Yes, excellent, except that straw purchasing is already a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Compromise is alright on some things, not on others. Guns may be one of the ones that "no compromise" is better than more gun laws that will never be enforced.

DingleB

Yeah but it makes the gun grabbers & low information people feel better. Anyone that knows anything about gun purchasing already knew what the laws were. They didn't enforce what was already on the books, let's see if they enforce the New & Improved Super Duper Law now.

@ Dingle

And you have to love the judges who constantly use strong sentencing guidlines too? It's a freaking joke. I want these pieces of scum to serve real sentences, not this ACLU type sentencing, where it is just inhumane to lock someone up for that long.

The bill seems to punish sellers to straw buyers, not the straw buyers themselves. How does a gun seller know whether the person he/she is selling to is a straw buyer or not? Presumably the straw buyer would not admit this to the seller, right?

Obviously 10 years is not enough...

Interesting that a republican (Sessions) would be 'soft on crime', but I guess when some GOP members are intent on protecting the gun lobby/manufacturers at all costs, to be expected.

There should be mandatory jail time for straw purchasers. All guns start out 'legal', the 'responsible gun owners' that give criminals access to them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

For all of the people who seem opposed to this legislation, let me ask a simple question.

If you believe that existing laws already on the books even are not fully enforced, why should this bother you? The new law would double the prison time. But if, as you say, they don't enforce it, why would anyone be against it? Why does it bother you?

Agreed, there is a large gap between selling a gun to a person selling/giving a gun to another person whom can't legally own one and selling a gun to a person whom can't legally own one. Clearly I wouldn't want a criminal's girlfriend to buy a gun for him, but new legislation punishing a person for selling a gun to that girlfriend (even if transfering legally through an FFL, believing in good faith that it's for her, etc.) doesn't sound right. No question that she should be punished with that felony for the straw purchase, but I don't see how the original seller can really know her intent beyond the purchase.

Similarly, I don't like the new legislative "ideas" suggesting that the person selling a gun is now liable for it's use later. Some examples: 1. If you sell a gun legally to another person- it gets stolen and used in a crime- you are liable, 2. You sell that gun, it is used in self defense- you are liable, or 3. You sell that gun, it gets used in a crime- you are liable. How is it right if you can't be there sitting on the shoulder of the person whom bought your gun, can't tell them right from wrong, etc.??

Lastly, how is the new legislation idea of forced $1M insurance policies for gun owners fair? That's like having $1M policies for anyone owning alcohol as it creates situations where people do bad things. Punitive and dumb. How about $1M insurance policy requirements for drivers under 30 as they have the most accidents? (There would be a whole lot less of them driving because it would be too expensive).

It's clear to me that those not wishing to own firearms, not wanting anyone to own them, etc. are just as happy penalizing legal gun owners as much as possible. It's not fair and not reasonable.

NOMORESAMEO- I can answer your question easily: The reason why you don't cure a lack of enforcement of current laws with new, more restrictive laws is that the only people you put any additional restrictions on are the ones following the laws. IF the issue is that there is a law forbidding something, it's not enforced but a big problem, then it's the problem of law enforcement and the prosecutor's office- not the ones abiding by the laws. Solve the problem with enforcing those laws, it's that simple. If the issue is that legally there are loopholes that create problems, then you can go ahead and draft up some and see if the public agrees with you (don't tuck it in an education bill, etc.).

Right now the Georgia legislature is working on a measure that would soften existing rules, or, otherwise, ease the ability for the mentally ill to obtain and carry weapons. According to one State Senator speaking on an Atlanta newscast last night, looks like it will pass. Course, I guess the real purpose is to make sure a few hundred people aren't the only ones who can buy and carry a weapon in Georgia.

nomoresameo -

If you believe that existing laws already on the books even are not fully enforced, why should this bother you?

I for one agree with the background checks. But I think you answered you own question...if laws are not fully enforced they are not being consistent. Picking and choosing who to prosecute. Also, if they don't enforce current laws, why make more?

