Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick Feuds With the NRA Over Background Checks

texas lt. gov. dan patrick background checks nra

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, center (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, arguably the state’s most powerful politician, has been a reliable supporter of gun rights. But after shootings in El Paso and Odessa, he’s done an about-face on one key proposal.

It was revealed that the Odessa shooter, a prohibited person, bought the gun he used in a private sale. In a recent interview, Patrick has come out as a supporter of universal background checks.

On Friday, Patrick said it’s “common sense” to tighten background-check laws because in many instances, stranger-to-stranger sales now are exempt from the requirement that buyers be vetted through a federal database of people not eligible to purchase firearms.

Patrick wants to protect transfers among family members from triggering a check. He’d also continue to exempt friends, though he acknowledged that could be abused. Patrick, who presides over the Texas Senate, said he’s willing to accede to the preferences of senators on whether to maintain that loophole — and if so, exactly how.

But he said Texas must strongly discourage selling guns to strangers without a background check.

The NRA didn’t take long to fire back, issuing this statement.

With due respect, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s “proposals” would resurrect the same broken, Bloomberg-funded failures that were attempted under the Obama administration. Like most political gambits, Lt. Gov. Patrick’s “solution” precedes his possession of the facts, including this critical concession by the Obama administration: Criminalizing private firearm transfers would require a massive, governmental gun registration scheme. Instead of trampling the freedom of law-abiding Americans, the government should focus upon actual solutions: fixing our broken mental health system, prosecuting known criminals and enforcing the existing gun laws that require follow-up whenever a prohibited person tries to buy a firearm. In the meantime, the NRA remains at the forefront of legitimate efforts to combat crime in our country. We encourage Lt. Gov. Patrick to join us in support of the same.

That’s a significant break between the distracted gun rights org (with its severely depleted lobbying arm) and Patrick. This is a split you might not have seen in the past when the NRA was operating at full strength.

Governor Abbott has resisted pressure to call a special legislative session on gun control. As the Texas Tribune reports,

Abbott this week issued eight executive orders in response to the shootings. Many were largely focused on strengthening law enforcement’s ability to respond to and prevent future shootings, mainly through improving reporting channels and closing “information gaps.” He is expected to release “legislative considerations” next week, but has so far signaled no interest in calling a special session soon. His office this week likened such a move to a “helter skelter approach that hastily calls for perfunctory votes that divide legislators along party lines.”

Don’t look for Abbott to give in to the pressure to call a special session. The Texas legislature, which meets only every two years, doesn’t convene again until 2021.

 

 

comments

  1. Why DOESN’T the [email protected] Texas voters “Fire ” their Governor/Lt. Governor! Before YOU become the next M Assachusetts, New York, New Jersey, etc…Then YOU can for about “exercising” YOUR constitutional rights…Just like these “Authoritarian Police States” with “Police issued Privilages”. Only if “THEY” allow YOU to…RIGHTS “Taken”, are never returned!

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      They are not up for reelection for a few years.

      1. avatar Ton E says:

        So recall elections aren’t a option in TX?

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          They sure were for us here in CA, when we triggered a recall election back in 2003 and ousted former Gov. Gray “Gumby” Davis.

          Of course, a veritable circus followed, with everyone from Gary “Watcha Talkin’ About Willis” Coleman to obsure porn stars throwing their hats into the ring as candidates. And we ended up with Schwarzeneggar, who was supremely inept and paved the road for the full transition to Leftardville (Brown, and now Newsom).

        2. avatar Ton E says:

          But he was the Governator!

        3. avatar OBOB says:

          AND cali should have voted for Gary Colman over the maid bonking ArnOLD who went WHIMPY lib day one in office!

          At least Gary knew what it was to be poor in life…he climbed high and FELL all the way down!

        4. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Not in reality, no. But it important to remember the Texas legislature won’t meet for almost a year and a half. So, unless the Gov. calls a special session, which is highly unlikely, Patrick is neutered until then.

  2. avatar Dude says:

    Why is it that the same people pushing for new laws are the ones that intentionally ignore prosecuting existing laws? Work on criminal control, not tool control.

  3. avatar jwtaylor says:

    I keep reading people say that the Odessa shooter got his firearm in an otherwise legal private sale.
    That is not what I’ve read from law enforcement, who have simply said he did not get the AR through a lawful sale with a background check. He could have stolen it, built it, bought it in Mexico, or bought it from someone who likely knew he was a prohibited person in an illegal transfer.
    None of those likely scenarios would have been stopped by a Universal Background Check.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Supposedly he purchased it from someone illegally manufacturing guns. So it turns out, there’s this thing called a black market. “Universal background checks” would have done nothing to prevent this.

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/authorities-suspect-man-of-making-and-selling-gun-used-in-texas-shooting-11567639127

      1. avatar Michael R Fallon says:

        It is legal to manufacture a gun, privately, for personal use. Where the federal law was when he sold it. Another Federal felony when he sold it to a prohibited person. No UNC would have worked.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          It doesn’t sound like it was for personal use if he sold it to this guy.

      2. avatar Michael R Fallon says:

        It is legal to manufacture a gun, privately, for personal use. Where the federal law was broken is when he sold it. Another Federal felony when he sold it to a prohibited person. No universal background check would have worked.

        1. avatar Ton E says:

          But the LT Gov. said it would……

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Michael, this is a tidbit of misinformation that’s constantly circulated on the Net. It is not illegal per federal law to transfer a privately built gun.

          Per the ATF it is illegal if – and only if – you assembled it with the **intent** to sell or gift it. If you make it and later choose to transfer it, you may do so. Look again at the wording of the law. Even the ATF confirmed the meaning of it.

        3. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          IHAQ, you think you’re clever playing word games with the ATF? That’s the same ATF that defied plain meaning and its own declared interpretation of bump stock regulation. Good luck with your hair splitting strategy.

        4. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Jonathon,

          Not words games. The ATF’s own words, coming from one of their agents in writing:

          http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/2017/02/21/am-i-required-to-apply-a-serial-number-to-a-homemade-firearm/

          Note the letters shown. I retained this entire article offline for personal reference, just in case it one day conveniently disappears.

      3. avatar Craig in IA says:

        A smart move would be to proscecute the seller, and publicize the action. This could’ve been done way back when Dylan Klebold’s (or was it Eric Harris’s) girlfriend purchased one of the guns they used. No prosecution, there rarely is. I’m no fan of FOIDs or permits but there is no way I’d sell any firearm here in IA to anyone who couldn’t show me either the State’s Permit to Acquire or Concealed Carry Permit. That’s proof they have already passed a NICS check. And, while not really a fan of NICS, either, it is now present and it can protect me in a sale, if ever I made one.

  4. avatar rt66paul says:

    A gun is just a tool, but it is a tool made for killing. Gun owners must respect this and not put tools into the hands of someone that doesn’t know better or intends harm. If gun sellers would think as responsible gun owners, maybe some killers wouldn’t get their hands on them. This would raise the price to strangers and would just create a market for illegal arms. If we start that, unscrupulous people would be selling anything and everything – opening the doors to full auto weapons and dangerous junk which the government would never keep a lid on.
    Having access to high quality firearms(even Hi Points) that are manufactured with proper inspection at a decent price keeps out the junk guns that someone might manufacture in a garage and sell for black market prices. Just look at what is available in the Philippines, Khyber Pass, and in India/Pakistan.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      It’s funny how the war on drugs and the war on guns have completely different philosophies.

    2. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      @rt66Paul,

      “A gun is just a tool, but it is a tool made for killing.”

      So I guess you’ve never heard of Olympic target shooters, or trap/skeet clay shooters, or the countless young boys whose fathers bought them Ruger 10/22s to plink aluminum cans with. Not a single one of those involves killing anything.

      You’ve just outed yourself as a tool, buddy. And likely just another troll for the rest of us to ignore.

      1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        Meh. You’re being disingenuous and you know it.

        Sure there are lots of non-killing uses for firearms. I’ve seen them made into lamps, paper weights, doorknobs, flower vases and more. Sure, you can use them for plinking, competitive shooting, or just relaxation. However, those are all derivative or tangential uses of firearms, whose central purpose and original intent are to kill.

        Declaring otherwise is to abandon the Second Amendment and side with the antis and Fudds that firearms are for hunting. That finely crafted wood stock rifle elegantly adorning your fireplace mantel may be a great conversation piece, but in the zombie apocalypse or other major threats to the security of a free state, those secondary and tertiary firearm functions will vanish as it’s put to its primary objective of helping you deliver death, not display flowers.

