Yeah, let's equate all other laws on the books with MURDER, because we all know murder isn't that serious compared to (rolls the EEF false equivalence dice) .... smoking pot in Hawaii.

If someone is going to commit murder, please list all the laws that person is NOT willing to break.  Take all the space on here you need.

Maybe murder should be outlawed....

I wasn't talking about murder, I was talking about the regulation of gun sales. Just FYI, they are not the same thing.

what type of roll?
Kaiser? sweet?

Sushi

what type of roll?
Kaiser? sweet?

Kaiser Sosay (Keyser Soze) 

I like sweet rolls with butter and heated for 20 seconds in the microwave please.

Reporting that the killer got his gun via private sale from a guy who "built" it. No mention whether it was an "80%" build, or serial numbered lower or what, but even the Lt. Governor of Texas is talking about "closing the private sale loophole". Of course, it's already federally illegal to sell a self-manufactured gun. So there's that. Guess they can make it more illegaller.

Reporting that the killer got his gun via private sale from a guy who "built" it. No mention whether it was an "80%" build, or serial numbered lower or what, but even the Lt. Governor of Texas is talking about "closing the private sale loophole". Of course, it's already federally illegal to sell a self-manufactured gun. So there's that. Guess they can make it more illegaller.

That is just a backdoor way to registration of all guns.
Nobody on this site  violates the law, but there are way many
more guns in Hawaii than are registered.
America as a whole isn't compliant as Hawaiians are.
I'd bet a less than 5% compliance rate on the mainland
as evidenced by the rate of AR15 registration in California
and Massachusetts(sp?).
Molon Labe.

Reporting that the killer got his gun via private sale from a guy who "built" it. No mention whether it was an "80%" build, or serial numbered lower or what, but even the Lt. Governor of Texas is talking about "closing the private sale loophole". Of course, it's already federally illegal to sell a self-manufactured gun. So there's that. Guess they can make it more illegaller.

Do you think they should do away with all background checks, even ones done at gun stores?

Do you think they should do away with all background checks, even ones done at gun stores?

Retail sellers can enforce the laws for background checks. 

Who enforces the mandatory background check when Chico gives a Glock to his 17-year-old cousin?

Laws don't prevent transfers between the people who really need to be stopped from giving/getting firearms.  Only the law abiding will follow the law.

Universal background checks are (a) unenforceable, (b) a huge increase in cost to tax payers, (c) ineffective without major changes in reporting mandates, (d) requires a national registry, and (e) would be one more repository of personal info that can be stolen or abused.  We all know the gov'ts record of protecting our personal info.

If you don't think the government is disclosing YOUR personal information to people who abuse it without your permission or knowledge, all in the name of raising millions of dollars selling our info ....

then think again. 

These are the people some want to trust with our mental health, firearm ownership and other extremely personal information needed to do background checks ...

Wasn't a CA gun registry hacked into a few years ago?

Retail sellers can enforce the laws for background checks. 

Who enforces the mandatory background check when Chico gives a Glock to his 17-year-old cousin?

Laws don't prevent transfers between the people who really need to be stopped from giving/getting firearms.  Only the law abiding will follow the law.

Universal background checks are (a) unenforceable, (b) a huge increase in cost to tax payers, (c) ineffective without major changes in reporting mandates, (d) requires a national registry, and (e) would be one more repository of personal info that can be stolen or abused.  We all know the gov'ts record of protecting our personal info.

A retail seller could take or not take the same enforcement of laws as a private seller who wishes to make sure they are selling the gun to a legitimate person. Sure, only the law abiding will follow the law but without a universal background check the seller in states where no check is required for a private sale has no way of making sure they are selling only to legal purchasers. Being a business owner doesn't mean they will never break the law either.

If you don't have checks for all sales then you might as well not have checks for any sales.

Uniform background checks could be enforced, wouldn't necessarily be a large cost to taxpayers, and would not require a national registry, at least in the way I envision the system.

