Background checks - controversy

[Kochman]

I'm going to pre-empt this with some caveats.
1) I've been around firearms all my life
2) I was military, now work for LE
3) I own and will always
4) I am not a democrat, or progressive, I'm an unaffiliated independent who thinks both parties are FUBAR

However, I've been a little disturbed by some people refusing any way shape or form of background checks. Personally, I like selling to someone I KNOW has been at least minimally vetted. The system is far from perfect, granted, but it is a much better system than saying something like you can sniff out a bad guy during your 5 minute meeting with cash in hand and deny the sale based on your gut.

I personally believe that, without any associated government record keeping, continued use of 4473 (and prosecution of liars on the form) is a good thing. It is responsible gun ownership... how I was raised.

To sell to someone without this, in my opinion, is a behavior that should be checked. You simply cannot know if the person is a sociopath.

Force them to go to the black market, which they will always be able too... but when they do, and they go kill people, and it comes back that the gun wasn't legally purchased, it helps our cause... because the media can't say, "look how easy it is to buy guns!".

Lanza actually WAS stopped by gun control. He tried to buy in CT two days before the massacre, and was turned down.
The problem? His mother was an irresponsible creature who left guns within easy reach of an autistic kid (basically Asperger's, which is a form of Autism) with other serious problems who was obsessed with guns, violent games, and his being turned down for military service. Not good.

In 2002-2003, over 120k form 4473s led to rejection. This is a good thing. The DoJ only prosecuted less than 1% of them, however, which is a bad thing. At a minimum, we know some of those people went on to get guns, though they shouldn't have them... but, wasn't it good that all of them didn't get them? Can we work on the system and make it good, so less killings are likely, which will create better statistics to boost our argument for future occurences?

I think the knee-jerk "no compromise" position is a classic case of cutting off one's nose despite one's face.

Discuss...
Can 4473, expanded to all transfers between strangers, be ok under the right conditions?

 

[zincwarrior]

I hope you brought an asbestos coat. It might get hot shortly...

But I'll join you I the frying pan. I support background checks for all sales or transfers outside of immediate family for the same reasons.

 

[Spats McGee]

Welcome to TFL, Kochman!

Discuss...
Can 4473, expanded to all transfers between strangers, be ok under the right conditions?

No, thank you. I can find no conditions under which expanding gthe 4473 to all transfers between strangers is ok. What do you propose would be the "right conditions?"

Personally, I like selling to someone I KNOW has been at least minimally vetted.

Then do so. There is nothing currently stopping you.

For more information about some of the arguments for and against, you might look in the following threads:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=516231
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=513976

 

[ClydeFrog]

Double-standards...

I'm angry with the blatant double standards & "concern" some elected officials & prosecutors with these gun laws/criminal cases.

My area's state's atty(an elected official) let a young felon plea out on gun charges after he shot a cop with a AK47!
He also declined to press criminal charges on 2 violent neo-Nazis. Many in the community say it was due to the recent surge in homicides of corrections officials/DAs.

That's weak sauce, Bro!

 

[Kochman]

Fair question Spats,
The current use of 4473, where the "seller" keeps the records, works fine for me.
I haven't sold a gun without the use of a 4473 (often via shipping to an FFL after an online sale), nor will I.
So, expanding that to all unknown buyers is what I would like to see.
Can we perfectly enforce that? No. And I realize that some sellers will take the risk, calling whoever their "friend" to avoid running the check... but for what? To save a $50 bill? Time? It's just not worth it.

That being said, ideally, there would be an automated system, via the internet probably, where you would enter the information of a buyer, and then get back a "Go" or "No Go", and it wouldn't be limited to just gun buying, but it could be a general background check system that people could use for renting their homes to someone, dating their daughter, etc... where the person in question voluntarily gives up their information. The seller could print out the results, and store them.

I am not insane, and I realize this system I describe will 99.999% never happen, but I think it would be good.


