Background checks - controversy

[Tom Servo]

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

If it won't happen, why waste time, money, and effort on it? I don't see such a system stopping those who are disinclined to obey the law in the first place.

Forms prevented 120k cases in 2 years... so, yes, they do.

No, they didn't. Forms may have resulted in denials, but those denials are often due to incomplete or inaccurate information. As others have pointed out, actual prosecutions are in the low double-digits. If we average those two numbers out, it's a lot less than 120,000.

I read a good amount of it before I drowned in the legalese. I think, for the most part, it is pretty good, actually.

The problem is, it's the legalese that bites us. The Toomey/Machin amendment doesn't outlaw the creation of a nationwide registry, it just doesn't allow he Attorney General to be the one creating it. It also guts the "peaceable journey" provision of the FOPA.

Until we do, why not have a system in place to stop them from getting the guns while we work on how to get around to prosecuting them better?

Because the "interim" system will never go away, even after a replacement is implemented. That's simply the way bureaucracy works.

If you were stopped falsely, you'll get your ability back.

Talk to someone who's gone through the appeals process. It isn't easy, it isn't instant, it isn't free, and it doesn't always work.

If you're denied on a sale, the burden falls to you to prove your innocence. If it turns out the FBI has the wrong information, they're not going to do the footwork to correct it. If it's a case of local law enforcement records being incorrect, you'll have to find the appropriate party and make arrangements to fix it, which often involves the services of an attorney. That assumes that you can find the entity, and that they can find the information.

In one case, I know a person who blew over $6000 in attorney's fees getting an uncooperative sheriff's department to dig out records from 1981, which had been stored off site and subsequently lost. All this was over a traffic fine that was mistakenly reported as unpaid. It took him almost two years.

Expanding this to all gun sales? No thanks.

 

[Spats McGee]

Do I think UBCs stand a snowball's chance of getting that done? Absolutely not.

Do you think they'll catch more than are being caught now?

Given that background checks, as they stand, only led to something like 75 cases being forwarded for prosecution in 2011 (is that the right year?), . . . not really. I will certainly not rule out the possibility that it might lead to some few (i.e. single digit numbers) extra being forwarded for prosecution, but certainly not enough to warrant imposing background checks on every private sale. I just don't think that many felons are buying from strangers. If you're a felon, that's a fairly high-risk move.

 

[ATW525]

Given that background checks, as they stand, only led to something like 75 cases being forwarded for prosecution in 2011 (is that the right year?), . . . not really. I will certainly not rule out the possibility that it might lead to some few (i.e. single digit numbers) extra being forwarded for prosecution, but certainly not enough to warrant imposing background checks on every private sale. I just don't think that many felons are buying from strangers. If you're a felon, that's a fairly high-risk move.

What is the standard for forwarding a denial for prosecution? Would Lanza's denial have been forwarded for prosecution if he hadn't had access to alternative source of firearms? Have there been other people like Lanza who were denied but didn't have their cases forwarded for prosecution or have easy access to alternative source of firearms?

 

[Salmoneye]

Sorry, but...

I must be missing the reply where I am to be assured that 4473's do not already amount to a de facto 'registry' in certain circumstances...

I don't deny that certain systems of UBC could lead to registry, confiscation. 4473s, no.

Can you tell me with any certainty that when an FFL goes out of business and surrenders their paper 4473's to BATF, that BATF does not digitize these records?

Can you confirm that they go through and yearly destroy the bound book that is 20 years old?

Further, how would this apply to 'private sales' utilizing a '4473'?

 

[JimDandy]

Given that background checks, as they stand, only led to something like 75 cases being forwarded for prosecution in 2011 (is that the right year?), . . . not really. I will certainly not rule out the possibility that it might lead to some few (i.e. single digit numbers) extra being forwarded for prosecution, but certainly not enough to warrant imposing background checks on every private sale. I just don't think that many felons are buying from strangers. If you're a felon, that's a fairly high-risk move.

Being prosecuted is not quite the same as stopping them from purchasing.

I think you're right, and you're wrong. About 40% are friends and family, about 40% are street buys/illegal sources- most likely some level of stranger. So we won't stop the 40% of street buys, but we'll put a real dent in the 40% of friends and family.

 

[Spats McGee]

What is the standard for forwarding a denial for prosecution?

As a general rule, the chief prosecutor in any particular jurisdiction has very wide latitude in deciding what to prosecute. However, as with any job, every AUSA has a boss: a US Atty. And it goes up the chain to the top of the Executive Branch . . .

Would Lanza's denial have been forwarded for prosecution if he hadn't had access to alternative source of firearms? Have there been other people like Lanza who were denied but didn't have their cases forwarded for prosecution or have easy access to alternative source of firearms?

I don't know, and don't have any way of finding out.

 

[Spats McGee]

JimDandy, I agree that prosecution is entirely different from being stopped from the sale. If the feds won't prosecute a crime, though, the penalties sure would seem to lose a lot of the intended deterrent effect.

I don't think it will make any difference to folks on the Felonious Friends and Family Plan. Any effect that it might have will be in the "stranger sale" arena, but I just don't think a lot of felons are buying through the classifieds. I think it will just redirect felons currently using the classifieds to go to friends and family.

 

[JimDandy]

You don't think John Doe will avoid buying from his sister Jane knowing there wouldn't be a 4473 and NICS check to protect her? (Though I would point out this transaction and most friend and family transactions are exempt).

And if the family is Felonius together, how did Jane get the get in the first place? From another felonius family member? It had to start with either a theft, FFL purchase, or corrupt FFL/Straw Purchase.

 

[Rusty35]

How can they enforce background checks in private sales with out registration?

I am not a criminal , why should I be punished/fined every time I purchase a gun?

 

[rebs]

The biggest problem I see is that the government cannot be trusted to play fair with law abiding gun owners. They have taken steps to prevent veterans from owning guns. How many veterans have already been put on a list, Diane Feinstein has said veterans should not be allowed to have guns. What kind of lump them all in one class is that non sense ? She did not say veterans with severe post traumatic stress, she said all veterans. Do you trust a congress woman of that mentality ? Then you have the government ignoring the HIPPA law and looking into peoples personal health records, that is illegal. The you have Gov. Cuomo passing a law that requires a doctor, nurse practitioner or registered nurse to provide the name and address of any person they feel might be a danger to themselves or the general public. What happened to doctor patient confidentiality ? Also how is a nurse practitioner or a register nurse qualified to judge a persons mental health ?
We all know they are after registration and eventual confiscation of all guns from law abiding citizens.
Look at the FBI statistics about crime rates, they are the highest in cities and states that have the strictest gun laws already. Look at Chicago, New York City, Washington DC, and California etc and it goes on and on. The highest crime is in places where the law abiding citizen is unarmed. Only law abiding citizens obey gun laws, the criminals will always have guns.
The government is breaking more laws to take your guns because their end purpose is to disarm the law abiding citizen, showing that the government cannot be trusted. The police cars have painted on them "to protect and to serve ", now the government is saying it is not the police's job to protect you, whats with that ? We want to disarm you and its not up to the police to protect you, so we are leaving you to the mercy of the armed criminals.
All I understand is that a federal back ground check system will no doubt lead to a federal registration and at some point they will be knocking at your door demanding your guns. Look what happened in New Orleans, people were treated like common criminals, pushed around, shoved around, threatened and abused. There was rioting and looting and instead of dealing with that the police were coming around disarming the law abiding making them easy pickings for the criminals. Why weren't they dealing with the criminals that were breaking the law ? IMHO it was because they had to do something and disarming law abiding citizens was easier and safer for them than dealing with the criminals.
I apologize for rambling on, but it gripes me that it is always more laws for the law abiding and nothing being done about the law breakers.

 

[Kochman]

Does it matter? You're suggesting adding more limits to a fundamental, invididual right.

How does using a 4473 limit your right? This still hasn't been explained.

Kochman, who said anything about walking around? I said DUI, which refers to driving.

Do you not think cars are deadly implements? Have you ever compared road fatalities with gun shot fatalities? Have you ever looked at the numbers killed or maimed by drunk drivers?

Yet you feel that roadblocks are an invasion of privacy, and should be illegal... but you think NICS is reasonable and necessary.

First off, cars are a terrible analogy. But, to answer your question, you can't drive without a license... your car must be registered... you must have insurance, etc.
Cars furthermore have a series of uses other than shooting a deadly projectile over large differences... they take people to work, haul things, etc.
Now, if they were checking you in say, Wyoming, every time you walked around with a gun on your hip (or any open carry state), then you'd have a start to a decent argument... 4473 is your initial certification. After it is passed, you generally don't have to re-do it on a random basis.
But again, the cars argument is never a good one... ever.

4473 is nothing more than an initial licensing, each time you buy a gun... it doesn't stay on record even, like a car license. Once you've got the gun, it's yours.

I had put in a reply that said I agree with Kochman. Spats wanted to hear more from me so here it goes. I live in NJ. If you know what that means then you know that I have a problem whenever I purchase a hand gun. Right now I'm waiting for a purchase permit for about 6 weeks and I'm not happy. But I'm sure that it will come through since, like you, I am a law abiding citizen. For guns in NJ you must have a Firearms Purchaser Card. So that is what I live with, I don't like it but I can't change it, so I live with it. We all live with things we don't like. I really don't mind the background check but I do mind even with the card, and still must go through another check and that it takes so long. I guess my point is that I would not fight against background checks, in fact I think that it is a necessary evil. But I want it done efficiently. And I particularly do not want persons who fail it, to get a gun.

Yes, 6 weeks is a long time... people here are concerned about a 30 minute or less phone call!
Also, in many states, if you have a CCW permit, it goes much smoother, because that is, for all intents and purposes, a license.

While I understand that you must deal with the Firearms Purchaser Card, and I understand that you don't like it, I don't see that as a reason to extend NJ's procedures (or NY's, or CA's or IL's . . . ) to the rest of the country.

Who is talking about doing that? Other than people like Feinstein?
The 4473 is far from that!

 

[Spats McGee]

You don't think John Doe will avoid buying from his sister Jane knowing there wouldn't be a 4473 and NICS check to protect her? (Though I would point out this transaction and most friend and family transactions are exempt).

I'm not entirely clear what you're asking here, JD. Are you talking about under the current system, or a UBC sytem? For the purposes of answering, I will presume the latter. No, I really don't think most felonious John Does are way more interested in getting their hands on a weapon than protecting another human, even a family member.

And if the family is Felonius together, how did Jane get the get in the first place? From another felonius family member? It had to start with either a theft, FFL purchase, or corrupt FFL/Straw Purchase.

Well, in every case of Felon in Possession, either someone transfers a firearm to a felon, or someone in possession of a firearm becomes a felon. Either Jane committed a crime or someone else did.

How does using a 4473 limit your right? This still hasn't been explained.

Do you not understand that requiring a 4473 means requiring citizens to ask permission to exercise a right?

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Kochman

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.

The problem with the idea of "compromise" is that gun control advocates, by and large, have a very different idea of what "compromise" is than I do. What substantive expansions of our rights have we been offered in exchange for submitting to UBC's? Sales of handguns across state lines? Pardon me if I don't get all excited about a bread crumb like that. To my mind, a compromise means that we're offered something of equal or greater value to what we're being asked to submit to. If we were offered relaxing or easing some NFA regulations, elimination of the asenine "sporting purposes" tests or nationwide preemption then I might be more open to considering a "compromise" for UBC's but such is not the case. Gun control advocates' idea of "compromise" seems to be more along the lines of "sit down, shut up, and just be glad that we don't want more."

As far as hastening the next massacre, I see absolutely zero evidence that refusing to pass UBC's would do that. Looking at the notable mass shootings in recent years, none of the shooters got their weapons through private-party transactions or some sort of "gun show loophole." The Columbine shooters got theirs through a straw purchase, the Virginia Tech, Tuscon, and Aurora shooters all passed a background check to buy theirs (largely because their mental health issues and past crimes were unreported and/or ignored by the authorities), and the Sandy Hook shooter got his through murder and theft.

What I fear happening is that if we pass UBC's and the next mass shooting happens (and it eventually will if we don't address mental health, NICS reporting, and school security), the gun control advocates will bemoan that UBC's weren't enough and start pushing for the "next step" such as full-on Registration, AWB, or magazine capacity limits.

