After they are professionally found clinically insane and untrustworthy with weapons, you can get a legal warrant to check their home for weapons. But not before.
1 Like
Sale proceeds in every case. They are prohibited persons if they can’t pass a background check. And they know it.
Are you claiming a straw purchase Sam to Jeff? Straw purchase is already illegal.
Who’s going to prison and for what?
Who is Robyn Anderson and why doesn’t she have a prison record?
If there is no requirement for a background check, how does the seller know they can’t pass one?
If a background check is required but not completed, we can charge the seller… It’s virtually impossible to charge them today…
He doesn’t. The buyer is committing the crime if he is a prohibited person, not the seller.
Charge them with what? So you want more people in jail?
Who among the mass shooters falls into this fantasy?
I’m not sure being insane is a valid constitutional reason to warrant a search.
Don’t get me wrong - I appreciate the spirit of your ideal here, and support it. But it’s not some easy answer.
Gun licensing is a much more straightforward way to get to your goal.
Instead of waiting for someone to exhibit crazy behavior, then hope someone turns them in and hope the process for demanding an evaluation is constitutional (And I doubt it would be) and hoping the doc makes the right call, then hoping the warrant is constitutional, and carried out…etc…
Why not just make everyone who wants to buy a gun pass a licensing process that would catch the crazies then?
You can’t charge the buyer (self-incrimination) (Haynes v. US) but you can certainly charge the seller…
Of course you can charge the buyer. Prohibited person in possession of a weapon. You can charge a felon for touching so much as a bullet. 10 years.
Charge the seller with what? See link above. knowingly
Haynes is about registration. It doesn’t help you.
1 Like
Why target guns only? People kill with all sorts of items. Why not have a compulsory mental health check for everyone before they can be in charge of any resources that mean life and death to others - including politicians, psychiatrists, doctors, teachers, university lecturers. Shouldn’t we be excluding the mentally unstable from access to these means of killing as well. There seems to be something unbalanced in this obsession with monitoring only gun owners.
But forcing everyone to be mentally assessed might be considered unconstitutional by some.
Can you point out any other unlicensed thing used to kill in the numbers of guns in america?
And I don’t really understand your reaction here. You are advocating for forcing people suspected of bing mentally ill to be observed by govt. appointed professionals and then being subjected to search by the govt. Your answer here is WAY MORE intrusive and constitutionally problematic than a simple licensing process.
It’s the numbers that bother you? Why?
Perhaps my sentence is unclear.
I mean the number of deaths caused by firearms.
So hoplophobes, do we have a deal or not? We ban ARs and you never mention guns again?
How would you know all firearms have been registered?
Neither was this champ.
Practice what you preach.
Non sequitur.
No deal… it doesn’t work like that.
“Hey car enthusiast… we make not wearing a seatbelt a crime… and you never mention any other safety regulations again.”
2 Likes
Well said. 
You recovered the gun. You know who had it last. The registry did nothing in this case.
1 Like
No, I’m not advocating "forcing people suspected of being mentally ill to be observed by govt. appointed professionals and then being subjected to search by the govt. " I said that if you are concerned about people who have guns being mentally insane, you should also be concerned about people who are mentally insane being doctors, butchers, drivers etc. Why pick on gun owners. Surely you should test everyone to make sure they are sane. Then take away the insane one’s means of doing harm. How many Democrat politicians would be relieved of their duty on that basis… which is why it won’t be done… and they will focus on gun owners…
You get John to roll on Robert, who rolls on Sam. Bob is already up ■■■■ creek for selling the gun without a license and is going to mandatory jail sentence.
