Background Checks, Hi Cap Mags...

[cryogenic419]

Part of my thoughts on the matter were that the system IS broken and it does need fixed/modernized although perhaps I didn't make that clear enough.
I guess I see the background check as a sort of deterrent to some criminals, knowing they have to pass one they don't even bother. I'm sure they are facts and figures somewere disproving this.

Unfortunately I don't see the NICS system going away...the least they could do is fix it so it denies who it is supposed to and not be a hassle for those who are legit.

 

[Tom Servo]

I guess I see the background check as a sort of deterrent to some criminals, knowing they have to pass one they don't even bother.

There's no proof of that. A healthy black market exists as an alternative, as does straw purchasing as an avenue.

I'm sure they are facts and figures somewere disproving this.

Oh, you've stepped in it now, Pilgrim If such facts and/or figures exist, the job is yours to provide them.

 

[Pahoo]

When you compromise your freedoms, you lose !!

I am a huge proponent of the 2nd amendment, and also of personal responsibility. I just wonder what the argument is against legislation requiring background checks for gun owners and limits on hi cap magazines.

If you are a "huge" proponent of the 2nd. amendment, you obvious missed the spirit of what it means and it's no wonder, you are still confused or questioning. When you compromise your freedoms, you lose !! ....

The 2A gives you rights and the means to protect/preserve your freedoms.
Another important point, is that our Constitution is sovereign; not politicians or even any branch of government.
Not even Exit_Wound or Pahoo...

Be Free and;
Be Safe !!!

 

[GunGod84]

There is in fact something you are missing here.

The government, at any level is completely terrible at doing anything effectively. While background checks may make it more difficult to get guns, it won't stop gun crime. The people who are committing crimes already will continue to do so. they will still get their guns just like they still get their drugs. All it will do is drive it underground creating a black market that now has to be policed. Of course this would cost billions in taxpayer dollars.

The only thing a law like this would do is stop honest gun owners from buying guns. These honest people would not want to deal with the red tape and just stop buying.

I don't know about you, but I want more honest and responsible Americans carrying guns. Criminals are much less likely to commit a crime against you if you have a gun.

...And now for the magazines.

What if you were defending yourself against that man? Wouldn't you want the high capacity magazines? But you wouldn't, because you are a law abiding citizen who follows the rules. Meanwhile, the guy trying to kill you doesn't give a **** about the law, he breaks them all the time. Obtaining high capacity magazines was easy for him through his black market dealer. It was actually esier than going to a legit gun dealer to buy "legal" magazines ...And now guess what? Your dead!

As much as you would like to think in your little fairy tale land, the government does not make you safer. If anything, they are your biggest threat.

Wake up people!

 

[Exit_Wound]

First off, thank you to all of y'all who engage in this debate in good faith, even if you do throw a few ad-hominem jabs in your replies! (I did in my original post, but I think most of us know it's in good fun! )

I do want to say that I regret using Sandy Hook as an example; I didn't mean to either minimize the tragedy of hose events or trivialize them to illustrate a point. My choice there is regrettable.

A couple of my thoughts on some recurring themes:
- owing taxes/defaulting on federal loans was not my idea! In tx, where I can walk in to a store with good intentions, cash, and a license, those are part of the requirements for walking out with a firearm. I'm not saying I agree, but I think an intelligent augment can be made for/against it...
-something that stands out is something to the effect of: "background checks have not proven effective, there is no proof that they would be effective, criminals will still commit crimes, etc..."
By extension, outlawing murder hasn't decreased murders (arguably), but should we then give up on trying, legislatively?

-another point is "gun free zones only make it so that good citizens can't carry"
I totally agree. Why not make it legal to carry where you see fit, so long as you pass some scrutiny? (I.e. Not mentally ill, a felon, etc)

-magazine limits
I agree that I should be able to have a 32 round mag for my handgun. I would love to have a solid argument for it, though! (I pay my taxes and don't hit my wife is a good start!)

-I do not support a registry, but I do think that background checks for private sales can be accomplished without one. As a seller, I'd love the peace of mind if saying, "I ran the check-or- he showed me a clean XYZ, so my conscience is clear.
Sure, people will still find a way to cheat, con, forge, and circumvent the system, but it definitely would help knowing that I did my small part.