 

[Kochman]

Do you not understand that requiring a 4473 means requiring citizens to ask permission to exercise a right?

So what?
It's a right to have a deadly weapon, and they don't dis"allow" unless you're clearly in the wrong to begin with... It's completely legit to sensibly regulate it, it always was on one level or another.

@Webleymkv
Ok, so, tell me how you would compromise... perfect world.
What is your system and how is it better than 4473s?

 

[Spats McGee]

Do you not understand that requiring a 4473 means requiring citizens to ask permission to exercise a right?

So what?
It's a right to have a deadly weapon, and they don't dis"allow" unless you're clearly in the wrong to begin with... It's completely legit to sensibly regulate it, it always was on one level or another.

(emphasis supplied)

You're telling me that there are no false positives? That the 2A is never denied "unless you're clearly in the wrong to being with?" If your 2A right is so unimportant to you that your response is "so what if I have to ask permission," then feel free to make every one of your firearms transfers through an FFL. There's nothing stopping you now.

I am well aware that the 2A has been subject to some regulation for a long, long time. That doesn't mean that I should consent to having even more restrictions placed on it. We've already gone way past what "sensible regulation" is, IMHO. I see no reason to give up any more of our 2A rights than we already have.

What you're proposing is not a compromise. It's appeasement, and has a long history of failure. If one has to ask permission to do something, then that something is a priviliege, not a right.

 

[Kochman]

We've gone over this. There are TEMPORARY false negatives, with a clear appeals path.

The 4473 is not a "restriction" to you, assuming you are law abiding.
I honestly think a good amount of people objecting to this are people that are potentially not supposed to have guns but want them...

My 2A right is incredibly important to me, so is the idea that idiots out there aren't selling guns to repeated violent offenders just because they can't get it through thei skulls and into their minds that the 4473 is not going to stop the law abiding but will stop the violent and insane...
That's why I am glad we have the 4473 and am for its expansion, because it will force irresponsible gun owners, who refuse to check on their potential buyer because it would cost them a minute or two of their day and $35, to do the right thing that responsible gun owners already do.

No one is asking you to give up your 2A rights by getting checked out or checking out a buyer. That's something that either was or wasn't already adjudicated.

 

[Spats McGee]

We've gone over this. There are TEMPORARY false negatives, with a clear appeals path.

So it's only a Temporary Restriction, and that's OK? Or is it NOT a restriction, as you state below?

The 4473 is not a "restriction" to you, assuming you are law abiding.

For a woman who needs a pistol to defend herself from an abusive ex-husband, that delay can turn permanent pretty quickly. Should UBCs go through, I would also expect the appeal process to get backed up, meaning that "temporary" part gets longer and longer.

My 2A right is incredibly important to me, so is the idea that idiots out there aren't selling guns to repeated violent offenders just because they can't get it out of their minds that the 4473 is not going to stop the law abiding but will stop the violent and insane...

Clearly, you and I have different ideas about what "important" means. If you want to make every transaction through an FFL, you are free to do so. You're also apparently perfectly willing to impose that requirement on the rest of us. I'm not.

That's why I am glad we have the 4473 and am for its expansion, because it will force irresponsible gun owners, who refuse to check on their potential buyer because it would cost them a minute or two of their day and $35, to do the right thing that responsible gun owners already do.

My first problem is not the time or cost, though those do present issues for me. My real problem with the idea is that it is one more erosion to our 2A rights. It's one more erosion, for imaginary gains. When this step fails to reduce crime, or when the next tragedy strikes, the antis will scream that the last law didn't go far enough, and they'll want "just one more step." Then just one more . . .

No one is asking you to give up your 2A rights by getting checked out or checking out a buyer. That's something that either was or wasn't already adjudicated.

You're asking me to give a great deal of personal information to an unlicensed someone. You're asking me to spend more of my time and my money to get permission from the government to exercise a clearly enumerated, fundamental, individual right.

Besides, if the 2A right includes Keeping and Bearing, does it not also include acquiring? If not, . . . if acquiring is subject to so many restrictions, then the RKBA is not much of a right, as it is so easily defeated.