Crazy..

Interesting opinion... Since the United States of America already incarcerates more of it's population than any other country on earth.. I would tend to argue that "prison" is not the "Universal" answer to the problem of "criminals" obtaining weapons.. simply giving law enforcement a paper tool to further oppress law abiding citizens, in my opinion, is no answer at all. Address gang violence in 5 major cities and the country could see it's violent crime rates plummet to some of the lowest of any of the developed countries. This continual persecution of productive citizens does "nothing" to combat actual crime and corruption.

Gun trafficking laws currently on the books are not being enforced now, so what makes anyone think new ones will be enforced? This is just another "feel good" bill by those in Washington, it will do nothing to stop "straw purchasers". BTW, wasn't it the ATF that made the largest straw purchases and nothing happened when they blew it and got a Border Patrol Agent killed.

NoMore - Just like "seat belt" laws, when they came out and claimed that they would not pull people over for not wearing a seat belt.

Just like the lottery, when they said that "all profits will go to education"

Problem is, politicians lie, and I don't trust any of them.
When they have a law that actually addresses the problem, then I will decide if a law is needed or not. I don't like laws passed that have ill conceived consequences later unleashed.

nomoresameo

Which political party had a Justice Department that:

Shot and killed a mother, in Ruby Ridge, while holding her baby in her arms?

Was responsible for many deaths in Waco, Texas.

Stormed a private residence in Florida with assault rifles to grab a child?

Gave a couple thousand assault rifles to Mexican gangs?

Wants to curtail our second amendment?

Why would any sane person even ask "why does it bother you" about more laws to lock Americans up for exercising their rights?

Make the law retroactive and go after Obama and Holder for walking the 2000 AK-47 guns to the Mexican Drug Cartel, causing the death of Officer Terry an American agent and contributing to the deaths of up to 65,000 Mexican peasants.

Oh, Obama will veto it, that's a given.

Morgs.........if laws are not fully enforced they are not being consistent

Isn't that true of almost every law? How many times have you or others driven over the posted speed limit and not been given a ticket? At the same time you see another motorist pulled over receiving a ticket for the same violation. Law enforcement is iffy at best that they will always be consistent.

JH........ your paranoia is why we need more control of who owns and who buys guns. You seem to feel that the government should not try to prevent a crime. It is people like you who seem to be offended by the thought of the government wanting to make the country a safer place an intrusion on your constitutional rights.

For you folks that are bitching about "no enforcement of existing laws so why blah blah blah" folks:

The current laws are fraught with loopholes at BOTH the state and federal level that it makes it impossible for the ATF or any other agency to police the sales of guns. These loopholes were the creation of the NRA, state lawmakers who are OWNED by the NRA and the various other gun manufacturers lobbies. Learn about what you attempt to sound like an expert on before you make yourself look like the fools you are.

nomoresameo - That is consistent with almost every law. Making more laws give authority more power to abuse it. They are turning everyone into criminals. Not saying they will start to arrest everyone but it will certainly give them cause. You speak out about something and you get arrested and prosecuted for something, what? Who knows but they will find something. I don't want to have to keep looking over my shoulder.

notliborcon -

These loopholes were the creation of the NRA, state lawmakers who are OWNED by the NRA and the various other gun manufacturers lobbies.

Loopholes are created when there isn't enough thought placed into a law. @!$%# like this happens when you legislate on emotion rather than facts. Want an example? Look how many people are killed with handguns vs assault rifles? A logical person would think handguns are the problem but no, they go after scary looking guns.

nomoresameo

My paranoia???

Yes the government should try and prevent crimes.

Waht was peevented with the arms going to Mexico?

What was prevented by shooting the woman in Idaho? (the government lost that case in a court of law)

What was prevented by the outcome in Waco?

What was prevented by returning Ilian to Cuba?

