GOP Idiot Evan Siegfried ‏ lied about David Hogg and guns

[Gothmog]

Last edited Sat Mar 31, 2018, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

This moron claimed on MSNBC that David Hogg is a liar and that domestic abusers can not buy guns

Link to tweet

This idiot has evidently never heard of the gun show loophole where anyone including domestic abusers can buy a gun because there are no background checks

This idiot attacked David Hogg because the right wing assholes are getting the butts kicked. I hate it when a right wing asshole makes a lie and is not challenged.

[magicarpet]

1. That is precisely why they continue to fabricate reality....

.... they know they can get away scot-free and face no consequences from the media or general public. So they lie, cheat, and make shit up gleefully while suffering no repercussions.

[Igel]

2. There's de jure and de facto.

Legally, domestic abusers can't own a gun. (That's in most states, I'm not sure it's every state or federal law.)

Legally, they can't buy a gun in those states, at least.

However, that doesn't mean they can't buy a guy informally even if it is illegal to do so. It also doesn't mean that even those whose background checks come back clean are necessarily legally allowed to buy a gun--the database is flawed, with both false positives and false negatives, and the background check basically is a crude screen that covers the gun seller's butt. In other words, if the database incorrectly says you're good to go when you're not, it's still illegal for you to buy the gun and own it.

It's the status "owning the gun" that's forbidden. If a domestic abuser buys a gun after wrongly passing a background check or buying it from his brother and he's caught, he can be charged. The purchase was illegal, but the seller can't be charged unless he knew of the domestic abuse.


It's the same with illegal immigration.

Legally, somebody without a valid visa from certain countries cannot enter the US. They cannot legally remain once their visa expires. A non-citizen without documentation that they are legally in the country and authorized to work cannot legally work.

However, that doesn't mean they can't enter the US informally or remain once their visa expires, or that they don't informally acquire documentation that employers use to show work authorization; the documentation is mostly there to cover the employer's butt and doesn't mean the employee's legally working. There's a database, of course, but we argue that we must never require its use because it's flawed, and provides false negatives (i.e., says a person's not authorized when they are).

[gejohnston]

3. Federal law,

[mr_lebowski]

4. Just so that you're never accused of not knowing your stuff, there's no 'gun show loophole' ...

Many, many gun shows allow only authorized/licensed Firearms Dealers as vendors, all of whom must do the background checks just like any gun shop.

If you are imagining that you walk into any gun show and it's a free-for-all, because 'gun show loophole' ... you are mistaken. Just so you know, and I'm not saying you don't

However, a loophole does exist for 'private transfers/sales between individuals'.

Now, certainly there's regulations (which vary by locale) on the 'scale' and 'regularity' with which a private individual can legally sell firearms to other private individuals, but I don't think there is any when it comes to close family members. You can pretty much give a close family member as many guns as you want, as often as you want in most states, without checks.

Similarly in many states you can occasionally give or sell a gun to your neighbor or via craigslist or whatever ... legally ... without doing a background check on the purchaser. You just can't cross the line into obvious 'commercial scale' gun sales.

So, while the 'private transfer loophole' is a 'real thing' ... there's really not a 'gun show loophole', per se.

[Gothmog]

7. Most buyers at gun shows are not checked

A domestic abuser on the list can purchase a gun easily at most gun shôws

[mr_lebowski]

11. Then these are gun show(s) where they're allowing in private sellers ...

I didn't say this never happens, I said the large majority of gun shows don't allow private sales.

The reason you're 'allowed' to sell guns in the scenario you describe w/o the checks is not because you're 'at a gun show', it's because that this particular gun show allowed in private sellers.

Or they're just scofflaws, I suppose that might happen as well.

Again, there's no 'gun show loophole' there's a 'private transfer loophole'.

I'm just saying ... lets call it what it really is.

[Hortensis]

20. My husband purchased a high-power rifle at a

Florida flea market last year for a friend in upstate NY. No paperwork to speak of. (I purchased some geraniums to surround my reading chair on the little porch off our winter home kitchen.) Our friend has since died. Don't know what's happened to his gun collection of decades, which my husband sad was now worth well over a million dollars, but expect his son and DIL are selling it off.

[Caliman73]

29. Yes, that would likely have been a private sale.

Which is what mr.lebowski is saying. Anyone with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) must perform a background check through the National Instant Criminal background check System (NICS). Any firearm sold across state lines must go through a FFL. Private sales however, are regulated by the States.

In California, ALL sales and transfers, except between parents and adult children (step children not included) and spouses, are required to go through a FFL with the required background check and 10 day wait period. There is no "private sale" or "gun show" loophole in CA to speak of. There is a "parent-child" and "spouse" loophole.

Other states are less strict and I am sure that there are people going across state lines to get guns, though that would likely be addressed by the State of origin's laws, which unfortunately do not apply unless you get caught.

[Hortensis]

31. I'm a Californian at heart. Living in the south the past

couple of decades hasn't stuck, which is why the little errand to pick up a rifle and some geraniums came to mind.

[Caliman73]

36. Yep. That sounded strange to me.

"Honey, let's go get some flowers, a couple of dream catchers, some home made honey, oh, and a SR 556 at the swap meet."

Not something you would ever hear in California. Good luck.

[Demsrule86]

9. That is not true. I have witnessed gun show sales where no one checked anything...nothing.

[George II]

19. Right. See my post #18 below

[Demsrule86]

10. A gun needs to be registered like a car from manufacture to destruction.

[mr_lebowski]

12. That WOULD be nice, no argument here ... (nt)

[Demsrule86]

14. It would solve many problems including the 'loss' of guns which are most likely being sold to

criminals and gangbagers by some of these gun shops. We can't ask now thanks to Congress.

[BoneyardDem]

17. Selling guns w/out checks, in a setting that feels and acts like retail sales IS the loophole

Gun shows, people set up tables and display numerous items for sale. Private sellers all mixed in with retail sellers. Using the same customer base, using the same expo facility ads and promos. It's a loophole.

Fwiw...background checks should be conducted on every single gun sale, private or not...change of hands = new background check...and registrations.

[George II]

18. This is why it's called "gun show loophole"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

Gun show loophole, gun law loophole, Brady law loophole (or Brady bill loophole), private sale loophole, and private sale exemption in the United States is the sale of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the "secondary market". A loophole in federal law exists, under which "any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".

Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers; whether at a gun show or other venue. They also are not required to record the sale, or ask for identification. This requirement is in contrast to sales by gun stores and other Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders who are required to record all sales and perform background checks on almost all buyers, regardless of whether the venue is their business location or a gun show within their state. Access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is limited to FFL holders.

[mr_lebowski]

24. I understand, it's just a misnomer which makes it sound like 'gun shows' are the cause ...

Of the problem. Yes, the problem CAN exist at gun shows, but not all of them, and it's not by virtue of the fact that you're 'at a gunshow' that inherently means 'no BC necessary'.

I just think it makes sense to call it what it is ... a 'private sale' or 'transfer' ... loophole.

And I agree that there should ALWAYS be a BC on transfer i.e. we should get rid of that loophole ...

[Gothmog]

25. Why is the NRA fighting so hard to preserve the gun show loophole?

How does a waiting period work at a gun show? If a state requires a waiting period, does that apply to gun shows?

[Caliman73]

30. State laws would apply to gun shows.

In California, there are gun shows. The Gun Show organizers themselves may or may not be dealers. If I were to purchase a firearm at a California show, I would have to pass the check, wait the 10 day wait period, show proof of the purchase of a safety device, do a safety demonstration, and pick the firearm up at the location of the FFL Dealer from whom I purchased the firearm. So if the show was in Los Angeles but I lived in San Diego or San Jose, I would have to travel the 90 or 330 miles to that firearm shop, or have that dealer ship the firearm (most likely at my expense) to an FFL in my area (with another likely fee) for me to pick up.

It would depend on the state and whether they have different rules for purchases at the shows. As you can see, California does not.

Oh, and the NRA is fighting so hard against the private transfer exemptions because they fight against ANYTHING that slows down the sale of firearms. They likely think that people who are selling their firearms are likely doing so because they want money to get another one and they want nothing to stand in the way of firearms commerce. Profits above all.

[Gothmog]

33. According to the Gifford Center this is meaningless

For example, the California rules are great but buyers can buy guns in Nevada with no background checks fords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/gun-shows/

Other research has shown that broader gun show regulations can also help prevent firearm violence. University of California researchers examined gun deaths and injuries in California before and after gun shows in California and Nevada.18 While California has a comprehensive set of statutes governing gun shows, Nevada has no explicit regulations on gun shows. This study found an increase in firearm deaths and injuries in California communities within convenient driving distance of Nevada gun shows. However, no spike in gun deaths or injuries was found following gun shows in California. These results suggest that California’s strict gun show regulations may help to prevent increases in firearm deaths and injuries following gun shows.19

[Caliman73]

35. Not meaningless, but unfortunately we have a patchwork of laws, just like in every other area.

Like I said, other states are not strict and it affects those that are. It isn't meaningless, it means that other states need to get on board with states that are doing better on firearms laws.

People who go from California to Nevada just to skirt California laws are already breaking State law. They are already criminal. As you cited, there is no spike in California after shows except in near border areas. California's laws work, we just need to get other states on board.

[Gothmog]

37. This gun show loophole means that domestic abusers have no problems buying guns

[mcar]

23. When the gun show comes to town here

it advertises that no background checks are conducted - it uses that fact as a draw.

