Well, this is a surprise.
In Virginia, Gov. McAuliffe backs off of his plan to cut concealed carry reciprocity agreements with 25 states after a national backlash. In exchange, Virginia gun shows will have to have state police on hand to run background checks on buyers, if private sellers want, and people under a ‘two-year protective order for domestic violence offenses’ won’t be allowed to own firearms for the duration of the order. Neither are very big concessions: private sellers would be happy to get voluntary access to background-check systems*, like in the former item, and adding a status granted only to proven violent people to the firearms-prohibited list is great, in the latter.
- If any of you are lawmakers, here’s the idea again: I want to buy a firearm in a private sale, so I go to the NICS website and fill out the firearms transfer form. The NICS website gives me back a unique record number. I go to the seller and show my photo ID. The seller calls an automated line or goes to a website, punches in my record number, and gets back my name (potentially my photo ID number, too, as an added check, but I’m not sure how safe/privacy-minded that is), and a yes-no on whether I’m allowed to buy. Protects private sellers from selling to the wrong kind of person, protects buyers’ privacy, and closes a massive hole in the firearms-buying process. I’ve sold a few pieces from my collection in private sales, but never to anyone I don’t know well—it just isn’t a good idea.
Is there any actual legal liability risk, now, if your buyer turns out to be a “bad” guy? I thought the answer is “no”. If that’s the case, it’s good that you’re being good citizen, but I don’t see relying on voluntary action as a good way to go.
CraigM
4249
Yes, exactly. Without any legal consequences for not doing what you suggest then private sales are effectively completely unregulateable.
No more than a private-party sale of a car. (In most places. More states than I thought criminalize selling private-party firearm sales without a background check at all.)
As for voluntary action, why not? Voluntary or mandatory, a private-seller background check system isn’t going to do anything to people who want to be bad actors, and a voluntary system faces precisely none of the opposition from gun rights-minded people that a mandatory system does. We’re the sort of people you’d want to buy in of our own free will, and I bet we, as a group, would.
A mandatory system vs. a convenient voluntary system does a few things. It gives a nudge to folks who are genuinely honest and well meaning, but perhaps a little lackadaisical about the details. Entirely reasonable to question how many of those folks there are and whether it’s worth legislation for that. It also gives an additional liability hook for prosecution ex-post-facto for the intentional bad actors. Again, entirely reasonable to question whether that’s necessary or even interesting. It also makes people feel good as they “did something!” about the gun issue. IMO, the last comes from the first.
Er? That’s like saying there’s no difference between making taxes voluntary vs. mandatory. Some people need a stick to motivate them to do things (or not do things). Heck, even some people who are willing to be bad actors if there are no consequences will refrain specifically because there are consequences.
Seems like a pretty basic principle to me.
How about those drones? Now 14-year olds have to register their toy helicopter if it weighs 250 grams or more.
I really like this concept.
Once people became comfortable with it, you could make it mandatory.
Yet another kid-shoots-his-parent story from Florida. This one has the extra nugget of a mother who is a rabidly pro-gun activist, and the irony of her posting a gleeful message about how she was training her 4-year-old to shoot only the day before. This story also has the advantage of good-looking glamor-shots of the mother.
Detail-wise, it’s pretty rote: she’s driving and the toddler manages to get his hands on a loaded, golden .45 and shoot her in the back through the driver’s seat.
Her Facebook page is “Jamie Gilt for Gun Sense.” It’s chock full of pro-gun image memes and garbage.
You can imagine the comments her page is getting now.
ShivaX
4257
Here’s some “Gun Sense” - don’t leave loaded pistols within reach of your 4-year-old, you fucking idiot.
Fortunately for her, she got hurt rather than her kid.
Oghier
4259
Did you not read the part where she had trained the kid the day before? This was a tragic and completely unavoidable accident!
Actually, it will be interesting to see how the NRA spins this. The mom was pretty, so this will be all over cable for a day or two.
Maybe – but that kid is ruined. How do you recover from that? EDIT: NM, for some reason, my brain assumed that she was dead.
The mom is in stable condition. He’ll recover just fine. They got lucky, that 1) she was shot instead of him and 2) that the injury is non-fatal.
A good lesson for taking care of your own domain before venturing out into the political domain.
If only everyone did that…
She should be charged with a crime for leaving a loaded gun within reach of a child.
I looked up the laws. If there was a reasonable belief the kid could’ve gotten access to it, then it’s a crime. So if she just tossed it in a zippered pouch in the range bag on the back seat next to him, she’s probably toast.
If it was locked or stored in a way to be immediately accessible (functionality like carrying it on your person) and there was no reasonable way to believe he would’ve gotten hold of it, and only did so by some extremely unlikely series of events, then she’s fine.
I suspect she’s doomed.
ShivaX
4264
I suspect she wont be charged with anything, odds are they’ll consider the GSW penalty enough.
That said, she probably should be charged with something, but I don’t see it happening.
olaf
4265
Yes and I suspect she will be. Incredibly irresponsible and flat out shameful and embarrassing behavior from a pro gun person.
edit:
While we are on the topic of irresponsible gun owners…what about this http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wife-founding-eagles-member-randy-meisner-shot-dead-article-1.2555313
As a gun owner this is a very difficult outcome to rationalize. Cops were called previously in the day…90 minutes later the wife is shot dead on accident? It does not add up. Storing a rifle in condition zero (round chambered, safety off) makes no sense at all on top of the fact that the guy had, allegedly, made threats within the past year regarding a murder-suicide.
The police recommend a charge as expected.
It was placed under the front seat and slid back. I don’t think it’s “close enough to be immediately accessible” like in a console or glovebox, though I’m sure her lawyers will try to argue that.
Obviously it’s super dumb. I’m just speaking from the legal aspect.
What’s weird is that it should be a felony since the kid injured someone. Maybe they want to go easy on her? The attorney’s office could still upgrade it.