And please tell me what wil be prevented by restricting more and more guns when the current laws are not even enforced? Out of 80,000 people who falsified information on the background checks and were denied the right to purchase a gun, 44 were prosecuted.

Again, what sane American would want the progressive/liberals to make more laws that restrict law-abiding Americans from exercising their rights?

I am far form being paranoid about anything but I would say I am rational about guns. I feel that anyone who commits a crime with a gun should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I would be the first to back any law that would be enforced to cut down gun crimes but we currently have enough of them and I get tired of the attitude "don't let a good crisis go to waste".

Notliborcon - The only one that looks like a fool is you. If you think more laws is going to stop and reduce the buying of guns, you are mistaken. I am all for leaving the control of gun laws up to the individual states. We already have federal laws against the ownership of Automatic weapons. Why should the people of Wyoming be held to the same restrictions as those in NY, CA or other larger states?

RepublicansForThe Idiot

Did you know that yesterday was the anniversary of the Weather Undergrounds bomb going off and killing their own? They were true idiots. And our president actually had a big party held for him at the home of Bill Ayers, the big dog in the Weather Undergriound. So please tell us whicj party has the most idiots that are violent. Anti-this and anti-that liberals are the dangerous ones.

JH...........

and who's administration killed twice as many Americans than the 911 terrorists did with lies about wmd's and mushroom clouds?

JH

Why so Serious Batman!

Is it "something" I said?

Anyway.

Republicans, Teabaggerers, and you crazy-wacko "Gun-Nut" types are now

FLOCKING in DROVES, to my World-Famous and Provocative post (#1.21) just above this one!

And why not?

Post (#1.21), just above this one, will "Blow your Mind and Rock your World".

It's that Good.

by the way, when referring to your President, the word 'him' and/or 'he' should be Fully Capitalized,

like our President HE is Merciful, Kind, and HE will Take Good Care of us.

or like:

Please respect HIM, HE's our PRESIDENT for the NEXT (4) FOUR Very LONG, LONG, LONG, LONG Years.

It's almost Biblical, don't you think?

So, write lots of your "thoughtful comments" to me!

I love "thoughtful comments."

Remember, only polite ones!

post. 1.21

ok?

depraw - Lies about WMD's.....tell that to the Kurd's and Iranians whose families were blasted with nerve agents. If you think WMD's are only nukes you are mistaken.

Here are some photos of dead children after being gassed. Tell their parents they never were attacked by WMD's.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rnw.nl/data/files/images/lead/Chemical_weapon2HalabjaWikiCommonsSayeedJanbozorgi(died%25202002).jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/kurdish-poisonous-gas-victims-sue-businessman&h=561&w=781&sz=179&tbnid=YdkBaGE-9An0hM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=130&zoom=1&usg=__pF_3cSJCArGFxQMe9tjseMsUwE4=&docid=zzJMVrTSLzsZjM&sa=X&ei=xNk4UZ_NI6_a2wXit4Bg&ved=0CHwQ9QEwCg&dur=270

depraw

You mean the SAME lies we heard for 8 years from the Clinton Administration? You clowns really need to give that BS a rest. Congress gave permission to go to war with Iraq. Just like it should have been done. Even Hilllary gave a very impassioned speech in front of her Congressional freinds stating that she was all for stopping Sadam. Then she never opened her mouth in defense of her president when her party started calling him a liar. So much for bi-partisanship from her. Could you tell me where all the war protesters are today. Why do they go away when we have a democrat in the White House?

Wireknob

The bill seems to punish sellers to straw buyers, not the straw buyers themselves. How does a gun seller know whether the person he/she is selling to is a straw buyer or not? Presumably the straw buyer would not admit this to the seller, right?