I don't think anyone would argue that we have a totally unrestricted right to hear arms (nukes should probably not be next to the glocks), so what I'm really asking is about acceptable limits. Currently, the law says something to the effect of acceptable arms being "in common use", or something like that. Again, just because people run stop signs all the time, should we remove them altogether?

I think this reply is long winded enough, but thanks again for all your thoughts!!!

 

[Tom Servo]

By extension, outlawing murder hasn't decreased murders (arguably), but should we then give up on trying, legislatively?

That doesn't line up, though. Murder laws are designed to punish those who commit murder. Background check laws punish those who do no harm.

I agree that I should be able to have a 32 round mag for my handgun. I would love to have a solid argument for it, though!

You don't need an argument as to why you should keep your property. Those who would take it away need an argument to prove they're entitled to do so.

As a seller, I'd love the peace of mind if saying, "I ran the check-or- he showed me a clean XYZ, so my conscience is clear.

There's already such a system in place. If you choose to do so of your own volition, you can do the transfer through an FFL, and they'll run the background check. I'm not in favor of having that forced on everyone, however.

Again, just because people run stop signs all the time, should we remove them altogether?

No, but that's a fallacious argument. Stop signs serve as a safety measure, and they serve an obvious and beneficial purpose. We haven't seen that of gun-control laws.

 

[Fishing_Cabin]

Again, just because people run stop signs all the time, should we remove them altogether?

This quote reminds me of a story I read in the Blue Review by Brain Eckelson. It was about a fresh new young MP who wrote the Base Commander a citation for a stop sign violation, only to find out the next day the Base Commander corrected his fault by replacing the stop sign with a yield sign. So, just because you can, should you do it? That's an important question indeed.

Exit_Wound, you are welcome to debate anything firearm related here with a couple of exceptions (should be legal, and not about SHTF, Sasquatch, etc). I will touch on a few things though.

A couple of my thoughts on some recurring themes:
- owing taxes/defaulting on federal loans was not my idea! In tx, where I can walk in to a store with good intentions, cash, and a license, those are part of the requirements for walking out with a firearm. I'm not saying I agree, but I think an intelligent augment can be made for/against it...

I guess it depends on things...To me, make it simple. When my tags are due I want to pay all my taxes at once when I get my tags(all at once again). Not one vehicle this month, another in 2 more months, and 3 more months for the next. Why cant DMV and the tax office get it together? Beats the heck out of me. I would gladly pay double for the convenience.

magazine limits
I agree that I should be able to have a 32 round mag for my handgun. I would love to have a solid argument for it, though! (I pay my taxes and don't hit my wife is a good start!)

As Tom already mentioned, you don't need a reason, those who seek to take it away should have a reason though.

-I do not support a registry, but I do think that background checks for private sales can be accomplished without one. As a seller, I'd love the peace of mind if saying, "I ran the check-or- he showed me a clean XYZ, so my conscience is clear. Sure, people will still find a way to cheat, con, forge, and circumvent the system, but it definitely would help knowing that I did my small part.

I don't support a registry either. Want a background check or some way to ease your mind? Use a FFL, or request the buyer have a CCW, or sign a statement that they aren't prohibited and get a copy of their drivers license. If you want to sell something, and the law doesn't require "XYZ" its about your conscious. The buyer can only say "Yes" or "No"

I don't think anyone would argue that we have a totally unrestricted right to hear arms (nukes should probably not be next to the glocks), so what I'm really asking is about acceptable limits. Currently, the law says something to the effect of acceptable arms being "in common use", or something like that.

One could argue that Nukes are in common use. USA, UK, Russia, France. Israel, N. Korea, etc. Why should they not be next to Glocks per se? Yes there should be limits, but to me personally, it should be the limit to where one can be reasonably responsible for owning such. Want to own a nuke? Be able to fund the secure storage and maintenance of it. Own a firearm, store it properly as well. Or should one not own a T-41 Mescalero because its Military issue, but a Cessna 172 is fine, where is the line drawn between government and the public?

