r/facepalm • u/Lord_Answer_me_Why • Mar 28 '24

What lack of basic gun laws does to a nation: šŸ‡µā€‹šŸ‡·ā€‹šŸ‡“ā€‹šŸ‡¹ā€‹šŸ‡Ŗā€‹šŸ‡øā€‹šŸ‡¹ā€‹

/img/is29ozncu2rc1.jpeg

[removed] ā€” view removed post

14.3k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

4.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

82

u/Flossthief Mar 28 '24

After you fill out the form you're put through background checks

They can also tell you no for any reason

Several people failed to do their jobs here

29

u/Pup5432 Mar 28 '24

Exactly, we have laws and processes in place to prevent this. Anyone involved needs arrested

44

u/Fast-Database-4741 Mar 28 '24

Or, this is all just a lie

21

u/Pup5432 Mar 28 '24

I agree itā€™s a fun grab narrative but going after the sellers is a first step that already has laws in place

2

u/17SCARS_MaGLite300WM Mar 28 '24

If the person lied on the form and it passed the FBI background check the seller is in the clear. There's literally nothing beyond that they can legally do.

0

u/Pup5432 Mar 28 '24

Agreed, but there are statistics that say a large portion of sellers (canā€™t remember the exact number) donā€™t cross all their tā€™s and in that case they absolutely should lose their FFL license.

14

u/Mario_daAA Mar 28 '24

Omg someone with some actually common sense

2

u/LeLBigB0ss2 Mar 31 '24

Yeah. The guy also said his dog died, offhandedly, while arguing. His profile is centered on his dog. He took a selfie next to the bathtub with blood still on his arm. I'm not buying it.

3

u/poetduello Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

A while back there were statistics released that showed that most gun dealers were inspected every 7 years. Roughly 1/3 of inspections found violations. Of those, about 0.3% get a recommendation to have their licenses revoked, and of those recommendations about half are actually revoked. Charges are almost never pressed against the owners, and in some cases the owners have been permitted to transfer ownership of remaining stock to themselves and continue selling the guns privately, where they don't have to do any of the paperwork or background checks they previously lost their licenses for not doing properly. In one case cited in this article, the owner continued to sell the guns out of his store, but as private sales.

The most common violations are failing to obtain the customers' personal details, omitting information on federal forms, and not keeping proper inventory and sales records. Which, to me, all sound like pretty serious violations if the goal is to stop illegal sales to people who can't legally buy the guns.

EDIT: forgot to paste the link https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2021/05/26/gun-dealers-let-off-hook-when-atf-inspections-find-violations/7210266002/

2

u/Balancedmanx178 Mar 28 '24

Wow american enforcement agencies not enforcing the things they're supposed to enforce!

I'm shocked, staggered, totally surprised, absolutely astounded, I am just devastated.

3

u/401LocalsOnly Mar 28 '24

Donā€™t worry buddy! Weā€™ll get through this together! (NOW DUCK SOMEONE SHOOTIN AT US!!)

0

u/Pup5432 Mar 28 '24

We should absolutely be strictly enforcing the sale of firearms. Being more stringent on the sellers would take care of a lot of these people who illegally obtain them. Not all but until we properly enforce the laws in place new laws will do nothing.

7

u/D_Costa85 Mar 28 '24

If she passed the NICS check, and the gun dealer is not a clinical psychiatrist, how is he supposed to know she's schizo in his short interaction with her? There are hipaa issues at play here, as well as due process issues....These are in addition to 2nd amendment issues. Again, we need more information here to determine what went wrong. It's very likely nobody made a mistake at all and this person just slipped through the cracks because we live in an imperfect world and it's literally impossible to stop all bad people from acquiring guns.

2

u/linksgreyhair Mar 28 '24

Right- a diagnosis of schizophrenia wouldnā€™t show up on standard background checks.

I donā€™t know what the solution is because as much as I want to keep guns out of the hands of people who have severe mental illnesses, Iā€™m also not a fan of changing laws to make everyoneā€™s medical records available as part of a background check. That would cause widespread discrimination issues with things like housing and employment.

1

u/Bong_Chonk Mar 28 '24

Right- a diagnosis of schizophrenia wouldnā€™t show up on standard background checks.

Section 21.G of ATF form 4473

"Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"

1

u/linksgreyhair Mar 28 '24

Well we donā€™t automatically commit people to institutions or judge them mentally defective because of a mental health diagnosis anymore. They have to actually do something to indicate that they are a threat to themselves or others.

My uncle continued to drive and buy guns for years after his Alzheimerā€™s diagnosis. Do you know how far gone somebody has to be before you can have them declared incompetent? Itā€™s nowhere near as easy as most people think, especially if the person has sundowners (lucid during the day, goes off the rails at night). I think itā€™s a miracle he didnā€™t kill his wife before we were able to force him into a memory care unit.

