Background check defeat

I don't need to spend a lot of time summarizing what happened in the Senate the other week. Gun bills were brought to the Senate floor and were defeated, by not achieving the filibuster-proof 60 votes. Not only did extreme outlier bills like Feinstein's AWB fail to garner the necessary votes, but stuff like the Manchin-Toomey "compromise" bill which would have expanded background checks failed too. The Manchin-Toomey bill would have mandated background checks (the same NICS check that you go through when you buy a gun from a store or the internet) for essentially every firearm transfer - intra-state private sales included, but notably transfers between immediate family members excluded. 

I've written about FFLs and transfers before, but since a lot of dialogue surrounding this bill and its defeat seems to get things wrong or exaggerated, let's review. Under current law, the laws that are on the books right now, the following transactions require a background check (they must be done through an FFL):

-Interstate transfers. Last week I bought a shotgun from a co-worker, but we had to do it through an FFL to avoid breaking federal law because we live on either side of the state line.
-Internet purchases. This is usually an interstate transfer - when I bought my P-07 from Bud's, it shipped from Kentucky so it had to go to an FFL who did the check and transferred it to me. Had I bought it from an individual in a different state instead of a retail outlet, same deal. I think that even if I lived in Kentucky, I'd have to use a FFL if I bought from Bud's, since they're a retail outlet.
-Stores. If you buy a gun in a store, you're going through a background check. No two ways about it.
-Dealers at gun shows. Yes, gun shows - if you're buying a gun from a licensed dealer who sets up a table at a show, you're going through a check just as though you bought it in a store, because it's a licensed FFL dealer and that's what they have to do.

So what about this "gun show loophole?" What about the internet sales this bill was supposed to prevent? Now we're talking about variants of a private, person-to-person transaction.

Interstate (across state lines) transactions require an FFL, but consistent with our system of government it's a different deal when you're operating fully within a state. In the state of Kansas, a private citizen (who is a KS resident) is allowed to sell a gun with no background check to another private citizen (also a KS resident). The federal government, with its NICS check and ATF requirements, need not be involved. Of course I could elect to do it through an FFL, who would run the check, but I don't have to. States are free to mandate bills of sale or even full-on checks for private transactions, but that's up to the state. So this means, in the following transactions in the state of Kansas, I would not go through a background check:

-Buying at a gun show from an individual seller (not an FFL - just a regular guy with some guns he wants to sell).
-Meeting a friend or a guy from Armslist at the Wal-mart parking lot to buy a gun from him.
-Sending money via paypal or a check to a resident of the same state, who then mails me the gun

Note that the only "internet sales" that don't require background checks are private, person-to-person sales involving paypal and shipping in states where p2p sales don't require background checks. This represents a very small fraction of gun sales, and so very different than the mental image that is conjured up when one hears about "buying a gun over the internet." 

I suppose there's 2 reasons I'm glad the expanded background checks didn't pass - let's call them substantive and procedural reasons. The first - "substantive," what the law would have done - is the fact that it wouldn't have done anything to criminals, who have a nasty habit of ignoring laws and buy guns on the black market anyway, and it would have only added an inconvenience to a subset of legal purchasers. Admittedly this is a slight inconvenience, but it's throwing another few minutes, another fee to do the check, on top of what legal gun owners have to abide by, which can be pretty onerous in some states. The way to get rid of guns, what I presume is the ultimate goal of Feinstein et al, is via this method - the death by a thousand cuts. Every so often you make buying and owning a gun just a little more difficult or annoying - an extra background check fee, a need to buy a new kind of trigger lock, an affirmative duty to report a stolen gun lest you become a felon (who wouldn't report a stolen gun?). They do this to the stores as well - more record-keeping, expanded legal liability, having to perform background checks on ammo as well as guns. Maybe throw in some restrictions on transfers to make sure that those scary black rifles that you can buy now can't be transferred to your kids or grandkids. In a few decades we're England or Australia, where the inability to own a gun is presumed and must be disproved, and the overwhelming majority of people don't own guns, have never handled guns, and can't understand the desire for them (some U.S. cities are like this already). It's called attrition, and it starts by a seemingly innocuous piece of legislation like expanding background checks. It's sneaky in a way that a full-on AWB is not.

The second - "procedural" - relates to how this was attempted to be passed, and the political climate since December. Obama flying the Newtown families to Washington to lobby senators, the demonization of the NRA and gun owners all over the news media, people proposing laws about things they obviously knew nothing about, Obama talking about "assault clips" and Biden - with that fucking grin on his face - telling people to fire a shotgun out of their front door...the whole political scene was absolutely disgusting to me. Add to this the repeated use of words like "common sense" and "compromise," ("you give on this point and we'll allow you to keep your constitutional right" - that is extortion, not compromise) and the belittling or mocking of the pro-gun side as "rednecks" or people who want kids to die. Don't lie, you've seen it. It is outright demagoguery and a favoring of emotion over facts. The President said so himself when he called on the nation to remember how they felt right after Newtown, back when emotions were high and New York rammed the SAFE act through at 2:15 in the morning. If Congress and the President had made an effort to look at things logically, not pass bills out of emotion, back up their contentions with facts and statistics, and actually involve people who knew what they were talking about, that would be one thing. What we had, however, was just a shitshow from day one as people jumped on the opportunity to mess with gun owners even a little bit. Even though it feels a little smug, I'm glad that, federally at least, they couldn't even get this little thing out of it. 

We can only hope that Colorado, New York, and the handful of other states that didn't escape the insanity will fix things up, whether by lawsuit or by mass layoffs via ballot in 2014.