numbers is a matter of debate -- The NRA has never allowed an outside party to authenticate it's membership, and independent estimates predict a much smaller number.
Circulation audits of "American Rifleman" and other NRA-published magazines that are sent to every member come in at around 3 million.
One former board member told the Washington Post in 1998 that when the NRA counts it's size, it includes many deceased lifetime members."
http://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/new-nra-tax-filing-shows-membership-revenues-dropped-by-47-million-following-sandy-hook-surge/

As far as your:
"nobody asked how anyone would feel about background checks for private sales, if gun registration is included."

How, exactly, would a private gun seller even DO a "background check" on someone wanting to buy a gun from them?
Also, how could a private seller of a gun conduct a "gun registration" at the time of sale?

If you know of any recent legitimate poll showing that NRA members do NOT favor universal background checks, please post the link here & now.

[beevul]

14. Fine, lets just cut to the chase then...

"5 million people"? I don't think so.

On January 5, 2016, the NRA described itself as "more than 5 million members strong."

"But the truth of those numbers is a matter of debate -- The NRA has never allowed an outside party to authenticate it's membership, and independent estimates predict a much smaller number.
Circulation audits of "American Rifleman" and other NRA-published magazines that are sent to every member come in at around 3 million.

Fine, lets just cut to the chase then. How many millions of peoples opinions do you think can be accurately extrapolated by asking 169 individuals connected only by nra membership?

One former board member told the Washington Post in 1998 that when the NRA counts it's size, it includes many deceased lifetime members."

Almost 20 years ago? LOL.

How, exactly, would a private gun seller even DO a "background check" on someone wanting to buy a gun from them?

That depends on which anti you listen to.

Also, how could a private seller of a gun conduct a "gun registration" at the time of sale?

"How will anyone know if a gun changes hands, without registration." That's the argument I've seen from anti-gun proponents. And the BIDS system? That's one way to do it without registration.

Coincidentally , the anti-gun movement is uninterested in that avenue.

If you know of any recent legitimate poll showing that NRA members do NOT favor universal background checks, please post the link here & now.

I don't think that the opinions of 169 people can be extrapolated to accurately represent the opinions of even 3 million people, and I certainly wouldn't imply that the results are "legitimate".

[alex_giger]

23. Universal Background Checks cover gun SALES and TRANSFERS

"Plus, nobody asked how anyone would feel about background checks for private sales, if GUN REGISTRATION is included."

...and if all but a few narrowly defined gun TRANSFERS are included;

1. Loan a gun to a trusted victim of domestic abuse for personal protection; go to a gun dealer to process a "transfer" - and rinse and repeat on the return of the gun.

2. Loan a gun to a trusted hunting buddy for deer season; go to a gun dealer to process a "transfer" - and repeat the process all over again for the return OF YOUR OWN GUN.

[jpak]

50. I will vote for the UN Blue Helmets to grab yer gunz under Sharia Law and Agenda 21

yup

[Lizzie Poppet]

52. Gun owner and competition shooter here...

...and proud to have worked to help Oregon pass our universal background check law. I'm far from alone among gun owners in supporting that law, too.

[red dog 1]

56. + 1

It's too bad that the NRA cares more about what gun manufacturers think than it does about what it's own members think.

[ileus]

9. At least the people may get to vote on this one.

Unlike most laws that are enacted "for the greater good" by a few 1%ers.

[madville]

15. So let people print out a background check certificate

and/or allow private sellers to look up buyers. I have no problem with background checks, it's the greedy licensed dealers that want to charge $50-75 for one that are annoying because they are the only ones with access to the system.

[alex_giger]

16. STOP BLOOMBERG’S ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE GUN CONTROL IN MAINE

Last edited Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:55 PM - Edit history (2)

Vote NO on the Universal Background Check Referendum

Former NYC Mayor Bloomberg has targeted Maine for his Universal Background Check gun control initiative.

What you need to know:

1. This referendum is not a grassroots Maine effort. The petition effort was paid for by Bloomberg, and he will pay for the propaganda media blitz to attempt to convince Mainers to give up their gun rights.

2. This proposal is described as only applying to gun sales, but it also includes practically all gun transfers as well. Make a temporary loan of a gun to a trusted friend – pay for a round trip background check.

3. This proposal will burden over-worked police, prosecutors, and judges with otherwise law-abiding citizens who get criminally ensnared in the arcane gun transfer requirements of this referendum.

4. This proposal criminalizes private gun sale and transfer activities that have been perfectly legal and have historically been responsibly exercised by Mainers.