#1.5

And What I would like to know is what is the statute of limitations on this? I sold a gun to a friend of mine over 25 years ago. It ended up being used to kill his estranged wife 20 some years later (messy divorce) am I still on the hook for providing a gun to a murderer? (and no, I never saw it coming, otherwise I would have done something to stop it)

Or if I sell a gun to some one I know, and they (some time later) sell that gun to some one, they know, who is a criminal, am I on the hook again? This could in fact be construed as a "Straw Purchase". Once the gun leaves my possession, I have no control of over it or who has it. Where do we draw the line?

Why should the people of Wyoming be held to the same restrictions as those in NY, CA or other larger states?

even further why should the law abiding citizens further suffer for the lawlessness of criminals. those are the states that should have the loosest gun laws...because those shltbag criminals sure the hell havent given up their guns

Who's going to enforce this ha ha ha ha ha! The Attorney General, who has already broken the law?

nomoresameo - Law enforcement officer have already said that they have priorities as to which crimes to pursue and straw buyers are not high on that list. That means almost any new gun law will be unenforced unless as part of a higher priority crime.

A few of you all seem to have drifted off topic from the proposed legislation.

You can find the bill here http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s54is/pdf/BILLS-113s54is.pdf

@Wireknob, if you read the legislation, you will see it is targeted to purchasers, this is spelled out in section 932(a).

Also the penalty is up to 20 years for this.

Further the languages states "...who knowingly purchases any firearm for, on behalf of, or with intent to transfer it to, any other person,..." There is no clause stating that if it is stolen from you, you are responsible for the crimes committed with it.

Lastly, subsection (b) of the same section seems to clearly state that this law does not apply for gifts given without anticipated service in return, or for contest winners, so long as the giver is not aware of any laws prohibiting the receiver from having the gun.

I take this to be, you can buy guns for friends and family unless you know they are prohibited from owning them.

These bits seem reasonable to me, whether they are already on the book, and whether they will have any impact on crime.

Can someone with more experience reading legal documents please read this (its only 9 pages) and comment on anything that seems suspicious?

Thanks!

p.s. Kasie Hunt, after taking the time to write this article, I am surprised you did not provide us with a link to the bill, whats the deal?

Great news! Now, when are Holder and Obama going to be brought up on charges, convicted, and sent to prison for sending thousands of weapons bought by straw purchasers with their complicit authorization. 10 years for each of the weapons they allowed through their corrupt handling of Fast-n-Furious which continued even after it was initially exposed should get those felons out of our hair for a long, long time.

Never mind, RECORDS SEALED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER! One set of laws for the little people and no laws for the corrupt elite!!!!

Wow everyone was having a reasonable discussion without name calling or inflammatory statements and I was somewhat impressed. Than RFO came on and ruined it. Shame on you. RFO says he/she loves "thoughtful comments" but can not make one of his/her own. For sad.

"First and foremost, we must enforce the the laws we already have in place. Do you really believe one more gun law will is the answer to stop the violence by criminals? Clearly it is not." quote the father of a Newtown child who was gunned down by a madman

We don't need to get law abiding citizens who use guns responsibly off our streets. We need to get the criminals off of our streets! We should not restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding citizens!

I support our 2nd. Amendment rights and I do not believe that something as sacred as our freedoms should be tinkered with to grab a headline or cheap political feel good legislation that will accomplish absolutely NOTHING.

That "new law" is Terrific!! NOW, America Needs An american Universal Single Payer National HealthCare Act/System ASAP WITH Psychiatric OutReach Teams With "Examine and Retain" authority so we can safely register and Lock Up The Nut Jobs, 'cause it Is NOT gonna' Stop Here. With An American HealthCare System with Psychiatric OutReach Teams, Like OUR SANE ALLYS HAVE!!!!!!!, It will give Muscle to the AntiViolence on Women Act that was just created!!!!! When Women go out Alone they MUST ALWAYS Look over their Shoulder and/Or Carry a little 22LR Automatic Lady's Pistol Which hits like a Cannon to stay safe from the Serial Killer Stalkers whose sole target is Women. Yahoo or Google the Glock commercial "Somebody Picked the Wrong Girl". it gets the point across Very Very Well.