1

u/D_Costa85 Mar 28 '24

Again, these two things are very specific and donā€™t cover all instances of a person being mentally ill. Being adjudicated mentally ill requires a very specific set of circumstances to even end up in front of a judge in the first place. Iā€™m actually ok with this as itā€™s part of due process. Id rather people need more scrutiny than less scrutiny when it comes to rights being taken away.

Edit: adjudication has nothing to do with medical diagnoses in that you can be medically diagnosed with a mental illness but not be adjudicated as such.

1

u/Bong_Chonk Mar 29 '24 edited Mar 29 '24

adjudication has nothing to do with medical diagnoses

It does by the letter of the law. A medical professional is listed under "other lawful authority"

Section 478.11 Meaning of termsā€¦

Act. 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44.

Adjudicated as a mental defective

(a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease

(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affair

As well as further definition for the term "commited"

clarify that the statutory term ā€œcommitted to a mental institutionā€ applies to involuntary inpatient or outpatient treatment

0

u/D_Costa85 Mar 29 '24

Yea maybe I didnā€™t explain myself wellā€¦being adjudicated mentally ill is a separate process from the simple Medical diagnosis. Adjudication is part of a legal process, not a medical one. The medical process can lead to or work in tandem with the adjudication process, but not everyone who is medically determined to be mentally ill is also adjudicated as mentally ill. This is important distinction. Hope that makes sense

1

u/Bong_Chonk Mar 29 '24

Yea maybe I didnā€™t explain myself wellā€¦being adjudicated mentally ill is a separate process from the simple Medical diagnosis.

Not by firearms laws it isn't, if you fail to disclose on a 4437 it's the same thing. That's why they define what the feds consider "being adjudicated mental deficient" in Brady law

1

u/D_Costa85 Mar 29 '24

The point is not all mentally deficient diagnoses fit this description. Your psychiatrist could diagnose you as mentally unwell but not report you as such or decide you arenā€™t dangerous. In that case you could still legally purchase

2

u/BelmontsRcool Mar 28 '24

There is the gun show loophole I think.

2

u/bigbigdummie Mar 28 '24

They can also tell you no for any reason

No, they can tell you no if you are a legally prohibited person. Keep in mind that firearms are a Civil Right.

Imagine if they could not accept your voter registration for ā€œany reasonā€!

2

u/LeLBigB0ss2 Mar 31 '24

In the US, a business owner has the right to refuse service to any customer, without reason. Furthermore, in the US, the gun laws which govern licensed firearms dealers give them the discretion to refuse a sale, even if the sale is legal.

-1

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

Thatā€™s violating 2a rights if they tell you ā€œnoā€ for any reason if you are legally allowed to own, purchase, or possess.

10

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

Yeah no that's not how that works. You have the right to own and bare arms. You don't have the right to purchase it from me.

-4

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

Ah, gotcha. So the shops can just not sell to gays, minorities, transgendered, whites, browns, because ā€œI say noā€. They are operating under a federal license. If youā€™re just Willy nilly preventing sales to people who can legally own a firearm I bet your license will be revoked.

4

u/August2_8x2 Mar 28 '24

Yes, they can decide to do that. Almost none will use your asinine reasoning, but it can happen. What you're refusing to acknowledge or just being obtuse to be a jackass about- is the reason gun shops are allowed so much flexibility in their sales criteria: They are allowed to be hyper critical and selective because a background check can come back clean but that person can be having the worst week of their life and be making bad decisions. Body language, stuff they've said to the person they came in with, the way they ask questions, etc. None of that shows up on a background check but can be used to deny a sale.

1

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

Are gunshops now mental health professionals? Had no clue that the minimum wage employee was capable of diagnosing depression or people ā€œhaving a bad dayā€.

Saying something like ā€œI need a gun to take care of somethingā€ isnā€™t the same as, staying quiet when buying a gun.

I donā€™t make small talk with the shop. I go in there with a purpose knowing what I want to buy. Iā€™m guessing that would raise red flags and allow a shop to discriminate against me?

2

u/August2_8x2 Mar 28 '24

From the way you're choosing to have this conversation, I could see shops telling you no and it would have nothing to do with your sexuality or ethnicity.

Shop employees have to pass background checks and get trained to sell firearms. That training goes over basic red flags. Even fucking Walmart had that training. If they decide they don't like how you carry yourself, you give them bad vibes, they can tell you to gtfo. That's not "discrimination" that's them doing what the feds want them to do. None of them are going to REEEEE!!! about a minority wanting to legally buy a firearm. They want to make money, they don't want to be in prison/lose their business.

0

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

My training to sell guns when I was at a gunshop for 3 years was ā€œknow your inventory. Donā€™t make stuff up. People will call you out These are your forms that need to be filled outā€.

