Friday, November 25, 2016

FL: "Straw Purchase" v. Discrimination Crossfire Demonstrated

Two teenagers go into a gun store. One is white. The other is black, and a Muslim. The white teen is advising the black teen on what to buy. Is it a "Straw Purchase"? Several stores have been sued for millions of dollars because they legally sold a gun to someone who later committed a crime.

Gun retailers have been exhorted to be careful in who they sell to. They have been told to exercise judgment. They have been told that when in doubt, refuse to sell. The Reese family in New Mexico, had their lives ruined, and spent a year in jail on such charges.

This is a pincer movement from gun haters. When a retailer refuses to sell because they are uncomfortable, they will be labeled as discriminatory. Gun retailers have, quite deliberately, been put into a no-win scenario. The "discrimination" side of this squeeze play was demonstrated in Florida at a Bass Pro store. From
Bakr said, "There was an older gentleman there and he was kind of looking at me and I thought it was kind of strange, I told him something was kind of shady because he was staring at me and staring at the dude that was working with me."

Bakr went through the entire firearms buying process, and paid the $5 for the background check.

"That's when he told me he didn't feel comfortable selling me the firearm because he said that since I was with Heath, they thought I was going to buy it and give it to somebody younger," Bakr said. However, Smiley is 19, and has been sold guns before
The whole idea of stopping criminals and miscreants from obtaining guns by doing checks at the retail level is flawed.  It does not accomplish its stated purpose, because it is so easily circumvented.

If a person wants a gun to do evil, they are either legally prohibited or not. If they are not prohibited, they can buy a gun.  If they are prohibited, they can have someone else buy for them or purchase a gun that is stolen or manufactured in the black market.  There are nearly 400 million guns existent in the United States. Retail checks have been shown themselves to be ineffective in preventing crime in any measurable way.

What retail checks do is make it difficult for marginally motivated buyers, such as Bakr, to become gun owners. The vast majority of people prevented from buying guns are not a threat to anyone.  The effect of retail background checks is a chilling of the exercise of the Second Amendment.

The history of infringements on the Second Amendment is a history of racial discrimination.   Robert Sherrill, in The Saturday Night Special, wrote that the purpose of the 1968 Gun Control Act, which initiated the national regulation of guns at the retail level, was to keep guns from inner city black people.

The approach did not work, and it never has worked.  The crime and homicide rate skyrocketed after the 1968 law was passed. It did not come down until the revolution in legalizing concealed carry was underway.

We would be better served by repealing the entire 1968 law, and concentrating on removing guns from those who are legally prohibited from having them.

That is the approach used by project Exile.  It is the approach promoted by Harvard scholar David Kennedy.   It requires that police work with communities to concentrate on bad actors. This results in more legitimacy for the police.  When that happens, there are spectacular reductions in homicides.  It is the opposite of the approach in the Barack Obama administration, which promotes the de-legitimization of police.  That approach has resulted in the Ferguson Effect, enormous increases in urban homicides, and increased homicides of police officers.

Donald Trump has mentioned project Exile. He would do well to bring David Kennedy on board as a crime policy advisor.

Repealing the counterproductive GCA 1968 would be a positive step. I do not expect it in a Trump first term.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Link to Gun Watch


Anonymous said...

The second amendment has 26 enforceable words in it. By legal definition any other words added to it are repugnant to the constitution and are therefore void. the 1934 NFA, 1968 and 1986 GCAs and any state or local laws are also additions that are by definition infringements and are repugnant and void. The supreme court has ruled. if it is not written it does not exist and is not enforceable. for any other words to be enforceable they have to exist in the second amendment. Until the second amendment is legally amended to include new words. no other words are enforceable. Nothing in a state constitution is superior to the United States constitution. As stated in the U.S. constitution it is the supreme law of this land.
Basically the supreme court enforces what the tenth amendment declares. what is states rights and what is compliant with the federal constitution's authority.

ScienceABC123 said...

An excellent example of why background checks don't work, and they create more problems than they purport to solve. Progressives/leftists will never admit that gun laws don't work, to them it's all about control.

Anonymous said...

A permission slip from government does NOT in and of itself DEFINE wether or not the intent carried is right and proper or maliciously evil. ONLY a personal choice made by an individual themselves can establish this intent.

Being conned into having government usurp the ability to decide intent is pathetically stupid. It is short sighted and is the death knell of self evident truths in their entirety - BECAUSE the only truth will be whatever government permits it to be.

Don't be a sucker. Don't beg for tyranny by begging for permission slips.

BT said...

a/ Why does he have this long Muslim slave name? Doesn't he realize his ancestors worked with Arab muslims to sell his GGGP's to the Euro slave traders?

b/ He may never shop at BPS again. If he has never hunted before, wth has he bought there?

c/ he's never fired a weapon and his friend is taking him shopping? His friend is not smart. All new shooters should get range time with either an NRA certified R.O. or similarly safety-focussed, experienced shooter, so that they learn the 4 rules and additional basic gun handling.

If he's not rushing to buy for self defense, taking him shopping for a hunting rifle without any shooting experience whatsoever is just plain dumb.

BPS may have just saved some lives.

Yosemite Sam said...

Look at Chicago. I'd say the restrictive gun control laws are a form of discrimination. Cook County laws are worse than the reset of the state. Why? Could it be to keep blacks from owning firearms?

I consider many firearm laws to be the last Jim Crow laws.

Even AWB in Chicago should be considered a Jim Crow Law. If I lived there, I would want an AR 15 or two in my emergency preparedness kit.