 

[rwilson452]

A reason I'm against background checks for Mags and ammo. Around here some dealers charge $20 for a check. Say your mag costs $20 now ad another 20 now your mag costs $40. Same with ammo and in some cases it would triple or better the cost. Which is the whole point of this background check nonsense drive up the cost. If you already own the gun your likely to have passed a check why go through it again. Silly really. I could give you a good reason to own a standard capacity mag. When your practicing to shoot very accurately to position your body as well and your sights and such. if you need to replace the mag often you lose time and concentration every time you do it. Yes I own an AR -15 style carbine. When I go to the range to try some new loads in my varmint rifles I take it along to shoot while the barrel cools. When your shooting sub MOA groups there is a difference in where the bullet will go between a hot barrel and a cold barrel. Oh, yes I reload. and for my pistols a mold my own bullets. How are you going to track that?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't think anyone would argue that we have a totally unrestricted right to hear arms (nukes should probably not be next to the glocks), so what I'm really asking is about acceptable limits.

That is exactly what I believe the Second Amendment says. The language is very clear: "The right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." I understand that the Supreme Court recently ruled that the RKBA is subject to "reasonable" regulation (i.e. restriction, i.e. infringement), but they can be wrong. Even the Pope only claims infallibility when speaking ex cathedra.

Currently, the law says something to the effect of acceptable arms being "in common use", or something like that.

The law does not say that. The Supreme Court has ruled that this is what the Second Amendment protects. I don't believe that is actually written in anything that would qualifiy as a law.

 

[Chaz88]

A reason I'm against background checks for Mags and ammo.

I do not think the OP was suggesting checks for mags and ammo.

I believe the OP was addressing the issue of universal background checks to buy guns and the separate issue of magazine capacity limitations.

 

[TimSr]

It seems to me that if you're a responsible, law abiding, non-criminal, you would be in favor of universal background checks.

Background checks have no effect on crime, and do not prevent criminals from obtaining guns. They were created to generate revenue and make weapons less affordable.

It just seems logical to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of felons, the mentally ill..

I believe every lawful gun owner would agree with you, if only somebody could ever come up with a way to accomplish this, but no such solution has ever existed.

..and, frankly, people who owe taxes or are in default of federal loans.

This open scares me. You want to take away a constitutional right as a punishment for being in debt? Especially in TODAY'S economy, and in light of numerous IRS abuses targeting conservatives and gun owners? You would essentially be giving the IRS the authority to determine who can own a firearm. I owe city taxes where I live. I am challenging the legality of a retroactive tax increase which I believe is unconstitutional. I don't think I should be barred from owning a gun because challenge what I believe to be unlawful conduct by local government.

 

[lcpiper]

So much has been covered so well, but I am going to throw my 2 cents in as well.

I see one other aspect to the proposed legislation that I would like to expound on. I find the federal government trying to legislate personal transfers of firearms an infringement on trade that they are not empowered to make. The only reason the Federal Government was able to impose background checks at all was because they claimed that because the guns are manufactured and sold across state lines that those sales are subject to Federal Regulation of Interstate Trade. They made a long stretch because although they may be clearly responsible for regulating a distributor's or dealer's acquisition of firearms, that dealer who sells to an individual where the dealer and individual are both of the same state is not Interstate Trade. But they snuck that one by. But the regulation of individual personal sales of property is beyond the scope and shouldn't even be up for debate. The States are perfectly capable of passing this legislation on their own without the assistance of the Federal Government and we have several examples of States that have done exactly this.

And in support of the above, consider that there are several ways to get something done, some smarter then others. Several States have a much better chance to come up with good legislation then the Federal Government alone. The States need to work this out all on their own and the Feds need to back off.

 

[LancelotLink]

Magazines

There's a lot of talk about supposedly high capacity magazines and a lot of it implies that "high capacity" is a new evil. Therefore, a bit of history is in order.

Take a look at the Henry Rifle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_rifle.

This was first made in 1860, and it had a capacity of 16 rounds. Since then, other guns have been designed with higher or lower capacity.

So where did the magic number of 10 rounds occur? The first time I know of where 10 rounds was raised was sometime in the late 1980s by William Ruger. At the time, he was defending semi automatic firearms, and tried to divert the gun control debate to magazine size. According to folklore, he said that no honest person needs a magazine greater than 10 rounds.

