03-27-17 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING MARCH 27.2017 ill people to not go through a background check. If they do, they need to be prosecuted — you're exactly right, there. Mr. Miller added, The resolution is clear regarding the fact that the problem is not licensed gun dealers. They want to do what's right, they want to follow the law. It's that private sellers are not required to do a background check. You can choose to buy a firearm from someone who does not require a background check. You can go to a gun show where there will be licensed dealers, but there will also have private sellers, and they are not required to do a background check. That's the only distinction. Councilmember Dr. Varner asked, That is the loophole that you are describing? Mr. Miller responded, Yes. Councilmember Dr. Varner asked, And that loophole exists? Is it illegal to transfer a firearm through that method as it exists today? Is it illegal at a gun show for two (2) people to transact or is it legal? Mr. Miller responded, No, of course not. Councilmember Dr. Varner asked, "Of course not" what? Mr. Miller responded, But it is a problem if it is not required to do a background check as a private seller. A federally licensed FLL must be give you a background check. Councilmember Dr. Varner asked, But that transaction is not illegal currently? Mr. Miller responded, Absolutely not. Councilmember Dr. Varner continued, Whether it's a handgun or longarm? Mr. Miller responded, Absolutely not. Councilmember Davis asked Dr. Ferlic to continue speaking on why he feels the loophole is important. Dr. Ferlic explained that those who have given data regarding gun show transactions over the course of the evening have been focusing on legal dealers and legal transactions. He stated, There has always been the loophole discussion, and the suggestion has been that there's a loophole for gun shows, and it's not the people in the gun shows —it's the people outside of the shows who may be carrying on transactions. At this point in time, that is a legal transaction. There's nothing illegal about that happening at a gun show. So, the discussion that this centers on, at this point, is some sort of required for a background check for those additional sales, whether it's internet or peer -to -peer. Councilmember Jo M. Broden made a motion to accept the amended text of the sixth paragraph of the resolution. Councilmember Dr. David Varner seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. Councilmember Davis stated that the focus of the resolution is to help prevent unmonitored internet and peer -to -peer firearm transactions, but that this focus was lost amid all the other text in the resolution. Councilmember Davis suggested postponing adoption of the bill to refine the text of the resolution more. He stated that he did not feel that it would get past the Republicans in Indianapolis and suggested that more time be given to better craft the language of the bill. Councilmember Ferlic stated, I apologize. I think that portions of the presentation might have veered away from the resolution. I apologize for the presentation, because the resolution —and Dr. Varner has reviewed it, the entire Council has reviewed it —is specifically about the items you just mentioned. The resolution language is just about inviting dialogue between- Councilmember Davis interjected, My thing is, if we could have that go straight from the top of the resolution, go right into "There are loopholes in the State of Indiana." A, B, C. "We as a Council believe these loopholes should be studied..." That way, all the other issues, the stories, etc, we can put them aside. Councilmember Davis advocated for getting to the core of the matter and keeping the language lean. 27