Maybe that should make the legislation "retroactive" then go after the DOJ and his subordinates.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW DOJ: Where is the "Fast and Furious" TRUTH ?

How will someone know if someone else wasn't able to pass a background check to buy a gun? This puts the onus on the seller who has no access to the background check system.

Good. More laws, that according to this guy, will not be enforced:

“And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.” – Joe Biden

"Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said he thought some penalties for straw sellers (25 years?) were too stiff, sometimes exceeding the sentences applied to those who actually commit a crime with a gun."

Good point - Shouldn't the penalty fit the crime? And how do you prove 'intent'?

When all is said and done, any bill will be watered down so much as to be virtually meaningless, and the bottom line is that 'Outlaws do not obey laws'.

One of the biggest 'obstacles' that I see to 'gun control' is the issue of mental health. I can see serious problems with health care professionals agreeing to have a government 'LIST' of people with mental issues that should prevent the patients from getting a weapon - out of concern that such a 'LIST' could be used for other nefarious purposes - such as hiring checks by prospective employers, checking on neighbors, etc..

Imagine what would happen if a newspaper decided to publish such a list, like the newspaper in New York that used 'freedom of information' as a reason for publishing the names and addresses of law abiding people who had gotten gun permits.

And would it be wise to allow the public to learn that their neighbors are on a list of 'mental patients'?

Where is the 'balance' between 'freedom of information' and 'privacy rights'?

"We know that many guns used in criminal activities are acquired through straw purchases," said Sen. Patrick Leahy,

The reality is that Leahy knows no such thing and is espousing this lie to push his anti gun agenda. Straw purchasers do exist but not in any significant quantity. The reason is that any gun they purchased for a criminal would immediately be traced back to the original purchaser.

However, we all know that, under Obama, prosecutions for straw purchases and lying on gun purchase application forms are at an all time low. This is because Obama and his cronies have no interest at all in addressing gun crimes and enforcement of existing laws since the greater goal is the complete disarming the civilian population.

At the university of Chicago in the 1990's, as a lecturer, Obama once said, "I don't believe people should be able to own guns."

Careful with that axe Eugene

I bet this doesn't apply to government officials who sell guns through straw purchases....

You bet, or you know? Stand behind your posts. I know for a fact this is rhetoric promoted by right-wing web sites and is utterly false.

I agree RedDev...................

Come on "Us and Them", provide specifics about which government officials sell guns through straw purchases. We're waiting.

I believe the name you use is proof enough that you feel the government is against you. Your far, far right wing paranoia is shinning brightly.

Pretty sure the DOJ has allowed some "military style" weapons to walk from US to Mexico. Don't know their individual names, but I would consider the higher ups that allowed this gov't officials.

Yep Red just tell that to the officer that got killed in Arizona, scream it load though!

Red...do you know of every straw purchase that takes place? Does any government law enforcement entity know of every straw purchase?

If it's a straw purchase, then it's going to be unofficial. We all know law enforcement has discretion on the enforcement of laws. Or you trying to tell us no government official has ever made a straw purchase, or that one has never gotten caught? Or if one was caught, that law enforcement let it slide because it was a government official?

How do you know all this? "Stand behind your posts."

More smoke and mirrors, and still one more attempt to obfuscate the anti gunners true agenda.

Just like the assault weapons ban and magazine capacity limitations, neither of which will ever become law, increasing penalties for such stated trafficking crimes is essentially meaningless because they loath enforcing them in their current versions.

This is all a carefully crafted ruse designed to get what they're really after, which is national gun registration of every gun in the country, and they want to employ that "universal background check" to get it.

This is Obama's true goal... for now.

Absolutely not!

Unless Holder approves, that is.

You know, this Administration has determined that the Constitution isn't really about the rights of the People. It's all about the rights of the Government!

deer................

did you mean Scabmarts?

