Republican-led US states sue to block expanded gun background checks

[Credence]

Really? WTF. This would close the loophole and how most criminals get their guns

May 1, 2024 2:12 PM EDT Updated 3 hours ago


May 1 (Reuters) - More than two dozen Republican state attorneys general sued the Biden administration on Wednesday to stop a new rule that would require gun dealers to obtain licenses and conduct background checks when selling firearms at gun shows and online.

The lawsuits challenge a rule finalized last month that U.S. Justice Department officials said is aimed at closing the "gun show loophole." Under the rule, those selling weapons at gun shows, other venues and over the internet are subject to the same requirements as gun stores to check the backgrounds of potential buyers. The rule, which has not yet taken effect, will affect tens of thousands of gun sales a year, according to the Biden administration.

President Joe Biden has called on Congress to pass legislation requiring universal background checks and banning assault-style rifles, but Republican lawmakers oppose such laws as infringing on the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment gun rights protections. In announcing his state's lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had exceeded its authority in promulgating the new rule.

"With today's lawsuit, it is my great honor to defend our Constitutionally protected freedoms from the out-of-control federal government," he said. Louisiana, Missouri and Utah, along with Gun Owners of America and other gun rights advocacy groups, joined the Texas lawsuit. The case was filed in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, whose only active judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, was appointed by Republican former President Donald Trump. The court has become a preferred venue for conservatives challenging Biden administration policies.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/republican-led-us-states-sue-block-expanded-gun-background-checks-2024-05-01/

 

[rahl]

Really? WTF. This would close the loophole and how most criminals get their guns

May 1, 2024 2:12 PM EDT Updated 3 hours ago


May 1 (Reuters) - More than two dozen Republican state attorneys general sued the Biden administration on Wednesday to stop a new rule that would require gun dealers to obtain licenses and conduct background checks when selling firearms at gun shows and online.

The lawsuits challenge a rule finalized last month that U.S. Justice Department officials said is aimed at closing the "gun show loophole." Under the rule, those selling weapons at gun shows, other venues and over the internet are subject to the same requirements as gun stores to check the backgrounds of potential buyers. The rule, which has not yet taken effect, will affect tens of thousands of gun sales a year, according to the Biden administration.

President Joe Biden has called on Congress to pass legislation requiring universal background checks and banning assault-style rifles, but Republican lawmakers oppose such laws as infringing on the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment gun rights protections. In announcing his state's lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had exceeded its authority in promulgating the new rule.

"With today's lawsuit, it is my great honor to defend our Constitutionally protected freedoms from the out-of-control federal government," he said. Louisiana, Missouri and Utah, along with Gun Owners of America and other gun rights advocacy groups, joined the Texas lawsuit. The case was filed in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, whose only active judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, was appointed by Republican former President Donald Trump. The court has become a preferred venue for conservatives challenging Biden administration policies.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/republican-led-us-states-sue-block-expanded-gun-background-checks-2024-05-01/

First, it’s not a loophole. The law specifically allows for private sales to not have background checks. And for good reason. If I want to leave my firearms to my kids when they are older, there is no reason I need to go through the process of having a background check done. It’s my property and I can give it to them and the govnt has no say in that. Second, how does a background check prevent criminals from getting guns? Unless you are an FFL, distributor or manufacturer selling to FFL’s, private sellers required to conduct background checks is completely unenforceable.

 

[Credence]

First, it’s not a loophole. The law specifically allows for private sales to not have background checks. And for good reason. If I want to leave my firearms to my kids when they are older, there is no reason I need to go through the process of having a background check done. It’s my property and I can give it to them and the govnt has no say in that. Second, how does a background check prevent criminals from getting guns? Unless you are an FFL, distributor or manufacturer selling to FFL’s, private sellers required to conduct background checks is completely unenforceable.

The law specifically refers to gun dealers. How do you think guns are transported to states that have strict gun control laws? Criminals go to these gun shows and stock up on guns; transport and sell them to other criminals.

No gun owners who obey laws should be opposed to closing this loophole

 

[rahl]

The law specifically refers to gun dealers.

The law redefines what a gun dealer is. Me selling my own personal firearm to someone does not make me a dealer.

How do you think guns are transported to states that have strict gun control laws?

Huh?

Criminals go to these gun shows and stock up on guns; transport and sell them to other criminals.

It has nothing to do with gun shows. All dealers are required to conduct background checks. Individuals (depending on the state) are not.

No gun owners who obey laws should be opposed to closing this loophole

It isn’t a loophole, by definition.