        1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          Jonathon, you must be under 20 years old, because you’re not thinking clearly or in a mature manner.

          To use your “your heirloom target plinker over the fireplace mantle becomes a killing machine during the zombie apocalypse” logic, so would any other item in the house, such as the two-handed axe (as everyone knows, only hatchets are for chopping wood, because two-handed axes are really meant for killing trees) and gasoline (as everyone knows, these are used all over the world in Molotov Coktails for killing opponents during wartime).

          Ball’s been lobbed back over into your court. The entire TTAG is now watching to see your response.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Please…

          Gunpowder was not invented for fireworks displays, hunting, sporting, or competitions. Those are ancillary/secondary uses for gunpowder. Gunpowder was invented to enable a person to place a lethal payload, under greater velocity into the body of an enemy. The primary purpose of firearms is to kill something, or someone.

          It is perfectly logical to develop non-lethal uses, or sport uses, or punching holes in paper uses for a firearm, but these are not the primary reason guns were invented. So, if someone says to me (and they don’t because very few know about my peashooter), “The only purpose of a gun is to kill”, I would respond, “Nope. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill, not the only purpose”

      2. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Are you arguing that the intent of use of a thing changes the thing itself?
        I have well over a dozen ARs. Some of them I use for target shooting, others specifically for killing.
        Are they fundamentally different things? When I take the target guns to kill coyotes, does it change the rifle itself?
        I have a full auto G3 in my truck right now. Its primary use is making people smile at the range. But I’ve also killed deer and pigs with it. If someone tried to accost me in or near my vehicle, I’d be using it to protect my life.
        Do I have 3 different guns?

        1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I’m not really that impressed by your boasting that you have a full auto G3. I personally know someone in LE here who has an MP5 in his trunk, and he never mentions it because he doesn’t need to draw attention to himself. I’ve normally respected your comments on matters, but this one just seems a bit too “my balls are bigger than yours”, even for you.

          Take just the very first example I mentioned: The Olympic-designed match rifle. Its primary function is to put little holes in paper exactly where the competitor wants them. It is not designed whatsoever for killing, no matter how you want to spin it.

          So you have a few ARs…big deal. Many of us here do, myself included. Some I built specifically for targets, and a couple I built for the express purpose of lethal defense in a worst case SHTF scenario. But all our ARs put together don’t change the purpose of the Olympic match rifle.

          And that’s only the first example. Not all guns are killing apparati.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          No, that’s not how it works. The primary function of a firearm is to kill. The primary function of a specific, custom firearm can be different, but only as a subset of a weapon. Thus, it is not the intended use of a firearm that changes its nature, it is the intended use of the shooter, who CAN change a firearm’s configuration. Don’t go tryin’ to hustle people strange to you, even you do got a two piece custom-made pool cue (well…you get my meaning)…

          That hot rod bang stick you got will, end the end, serve as a weapon when needed, regardless of original intent.

          A pet lion is still a lion, regardless of your intent (just ask Siegfried and Roy)

        3. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          Um, Sam, that sounded really profound, I guess, in a difficult-to-follow way. And no, I don’t speak “two piece cue stick”, whatever that is on your planet.

          No matter how much you or Taylor want to spin it, not all guns are designed or intended for killing. You guys are sounding like Leftists now. “Guns are killing machines!”

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Guns are killing instruments. Why is that in dispute? Your benign intent does not disable the ability of a gun to be a deadly weapon. A rip saw can be used as a weapon, but its primary function is not as a weapon. A firearm can be a trophy, or heirloom, but it remains a firearm.

          The entire discussion about a firearm not being a firearm is mere diversion into the argument about the “need” for firearms. I do not need any of my bladed weapons. They are curios, artifacts of the skill of metallurgy. However, though I do not plan, or intend, to use the swords as killing weapons. Lying in their cases, they remain swords, the purpose of which is to kill and enemy. They know noting of my intent. They are no more deadly because they lie in cases.

          Trying to prove to gun-grabbers that having guns intended only for hole punching is a legitimate hobby, and shouldn’t be banned or controlled is just folly. It is the argument that the purpose of the second amendment is to protect people who do not intend to ever use their firearms to harm another person.

        5. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          Forget it, Sam. You’re diverting the original comment over into the weeds now, and I don’t have time to debate with you tonight. Believe whatever you want. My wife is waiting for me in the other room with a hot dinner and a movie queued up for indoor date night.

