The same we we make sure Mom-And-Pop Rifle company sells to Joe's Guns, who sells to John Doe. When/IF they find the firearm and have to trace it, they follow the record trail. When John Doe A can't produce the firearm, nor point to an FFL dealer with the 4473 record, he'll be like Lucy when Ricky gets home.. having a lot of 'splainin' to do.
Background checks - controversy
- Thread starter Kochman
- Start date
The same we we make sure Mom-And-Pop Rifle company sells to Joe's Guns, who sells to John Doe. When/IF they find the firearm and have to trace it, they follow the record trail. When John Doe A can't produce the firearm, nor point to an FFL dealer with the 4473 record, he'll be like Lucy when Ricky gets home.. having a lot of 'splainin' to do.
Well, I see what you are saying, that's why in the proposed version I had, it wasn't like that, because it wasn't only FFLs.
However, given our current system, FFLs should be compensated...
The only other alternative would be to have the state do it... as in, the government... since it would be a Federal mandate, the big guv could repay the local little guvs...
However, given our current system, FFLs should be compensated...
The only other alternative would be to have the state do it... as in, the government... since it would be a Federal mandate, the big guv could repay the local little guvs...
Spats McGee
Administrator
I'm not sure where the 120K comes from, but let's assume that is correct. Any idea how many were false positives? Any idea how many were actually prosecuted for attempting to buy a gun in violation of the law?Kochman said:
Perhaps more importantly, I have committed no crimes. I have not attempted to purchase a weapon unlawfully. Why should I have additional restrictions put on my Constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms? I have never had any sort of Due Process by which my 2A rights may lawfully be further restricted in any way. I have had no notice of an accusation against me, much less an opportunity to be heard.
I realize that's the argument, but I don't think it would actually work out that way, given what we know about how criminals acquire firearms.JimDandy said:
When universal background checks fail to reduce crime, politicians will scream that UBCs didn't work because we didn't register all of our firearms. When the cry goes up for full registration, will good guys register their firearms "because we're the good guys?" When that fails to reduce crime and politicians cry for everyone to turn in their arms for destruction "in the name of public safety," of course, will the good guys turn in their arms, "because "we're the good guys?"Kochman said:
I'm pretty comfortable with my understanding of the US Constitution.Kochman said:
I guess this one comes down to "Does the check infringe your right to keep and bear arms?" If you pass the check, it would be quite a stretch to say it does.
If you don't pass the check, either the check was good, and you don't have that right or the check gave a false positive, and it did infringe your right.
Of course, the search warrant with the wrong address on it infringes someone's 4A rights.
Spats McGee
Administrator
I don't know, JimDandy. I continue to have reservations about having to demonstrate eligibility to exercise a right. Unless I missed something, DOJ seems to think that we shouldn't be required to present ID to vote, . . . that's a different topic, though.
It's not just a pass/fail/false-positive problem, either. Even though I'd pass the check, I'd have to go through the process of having the check done, which will entail some costs (maybe a fee, maybe just gas, time), regardless of the outcome.
It's not just a pass/fail/false-positive problem, either. Even though I'd pass the check, I'd have to go through the process of having the check done, which will entail some costs (maybe a fee, maybe just gas, time), regardless of the outcome.
I think this: myself and most people I know understand there is only one way to prevent crimes with guns. They also understand there will be many steps taken and failures of said steps, to eventually end up with the actual solution.
The problem I see is there are more people than I thought existed who are willing to help design these steps. Just don't be in to big a hurry, after all, they will fail and the next steps follow quickly.
If you want to prevent crimes with guns, get rid of guns.
Forms do not prevent crimes, lists do not prevent crimes, so whats next?
The problem I see is there are more people than I thought existed who are willing to help design these steps. Just don't be in to big a hurry, after all, they will fail and the next steps follow quickly.
If you want to prevent crimes with guns, get rid of guns.
Forms do not prevent crimes, lists do not prevent crimes, so whats next?
Spats McGee
Administrator
Reconcile it with what?Kochman said:
Does that statistic remove straw man purchases as well as transfers of stolen guns or guns transferred from one criminal to another? Because no UBC will prevent any of those types of sales. I'm talking about honest to goodness, good conscience, I have no reason to believe this other person is a prohibited person transactions. And if there are no metrics on that, then this entire conversation is moot and all of this is nothing but a big time-waster.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Let's not put words in my mouth just yet, shall we? At no point have I ever said that the 2A was, or ever has been, completely unregulated. I am aware of its history.Kochman said:
However, I have no desire to place additional restrictions on law-abiding gun owners, particularly in light of:
(1) my belief that only those who are already inclined to abide by the law will adhere to such restrictions;
(2) my belief that such additional restrictions will have no desirable effect on crime rates.
There's really not much to reconcile here. Just because the RKBA has been regulated in the past is no reason for me to voluntarily submit to more regulation. Here's one of my favorite bits on this: Ok. I'll play. (Read the part about the cake.)
Spats McGee
Administrator
Do you have a source for this 120K number?Kochman said:
Ok, Kochman, since you are using the prevention of 120,000 sales number to support your argument, why don't you now tell us how many of those were a) prosecuted, or b) convicted for attempting an unlawful purchase? (I think you will find the numbers amazingly low, as in possibly only in double digits.)
Then, why don't you tell us how many of those were disruptions due to clerical error, or similar names or birthdates? One would not expect those to be prosecuted, but how many of them were actually valid, as opposed to delay or disruption of the buyer's rights?
The feds don't generally prosecute over 4473 issues. There is a high rate of false positives in the system.
So please, if you are going to claim it is an effective tool for fighting crime, instead of a major pain for victims of administrative screw-ups, please show how many criminals were prosecuted convicted, and how many dangerous mental cases were committed, as a result of the system.
Then, why don't you tell us how many of those were disruptions due to clerical error, or similar names or birthdates? One would not expect those to be prosecuted, but how many of them were actually valid, as opposed to delay or disruption of the buyer's rights?
The feds don't generally prosecute over 4473 issues. There is a high rate of false positives in the system.
So please, if you are going to claim it is an effective tool for fighting crime, instead of a major pain for victims of administrative screw-ups, please show how many criminals were prosecuted convicted, and how many dangerous mental cases were committed, as a result of the system.