Guy goes into local gun shop to buy a gun.
A worker at the Granby Street store logged the customer’s identification into a computer, connecting with state and federal databases that look for outstanding warrants, felony convictions and handgun purchases within the previous 30 days – all blocks to gun purchases.
Virginia State Police denied the application, with a message via computer: “Not at this time.” Almost immediately they followed up with a phone call to Bob’s: Keep the customer there, or call him back.
The customer was wanted in Baltimore on a murder charge.
He obviously thought he was going to be able to purchase one and was no doubt surprised by his arrest. Reading further in the story, it seems that most criminals are smarter than this:
From January through September this year, there were 168,312 recorded firearm transactions in Virginia, according to the State Police. Of those, 181 were denied because there were outstanding felony or misdemeanor warrants on the applicants, and 54 people were arrested, said Corinne Geller, a State Police spokeswoman.
Make that 55.
Now had this been at a gun show…..
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Vivian,
In light of posts by pro-gun posters I am going to stick with my belief that the problem is not with gun shows in and of themselves. The problem lies with private sellers at gun shows.
If you have knowledge that the vendors are somehow exempt from the requirements placed upon other firearms “dealers” please educate me.
My statement, “Make that 55″ was a definitive one. However, the use of ellipsis was not. It was merely to mention the possibility that such a sale could take place at a gun show and not be caught by the system, something that almost every poster here has agreed is the case.
No “such a sale,” could not take place (legally) at a gun show.
But Brian,
The problem is that the problem sales could happen privately. In other words someone could transfer ownership of a weapon to someone they knew to be a deranged lunatic and not be subject to any penalty for having done so.
Admittedly, it is often hard to judge just who is a lunatic. “We” as a society have attempted to make such ownership more difficult. Even the private individual might be reluctant to make firearms available to the lunatic. But some are going to make a healthy living off of selling to lunatics as long as the exception remains.
I’m extremely torn by this issue. I want to maintain unrestricted rights to gun ownership while keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them.
The problem is that the problem sales could happen privately. In other words someone could transfer ownership of a weapon to someone they knew to be a deranged lunatic and not be subject to any penalty for having done so.
Nope, you’re still not clear on it.
It is illegal for a private seller to “knowingly” provide a firearm to a prohibited person in any way, whether by sale or by gift. In fact, it would be illegal if the seller “reasonably SHOULD have known” that the purchaser was a prohibited person.
I understand your confusion because the anti-liberty forces have been intentionally trying to mislead you for years. Obviously their efforts have paid off.
It is already illegal for ANYONE to knowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited person ANYWHERE.
The issue is that, if the private seller doesn’t know the buyer, they have no way of finding out whether the buyer is a prohibited person or not.
The anti’s “solution” is very carefully calculated. By making background checks mandatory, yet maintaining that the NICS system remains restricted to LIcensed Dealers, they are intentionally limiting the liberty of private individuals to sell their private property. It is a back-door way of introducing registration: dealers are required to maintain form 4473’s for every sale they are involved in, which is a de-facto gun registry. Furthermore, after the newly crafted restriction inevitably proves to be ineffective in reducing crime (again, most criminals get their guns through theft or rogue dealers), would inevitably lead to the next “good first step”…official registration requirements…which leads to the next “good first step”…banning certain classes of firearms…which the newly implemented registry will make it easy for the ATF to seize (at least from the law abiding) if not turned in…then another category of firearms added to those that are prohibited…then another…etc etc etc.
The Anti’s ultimate goal always was, always has been and always will be total civilian disarmament. When they declare otherwise, they are lying. Period.
That’s why they will never consider compromises that would protect the rights of gun owners…even if those compromises actually WOULD increase safety or reduce crime; because it’s not about safety or crime. It’s not even really about guns. It’s about control. Pure and simple.
Learn from the Canadian gun control experience. In 1995 the federal Liberal party brought in the Firearms Act. It required universal registration of firearms including crossbows and some pellet guns. They promised registration would not lead to confiscation. The Act outlawed 50% of handguns and many semi-automatic rifles based on their ‘military’ appearance. The Liberal led left is now pledged to banning all handguns and semi-automatic rifles! Only a Conservative government prevents it from happening. Yes, registration IS the first step to confiscation. The cost is near 2 billion dollars. Not one crime is on record as being solved by the Gun Registry. It has not improved public safety. The number of guns and urban gangs has steadily increased since the introduction of the Firearms Act.
Sailorcurt,
You’re wrong. After the Va Tech massacre the NRA compromised well ahead of me.
You might not compromise, but even the NRA will.
You’ve lost me there LittleDavid.
I didn’t say anything about the NRA not compromising. In fact, I think they’ve compromised way too much over the years.
What I said was that the anti-liberty minded won’t compromise. The only compromises they offer are the kind where they settle for getting some of what they want while giving up nothing…and as soon as that “compromise” is settled, they start stridently demanding the things they didn’t get the first time.
That’s not a compromise.
And I don’t know where you came up with “you might not compromise…” I distinctly remember offering up a reasonable proposal for consideration…which is being resoundingly ignored. Go figure.
Actually, what I offered wasn’t even a compromise…I didn’t ask for anything in return.
Just so we’re all clear on what constitutes a compromise, here’s an example:
The anti’s want background checks to be conducted for every firearm sale in the country.
Well, if background checks are being conducted on every sale, then we know that the people buying guns are the good guys right?
So, I will agree to universal background checks in exchange for repeal of all restrictions on the types of firearms available for sale (not including things described as “destructive devices”…like rocket launchers).
See how that works? We each get something, we each give something up. Give and take.
But the authoritarians among us don’t seem to be blessed with the spirit of giving.
sailorcurt,
It seems my last post was wrong to label you as uncompromising.
In fact I am in favor of the compromises you are willing to agree with.