          My competition .22LR target rifle is built, designed, and used for the specific purpose of putting little holes in paper so I can win cash prizes. It will never be used to kill anything, at any time, now or in the future, because that’s not its purpose, nor would it be suitable for the task. If you happen to have one and want to use it to kill something, that’s your decision. Then you can parade around with your pals and try to convince people that you have a killing machine.

          Hasta la bye bye

    3. avatar Matt(NM) says:

      don’t feed the troll

    4. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      I agree that my firearms are tools, but beyond that I beg to differ. My firearms were not made to kill nor do I use nor own them with an intent to kill. I haven’t even used my long bow nor compound bow to kill. By your definition my bows also were made to kill. The only tools I have ever used to kill are my knife and my spear and rarely a pellet rifle. Oh, if you count cockroaches, my boots.

      1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

        So I guess that you are telling me that my boots were made to kill as well. Just as the left wants it, barefoot and pregnant; but no matter how hard they keep effing me biology won’t allow the latter. Doesn’t stop them from trying.

  5. avatar former water walker says:

    We got UBC in ILLinois. Guess what? We’re not safer…criminals don’t care. The Odessa lunatic could’ve just run over folks😫

  6. avatar Anonymous says:

    But he said Texas must strongly discourage selling guns to strangers without a background check.

    What about kitchen knives? Is that ok? Do I have permission from the Lt. Gov. or even the majority of the state for that matter? How about gun parts? Old fertilizer? Large quantities of rat poison? Gasoline? How do I know they won’t do something evil with it? You know what? Let’s just forsake as many freedoms and options as possible for the sake of these”what if’s.” Safety is more important than any level of freedom so we need the government (rather than individuals and parents, etc etc) to instill laws rather than principles in people’s minds to satisfy the “what if” Gods and their worshipers.

  7. avatar 24and7 says:

    It’s chickenshit politicians like Lieutenant Governor Patrick that is and always will be the problem.. they always expect law-abiding tax-paying gun owners to bend over and take it.. They always run in fear of and make excuses for criminals and criminality.. they let a small minority of the population control the majority of the population.. what they need to do is go clean out these prisons by executing all violent & life offenders.. especially those that have over natural life sentence crimes.. or multiple violent crimes.. they need to speed up the death penalty and apply it and more than just murder cases.. and it would be nice if the cops could “put a few more in the ground”, like the old song says..

  8. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Texas is turning blue right in front of your eyes,,,sad…

  9. avatar Peter says:

    He’s from Maryland, so… :/

  10. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Brother-in-law (BIL) is hopping mad that private gun sales are not required to undergo a background check. I noted that there is no physical way to know when a private sale is being conducted. Without a means to identify such transactions, how can a law requiring a background check for the transfer be enforced? BIL responded that if there was a law, people would be afraid they would be caught in the act (an act unknowable to anyone but the participants, mind you). I then asked did BIL have any thought on the number of police that would be necessary to monitor all the illegal gun sales in the inner cities, among gangers and criminals? BIL said no one can stop illegal gun sales in crime neighborhoods. So I asked how it was that a law that makes murder illegal is not sufficient to stop murder, but a law making it illegal to engage in private transactions will have a noticeable influence on murders? BIL had nothing for that, except….”You Trump supporters are all alike, wanting things to work before you try them”.

    The above was preceded by a conversation of the mythical DGU. BIL said if they existed, we would see reports all over the media. So, I offered scenario he might find valid: the number of DGUs was equal to the number of deaths from use/misuse of guns. I asked if a one-for-one trade of lives would be acceptable. He said no, because DGUs don’t reduce the number of deaths do to guns. Then, I offered that maybe there was actually only one life saved by a DGU. He said, “That’s more like it.” To which I replied, “If it saves only one, it’s worth it. That’s when the yelling started, BIL saying, “That doesn’t apply, doesn’t justify anyone having a gun.” So, I pulled the string harder, and said, “So, you are happy with one more death added to the accepted 33,000 “gun deaths”. BIL said background checks stop killers, which is what led to the whole private sale conversation.

    1. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

      “To which I replied, “If it saves only one, it’s worth it.”

      They damn sure don’t have a problem using that argument for more gun control.

      I like to hit them with “It’s about lives saved, right? The senseless loss of life? If it saves just one life, it’s worth it, right?”