Dear Depraw,

That would be Dear deer.... to properly address the pearson.

If your going to talk about someone at least have an education higher than them.

Taking peoples guns won’t happen. Obama or no one else wants to take law abiding citizens guns. We just need to regulate.

Think about it. There is no way no how the government can confiscate guns. There are not enough police and military to do such a thing.

Who is saying anything about taking anyone's guns away? That is a myth.

. Obama or no one else wants to take law abiding citizens guns.

Who is saying anything about taking anyone's guns away? That is a myth.

Not really:

Straight from the Mouth of a U.S. Government Attorney

The U.S. government argues in federal court (U.S. v. Emerson information page) that there is absolutely no right of an individual to own firearms!

Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"

Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes"

Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

Meteja: "Exactly."

Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn't enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm. It wouldn't protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard.

Garwood: "Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed?"

Meteja: "The weapon in question must be used IN the National Guard."
(Excerpt of oral arguments in U.S. v. Emerson, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 13, 2000)

Job1 and Jim,

Once again, you are both mistaken about the push to confiscate personal, private LEGAL firearms. There have already been laws proposed to do just that in at least one state. The same way that the NY law made higher capacity magazines illegal and NOT grandfathered. Maybe it is has not reached the federal level yet, but that is not a risk we should allow to endure. Next, proposed laws will try to hold the manufacturers accountable for selling weapons to the distributors that sell to the stores that sell to people that lie about why they are buying the weapon in the first place. It is a slippery slope that we need to stay far away from.

That slippery slope might start with actions this guy is suggested:

"Among the prescriptions Obama put forward that day, according to a Dec. 13, 1999 Chicago Defender article, were increasing penalties for the interstate transportation of firearms, increasing the federal tax on the sale of firearms, requiring federally licensed gun dealers to sell firearms in their storefront, restricting gun purchases to one a month, ..., banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antiques," and increasing licensing fees.

You know who said that? Barak Obama.

"Assault weapons are not for hunting. They are the weapons of choice for gang-bangers, drug dealers and terrorists."

“I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban,” he declared after the assault weapons bill expired." - Barak Obama, May 8, 2004.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/barack-obama-guns_n_1696708.html

Filling out a 12-page questionnaire [part 1 of questionnaire, part 2 of questionnaire] from an Illinois voter group as he sought a state Senate seat in 1996, ... “Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” asked one of the three dozen questions. “Yes,” was Obama’s entire answer.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7312.html

Negligent? Maybe he had the gun stolen... or God forbid he sold it to someone respectable, and it later ends up in the hands of a bank robber. Sending them to prison for being robbed?

Shouldn't a stolen gun be reported?

Alain Deflandre

Why do you act like your having a tantrum & slobbering at the mouth when you post about this? Settle down, I'm sure that you will be able to own a firearm someday, with good behavior. If you can't have a firearm, get a bow. They are lots of fun & deadly too.

So if one is used in whatever VIOLENCE than the owner of that gun due to serial # pays the price of going to PRISON,

So, if your car gets stolen and is used in a robbery, you want to go to jail?

.

Jim M-2801763

Shouldn't a stolen gun be reported?

In my case, I have two different safes & may go a month or two at a time without opening one of them. Even then, I don't do an inventory so it may be a while before I notice one may be missing. Unless someone has ripped the door off the hinges or something.

to all you idiots..............

if the gun is stolen then it is the responsibilty of the owner to notify the proper authorities. just like you would do if your car was stolen. grow up. then try to grow a brain.

deer....

if you are responsible you would check to make sure all your guns are accounted for. if you don't want to accept the responsibility then don't own guns.

If my firearms are in my house and my house is locked or not, to get them is committing a felony. That is all the responsibility that is and should be required.

I'm assuming from your comment that you would have no problem with you or your spouse being arrested and convicted if someone broke into your garage, stole your vehicle, and while joy riding ran over and killed someone along the way.

