RICHMOND, Va. (AP) – The percentage of people arrested after being denied permission to buy firearms at Virginia gun shows has increased over the last two years.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that 10.6 percent of the people who were denied permission to buy guns in 2011 were charged with an offense related to being someone legally prohibited from possessing a firearm. That increased to 12.4 percent in 2012 and to 27 percent last year.
Thomas Baker is a criminologist at Virginia Commonwealth University. He says that while the upward trend is a positive sign, it’s important to note that those who weren’t arrested after failing a background check could simply go to a private seller at a show and buy a gun. Existing law requires only federally licensed dealers to run background checks.
It’s the private seller at the shows that scares many of us. All sellers should have to adhere to the same standards. All buyers, regardless of who they are or their relationship with the seller should have to go through a background check. Will it eliminate all bad purchases? Of course not. No system is perfect.
This seems like a good place to start. Funny that now some of us gun owner are clamoring for tighter rules on buying guns, we are now called the gun controllers. Shrug. Oh well. I just don’t think something that can blow a hole in someone or something should go without regulation.
69 people, out of 43132 gun show sales….out of a total 479,253 in state purchases.
69 people out of the 258 denied.
.0015% of all gun show commercial sales.
And that’s over the course of a year over 65 gun shows.
Meanwhile, criminals got guns via theft, or friends and family….or, if not convicted, with a background check….. all year long….without going to a gun show.
If universal background checks were so important, why did the gun control side defeat the ONLY universal background check bill being offered?
So what do you propose to do about criminals getting guns?
69 people is 69 people.
Their math makes it to be 43497 gun show sales.
That makes the percentage even smaller.
@Moon-howler
Arrest them for the act of using them illegally. Since the majority of criminals do not get them from gun shows….setting up a system that infringes upon law abiding people is useless.
How does the system infringe upon the rights of law abiding people? I fail to see how anyone’s rights have been infringed upon.
You are undergoing a background check. BFD.
Quantifying prevention is not possible. And most prevention campaigns are very difficult to sell. But some are simply the right thing to do. In law enforcement presence and visibility have an impact.
Cargo you never answered the question asking your thoughts outlawing sting operations at guns shows.
@Moon-howler
There are millions of firearms out there that were sold prior to any sort of paperwork being needed. There are further millions whose paperwork is only at the gun store.
To enforce background checks universally, registration is necessary. Otherwise, how would you know about a sale or transfer? Furthermore, if no FFL’s are available, a transfer cannot happen. And if one is available, you now add additional costs to the transaction, if an FFL is willing to do a check and keep the necessary paperwork…paperwork that makes HIM liable.
The previously presented bills would have allowed federal registration and made transfers illegal. Thus, I could not lend a gun for hunting….or even hand a gun to someone without a background check. Leaving a gun in an apartment for longer than 7 days with a roommate while you went on vacation would have made you a criminal.
The problem is that the gun control side uses the IDEA of universal background checks to garner support. But then they add in draconian elements and the populace rejects that bill.
The only universal background check that would have covered ALL sales was rejected by the gun control side because it allowed the private citizen to access the NICS to check potential buyers without needing an FFL and the resultant paperwork.
@Lyssa
I haven’t seen the bill. The devil is in the details. Personally, on a general note, the IDEA is not bad. The problem is enforcing it. That’s why I didn’t comment on it.
Bloomberg tried to “sting” Virginians like that. He broke the law.
The ATF already conducts operations like that.
I would like to see the legislation that would make these things happen:
I think that is a stretch on the part of you and the ‘no rules’ gun crowd.
It’s simply a “talk to the hand” group. Very little thought or attempt to work anything out. Governing is about working through issues. Until certain groups learn that and put it in action everything will end in stalemate. I blame USA Today and their introduction to the US of McNews. It targeted those that have an extremely short attention span, limited vocabulary and inability to process complex thoughts. Recently, a NYT poll addresses the number of kids and people in the general population that can’t distinguish between facts and opinion. Further, critical thinking is apparently a fading skill.
I’m seeing two factions – those with money that are simply all about expanding power, personal return and/or mercenaries and the other group is a segment of the population who are dumb enough to actually believe these men care about them and their rights because they extoll some false sense of nostalgia as a plan for the future.
Sadly, being able to distinquish between fact and opinion used to be an SOL 4th grade objective.
USA Today reminds me of Weekly Reader for dumb asses. I think the reading level is 5th grade. It used to be 8th.
Critical thinking skills got devoured by the quest for NCLB. Somehow it just didn’t fit into the scheme of things.
The American society is the loser here.
@Moon-howler
Actually…its not a stretch. Schumer’s bill would have done those things.
Why is someone named Shumer doing making bills in Virginia?
Laws can be interpreted many ways. DA or AG has to agree to the interpretation of the law.
@Moon-howler
AMEN to that about American society.
@Moon-howler
Schumer wrote federal gun bills. Senator Schumer.
“Laws can be interpreted many ways. DA or AG has to agree to the interpretation of the law.”
Or, the AG can just ignore the law completely, as Holder and now, Herring, seem to think it a legitimate use of their authority.
Or Cuccinelli.
What law did he ignore?
Roe v. Wade for starters
He made several rulings that were clearly judgement calls based on his interpretation of the law. I guess it was his right to do so.