[Gothmog]

26. I have seen the same ads

[uponit7771]

5. Dawned a HASMAT outfit and looked into some mixed forums, they are going NUTS re Hogg !! All

...kinds of crap are being made up about him.

they sKeered

[Gothmog]

8. The attacks are getting nasty

[uponit7771]

6. Abusers can by guns in a private sale

[Straw Man]

13. Not legally.

See this post above.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210436482#post2

[Gothmog]

16. So long as the gun show loophole exists, this does not matter

Hogg and company were attacking the gun show loophole and the GOP assholes are attacking him for this. David was a called a demagogue for taking a position against gun rights. These attacks on the Parkland students are sad

Link to tweet

[Straw Man]

21. The so-called "gun show loophole" ...

... does not trump the federal prohibition on sales to domestic abusers. If non-FFL sellers were allowed to access the NICS system, or if some form of national firearms buyer card were instituted, this would not be a problem. In fact, that would be preferable to requiring sign-off from an FFL for private transfers, since the fees they charge often serve as a disincentive to keeping the transaction aboveground.

[Gothmog]

22. This so-called prohibition is meaningless without background chckes

[Caliman73]

32. It is problematic for several reasons.

What Straw Man is saying is that there is already a Federal law that bars people convicted of domestic abuse (even misdemeanor abuse) from passing the check and purchasing a firearm. The problem is that the database is incomplete as states are not required to report all their data and there is no real mechanism for compelling them to. So a person with a record from any state that is not faithfully adding it into the NICS, may not be flagged. So you are right that the prohibition may be meaningless, but the problem is more complex than just requiring a background check, it is about the accuracy of said checks as well.

I support background check for ANY purchase and wait periods, and other measures. I also support compulsion of states to add accurate records to the NICS with some kind of penalty if they do not. If we have a bad database the background checks are just an exercise in safety theater.

[Gothmog]

34. According to the Gifford Center these so-called restrictions do not work

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10442275

[oberliner]

15. It's not a lie

Domestic abusers are barred from gun ownership (Lautenberg Amendment) - and the enforcement of the law is painfully lax (gun show loophole).

[Gothmog]

27. This prohibition is meaningless so long as the gun show loophole exists

[Gothmog]

28. From the Giffords Center-Domestic Violence & Firearms

The claims that federal law protect domestic abuse victims is bogus in the real world fords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/domestic-violence-firearms/

GAPS IN FEDERAL LAW LEAVE ABUSED VICTIMS VULNERABLE
As described below, federal law prohibits abusers who have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors and abusers subject to certain domestic violence protective orders from purchasing or possessing guns.9 The federal laws intended to prevent access to firearms by domestic abusers have significant limitations, however, leading many states to adopt broader laws that address these problems. These dangerous gaps in federal law are listed below.

The federal laws do not apply to many abusers who victimize non-spouse partners. Domestic violence affects people in family or intimate relationships that fall outside the protections of federal law. For example, dating partners are not within the federal prohibitions unless the partners have cohabitated as spouses or have a child in common. The risk of domestic violence being committed by a dating partner is well documented. In 2008, individuals killed by current dating partners made up almost half of all spouse and current dating partner homicides.10 A study of applicants for domestic violence restraining orders in Los Angeles found that the most common relationship between the victim and abuser was a dating relationship.11
The federal laws do not apply to abusers who victimize a family member other than a partner or child. The current federal prohibitions also do not address violence against family members other than a child or intimate partner. They therefore do not address violence against someone like an abused sibling or parent. According to data from the U.S Department of Justice, the proportion of family homicides that involve a murdered parent has been increasing, rising steadily from 9.7% of all family homicides in 1980 to 13% in 2008.12
The federal laws do not apply to convicted stalkers and others subject to a protective order. Similar loopholes in federal law allow access to guns by convicted stalkers13 and abusers subject to domestic violence protective orders that cover the period before a hearing (known as “ex parte” orders).14
The federal laws fail to require domestic abusers to surrender their firearms. Federal law does not require domestic abusers to turn in their firearms once they are convicted of a crime of domestic violence or become subject to a restraining order. As a result, abusers continue to commit crimes with guns they are prohibited from owning under federal law. In 2011, more than 50 people in Washington State were arrested on gun charges while subject to protective orders.15
The federal laws are weakened because not all states report all prohibited abusers. In order for background checks to prevent abusers from obtaining guns, states must report abusers who fall within prohibited categories to the proper databases. Identifying the abusers to be reported involves a series of complex legal issues that many states have not yet addressed.16 As a result, many states do not comprehensively enter domestic violence protective order and offender information into the proper databases.
The federal laws are weakened by ineffectual federal background check laws.Federal law does not require a background check to be performed before every sale of a gun, including sales by unlicensed, private sellers. The private sale loophole enables many domestic abusers to illegally obtain the firearms they use against their victims. In states that require a background check for every handgun sale, 38% fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners.17 For more information about background check requirements, see our summary on Universal Background Checks.