Delaware Concealed Carry Forum

State News & Gun News => Delaware News => Topic started by: ChrisCar on February 04, 2016, 11:25:12 PM

Title: Effort to close "Loophole" in background checks
Post by: ChrisCar on February 04, 2016, 11:25:12 PM
This appeared in today's News Journal.  Apparently Ms. Longhurst thinks it's a "loop hole" if the background check isn't done in a timely fashion.  Personally, I would say the three-day rule is an incentive to keep the state on top of their work.  There's no bill yet, but I could easily envision one saying no firearm can be sold until the background check is completed -- period; regardless of how long it takes.  Here's the article....

Close gun control Loophole, top lawmaker says
Matthew Albright, The News Journal 12:48 p.m. EST February 4, 2016

House Majority Leader Valerie Longhurst, D-Bear, says she will try to close a Loophole in gun laws she says is letting people who shouldn't have the weapons buy them, and is asking Delaware's congressional delegation to attempt the same change at the federal level.

In a letter sent Wednesday, Longhurst pointed to a rule that allows gun stores to move forward with a sale if the government does not process a background check within three business days.

"This Loophole has allowed firearm transactions that otherwise would be denied to proceed, resulting in potentially dangerous individuals legally purchasing guns on a technicality," Longhurst wrote.

Longhurst cites FBI stats that say 15,729 gun purchases went ahead because of the Loophole and were later found to have involved buyers who were not eligible. That meant the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms had to try to track down the owner and take back the guns.

Dylan Roof, the suspected shooter in the Charleston, South Carolina church shooting that left nine people dead, got the gun he used in that shooting because the background check was not processed in three days. Had the seller waited to get the results of the check, Roof would have been denied due to a drug conviction, Longhurst wrote.

"If we truly believe, as most Americans do, that any person who seeks to lawfully acquire a firearm must pass a background check before doing so, then this is a common-sense solution — no background check, no gun," Longhurst wrote.

Longhurst, the second-most influential member of the House of Representatives, said she will propose legislation to close the Loophole in Delaware, saying 18 states have already done so.

"While I know you share my concern and would like address this problem at the root, we also all recognize the difficulty in moving such a proposal forward in Congress," Longhurst wrote to the delegation.

Gun rights advocates will likely protest the change.

Sen. Dave Lawson, R-Marydel, had to do plenty of background checks when he owned a gun store.

He said the three-day period actually amounts to five days — the day the person completes the paperwork at the store doesn't count, and they can't pick up the gun until after the third day. And that assumes they don't have to wait through a weekend.

"If there's a longer delay, that's on them," Lawson said. "A right delayed is a right denied."

Longhurst says the checks aren't an issue on most gun purchases. She wrote that 92 percent of background checks are completed within minutes or hours, while only eight percent take a day or more.

But Lawson said the exceptions can be egregious. The only time he sold a gun that ended up going to someone who did not pass the check, he says the feds did not catch it until five months later.

Gun control has been fiercely debated on the national stage after a string of high-profile mass shootings. President Barack Obama announced last month that he would close the so-called "gun show" Loophole via executive order, drawing outrage from Republicans who said he was bypassing Congress and abusing his authority.
*****************************************

P.S. to whomever has the power to modify the grammar checker on this site; it changes "loop hole" (if typed as one word) to "private sale."  Odd change.  Completely changes the meaning. 
Title: Re: Effort to close "private sale" in background checks
Post by: Cbmarine on February 04, 2016, 11:40:11 PM
The word substitution rule changing "loop hole" to "private sale" renders the preceding post incoherent.  If the board admins need help changing this, I'll volunteer.  Modifying vulgarity is reasonable but this substitution causes misunderstandings.  It also diverts our attention away from the misguided actions of our legislature.
Title: Re: Effort to close "private sale" in background checks
Post by: SteveMiller on February 04, 2016, 11:43:40 PM
That explains it.  I was confused why it kept saying private sale when referring to what seemed like non private sales
Title: Re: Effort to close "private sale" in background checks
Post by: 29thInfantry on February 05, 2016, 01:38:04 AM
The only problem I see here is the "people" that are not supposed to have guns do not get them legally therefore the background check or a waiting period is useless.  When will our goverment realize criminals do not follow the law?
Title: Re: Effort to close "private sale" in background checks
Post by: Tonym on February 05, 2016, 02:18:43 AM
If you get delayed buying a gun, unless the atf tells the dealer that youre flat out denied, then youre allowed to go pick up your gun 3 days later.

Im not sure how true it is but i didnt know felons were still able to slip in past the 3 days and get a gun. I wouldnt so much call that a loop hole as much as a serious issue within the ATF.

To me this whole thing just sounds like a local politician trying to make headlines with antigun legislation
Title: Re: Effort to close "private sale" in background checks
Post by: PPScarry on February 05, 2016, 11:16:01 AM
Wow, one example mentioned. Hillary wants the gun store owner held liable for the government missing the guys drug conviction. Also does anyone think this guy murdered innocent people because of drugs? I say because he was nuts. 29th is right, criminals will get their guns one way or another.

Maybe it is time to vote with my feet. Delaware is getting more radical every day. 
Title: Re: Effort to close "private sale" in background checks
Post by: JOET on February 05, 2016, 11:36:10 AM
Its just another little step by them, that's why is called "PROGRESSIVE"
Title: Re: Effort to close "private sale" in background checks
Post by: Radnor on February 05, 2016, 12:07:00 PM
The word substitution rule changing "loop hole" to "private sale" renders the preceding post incoherent.  If the board admins need help changing this, I'll volunteer.  Modifying vulgarity is reasonable but this substitution causes misunderstandings.  It also diverts our attention away from the misguided actions of our legislature.


Loophole   DONE!
Title: Re: Effort to close "private sale" in background checks
Post by: PPScarry on February 05, 2016, 12:16:12 PM
The word substitution rule changing "loop hole" to "private sale" renders the preceding post incoherent.  If the board admins need help changing this, I'll volunteer.  Modifying vulgarity is reasonable but this substitution causes misunderstandings.  It also diverts our attention away from the misguided actions of our legislature.


Loophole   DONE!

Thank you! That bothered me since day one. Loophole. Works and feels good because we all want to write "there is no gun show Loophole!"
Title: Re: Effort to close "Loophole" in background checks
Post by: Radnor on February 05, 2016, 12:41:17 PM
You're welcome.  See you had to test it yourself.   ;D

Have a great day!
Title: Re: Effort to close "Loophole" in background checks
Post by: seniorgeek on February 05, 2016, 05:25:57 PM
Fine job @Radnor.