Now, Spats, I will ask, why are you opposed to the use of 4473s? Do you use them ever (buying from an FFL, internet purchase, what have you)? Or only cash 'n' carry?


@Zincwarrior, thanks!

 

[BarryLee]

Yes, I understand your point of view, but I wonder if you have read the Machin/Toomey Bill and see how convoluted it really is. The proposed process is way too complicated and has plenty of opportunities for law abiding citizen to inadvertently violate the law.

Also, as you yourself pointed out the bad guys will just ignore it. At the end of the day it just creates more bureaucracy and cost for the law abiding and does nothing to stop the criminal.

 

[overhead]

I suggested an automated system via the internet with a go/no go type answer but it was my idea that it be voluntary and should be run at a state level. It was not very popular here I see no reason I should have to run a background check on a stranger or anyone else that has a CCW, for example. I see no authority in the constitution for the federal government to regulate private sales of any item. If I wish to pay for a private company to do a public records search (or if I wish to do it myself) I can, nothing is stopping landlords or anyone else from doing it.

Here is the problem many have. In 94 we were told we just needed a background check for FFL transfers by dealers. That is all, any reasonable person would go for that, right? Then we had more crime and we need to take it a step further, we need to close "loopholes" like gun shows. Now we have moved on to the "loophole" of private sales. My experience tells me this progression will continue to the point that we need a freaking federal license to own a gun at some point in the future.

 

[zincwarrior]

Also, as you yourself pointed out the bad guys will just ignore it. At the end of the day it just creates more bureaucracy and cost for the law abiding and does nothing to stop the criminal.

Your dyed in the wool criminal - yes. Those who are mentally not competent - thats the ones I'm worried about. I'd also tie that in with more strict enforcement of reporting of mental health problems, though, and as part of a serious overhaul of the US mental health system.

I work in downtown Houston, and wait for the Park and Ride to my car. About once every week some nutty homeless guy is begging for money and sometimes thaey are just standing by kind of "nutting out."

 

[JimDandy]

Also, as you yourself pointed out the bad guys will just ignore it. At the end of the day it just creates more bureaucracy and cost for the law abiding and does nothing to stop the criminal.

Well let's see... IF:

All sales go through an FFL, 4473, NICS as if the FFL themselves sold the firearm-

AND the NICS system was as close to fully sourced on prohibited persons-

AND the ATF cleaned up their act enough to be trusted to police the bad FFL's without harassing the good ones-

The supply of crime guns will dry up, and be fewer. Without corrupt FFL's feeding the black market, they'll be left with stolen guns. Simple logic states that will do something.

Sure you can tell me the ATF will never clean up their act. But that's being as closed minded as the folks who think the AR-15 is evil.

 

[overhead]

Cho at Va Teach bought his gun from a dealer. Lanza stole his guns from his mom (I know it was mentioned he failed a background check but as I recall he was not even old enough to legally purchase a handgun or AR15 in Conn so a simple license check would be enough). The Aurora shooter bought his guns with a background check.

So we have two problems. One, the background check system we have in place does not stop crazy people from killing other people. And second, you are assuming these people are crazy, I don't think they are. They just seem evil to me.

 

[csmsss]

All sales go through an FFL, 4473, NICS as if the FFL themselves sold the firearm

And if my aunt had... she'd be my uncle.

Exactly what mechanism do you propose to assure that all sales go through FFL/4473/NICS?

 

[overhead]

I don't know how others will answer, but the only way to legally enforce such a law is registration. Which I suspect will be the next "loophole" we need to close some time in the future.

 

[Webleymkv]

I would actually be OK with Universal Background Checks if I thought I could trust our government. However, given that many, if not most, of the people pushing UBC's talk out both sides of their mouth by saying they respect the Second Amendment to one audience and saying that they favor a complete "turn them all in Mr. and Mrs. America" ban to another audience and that our own government intentionally facilitated the purchase of guns by Mexican Drug Cartels in order to drum up public opinion in favor of gun control, I really don't feel that I can trust our government.