      Then you spring the trap –

      “Why aren’t all motor vehicles driven on public roads equipped with a breathalyzer ignition interlock? *Thousands* die annually from drunk drivers. If we did just that one simple thing thousands of lives would be saved.”

      “Oh, so you have zero problems allowing thousands of lives to be lost in crashes, but somehow a few hundred lives lost by a rifle is unacceptable? Your priorities are seriously fucked up. ”

      “Oh, so just because “a car isn’t designed to kill” is your excuse? That makes it even *worse*. All those billions of dollars spent by the auto companies ‘on car safety’, and yet they continue to relentlessly slaughter innocent lives. And you seem to have no problem with that! You are an unbelievably selfish and heartless jerk!”

      “Tell you what – After you slash motor vehicle deaths in half we can talk, OK? Because over the last 20-odd years, gun deaths have been cut in half. Get your own house in order before you dare infringe on my civil rights.”

      “I’ve just proved to you that it isn’t about lives saved. If it were, alcohol ignition interlocks would be mandatory on every vehicle and the national speed limit would be 40 MPH, strictly enforced. But, noooooooooooooo! Getting to where you are going a few lousy minuets earlier is worth thousands dead?”

      It’s fun to yank chains like that…

      *snicker* 😉

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Good stuff. Going to keep some of it.

      2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Whenever I hear the words “we have to protect the children”, I like to reply that – per the Gov’s own numbers for 2017 – there were about 15K gun-related deaths involving minors in the USA.

        https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

        That same year, there were about 600K legally permissible abortions in the USA (this link shows up to 2014, but other non-official tables show the estimations for 2017):

        https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm

        So if we’re truly thinking of the children first, why aren’t we focusing on abortion, which murders the most helpless and innocent among us? If we allow for the (no more than 5%) of abortions that are due to incest or rape, we’re still left with well over half a million legalized murders of children each year. SO IT’S ABSURD FOR ANYONE TO ARGUE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD CURTAIL OUR RIGHTS ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN FROM ONE SIDE OF THEIR MOUTH, WHEN THEY ALSO ARGUE FOR THE CONTINUED LEGAL MURDER OF 40 TIMES AS MANY CHILDREN OUT OF THE OTHER SIDE OF THEIR MOUTH.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Mayor Pete says life begins at the first unassisted breath out of the womb. Comparing abortion numbers to deaths through gun use/misuse makes no sense to anti-gunners. Since abortion is the way to save the planet from climate change, anti-gunners stop listening to anything that declares, or depends upon, life beginning at conception.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Sam,

          Interesting skew by ‘Ol Pete. So if an “unassisted breath” is the qualification, what about those who are unconscious in hospitals and on assisted respirators? Are they legally dead and no longer under the protection of society at large?

          I really wish someone would ask him that on camera.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I really wish someone would ask him that on camera.”

          Doing so would not support the narrative.

    2. avatar enuf says:

      This link will open a Google search for “list of defensive gun uses”. There are many results:
      https://tinyurl.com/y5673xoo

      This link will open a Google search for “list of armed citizens coming to the aid of police”. There are many results:
      https://tinyurl.com/y6a4v4ex

      A little Googling about the internet will turn up loads of examples of positive gun uses by law abiding people.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Once emailed BIL about eight paras with stats on gun use/misuse. Response was that one was too many deaths, essentially excluding inner city events. I pointed out that statistically, one was twice as likely to be hit by lightning, as be involved in a mass shooting in a public place. That since 1960, the number of people killed in “mass shootings” vs. population was “statistical noise”.

        BIL said statistics were evil when it comes to death by gunshot. Then I pointed out that “mass shooting” had no standard definition, but if he only thinks of “mass shootings” as public gathering place events, the statistical noise drops even further, because “mass shooting” news and research reports use anywhere from 3-5 deaths. I was called “scary” for not having compassion, and making value judgements based on numbers.

        Thanksgiving will be here in a little while. Gotta lay low with 2A conversations so I can get him to cussing at dinner when 2A comes up. Lying in wait so I can tell him, and the whole family, that he would rather his sister be killed by an attacker, that let her have a gun to defend herself.