And you avoided my entire post.

If I want to leave my firearms to my kids when they are older, there is no reason I need to go through the process of having a background check done. It’s my property and I can give it to them and the govnt has no say in that. Second, how does a background check prevent criminals from getting guns? Unless you are an FFL, distributor or manufacturer selling to FFL’s, private sellers required to conduct background checks is completely unenforceable.

Edit: And nobody is opposed to private individuals having access to the NICS system to conduct background checks on their own if they want to.

 

[VanceMack]

The problem with the new rule (not a law) is that it reclassifies private sellers as 'dealers' and would then subject them to all the same paperwork restrictions and requirements of a dealer. The intent is to end private sales and to create a database of all firearms.

Of course it should be rejected...as should all rules coming from a non-elected agency.

 

[VanceMack]

The law specifically refers to gun dealers. How do you think guns are transported to states that have strict gun control laws? Criminals go to these gun shows and stock up on guns; transport and sell them to other criminals.

No gun owners who obey laws should be opposed to closing this loophole

No gun dealer can avoid the law...whether they are sellign firearms from a business, online, ir even at gun shows. Gun dealers have to follow the same laws and are accountable for every firearm transferred to their business from manufacturer to the sale of the firearm. There IS NO gunshow loophole.

This not about a new law...laws are passed by congress. This is about a new rule imposed by the ATF targeting private sellers of firearms...citizens that want to sell or trade their own personal firearms not for business.

 

[ataraxia]

If I want to leave my firearms to my kids when they are older, there is no reason I need to go through the process of having a background check done.

How is this different than transferring other property to them like the deed to a house or a car?

 

[rahl]

How is this different than transferring other property to them like the deed to a house or a car?

A deed to a house or title to a car is not the same as private property such as firearms, jewelry etc.

 

[ataraxia]

There IS NO gunshow loophole.

The private sales excuse has been a major avenue of the legal gun sales in the United States.

“Criminals frequently exploit a “let's step outside” loophole that would allow unscrupulous gun sellers to use gun shows as venues for arranging sales “

Closing the Gun Show Loophole

Principles for Effective Legislation Introduction In 1996, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) released Gun Shows in America: Tupperware® Parties for Criminals.1 The study was the first to analyze the…

vpc.org

 

[VanceMack]

How is this different than transferring other property to them like the deed to a house or a car?

If you sell a car you own, are you now a car dealership and do you have to get a state license and register and meet all the conditions of a car dealership in order to sell your car as a private seller?

You KNOW the answer is no. You also know that if you buy and sell cars as a business you DO have to registers as a dealer...and the law already requires that.

Same as with firearms.

 

[ataraxia]

A deed to a house or title to a car is not the same as private property such as firearms, jewelry etc.

How are houses or cars different kinds of private property than guns?

 

[ataraxia]

If you sell a car you own, are you now a car dealership and do you have to get a state license and register and meet all the conditions of a car dealership in order to sell your car as a private seller?

You KNOW the answer is no. You also know that if you buy and sell cars as a business you DO have to registers as a dealer...and the law already requires that.

Same as with firearms.

If you buy a house for a car, you have to register it.

 

[rahl]

How are houses or cars different kinds of private property than guns?

Houses require deeds. Autos require titles. Guns can’t be required to have either.

 

[ataraxia]

Houses require deeds. Autos require titles. Guns can’t be required to have either.

That’s dumb. They should. All potentially hazardous equipment have regulations in their manufacture and sales.

 

[rahl]

That’s dumb.

It’s reality.

They should.

No they shouldn’t.

All potentially hazardous equipment have regulations in their manufacture and sales.

So do guns. More so than autos and homes.

 

[ataraxia]

It’s reality.

Yeah sure- but it can be fixed. It's like having a busy traffic intersection with no traffic lights and lots of car accidents and pedestrians getting hurt- and just shrugging it off as "oh well, that's reality", and then not doing anything about it. That's just dumb.

No they shouldn’t.

Why not? The consequences speak for themselves. The poor lack of regulations on this particular class of hazardous equipment in this country have it far more dangerous and vulnerable to harm than other countries which do it better.

So do guns. More so than autos and homes.

Obviously not enough for the guns. Our flimsy regulations are having some pretty catastrophic consequences for us.

It's a little like not having food inspections and having lots of our own people dying or getting sick from it, but continuing to insist we shouldn't have better inspections for our food. That's just dumb.