A retail seller could take or not take the same enforcement of laws as a private seller who wishes to make sure they are selling the gun to a legitimate person. Sure, only the law abiding will follow the law but without a universal background check the seller in states where no check is required for a private sale has no way of making sure they are selling only to legal purchasers. Being a business owner doesn't mean they will never break the law either.

If you don't have checks for all sales then you might as well not have checks for any sales.

Uniform background checks could be enforced, wouldn't necessarily be a large cost to taxpayers, and would not require a national registry, at least in the way I envision the system.

HOW can they be enforced?  Please explain how the under-age gangbanger, felon, mentally ill, relative/close friend and out of state buyers will submit to a "uniform, universal background check" if the seller is (a) not the original/legal owner, (b) really needs the money and the buyer is offering more than the asking price, (c) doesn't care about the background check requirement, and/or (d) is a relative or close friend and feels safe doing the transfer without a check?

Without a national registry, there is NO WAY to enforce this.  Person A buys the gun retail and goes through a background check.  A year later he sells to person B.  Person B gives it to his sister who is being stalked.  The sister sells it on Craig's List to a stranger.  That stranger sells it to another person.  Without a registry, how do you know who had the gun last?  How do you even know if a suspect even possessed a firearm of the same caliber being sought without a record of it?  Most handguns recovered that were involved in a crime have been in the public for 15 years.  That's a really long time for there not to be a registry and having to find through detective work who had the gun when.  As soon as the police get a response, "Man, that gun must have been stolen, because it's not where I thought it was," the trail dies.

p.s.  Anyone not obeying the background check laws for private sales/purchases is unlikely to follow registry laws, too.  The system that was created to support the background check system is just as much a failure, since ONLY THE LAW ABIDING will be in the databases.

let's say background checks are required for private sales. How many active shootings were purchased via private sales, vs. legally through a FFL?

Vegas just made FFL requirements for all non family private sales.  But Pollack bought all his guns the legal way through a FFL.  So would not have helped.  Just gun grabbers trying to take guns away or harder to get for law abiding.

Mark Kelly is running for AZ rep. He was going on an on about how he’s eliminate purchasing guns via internet without background checks. I’m not aware of any online vendors that don’t require FFL for firearms. So I guess technically someone could purchase a firearm online, but would have to go through a check on transfer.

Political twist...  not even spin.

let's say background checks are required for private sales. How many active shootings were purchased via private sales, vs. legally through a FFL?

Vegas just made FFL requirements for all non family private sales.  But Pollack bought all his guns the legal way through a FFL.  So would not have helped.  Just gun grabbers trying to take guns away or harder to get for law abiding.

Vegas?  Or Nevada?

When NV voters passed the Universal Background Check measure, they were sold a program that would cost tax payers nothing more, because the lawmakers expected they could piggly-back on the existing NICS system.

The measure passed, but the law was DOA. 

The FBI who runs NICS refused to do checks for transfers other than those associated with an FFL sale.  Federal laws don't allow a check for non-FFLs performing private transfers. 

Asking an FFL to submit the 4473 isn't enough.  NICS can't enforce FFL laws with private parties, so even if the checks are performed, FBI would have to hold the FFL responsible for any mistakes or incorrect information provided.  Why would any FFL want to be on the hook for something they get no profit from doing?  They can't charge more than the cost of doing the paperwork and submitting it to NICS.  Not worth the hassle or risk.

Thus, the assumption that NICS could be used assumed 2 things: (1) it won't cost the FBI more  than they are funded already to do a bunch more private party transfer NICS checks, and (2) current laws don't limit the NICS system to only FFL sales.  Both assumptions were false.

The next step the NV officials tried was to enact a new tax to pay for the private sales checks.  The voters retaliated and took the gov't to court.  The court sided with tax payers, saying the measure passed on the condition there would be no new taxes.  Adding a tax after it passed is a classic bait-and-switch con tactic.

The law is still on the books, but without funding AND changes in the current federal FFL laws, it's still on the back-burner.

Hawaii gets away with it because they collect permit fees to offset the cost of a state-run background check system.  I'd be interested to know if all HI permits are submitted to NICS, or only those for FFL retail sales.  Since we don't fill out a 4473 for private sales, I'm assuming HI doesn't use NICS for private sales.

Didn't their gov sign it into law?

Hawaii gets away with it because they collect permit fees to offset the cost of a state-run background check system.  I'd be interested to know if all HI permits are submitted to NICS, or only those for FFL retail sales.  Since we don't fill out a 4473 for private sales, I'm assuming HI doesn't use NICS for private sales.

So can we assume HPD doesn’t NCIS any permit apps? ( Don’t need the 4473 for permit apps)
Just Hoohiki’s ‘em ( local court records) and checks med records.
That would be interesting.

How does rapback play into all this bullshit? Or is that only in the future.

So can we assume HPD doesn’t NCIS any permit apps? ( Don’t need the 4473 for permit apps)
Just Hoohiki’s ‘em ( local court records) and checks med records.
That would be interesting.

How does rapback play into all this bullshit? Or is that only in the future.

When I checked the NICS data last year, Hawaii has a total of like 0 felons disqualified from owning firearms.  And Alabama had only 1.

So even HI doesn't submit to NICS nor do many other states.  Because even CA had only a 6K IIRC.

Or am I interpreting this wrong and this means that no one failed the NICS check due to being a felon.

So can we assume HPD doesn’t NCIS any permit apps? ( Don’t need the 4473 for permit apps)
Just Hoohiki’s ‘em ( local court records) and checks med records.
That would be interesting.

How does rapback play into all this bullshit? Or is that only in the future.

Dealers do not submit 4473s to HPD.  HPD does a NICS check with the information applicants provide them when applying for their permit to acquire.  It's a small difference, but HPD doesn't get to see ATFs paperwork.

If the state collected money to use RAPBACK for basically a near-real-time continuous, national background check on Hawaii gun owners, and still hasn't implemented it, I wonder if they are doing all the NICS permit checks they say they are.

From the above reply, FFL/Dealers submit the 4473 to NICS for retail sales.  My question would be, are the permit fees paying for a redundant NICS check even though the FFL already got approval?  Without transparency, we have no info on the mechanics of how all that is being done.  If we did, their failure to implement RAPBACK after collecting fees for it for years would have been made public much earlier.

When I checked the NICS data last year, Hawaii has a total of like 0 felons disqualified from owning firearms.  And Alabama had only 1.

So even HI doesn't submit to NICS nor do many other states.  Because even CA had only a 6K IIRC.

Or am I interpreting this wrong and this means that no one failed the NICS check due to being a felon.

Are you using the correct terms?

NICS is an approval/denial system.  Did you mean 0 felons were denied firearm transfers?  If so, that simply means felons in Hawaii know they will be denied, so they don't even attempt a retail purchase.  If HPD is also running all private sales by NICS, same holds for applying for any permit as a felon.

There's no way to know how many of Hawaii felons are in possession of firearms obtained through straw purchases, black market, theft, loaned by a friend, and so on.  Simply having none denied doesn't mean all felons have no desire for firearms.

Are you using the correct terms?

NICS is an approval/denial system.  Did you mean 0 felons were denied firearm transfers?  If so, that simply means felons in Hawaii know they will be denied, so they don't even attempt a retail purchase.  If HPD is also running all private sales by NICS, same holds for applying for any permit as a felon.

There's no way to know how many of Hawaii felons are in possession of firearms obtained through straw purchases, black market, theft, loaned by a friend, and so on.  Simply having none denied doesn't mean all felons have no desire for firearms.

Sounds like I was looking at it wrong.  So Alabama had 1 felon apply for a gun and fail the NICS check.  HI had zero felons apply.  But we had 8K denied due to mental health issues in 2018.  And about 1K who had a TRO.