  11. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    The left hasn’t fully defined “Universal”. Of course, if the current system notified LEOs of violators or got a federal agency to arrest and prosecute violators the current system might actually achieve something. Doubling the sentence for straw man purchasers and attaching any crime committed by the recipient, sentence to be served consecutively might end some of that crap. The same should hold for gifting a prohibited person, meaning felons in the main.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Exactly, the failure to enforce the current background checks is a good argument to stop and fix that system before talking about anything new. Every time the FBI NICS denies a purchase for cause, they should alert local law enforcement. Who should be required by law to respond and investigate.

      As for private sales the law would be ineffectual, massively ignored. The only way it would work would be to force mass registration and licensing and random surprise inspections.

      So, no thank you very much one that last part.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Exactly, the failure to enforce the current background checks is a good argument to stop and fix that system”

        Which “system” are you talking about? Electronic? That’s possible. Arrest and Trial? Not possible.

  12. avatar Ralph says:

    In anti-gun MA, I can vet a private purchaser by viewing his license, confirming it online and getting a good standing certificate from the state. The process is fast and seamless.

    I’m not selling guns, but if I did, I would take advantage of the law. Now if only the Feds would come up with something as easy.

    Oh, wait. NICS was supposed to be an open system, but the law was changed at the last minute to make it available to FFLs only. I wonder why. Maybe — and I’m spitballing here — just maybe it had something to do with the 4473.

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      Back during the original Manchin-Toomey debate, there was a proposal by someone, I think Cornyn, for exactly that. Seller can verify buyer, show buyer was verified, and no record of the transaction details are kept. It was roundly and soundly rejected by the Democrats.

    1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      Hey, everyone. Another foreign actor posting a link to his online store. These guys never contribute to the conversation, and just try to hawk their wares.

      Don’t click on the link.

  13. avatar Texican says:

    One of the problems with NICS are the false denials because one person is similar to another in name. The police aren’t checking every denial because most of them are false denials that get cleared up eventually. Where the system breaks down is when no one in law enforcement acts on genuine data like the Parkland shooter who had dozens of law enforcement interactions.

  14. avatar LibertyToad says:

    It isn’t “common sense” to make laws that will not have any impact on criminal activities while claiming that they will.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “It isn’t “common sense” to make laws that will not have any impact on criminal activities…”

      It is “common sense” to do so, if everyone would just obey the laws.

      Words have meaning, and meanings change. For instance, regarding laws concerning guns, “common sense” is what “most” people believe should be done. So, yes, if everyone else is jumping off bridges, it is “common sense” that you should do so, likewise.

  15. avatar Randy Jones says:

    There is a deeper question here. What kind of moron sells one of their guns to someone they now nothing about. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the gifting a gun to a relative or close friend, but it takes an idiot to sell a gun to a stranger. New if the stranger can produce a CCDW permit and seems stable that could be a different story.

    I don’t buy off someone who won’t produce ID I can take a picture of either. If you go to a flea market and the guy says his name is ‘John Kohler’, check his ID. friend of mine bought a Ruger P85 at a flea market for $250. Nice looking, stainless, box spare mag. A big cheap in my mind. Had a LEO run the numbers some time after he bought it, guess what. Stolen. No receipt, no proof of sale. No ‘John Kohler’ at the flea market when he and the law went back. Flea market said nobody by that name ever rented a outside table. He’s out $250 and the gun. Yep, John is slang for toilet and Kohler is a brand of toilet – go figure.

    When a stranger gives you a good deal – be wary – buying or selling.

    There are idiots among us and they make us all look bad.

  16. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    This latest mass murder shows how much pressure is being put on Republicans to finally do something. Lets face facts any nut case and any criminal can simply walk into a gun show or arrange to meet with someone one line or simply go to the nearest bar and say “Anyone know were I can get a weapon?” I once sat at a bar years ago and said this just to see what would happen. Three people sitting next to me and a fourth who was the waitress all threw guns on the bar and told me the price. It seems everyone had a part time job hawking second hand guns. No one cared who you were or want you were going to do with the weapon. It was cash on the barrel head and no questions asked. The final departing line was always “remember bud, I never met you and you never met me, get it?

    The Chicago study prove the majority of guns used in crime were 11 years old and had been through many hands proving beyond all doubt that when they were traced many had come from out of State where gun laws were lax or practically non-existence in regards to second hand gun sales. ITS INSANITY BEYOND ALL COMPREHENSION, BEYOND ALL LOGIC. NO CIVILIZED NATION ALLOWS THIS TYPE OF INSANITY WHEN IT COMES TO GETTING GUNS WITH NO RESTRICTIONS EXCEPT CASH ON THE BARREL HEAD.