5. This proposal would take away handgun ownership and concealed carry rights for young people aged 18-20 because gun dealers cannot legally transfer a handgun to anyone under 21 years old.

6. There are serious flaws with the over-burdened gun background check system; gun buyers wrongfully denied, suspension of gun sale denial appeals processing, and steady growth of “prohibited persons”.

7. Gun dealers are already required to administer background checks on all gun sales, regardless of location. There is no gun show / on-line “loophole” for these dealers.

8. It is already to illegal to sell a gun to convicted violent felons, mental incompetents, or across state-lines to non-residents.

9. This proposal is a stepping stone to full gun registration which is the real goal of this proposal. Once full gun registration is in-place, confiscation of guns is readily facilitated.

10. The proponents of this referendum naively expect criminals to comply. But police know that criminals avoid private sales from unknown sellers for fear of gun sale “sting” operations. In reality, criminals obtain guns from “straw purchasers” with clean backgrounds, from known criminal associates, or theft.

11. Ironically, practically all the recent mass shooters passed a gun background check. Universal background checks had no effect on deterring these criminals.

12. This proposal requires time and money that few Mainers have to spare. Mainers living in the most rural parts of Maine would be especially burdened (long drives to gun dealers to process gun transfers).

13. In 2014, Washington State passed a similar Universal Background Check referendum against the recommendation of police groups. Since passage, the law is being routinely ignored and unenforced.

14. This proposal violates the Maine Constitution which states; “Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned”.

15. Maine is one of the safest states in the U.S. The last thing Maine needs is more gun control.

For more information please go to the Gun Owners of Maine websites;

http://www.gunownersofmaine.org
https://www.facebook.com/gunownersofmaine

[jpak]

17. Fuck the NRA and Fuck Trump, LePutin and Poloquin

yup

[stone space]

29. 26 post gun troll.

[ManiacJoe]

18. You would think that they would know by now it is not a loophole.

Federal law does not "allow private sales without background checks".
Federal law prohibits background checks by private sellers.

Yes, this needs to be fixed.
Unfortunately, all the common attempts to fix it create more problems than they solve.

[alex_giger]

19. Federal vs. State Gun Law

"Federal law does not "allow private sales without background checks"" - ManiacJoe

By definition (and the U.S. Constitution) Federal gun law only applies to INTERSTATE commerce, and to all federally licensed gun dealers by federal regulation.

INTRASTATE private party gun sales do NOT fall under the jurisdiction of Federal law ***

So yes, Federal law requires background checks when guns are sold across state lines, and by FFL gun dealers, both interstate and intrastate.

The 2016 Maine (and Nevada) universal background check referendum seek to change STATE law to prohibit MAINE INTRASTATE private party gun sales and transfers.

For the reasons listed in my STOP BLOOMBERG post, the Maine (and Nevada) voters should oppose this proposal.

=================

*** In effect, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (Federal Law) REQUIRES 18-20 (i.e. under 21) year olds to buy handguns via INTRASTATE private gun sales. This gives rise to the handgun ban for this age group when universal background check schemes are implemented since gun dealers cannot transfer a handgun to anyone under 21 (see bullet point #5 in the STOP BLOOMBERG post).

[jpak]

21. I like Bloomberg and I am voting for this - just like all smart and sane Maine people

The gun trolls are in for a sad.

yup

[SwankyXomb]

33. They're all cranky now

You know how they get when they haven't had a good gun massacre for a while.

[ManiacJoe]

48. You seem to be agreeing with me.

But at the same time missing the point I was making, I think.

[alex_giger]

57. We are in agreement

ManiacJoe,

Yes, Net/Net I think that we are of a similar/same mind on this referendum.

[Angel Martin]

25. well, this is one way to put Maine into play

for the Republicans.

The Repubs are probably hoping to see the same thing in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, NC, Virginia and Michigan as well.

Then when this turns into the predictable political disaster the gun grabbers will blame it on some conspiracy theory and say the Repubs actually organized it !

[joeybee12]

40. KNR before this gets locked...

Buy some gungeoneer complaining.

[Duckhunter935]

42. I doubt that will happen

It will probably be the one with ten hides that will alert

[jpak]

49. Paid NRA trolls are 4 real

yup

[Duckhunter935]

53. Point them out or just be quiet

You are making the charge, prove it.

[jpak]

54. There is repondant to this thread that has posted the sane lame NRA bulllshit

in every Maine newspaper.

NRA paid troll

yup

[Duckhunter935]

55. Sure OK