The biggest problem that I see with UBC's is that it's completely unenforceable without registration. The politicians may be saying that they don't support registration now, but wait a few years until the next mass shooting happens (and sooner or later it will if we continue to ignore mental healthcare, NICS reporting, and school security) and they'll be saying that we didn't go far enough with UBC's and that we need to close the "registration loophole" or some other such nonsense.

I, personally, am not worried in the least about selling a gun to a felon because it is my personal policy not to sell a gun to any Tom, Dick, or Harry with cash in hand. I, personally, will only sell a gun to someone I personally know very, very well or to someone who can show me a valid LTCH (License to Carry a Handgun is what we call it in Indiana). I view such as a matter of personal responsibility and, if history as shown us anything, attempting to legislate personal responsibility typically fails spectacularly.

If the true goal is to ensure that dangerous criminals and the violently mentally ill cannot get a gun, background checks really isn't the best way to go about it because, as you pointed out, there are many ways to get a gun either legally or illegally. Personally, I think that if a person has, through the commission of a crime or extreme mental illness, demonstrated themself to be too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, that person should not be set free to intermingle with society. If we simply punished crime and treated mental illness appropriately by keeping violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill locked up, we wouldn't need any background checks to begin with.

Cho at Va Teach bought his gun from a dealer. Lanza stole his guns from his mom (I know it was mentioned he failed a background check but as I recall he was not even old enough to legally purchase a handgun or AR15 in Conn so a simple license check would be enough). The Aurora shooter bought his guns with a background check.

I'll add to that that the Columbine shooters acquired their guns illegallly through a straw purchase which UBC's would have done nothing to stop.

 

[Spats McGee]

Fair question Spats,
The current use of 4473, where the "seller" keeps the records, works fine for me.
I haven't sold a gun without the use of a 4473 (often via shipping to an FFL after an online sale), nor will I.

The current system is that the FFL keeps the 4473. I understood your question to be extending the 4473 to private sales involving "strangers." As you said below, "all unknown buyers." I can't get real excited about filling out a form that includes my name, address, DL#, date of birth, and SSN, and then handing it to a stranger. That kind of screams "come and get me, identity thieves!"

That's Problem #1. (Only in the order of answering, not necessarily in the order of magnitude.)

So, expanding that to all unknown buyers is what I would like to see.
Can we perfectly enforce that? No. And I realize that some sellers will take the risk, calling whoever their "friend" to avoid running the check... but for what? To save a $50 bill? Time? It's just not worth it.

Enforcement. Presumably, we're all more interested in keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and convicted felons than out of the hands of law abiding citizens. You will never be able to enforce this requirement against those two groups. See, e.g. Haynes v. US (1968). That being the case, why in the world would I want to enforce it against those who lawfully own guns?

That being said, ideally, there would be an automated system, via the internet probably, where you would enter the information of a buyer, and then get back a "Go" or "No Go", and it wouldn't be limited to just gun buying, but it could be a general background check system that people could use for renting their homes to someone, dating their daughter, etc... where the person in question voluntarily gives up their information. The seller could print out the results, and store them.

See Problem #1, above.

Now, Spats, I will ask, why are you opposed to the use of 4473s?

I'm not hugely fond of them, but I don't actively oppose their use in the case of FFL transactions. I do oppose extending background checks to private intrastate sales, for the following reasons, in no particular order:
1) See Problem #1, above.
2) If you can't force bad guys to use them, why should the good guys?
3) It's utterly unenforceable without registration, which I most strongly oppose.
4) I object to the notion that I should have to prove my eligibility to exercise a fundamental, individual Constitutional right before its exercise.

 

[zincwarrior]

Why? You're not backgrounding the gun, you should be backgrounding the person.

 

[csmsss]

I don't know how others will answer, but the only way to legally enforce such a law is registration. Which I suspect will be the next "loophole" we need to close some time in the future.