Thing is, 10 rounds was just an arbitrary number. Or was it? If you look a little deeper, Ruger maximum mag size back then was 10. A lot of competitors were using greater capacity. See the Henry Rifle model 1860 for example. A ban or semi automatics would hurt Ruger, but a ban on magazines made by his competitors would help Ruger.

The antis seized upon this statement, and came up with the 10 round limit. There has been no study that I'm aware of, and a lot of the alleged evidence in support of the 10 round limit is, to be blunt, made up bull crap.

OP - you referenced a claim that the newtown shooter's casulaties would have been reduced by 5 lives if lower capacity magazines were used. Could you point to a direct source? Speculation from anti 2A groups doesn't count. And were you aware that the killer didn't use all the rounds in his magazines? To the best of my knowledge, he swapped mags every 8 to 10 rounds, meaning lower capacity mags would not have made one bit of difference.

But separate from that argument is the underlying motive that's not apparent to most outside the 2A debate. 10 Rounds is being sold as some magic number when in reality its just an arbitrary number. Why is 11 bad? What's to stop the state from picking another arbitrary number. NJ had 15. Now its 10. California uses 10. New York City uses 5. New York State used to be 10 but was dropped to 7 in the SAFE act.

The key point is not the arbitrary number in itself, but rather that the state now has the authority to set arbitrary numbers. 15 is as arbitrary as 10 as 7 as 5 and as 1, which was proposed in CT. You read that right. One round.

So not only is 10 round mag limits ineffective, but its an insidious tool for those who are opposed to private gun ownership to indirectly ban guns by reducing magazine capacity to lower and lower arbitrary numbers.

To drive the point home, owning a replica of that civil war era 1860 Henry Rifle would be a felony in New York State.

 

[LancelotLink]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Actually, with the exception of the domestic violence language, all those disqualifications go back to the 1968 GCA. Not much has been added over the years.

True. The original background checks mimicked the banned list from the 1968 GCA. However, the definition of what constitutes a felony under the GCA changed. I forget exactly how it was worded, but they started using the maximum possible sentence under a conviction instead of the actual conviction. It was a neat way of retroactively changing the rules to prohibit more people from owning guns.

 

[lcpiper]

I don't think anyone would argue that we have a totally unrestricted right to hear arms (nukes should probably not be next to the glocks), ..

I have heard something like this expressed recently and I thought I made it clear to that person when I explained that there are legal definitions of what a firearm is. In fact, the definitions themselves tend to be a problems as it seems the latest fad in the industry is to see how best to circumvent them.

But I digress, a Nuclear Weapon isn't a firearms, nor is a Tank, a Fighter plane, a Bomber, or a Cannon. These are examples of Arms, as in Arms of War. They are all currently restricted under existing Law. The limits you support already exist and are readily enforced, moot point, done deal, no reason to linger.

Again, just because people run stop signs all the time, should we remove them altogether?

No, and as you say, we have "laws on Stop signs" Laws on where they are required, how they will be displayed, how drivers should react to them, etc.

The same is true of murder, robbery, and all of the other crimes. Everything all of these proposed laws are supposed to "prevent" we already have laws for. New laws regarding inanimate objects do nothing but add another charge.

Eliminate every single firearms related law from the books and Sandy Hook would have been no better, no worse. It was terrible, but not one firearms law had any impact whatsoever in the outcome, nor could they have.

 

[danez71]

Most of the replies have been 'back ground check' related.

The OP also has stated that he'd like a 32 round mag but would also like to have solid argument for having a 32 round mag.


LanceLotLink posted

Magazines

There's a lot of talk about supposedly high capacity magazines and a lot of it implies that "high capacity" is a new evil. Therefore, a bit of history is in order.

Take a look at the Henry Rifle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_rifle.

This was first made in 1860, and it had a capacity of 16 rounds. Since then, other guns have been designed with higher or lower capacity.

That's over 150 yrs ago!!!!

The Browning P-35 pistol (aka the BHP) was developed/released in 1935 and holds 13 rounds. That's over 75 yrs ago!!




A question to the OP,

What changed to suddenly make these "hi cap weapons" become "too" dangerous?

