That’s Some Problem You Solved There

From the Coloradan:

Three people have been convicted for failing to obey the new background check laws since a bill to expand the requirements went into effect in July 2013.

If you listened to our opponents, there’s an epidemic of criminal trafficking going on right beneath our noses, and surely we just need to pass some “common sense” gun control laws to fix the problem. Three prosecutions in two years does not add up to a serious problem. Shouldn’t Coloradans question the motivation of the people who pushed this law as a solution to a crisis in the wake of such a low level of prosecution? Also, only 24,098 of 512,028 background checks have been processed for private party sales during the period this law has been in effect. That’s a sharp contrast from the 40% number that was batted around by gun control proponents who promoted the ban on private party transfers.

Additionally, the article notes the widespread defiance by gun owners of the magazine restrictions. Perhaps gun control proponents would argue that widespread defiance is also responsible for the astoundingly low numbers of checks run for private party transfers. But if so, doesn’t that just speak to the  law’s uselessness? Either this is not the problem our opponents try to sell it as, or the law doesn’t garner enough respect from law abiding persons as to seem worth obeying. Either way, it speaks to the snake oil Bloomberg has sold residents of Colorado.

13 Responses to “That’s Some Problem You Solved There”

  1. Emily Summer says:

    Oregon is trying to get this law passed as we speak. The stupids in Salem and Portland are really pushing it. Eastern Oregon will not comply. The rest of Oregon has been Californicated.

    • Archer says:

      Teh Stoopids in Salem and Portland (and Eugene; the bill’s author, Sen. Floyd Prozanski, is from Eugene) are emboldened by the fact that the Oregon Legislature came out of 2014 a few seats bluer than it went in.

      It’s in Judiciary right now. The committee has five members – three Democrats, two Republicans. Two of the Dems (Floyd Prozanski and Ginny Burdick) are hard-core gun-grabbers, but the third (Sara Gelser) ran on a relatively pro-gun stance, which is to say she’s neutral. I’m not sure about one of the Republicans (Jeff Kruse), but the other (Kim Thatcher) is pro-gun.

      There’s some hope while it’s in committee. If it makes it to the full Senate, it very likely will pass.

  2. Matthew Carberry says:

    I am still at a loss as to how it is possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of “transferring without a background check” between two non-prohibited persons actually occurred, absent, maybe, an obvious transfer taking place in front of a police officer or one or the other party admitting it took place.

    Unless CO has a registry, no one in authority knows or could know who owns what weapons to start with, so simple possession of a weapon is not proof a transfer from someone to someone even took place. You’d have to catch the cash changing hands when the gun did -and- prove the cash was for the gun, not some other debt. Which is impossible to prove since lending money and casual betting aren’t criminal acts.

    I’d be willing to bet those three convictions involved a prohibited person, and were tacked onto more serious, already existing and sufficient to deter if anything would, charges that could have been, and probably were, brought.

    If so the 3 convictions harm the “pro-check” side even more, as the law was at best redundant.

    • TS says:

      That depends on how Colorado defines “transfer”. In Washington, merely holding the gun can constitute a transfer.

      I had the same thought about if these charges were tacked onto other charges- like straw purchases which which was a crime before this bill.

      • Matthew Carberry says:

        True, but even just holding is problematic. If the actual hand-off isn’t seen then the police would have to watch guy #1 get out of his car with that gun, then guy #2 get out of a different vehicle without it, then watch guy #1 put it down and guy # 2 pick it up.

        They have to establish some sort of proof the guy seen holding it doesn’t own it, which is impossible without a registry. And since merely holding a gun isn’t a crime in and of itself, they can’t use that as probable cause to run the serial number past ATFE to trace it to the first buyer if they were dumb enough to try to push it that far.

        Here’s the “investigation”:

        Cop sees a guy, otherwise breaking no laws, holding a gun next to another guy, without seeing a hand off or actual “put down and pick up.”

        “Hey, did you just transfer that gun without a background check?”

        “Nope, it’s mine, and always has been as far as you know, officer.”

        “Are you suuuuuuure?”


        “Very well citizen, have a nice day.”

  3. FarmDad says:

    ” Either way, it speaks to the snake oil Bloomberg has sold residents of Colorado.”

    A swing and a miss there. Bloomie didn’t sell the residents of Colorado anything , Nor did the Democrats in control of the legislature , in fact they refused to hear the voice of the people or even the Sheriffs.
    If the residents of Colorado were sold anything it would be akin to down the river by our representatives .

  4. borekfk says:

    I bet they’re still hugging and kissing each other over passing this stupid law. All of Bloomberg’s money probably helps too.

  5. Joe_in_Pitt says:

    We can gloat over the uselessness of these laws, but don’t presume for a second that the antis aren’t keeping them as a springboard into a bigger bite at the apple when the next tragedy occurs. They sing the laws’ praises now, probably for PR purposes, but they will turn around and trash them when the time is ripe for further encroachments.

  6. Stuart the Viking says:

    You are, of course, making the classic blunder of miss-understanding the enemy’s metric.

    It doesn’t matter to them if the law actually does something useful or if there are any convictions. What matters to them is that they “won” and got the law was passed, and that damage is done to “gun culture”. In this case “damage” manifests as law abiding citizens merely being inconvenienced. Which is plenty enough to have them fist-bumping and high-fiveing each other, hollering “WINNING!” like some drugged up TV dork.

  7. Lance Lot Link says:

    You have to understand how the antis think.

    The failure rate of this law means they need to pass a new one to close the loophole created by this one.


  1. SayUncle » And the number of the counting shall be three - […] Three convictions over the new background check law in CO. […]