    Safe storage laws would also cut down on the number of guns being stolen. Right now its easy just to kick in a door or break a window and steal all the guns you could ever want and not just from private residences, many gun stores do not even lock up guns after hours. If I had just 1 dollar for all the news reports I have read of thugs kicking in a gun store door or window and scooping up a wheel barrel full of guns including assault rifles I would be rich. . AGAIN STUPIDITY, AND TOTALLY INSANITY.

    Safe storage laws would also reduce the 1,300 kids that got killed last year in home accidents and triple the number maimed for life in wheel chairs.

    No amount of right wing lying or bullshit can avoid the horrific truth and that is we live in a Nation that is not only gone completely insane but does not even care about the safety of its own children when they are in school. And when a society has reached that level of crassness and totally corruption it shows it already has self-imploded. Even Ancient Rome was not that insane.

    A mandatory universal background check would also keep much closer tabs on the Paramilitary Lunatic Fringe and their stashes of assault rifles and ammo bunkers who has vowed to overthrow the U.S. government so they can establish Utopian Right Wing Dictatorship and of course sans the 1st Amendment.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      And remember the “standard right wing lie” is that you could not force people to go to a dealer to sell their second hand gun. BULLSHIT, when the laws are made draconian enough the supply of used guns going to nut cases and criminals would dry up over night and with safe storage laws the amount of stolen guns would be far, far less as well. The History of such laws in foreign countries proved it long ago.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        Plus when the Hairy Kameltow is president she will let all of the rapists and murderers out of jail and there will be plenty of room for millions and millions of gun owners to server their life sentances for paperwork mistakes and other technical violations.

        1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          Master Troll Level 91 achieved!

          Well done! You have mastered the ability to write lengthy comments nobody has the stomach to read completely. Your stamina is increased +1 and your armor is increased +2.

          Keep playing.

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      Also when I was in that bar I saw 27 guns sold in illegal transactions in just a few hours of heavy drinking. And the bartender lined the bar with empty beer bottles and let the new criminal gun owners try out their bloody murder death machines right there. I saw it with my own eyes.

      And the scientific study in Chicago uncovered a common practice in states with lax gun laws where the gun store owners give special discounts and free ammo to anyone who is planning on selling their new gun in Chicago.

      All the criminal greedy gun store owners have to do to stop people from smashing their windows and taking their guns is spend a few dollars to make the doors to narrow to fit a wheelbarrow through but they are to cheap to do that. They are so cheep and irresponsible sometimes they dont even bother to loack there doors. They just let the criminals take there guns and sit back and wait for the insurance checks.

    3. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

      Hey Vlady:
      YAWN………..

  17. avatar Stateisevil says:

    The shootings aren’t going to stop. The GOP will eventually cave on most everything. Of course, none of the laws will stop the mass shootings. And when that fails more rights will be infringed. Unless we’re willing to actually use the 2nd amendment, they’re not going to be stopped.

  18. avatar GS650G says:

    So someone violates the law before killing people and the reaction is to crank up on the law abiding.

    Got it.

  19. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

    Those who cause the problems then use the problems to further their control over those who are not the problem………….

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Those who cause the problems then use the problems to further their control over those who are not the problem………….”

      Wonderful description (definition?) of politicians and government bureaucrats?

  20. avatar JoinGOA,FPC,SAF says:

    Here is a link every decent American can use to send a message so easy with a few clicks and a prewritten letter(if needed) to all GOP Senators & Trump to stop this illegal gun control! This week the threat is real and the anti-gun house will likely pass several gun control bills and scream the sky is falling! They will call Trump and the Senate all kinds of names if they don’t pass their commie like gun control!

    https://gunowners.org/alert082119/

  21. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    I think that a decent alternative would be to
    Limit the NUMBER of guns one can sell to strangers each year through private sale. 6 or 12 should be enough. Estates , bankruptcies etc could be exempt.

    I mean really if you are selling more than 12 guns regularly a year one could argue that’s unlicensed dealing.

    Also we could allow gun shows to do a NICs check at the door , for free without any record of transactions. We shouldn’t require it.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Any thoughts on how you will monitor private sales to ensure compliance with the sale limit?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email