BTW, in 26 years of being a law enforcement officer I never knew anyone who was allowed to have a firearm not report it stolen if it was. I do know of cases where they weren't reported and that because the owner wasn't legally allowed to have one and didn't want to get into trouble.

Shouldn't a stolen gun be reported? If you owned a gun and later became a felon, would you report that your gun was stolen? Think of the possibilities... report gun stolen and go to jail for having it. Not a good prospect is it? I know of a firearm that has a suspicious history and yet the cops told me that it wasn't on any stolen or hot list. However, they also told me that the lists are occasionally deleted after a defined period of time so the gun could actually be stolen but there's no report to verify it against. The laws are not finite in any situation. The same goes for any new legislation.

deer....

if you are responsible you would check to make sure all your guns are accounted for. if you don't want to accept the responsibility then don't own guns.

Did you even read what I wrote, Dumbass? I have two large safes that stay locked. Are saying that I need to take inventory every time I come home? Lord your stupid.

you won't get an answer... there is no answer.

Both should be. There are some common sense things dealers can do.

Jim, please elaborate on how a dealer acting in good faith can know that someone is a straw buyer. You would be creating criminals out of dealers who are not knowingly doing anything illegal or wrong.

You hit the nail on the head. The law makes the SELLER responsible, rather than the BUYER. Is the Seller supposed to be a mind-reader? Climb in a time machine and see what's done with the weapon? What constitutues 'reasonable'? Once again, looking for someone to pin the blame on, and since they can't find the criminal, they find the honest citizen and make HIM the criminal instead....

Wireknob, the legislation is targeting the straw buyer, and the person buying the firearm from the straw buyer. The store or dealer isn't liable and shouldn't be unless it could be proved that he knowingly made the sell to the straw buyer. That would be a tough case to prove.

skydiver, you are confusing "seller" and "buyer". "Seller" is the person who buys the gun from a dealer and then turns around and sells it to a "buyer" because the buyer can't legally possess a firearm.

Paul71, where in the various news articles does it say the seller must knowingly sell the gun to the straw buyer? The article above says the person selling to the straw purchaser is committing a crime. Here's the relevant quote from the article:

"The legislation would make it a crime to sell a gun to a person who intends to pass it on to someone who couldn't pass a federal background check"

I've read the same characterization elsewhere in the news. Unfortunately, I think you may be the one that is confused on this issue.

blackcatwhitecat

Maybe you can borrow your Boyfriends.

That's it!! you both go to timeout!

Good for you if they do restrict it. You'd probably shoot yours off!

Lil Michelle

That's it!! you both go to timeout!

OK, as long as it isn't with him/she/it . I don't play that way. I'm straight.

Deerhunterbow1

I had no idea that we shared the same boyfriend. Airborne_Dad is so cute and sharing.

LOL!!!

Deerhunter, no one asked if it was like a hockey stick, we now have another nick name for you the strightblade. Me I like Women. See how easy that is to say. See in my neighborhood if you were stright you didn't use drugs.

Where I grew up, if you were straight , you didn't play a skin flute, eat tube steak or play hide the Gerbil.

Only if you intend to hunt liberal lemmings. Note: They taste and smell (and LOOK) like scheeit, so don't waste your time.

they are all mouth & no meat.

Big mouthes and HUGE azz-holes.

im a pro gun liberal. i think rich should pay thier fair share and that we should take care of the poor. but i also enjoy my guns and shooting. i dont think anyone should have the right to tell law abiding citizens what they can and cant do as long as they arent hurting anyone. i guess im leaning more libertarian by the day what with obama going all anti gun right after his second election. especially since he didnt campaign on gun control.

