Background checks - controversy
- Thread starter Kochman
- Start date
How will you deal with forged licenses? This is the same problem one has using CCW's, certificates you print off the internet, and so on.
How about the guy who becomes a prohibited person, but doesn't lose their license? For possibly more than 4 years, they can have a "good" license but still be prohibited.
The best alternative I've seen is the certificate idea, IF you let me tack on to it. The buyer goes online to the FBI, gets a certificate with an authorization number. Go to the seller. Seller calls 1-800-GET-NICS or something similar- reads authorization number, and basic ID info(but not SSN or PII beyond name/address type stuff.) as on 4473 form, height, weight, ethnicity, & name (Also checked vs ID) This lets you verify the guy holding the certificate is the guy who is on the certificate, AND lets you make sure the certificate isn't photoshopped.
I think you'd be surprised- 2.5% of the voting public were disenfranchised in a 2010 study. And we all know getting voting rights back is a WHOLE lot easier than firearms rights. The reason I make that point, is that most states return the franchise the moment your sentence is over. Those states that didn't showed between 5 to 10 times as many felons were "released" than incarcerated, so the firearms rights- JUST for felonies would easily be closer to 5% Tack on misdemeanor DV, and it could go even higher.. According to NICS, felons are the THIRD most populous category- falling behind Illegal aliens, and the mentally deficient.
How is it any different from people in some states being able to use their carry permits in lieu of a NICS check now?
Personally I think that tying NICS into state issued IDs could vastly streamline the process, even if there aren't special "prohibited person" IDs. Imagine if a NICS check is run when renewing driver's licenses and the results of that check are stored. You hand an FFL your license, they swipe into their system and that system returns a copy of your license photo and whether to Proceed or Deny (or Call, if the person has been flagged by the inclusion of new records since the last time the check was run).
ATF Permit Chart
To be honest, I'm not 100% comfortable with this either. I live in WA. My CPL is (apparently) eligible to replace the NICS check. My CPL came in the mail as a piece of paper. and I had to laminate the thing myself to protect it from the elements. It's WAY too counterfeitable to be used this way.
To be honest, I'm not 100% comfortable with this either. I live in WA. My CPL is (apparently) eligible to replace the NICS check. My CPL came in the mail as a piece of paper. and I had to laminate the thing myself to protect it from the elements. It's WAY too counterfeitable to be used this way.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
One unintended consequence of any system of universal background checks -- and I haven't heard it mentioned anywhere -- is simply that straw purchases will move into the realm of face-to-face sales. How hard would it be to have your girlfriend go online and get that piece of paper? 
Evan Thomas
Inactive
The face-to-face nature of the transaction isn't the relevant variable. As things stand, a straw purchase can only take place in a transaction involving an FFL, as those are the only ones for which a background check is required. If background checks were required for all transactions, there would also be straw purchasers buying from private sellers. It's the background check, not the face-to-face aspect of the transaction, that invites straw purchases. (Remember, too, that interstate, private sales don't have to be face-to-face; it's fine to ship a gun to a buyer who lives in your own state. I don't recall anything in the proposed UBC legislation that would alter that -- but I may be wrong.)
The CMP is very special and unique. They don't run NICS checks from what I understand, through some assumption of you already passing one by joining approved firearms groups.
I haven't seen anything that directly changes that either- Though the mechanics of an FFL NICS/4473 process may require verifying ID via State/Fed-issued photo card/ID i.e. License, Passport, State ID.
Well, JimDandy, this may bring us back to the issue of preemption, and whether that is either truly a) attainable or b) desirable.
On the face of it, preventing homicides is an admirable goal.
The question is whether it is still admirable, if in order to attain any semblance of it we have to trample all over people's rights, or empower government to a degree which some find unacceptable.
The further question, if we decide we can accept trampling of rights and empowered government - which some of us can't, becomes how effective must preemption be in order for us to accept it?
So, if I were on the fence - and I am not, but we are speaking theoretically - I would still insist that in order for me to accept ANY infringement, I would want the government to have to prove how effective their program would actually be.
Instead, we get a lot of "Well, common sense says..."
We have not yet received the "In order to know what's in it, we have to pass it," argument, but I would not be surprised if that were trotted out.
Most of the debate, though, has revolved around the "feelings" of people, instead of the facts of what they want to do.
On the face of it, preventing homicides is an admirable goal.
The question is whether it is still admirable, if in order to attain any semblance of it we have to trample all over people's rights, or empower government to a degree which some find unacceptable.
The further question, if we decide we can accept trampling of rights and empowered government - which some of us can't, becomes how effective must preemption be in order for us to accept it?
So, if I were on the fence - and I am not, but we are speaking theoretically - I would still insist that in order for me to accept ANY infringement, I would want the government to have to prove how effective their program would actually be.
Instead, we get a lot of "Well, common sense says..."
We have not yet received the "In order to know what's in it, we have to pass it," argument, but I would not be surprised if that were trotted out.
Most of the debate, though, has revolved around the "feelings" of people, instead of the facts of what they want to do.
MLeake said:
This is a subsidiary question, but important.
Does anyone believe that a federal "no gun" list will prevent violent felons from obtaining common items, here firearms?
When drafting, it is easy to get caught up in the wording and lose sight of the fact that even the best wording has no effect whatsoever if the proposal is not substantially enforceable.
Admirable, and certainly in the government interest, but not the goal I would "state".
I'd stick with preventing the transfer of firearms to prohibited persons. Not all firearm use results in homicide, or even shots fired. Nor would gun control laws have much effect on the other methods of homicide. Plus we have to remain either narrowly tailored, or so broad in scope as to not be targeting firearms- like Pittman-Robertson.
When they're being stolen from police vehicles, and LEO's are begin mugged for their side-arms? No. But it's something of a post hoc propter hoc argument to say that criminals still getting firearms means background checks are incapable of preventing SOME of the flow of firearms to prohibited persons.
JD said:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc mean after this therefore because of this. I don't think anyone argues that UBC are the cause of prohibited persons getting firearms.
The idea I suggest is that legislating something very difficult to enforce doesn't have much of an upside, and that drafting and enforcement differ greatly.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
Kochman, can you point to where someone in this thread has said this? On the face of it, this is something of a straw man.Kochman said: