Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nevernose

(13,081 posts)
13. Background checks are meaningless
Sun Feb 18, 2018, 10:04 PM
Feb 2018

Without gun registration, and both background checks and registrations have to be universal and kept on state and federal databases (which is illegal under federal law currently and hard to find enough courageous politicians at a local level).

Even under the Brady Bill, with background checks for FFL sellers, if the ATF doesn’t come back within three days, the sale can go through. Maybe the FFL clerk doesn’t see someone suspicious, or maybe they’re just greedy, and they let the sale go through. Without the database of guns and their owners, it’s also impossible to tell precisely where and from whom all of those illegal guns in Bogeyman Chicago are coming from — some good ol’ boy just needs to drive to a gun show in Missouri or Indiana every weekend and buy from whoever will sell them, then drive back to Chicago and turn a blood-stained profit.

Yet another problem with the current Brady Bill is that thousands of people are rejected every year, and there are virtually no prosecutions. It’s up to the state’s politically appointed federal attorney on how to enforce that law, or how stringently. They don’t want to piss off the NRA or throw lots of white people in jail, so usually the gun seller just says “No, you failed the background check” and nothing happens. A few highly-publicized, lengthy-prison sentences, and people would think twice.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control Reform Activism»What would you want enact...»Reply #13