I think it likely worse than that. I think that, more than likely, we will see registration accompanied by an obligation/duty given to law enforcement to routinely inspect residences of those who have registered their firearms to assure that the firearms that are registered to them are there, as well as that no unregistered firearms are there. Otherwise, there still is no way to audit and enforce that firearms are where they are "supposed" to be. And, add to this, some sort of requirement to notify law enforcement when you move.

 

[JimDandy]

Exactly what mechanism do you propose to assure that all sales go through FFL/4473/NICS?

The same mechanism they use now-

1. Trace to store
2. Look up 4473
3. Question buyer on 4473 form for next buyer if necessary
4. Trace to store
5. Look up 4473
6. Question Buyer
7. Rinse
8. Repeat

2) If you can't force bad guys to use them, why should the good guys?

Because if they can't pretend to be a good guy in an intrastate "stranger" sale that will lower the number of crime guns getting to the black market.

 

[csmsss]

The same mechanism they use now-

Trace to store
Look up 4473
Question buyer on 4473 form for next buyer if necessary
Trace to store
Look up 4473
Question Buyer
Rinse
Repeat

I don't know if you're naive or simply confused, but how are you going to assure that the general public does this? What you described above applies to FFL's - these are licensed by BATFE and under the conditions of that license must allow BATFE to inspect their records whenever BATFE gets the urge. But that is entirely insufficient to make sure transfers between citizens actually go through an FFL. In other words, aside from simple goodwill, what enforcement mechanism would there be to make sure that John Doe A transferring to John Doe B goes through an FFL?

 

[Kochman]

Definitely some good comments here.
I like that people are thinking about it. I can respect thought out answers, even if I disagree, way more than knee-jerk answers which I believe screw us in the long run.

@Barry Lee

Yes, I understand your point of view, but I wonder if you have read the Machin/Toomey Bill and see how convoluted it really is.

I read a good amount of it before I drowned in the legalese. I think, for the most part, it is pretty good, actually. Way better than what Schumer wanted, which was what the DoJ said would need a registry.
Also, keep in mind, Holder is going to say he needs a registry in pretty much any situation. Perdy much his knee-jerk, which helps us.
Creative minds can come up with other ideas for background checks to be way less invasive...

Also, as you yourself pointed out the bad guys will just ignore it. At the end of the day it just creates more bureaucracy and cost for the law abiding and does nothing to stop the criminal.

However, 120k people were stopped... now, if you knew that people had to get a background check to buy guns, wouldn't you yet further question someone who wanted to buy from you but refused to use this form?
I don't think beyond a few bucks and some time of their day it costs the law abiding citizens anything.

@Overhead & JimDandy, we're pretty much on the same page.

@Webleymkv
Yes, that's the problem... the gun grabbers won't rest... so I somewhat understand a "make no compromise" position, until we consider the costs. Again, I think it's a cut off one's nose despite one's face stance which will hasten the reoccurence of the next massacre, which the more frequent they are the more likely BAD change is coming our way.

@Spats,
The good guys will use them because we're the good guys. Theives etc will break the law, but if they are shown to have already been breaking the law to get the gun it goes over a lot better than, "he apparently purchased two pistols with high capacity magazines at a local gunshow, no questions asked"...
Regarding #4... again, remember, the Constitution is a flawed document. When it was written, believe me, they didn't let the village idiot go around toting a gun, nor the clearly insane, nor the slaves (or indentured servants perhaps also?)... it was never a total and free right, it was always regulated.

@Zincwarrior, exactly! That's why I said, the same kind of checks one would use to clear someone to rent a house out... not "gun specific".

 

[csmsss]

However, 120k people were stopped... now, if you knew that people had to get a background check to buy guns, wouldn't you yet further question someone who wanted to buy from you but refused to use this form?

FFL's are not criminal investigators. Nor are they authorized to enforce federal law. Not to mention, frequently the NICS records are wrong or incomplete, and a single transaction may need to be run multiple times in order to proceed. Bottom line is that it's unreasonable and unfair to demand that FFL's perform a law enforcement task they are not qualified to execute nor compensated for.