 

[JimDandy]

Look at the FBI statistics about crime rates, they are the highest in cities and states that have the strictest gun laws already. Look at Chicago, New York City, Washington DC, and California etc and it goes on and on. The highest crime is in places where the law abiding citizen is unarmed. Only law abiding citizens obey gun laws, the criminals will always have guns.

I think I've done pretty good debunking that. Gun laws have no effect either way. Take Table 20 of the FBI's UCR. Add in census data, and the State of FLA, which wasn't on the report, but reports the exact same info on their state site.n Now add the top three restrictive gun laws- Permit to Purchase(AKA FOID), AWB, and May-Issue laws. Of the 17 states + DC, they're all over the map. 3 of the top 15 and 5 of the bottom 15 are restrictive. Most are in the middle. No effect. Here it is.

The homicide rate has been trending down for 20 years. In 93, the Clinton administration passed several anti-crime measures. Only one of those measures has been in effect for the entire 20 year downturn. Background Checks. Not assault weapons bans, and not- unless I missed it elsewhere- the grants to hire more law enforcement.

No, I really don't think most felonious John Does are way more interested in getting their hands on a weapon than protecting another human, even a family member.

We're going to have to disagree with that one. I don't believe many criminals will want to drag their family down with them. Those are the people that support them when they get out, visit them while they're in.

Do you not understand that requiring a 4473 means requiring citizens to ask permission to exercise a right?

No, it's not permission, except in the strictest sense of the word. Again let me point to the Passport. One must have a passport to travel abroad. One must get one from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State MAY refuse one on sufficient grounds- i.e. you have "lost" your right to travel abroad. Applying for a passport is not permission, it's the process required to vet out those who have lost their right to travel abroad.

How can they enforce background checks in private sales with out registration?

The same way they do it now. Retro-actively. They find a crime gun, and back trace it until they can't find a record of transfer and start investigating why.

I am not a criminal , why should I be punished/fined every time I purchase a gun?

Paying for the administration of the government is not a fine. While there is a point that such things as this should be a generally funded expense like voting, enjoying the security provided by our military and police forces, etc. paying for our government is not a fine.

 

[Kochman]

@Spats
Dude, if you can't handle the occasional and rare temporary restriction for those who are false negatives... then you probably lead a very upset life. Again, when life and death, err on the side of caution. We do the same thing with airplane travel, and yes, it temporarily screws some people over, but protects others.

No, the 4473 doesn't prevent anyone from buying a gun that shouldn't be denied. It may slow down the process for some people temporarily. I know it doesn't slow me down in any of my purchases. The wife should file a restraining order, etc, and plan it out a little better. Get the gun beforehand.

Yes, I am totally willing to have you ensure that you aren't selling to a violent sociopath with a record. That you aren't is irresponsible. I believe in responsible gun ownership.

You've yet to demonstrate how the 4473 takes away your 2A rights, so, until you do, please stop repeating that nonsense.
The 4473 only lets us know if someone has already had their rights adjudicated away. It is not a deciding document, it is a record check. Nothing more.

No, the 2A never says acquiring a firearm is going to be a completely convenient and data free process.

 

[Spats McGee]

We're going to have to disagree with that one. I don't believe many criminals will want to drag their family down with them. Those are the people that support them when they get out, visit them while they're in.

Fair enough, Jim. Maybe I've just spent too much time listening to defendants say "that was my cousin."

No, it's not permission, except in the strictest sense of the word. Again let me point to the Passport. One must have a passport to travel abroad. One must get one from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State MAY refuse one on sufficient grounds- i.e. you have "lost" your right to travel abroad. Applying for a passport is not permission, it's the process required to vet out those who have lost their right to travel abroad.

Yes and no. It's been some years since I left the country, but my recollection is that you don't need a passport to leave this country so much as you do to get into another country. IOW, it's not permission to leave, it's permission to come in. The US issues you a passport, and other countries agree to allow you in, based on the US gov't's issuance of that passport. So my gut reaction is that the right to travel abroad is based on international agreement, not the US Constitution. There is a right to travel inside this country that is based on US Constitutional law, but I must admit that I haven't done any research on how that's formulated.