Derpy should ask someone who knows the answer... local cops? A hunter should be up on the proper transportation of guns and I haven't seen anything about restricting legal people and their guns. BUT everyone else seems to be trying to make people fearful of losing rights that are not even the topic. No one is trying to undo the 2nd Amendment, just bring it into the 21st century where we have bigger and badder things and the organized in organized crime almost looks legit. You hunt for food, right? Don't you want people to respect that and not fear the gun when it's legal?

I don't understand how trying to control the acquisition of guns by (those who may be able to get them anyway) people who should NOT have them is a problem for honest citizens. Maybe you're referring to a 'waiting period'? Yeah, it would be so awful if someone had to wait 3 to 7 days to get hold of a gun. How inconvenient because what if you had to go to a funeral that very same day. What would you do? Gun or social responsibility?

Or maybe, that guy that trap shoots finds a deal on a $2000 shotgun 100 miles away. He drives there and has to wait 3 to 7 days to be able to get that shotgun.

Or maybe, that guy shoots a handgun in competition and he is at a competition shoot two states away and while there sees a handgun that he always wanted to improve his shooting. Sorry can't get it because you have to wait 3 to 7 days.

The point is the honest citizen is the one that gets it in the neck. Both money wise and convenience wise.

Mary, sorry, but we have seen this show many times in the past. Something happens and the knee jerking begins all over Washington. We have to do something, anything, even if it's wrong. Governments are well known for that. A good recent example of just such a thing was when New York just fell all over themselves to pass gun legislation that involved limiting the size of magazines. They passed it, slapped each other on the back on what a great job they did. Then a few days later someone realized they forgot to exempt law enforcement officers in the bill. So the bill they just passed made criminals out of their police officers.

Who knows what will crop up later down the road that they didn't intend.

For all you gun lovers: there is currently no federal law against straw purchases

Goodness, you didn't even TRY to research this, did you?

Here:

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

.

.

Next...?

Beaudog, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Do yourself a favor and google people convicted of straw buying guns. There is article after article of people that have been convicted by the Federal government for straw buying. By the way the penalties for the current law is a max. $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison.

For all you gun lovers: there is currently no federal law against straw purchases just as there is no law against what was going on in Phoenix that ATF was monitoring because THAT WAS ALL THEY COULD DO UNDER EXISTING LAW.

Who told you that? Katherine Eban?

Prosecutions progress in Fast and Furious case:

So far, 15 of the 20 people charged in the gun case pleaded guilty to charges. Most of those who admitted guilt are straw buyers who said they falsely claimed that guns they bought were for them, when they were actually purchased for the ring. One of the ring's organizers also has pleaded guilty.

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/prosecutions-progress-in-fast-and-furious-case

Paul, Beaugod could have children, just like Beaudog!

Beaudog must be getting his information from Sen. Feinstein. Every gun application form states quite clearly that placing false information on the form is a punishable crime. I love it when anti-gun fanatics show their lack of knowledge about gun laws.

What I'd like to know if how these proposed new laws are going to affect bequeaths from estates. If I bequeath my favorite firearm to my grandson how is that going to be handled? Are they going to dig me up and prosecute me? By law the executor is required to fulfill the bequeaths of my last will and testament. i don't think legislators are thinking far enough into the future to resolve these issues and they are going to create more problems than they solve.

No.

Criminals are going to exchange guns no matter what laws there are.

Guns can be stolen without the owner's knowledge.

Guns kept in safes, etc are not going to stop an intruder and would prove useless.

Had Ms Lanza locked the guns in a gun safe and with trigger locks with only her having the key

Adam would've beaten her with a lamp while she slept and got the keys...

Your problem here is that you're trying to regulate 'crazy'.

You cannot regulate 'crazy'.

Adler,

You're an idiot!

I give you credit for trying to think of something. The first problem is drivers licenses are good for 4 years in my state. You can get into a lot of trouble in 4 years that wouldn't show up on your DL.

Your idea of getting "immediate update on status" is pie in the sky stuff. Apparently you haven't attempted to purchase a firearm. Getting a background check can be anything but immediate some of the time.