Why universal background checks are needed

[NYcarbineer]

Mom found guilty of buying guns for son killed in police shootout | Fox News

"The jury in a criminal case has rejected a retired civil servant’s claim that she was a law-abiding gun owner who shouldn’t be held responsible for her son’s shootout with cops that left him dead.

The jury in Seattle Federal Court found Jeanne Tinker-Smith, 64, guilty Friday of helping her son possess firearms despite a felony conviction, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported.

Cecil Chancy Tinker-Smith was killed after a four-hour standoff with sheriff’s deputies in 2014 in his mother’s home in Deming, Washington, near the Canadian border. The jury heard evidence that he exchanged gunfire with the deputies with a shotgun purchased by his mother. One deputy was injured when he was hit by shrapnel."

Can you figure out why?

Straw purchase, by a person that passed a background check in order to sell, or give, the firearm to someone not legally allowed to own one.

How would a background check have stopped that?

You could beat this rap if you were able to claim you didn't know the buyer was a felon.

She can't

If you are not required to do a background check you are not required to determine if a person is eligible to buy
a gun from you. If you are not required to determine that, you cannot be held liable.

 

[Rustic]

Mom found guilty of buying guns for son killed in police shootout | Fox News

"The jury in a criminal case has rejected a retired civil servant’s claim that she was a law-abiding gun owner who shouldn’t be held responsible for her son’s shootout with cops that left him dead.

The jury in Seattle Federal Court found Jeanne Tinker-Smith, 64, guilty Friday of helping her son possess firearms despite a felony conviction, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported.

Cecil Chancy Tinker-Smith was killed after a four-hour standoff with sheriff’s deputies in 2014 in his mother’s home in Deming, Washington, near the Canadian border. The jury heard evidence that he exchanged gunfire with the deputies with a shotgun purchased by his mother. One deputy was injured when he was hit by shrapnel."

Can you figure out why?

Straw purchase, by a person that passed a background check in order to sell, or give, the firearm to someone not legally allowed to own one.

How would a background check have stopped that?

You could beat this rap if you were able to claim you didn't know the buyer was a felon.

She can't

If you are not required to do a background check you are not required to determine if a person is eligible to buy
a gun from you. If you are not required to determine that, you cannot be held liable.

Firearm ownership is a personal thing just like finances, it's none of the federal government business

 

[Auld Phart]

Mom found guilty of buying guns for son killed in police shootout | Fox News

"The jury in a criminal case has rejected a retired civil servant’s claim that she was a law-abiding gun owner who shouldn’t be held responsible for her son’s shootout with cops that left him dead.

The jury in Seattle Federal Court found Jeanne Tinker-Smith, 64, guilty Friday of helping her son possess firearms despite a felony conviction, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported.

Cecil Chancy Tinker-Smith was killed after a four-hour standoff with sheriff’s deputies in 2014 in his mother’s home in Deming, Washington, near the Canadian border. The jury heard evidence that he exchanged gunfire with the deputies with a shotgun purchased by his mother. One deputy was injured when he was hit by shrapnel."

Can you figure out why?

Straw purchase, by a person that passed a background check in order to sell, or give, the firearm to someone not legally allowed to own one.

How would a background check have stopped that?

You could beat this rap if you were able to claim you didn't know the buyer was a felon.

She can't

If you are not required to do a background check you are not required to determine if a person is eligible to buy
a gun from you. If you are not required to determine that, you cannot be held liable.

The woman passed the background check.

and even the STRICTEST Universal Background Check I've seen allows sales to relatives with out a check.

 

[Iceweasel]

No real details on why they found her guilty. They must have been convinced she knew he was a felon and would have access to firearms.

The OP is clueless.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How would a background check have helped?

It would have made sure she doesn't eventually beat this r

That is an utterly retarded claim.

A background check of her came up clean. IF it was a straw sale, the check does nothing. IF he stole it, the check does nothing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No real details on why they found her guilty. They must have been convinced she knew he was a felon and would have access to firearms.

The OP is clueless.

And if they hadn't? A universal background check covering her transaction with her son erases all doubt.

Why leave the loophole open? Why is it so important to people like you that a felon might have a legal workaround to get a gun?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How would a background check have helped?

It would have made sure she doesn't eventually beat this r

That is an utterly retarded claim.

A background check of her came up clean. IF it was a straw sale, the check does nothing. IF he stole it, the check does nothing.

I didn't post that. That is one of the quirks of the forum software.

 

[TNHarley]

Nothing to see here folks. Just another bed wetter that can't even diagnose a problem. Let alone fix it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How would a background check have helped?

It would have made sure she doesn't eventually beat this r

That is an utterly retarded claim.

A background check of her came up clean. IF it was a straw sale, the check does nothing. IF he stole it, the check does nothing.

I didn't post that. That is one of the quirks of the forum software.

Then again, how would a background check alter this situation?

 

[Iceweasel]

No real details on why they found her guilty. They must have been convinced she knew he was a felon and would have access to firearms.

The OP is clueless.

And if they hadn't? A universal background check covering her transaction with her son erases all doubt.

Why leave the loophole open? Why is it so important to people like you that a felon might have a legal workaround to get a gun?

What loophole? If she was buying it for her son she didn't tell them, what b/g check would reveal that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No real details on why they found her guilty. They must have been convinced she knew he was a felon and would have access to firearms.

The OP is clueless.

And if they hadn't? A universal background check covering her transaction with her son erases all doubt.

Why leave the loophole open? Why is it so important to people like you that a felon might have a legal workaround to get a gun?

What loophole? If she was buying it for her son she didn't tell them, what b/g check would reveal that?

The feds only caught her because they knew where he got the gun.

 

[Iceweasel]

No real details on why they found her guilty. They must have been convinced she knew he was a felon and would have access to firearms.

The OP is clueless.

And if they hadn't? A universal background check covering her transaction with her son erases all doubt.

Why leave the loophole open? Why is it so important to people like you that a felon might have a legal workaround to get a gun?

What loophole? If she was buying it for her son she didn't tell them, what b/g check would reveal that?

The feds only caught her because they knew where he got the gun.

... and without a b/g check. Imagine that.