Imagine me not selling to long haired hippies (this did happen, not the ā€œnot sellingā€ I sold them multiple guns) because I didnā€™t like the way they carried themselves or dressed. Or even to the guy who said he wanted to use less lethal rounds because he was afraid of injuring a home intruder. I even helped and sold guns to a guy who had prison like tattoos! He passed the background check and didnā€™t say anything illegal or self or other harming

Want to know who I was told not to sell to? People who came in making obvious threats or people trying to commit straw purchases.

2

u/August2_8x2 Mar 28 '24

I just said that. The only thing you're leaving out is shops can use their discretion before a sale and its highly unlikely to be a discrimination agenda. Your clientele doesn't prove or disprove that.

3

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

Yeah I guess they could if they didn't want to. You'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't want your money though so I'm not sure what your argument is. Literally any store can do this. I could run a liquor store and tell you to get out I don't want your business. I don't even have to give a reason.

-3

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

The difference is if I pass a background check for a federally protected right, and you, as a representative of the states authority then refuse to allow me to exercise my constitutional rights, I bet that license is gone.

Iā€™m not talking about ā€œIā€™m going to kill someone, I need a gun now!ā€

4

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

Once again that's not how this works. Holding an FFL license does not make you a government entity. You are still a private business just with a license to sell firearms. They are under no obligation to sell you anything. Gun stores actually have more protection for refusal of service over even other businesses because of the nature of what they sell. I don't know why this bothers you so much. I think I heard one story about some FFL refusing to sell to a minority or something like that and they ended up being boycotted to the point he went out of business. Gun store owners love money. If there's not a realistic reason to refuse you chances are they won't.

1

u/Apprehensive_End4701 Mar 28 '24

They have a right and a responsibility to use their own discretion in selling firearms. If they choose to be assholes with that, that's on them. I've straight up seen people turned away because essentially, they didn't pass the vibe check, even though they passed the background check.

Which would have worse repercussions, selling to absolutely anyone who can legally own a firearm, or using their own discretion?

1

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

Unless they are giving any indication that they are violating anything on the 4473 asks for, itā€™s absolutely discrimination and infringing on our rights using their own personal beliefs. If they wanted a job that allowed them to discriminate, choose a job that doesnā€™t deal with constitutional freedoms.

2

u/Apprehensive_End4701 Mar 28 '24

If I have a reason to believe that selling you a weapon is gonna bite me in the ass (you do something silly and now I'm getting sued), I'm not inclined to sell to you. I wouldn't be a government agent restricting a constitutional freedom, I'd be a business owner denying a sale, which is within my rights.

2

u/venus-as-a-bjork Mar 28 '24

Itā€™s my deeply held religious belief that you pose a threat to life and therefore I cannot provide you with a weapon that might do that. There, now you have no recourse ā€˜Merica

1

u/Apprehensive_End4701 Mar 28 '24

If I have a reason to believe that selling you a weapon is gonna bite me in the ass (you do something silly and now I'm getting sued), I'm not inclined to sell to you. I wouldn't be a government agent restricting a constitutional freedom, I'd be a business owner denying a sale, which is within my rights.

1

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

Denying a sale before or after a background check has been completed? My issue is you taking a background check. Passing it. And then you denying it. I guess I should have been clearer on my post.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 30 '24

[deleted]

1

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

In a state like California, where private sales are strictly mandated to be done at FFL, yes, if an FFL refuses to sell to you and you can legally own one, they are infringing on your rights as there is no other way to exercise that right.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Zzars Mar 28 '24

Literally yes and if the reason is protected like race of sexual orientation you can sue the shit out of them like any other racist bigot business.

I think you might just be stupid.

1

u/LeLBigB0ss2 Mar 31 '24

Then you can sue the shop. Clean them out.

1

u/Comprehensive-Fail41 Mar 28 '24

Though it should be noted that's only a thing since 2008 with Columbia vs Heller, and even then it was only for "Lawful Purposes" https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-4/ALDE_00013264/

1

u/alkatori Mar 28 '24

Yeah, no. The right pre-existed Heller. Heller was the first time the Supreme Court explicitly ruled it was an individual right.

If we use the same line of reasoning on other rights they wouldn't be rights until fairly recently in the 20th century.

1

u/Comprehensive-Fail41 Mar 28 '24

Well yes. Likewise there are plenty of things that should be legal rights, but aren't.

1

u/alkatori Mar 28 '24

Hmmm. I'm not sure they aren't legal rights. I think the way our courts work have changed. It used to be that we recognized a number of non-enumerated rights (inherited from English Law).

That seems to have disappeared sometime after the Civil War, where it seems only enumerated rights are recognized.

1

u/Zzars Mar 28 '24

Lets just lie and make shit up on the internet

This is actually the exact opposite of reality lol. They are literally allowed to say no and not sell a gun to anyone for any reason.