 

[rahl]

Yeah sure- but it can be fixed. It's like having a busy traffic intersection with no traffic lights and lots of car accidents and pedestrians getting hurt- and just shrugging it off as "oh well, that's reality", and then not doing anything about it. That's just dumb.

No, it’s nothing like that.

Why not?

Because we don’t license rights. The constitution doesn’t permit it.

The consequences speak for themselves. The poor lack of regulations on this particular class of hazardous equipment in this country have it far more dangerous and vulnerable to harm than other countries which do it better.

No it doesnt .

Obviously not enough for the guns. Our flimsy regulations are having some pretty catastrophic consequences for us.

No they aren’t.

It's a little like not having food inspections and having lots of our own people dying or getting sick from it, but continuing to insist we shouldn't have better inspections for our food. That's just dumb.

It’s nothing at all like that.

 

[VanceMack]

If you buy a house for a car, you have to register it.

You don't have to register a car unless you drive on the public roads. The registration is not for ownership, its for tax purposes. Firearms on the other hand are not registered...specifically not registered...and many states have outright bans on registration requirements.

But the response avoids the question asked...if you sell your car...or sell your home privately...do you have to go through the registration requirements to become a licensed dealer or a real estate agent?

I'm pretty sure in your avoidance of the question you know the answer.

 

[VanceMack]

That’s dumb. They should. All potentially hazardous equipment have regulations in their manufacture and sales.

Its ok that you believe that...and that is why you should lobby your congressmen to initiate changes to the law. But until there is a change to the law...your opinion is just that...your opinion and something you are entitled to but not really relevant legally.

 

[ataraxia]

Its ok that you believe that...and that is why you should lobby your congressmen to initiate changes to the law. But until there is a change to the law...your opinion is just that...your opinion and something you are entitled to but not really relevant legally.

Sure. And if you don't like these new requirements, I am sure you can take it up with your congressman as well. But until then...your opinion is just that...your opinion and something you are entitled to but not really relevant legally.

 

[eohrnberger]

The law redefines what a gun dealer is. Me selling my own personal firearm to someone does not make me a dealer.

This is typical of the left, redefining terms so they can misapply existing laws to get what they want, in this case a 100%, no exceptions, gun ban.
(If you look at Brag's case in NY, this is exactly what's going there - and it's not the only case when the left does this BTW)

Huh?

It has nothing to do with gun shows. All dealers are required to conduct background checks. Individuals (depending on the state) are not.

It isn’t a loophole, by definition.

And you avoided my entire post.

If I want to leave my firearms to my kids when they are older, there is no reason I need to go through the process of having a background check done. It’s my property and I can give it to them and the govnt has no say in that.

The gun banners want your guns to be buried with you, apparently.

Second, how does a background check prevent criminals from getting guns? Unless you are an FFL, distributor or manufacturer selling to FFL’s,

private sellers required to conduct background checks is completely unenforceable.

A move to grow the power, control and injection of the Administrative State into people's lives, this too typical of the left.

Edit: And nobody is opposed to private individuals having access to the NICS system to conduct background checks on their own if they want to.

 

[ataraxia]

No, it’s nothing like that.

Because we don’t license rights. The constitution doesn’t permit it.

Yes. That's why modern weapons technology has made the 2A a technologically obsolete 18th century law.

No it doesnt .

No they aren’t.

It’s nothing at all like that.

Sure it is. The danger of such poor regulations on this particular class of hazardous equipment in our nation speaks for itself. It's off the charts. These things are not making us safer.

 

[eohrnberger]

Yes. That's why modern weapons technology has made the 2A a technologically obsolete 18th century law.

This argument has been debunked so many times now, you can't count how often.

Sure it is. The danger of such poor regulations on this particular class of hazardous equipment in our nation speaks for itself. It's off the charts. These things are not making us safer.

View attachment 67507632

If you as so wedded to those statistics, it should make you motivated to change countries.

 

[VanceMack]

Sure. And if you don't like these new requirements, I am sure you can take it up with your congressman as well. But until then...your opinion is just that...your opinion and something you are entitled to but not really relevant legally.

I'm sure you didnt miss that there are ongoing legal efforts to challenge the ATF rules...thats what the thread is about. So far, the ATF has been skunked with every new rule they have tried to impose.

 

[VanceMack]

Yes. That's why modern weapons technology has made the 2A a technologically obsolete 18th century law.

Sure it is. The danger of such poor regulations on this particular class of hazardous equipment in our nation speaks for itself. It's off the charts. These things are not making us safer.

View attachment 67507632

Do you support mandatory minimum sentencing laws (30-40 years) for violent criminals that commit homicides using firearms?