The article states this:
"Senate Bill 948 would require individuals to appear before a licensed firearm dealer to request a criminal background check prior to transferring a long gun, absent limited and vague exceptions. The dealer would also be required to create a record of each sale."
I have a little bit of mixed feelings about this. On one hand, if I was going to sell a long gun, or any gun for that matter, to someone that I didn't know, I would want to make sure they passed a background check. For a sample scenario, let's say someone belongs to some 'gun group' page on Facebook. They put a posting out there that they have a name-brand hunting rifle for sale. Mr. So-and-so replies to them that they are interested and have cash. They arrange to meet in the Target parking lot to make the transaction. Sale of firearm takes place - no background check, the seller just thinks Mr. So-and-so is an okay guy from looking at his Facebook profile. Fast forward one month and Mr. So-and-so has opened fire at his workplace with said name-brand hunting rifle, killing two co-workers and injuring 2 others. Further investigation leads the police to the sellers door as the rifle was traced back to the seller from their purchase of the firearm from Walmart back in 2012. Media circus commences in front of sellers family home and further investigation is started for terror ties or other firearm violations, etc.
Granted, under today's law of not requiring a background check for long gun sales, I don't believe that seller is legally in any trouble for selling to Mr. So-and-so or Mr. So-an-so's actions, correct? However, that seller would have to live with the fact that they sold a firearm to someone who they thought was 'ok', and then that person killed others with the firearm that was sold to them.
Now, some people would say, "I would never sell to someone I don't know!" I get that, and I wouldn't either....but some people would for whatever reason - maybe they badly need the cash. But, this is where I feel like having a background check for sale to others is not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, I know background checks can't show if someone who has no criminal record will go out and commit a crime, but at least you are doing your due diligence to see if you are at least selling to someone who may already be in the system and flagged. I also get that the background check would make it a little inconvenient to sell or pass on a long gun to a family member, but I don't think it's overly burdensome.
What I'm not sure about is the part about a 'record of the sale' being kept. What does this mean? I guess there has to be some record so that in the scenario above, it proves that the transfer/sale of the firearm was legal - that a background check was done. Any thoughts?
Just so folks know, I am not happy with a lot of Maryland gun regulations and restrictions, and I am a very pro Second Amendment proponent. I have been to a few rallies in Annapolis, support the NRA, etc. However, I think that most people agree that real, common sense approaches to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill is something everyone wants. Isn't a criminal background check something that can be considered reasonable?
So, as Bill O'Reilly always asks, 'Ok folks, where am I going wrong'?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say your scenario has never happened in Maryland. I believe, with the anti-gun politicians in this state, if that happened just one time, a law would have already been passed. SB281 passed in response to Sandy Hook and banned certain types of firearms even though statistics showed they were used in the lowest of the low percentages in crimes.
Lets put a different object into your scenario though, okay? How about a vehicle?
let's say someone belongs to some 'car group' page on Facebook. They put a posting out there that they have a souped up name-brand car for sale. Mr. So-and-so replies to them that they are interested and have cash. They arrange to meet in the Target parking lot to make the transaction. Sale of car takes place - no check to see if the buyer has a valid drivers license, the seller just thinks Mr. So-and-so is an okay guy from looking at his Facebook profile. Fast forward one month and Mr. So-and-so has gotten drunk and ran through a stop sign and killed a family of four with the souped up name brand car that you sold them. Further investigation finds that the buyer had his drivers license permanently revoked in the state of Maryland for his previous drunk driving convictions. Police run the plates and they come back to a different vehicle but they run the VIN number and it comes back to you as the owner. So, they show up at your door to find out if the car was stolen, only they find out that you sold a car to someone who didn't have a valid drivers license and wound up killing a family of four. Media circus commences in front of sellers family home and further investigation is started to find out why you sold an instrument of death to someone who never should have been driving in the first place.
How is a background check going to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill people? Health records are not accessed during a background investigation, something that the NRA had pushed for but was rebuffed by Democrats to protect patient privacy.
Criminals, seriously? The very definition of a criminal is someone who breaks laws. Do you really think a prohibited person is going to show up to legally purchase a gun? Criminals don't get their guns through legal means so how is stricter back ground requirements going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? There was just a story in one of the threads about an 18 year old shot and killed by Baltimore police who, while out on bond for weapons and drug charges, pointed a gun at a cop and was shot. Do you think he had an HQL and went through the waiting period and background investigation?
Record of sale. I am not sure what the definition of that is since it is vague, probably on purpose. Does it mean that a record of sale has to be sent to the MSP or kept on file with the FFL? I am not sure what the requirement for an FFL is and I thought the NICS system was not supposed to keep a record of transactions on file since that could be considered a registry of firearm owners. FFL dealers keep transactions in their bound book but I cannot remember what information is requred to be entered in other than serial number and, I think, date. Personally, I would want a better definition of what that record of sale requirement is. What is the current policy regarding long gun transaction records and why should it be different?
I could almost, and I mean barely, accept this if there was some corresponding legislation in place that punished criminals more harshly if caught with a firearm. There had been nothing introduced to instill any fear in a criminal caught with a firearm, $hit, judges let 'em out on bail!!
Every bit of legislation passed in this state regarding firearms has been under the guise of "public safety" but has not, in reality impacted anyone other than law abiding citizens. I, for one, am tired of being penalized for what others have done.
This bill is nothing other than pandering to some liberal dumba$$es so that they can say they are doing something "common sense" and "for the children" but in reality will have zero impact in the real world.