16 is still 16 and 13 is still 13 and semi auto is still semi auto.

So what changed?

 

[Tom Servo]

What changed to suddenly make these "hi cap weapons" become "too" dangerous?

That's what I wonder. The AR-15 isn't new technology. It's been on the civilian market for 50 years now. It's only lately that it's been used in public shootings.

It's not the technology that's changed. It's something in the psyche, and that's what we need to be addressing if we're to discuss the cause of these incidents.

...of course that doesn't make for easy feel-good legislation and 5-second soundbites on the news.

 

[Al Norris]

I'm going to throw out an obvious (to me) correction.

I have heard something like this expressed recently and I thought I made it clear to that person when I explained that there are legal definitions of what a firearm is. In fact, the definitions themselves tend to be a problems as it seems the latest fad in the industry is to see how best to circumvent them.

But I digress, a Nuclear Weapon isn't a firearms, nor is a Tank, a Fighter plane, a Bomber, or a Cannon. These are examples of Arms, as in Arms of War. They are all currently restricted under existing Law. The limits you support already exist and are readily enforced, moot point, done deal, no reason to linger.

We aren't wrangling over the definition of "firearms." The 2A says, in part, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms . . ."

It is precisely what constitutes arms that we should be concentrating upon. Arms include things like firearms, yes, but also many other defensive and offensive weapons. The list you have above do include "arms." But the court would conceivably concentrate upon bearable arms, which knocks some of those out of the picture.

 

[SPEMack618]

It amazes me how many people over look the Winchester Model 1907 and Remington Model 8.

Those rifles were semiautomatic, firing an at the time intermediate caliber, and magazine fed, with aftermarket "hi-cap" magazines available.

Let's see 1907 to 2013 is 106 years of this technology being on the market.

Most of the artillery that was used by the Continental Army was purchased privately by Henry Knox, and the Continental Navy's action against the Royal navy pale in comparison to the actions of privateers against the English merchant and whaling fleets.

And those privateers were privately outfitted warships.

A privately owned warship sort of blows an AR-15 out of the water, no pun intended.

But again, as Tom Servo said, the nation's pysche changed, not the technology.

And establishing and correcting the cause of that national psyche change is way harded(and expensive) than feel good legislation.

 

[Spats McGee]

First of all, I'm pleased to see that a thread that started out as this one did has remained so civil. I haunt a few other boards, and I'm confident that this would have turned into a flame-war in short order on some of the others.

With that said, I'd like to respond to a few of the comments in the OP:

. . . .I just wonder what the argument is against legislation requiring background checks for gun owners and limits on hi cap magazines.

For starters, I can't decide how bothered to be about the fact that you've phrased it "background checks for gun owners," rather than phrasing it in such a way as to limit it to transfers. Are you suggesting that all gun owners should show up at their local FFL and submit to a background check in order to keep the guns they already own? On top of that, I have some reservations about instituting background checks prior to my exercise of a fundamental, individual, constitutional right. I do not believe that there can be any reasonable expectation that violent felons or the significantly mentally ill, so such a bill would only seem to burden those who fall outside those two categories.

. . . .It seems to me that if you're a responsible, law abiding, non-criminal, you would be in favor of universal background checks. It just seems logical to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of felons, the mentally ill, and, frankly, people who owe taxes or are in default of federal loans.

I am a responsible, law abiding non-criminal. I am an attorney. I am a prosecutor. I have my CHCL. I have had my record checked by the Arkansas bar, by the federal bar, and the Arkansas State Police. I'd wager that I've been fingerprinted and had my (empty) criminal records examined as many times as any non-criminal you'll meet in your lifetime. Yet I do not support universal background checks in any way, shape, manner or form. I do not see any reason why I should have to prove to the government that I should be allowed to exercise any of my constitutional rights, prior to being "given permission" to do so.

There's an old case out there called Haynes v. U.S.. The long and the short of it is that: Convicted felons cannot be prosecuted for failing to register a weapon which they were prohibited from possessing in the first place. I have no doubt but that the reasoning applied in Haynes would be used to defend felons who failed to comply with a UBC law. If you can't prosecute convicted felons for failing to abide by the UBC law, that only leaves folks who didn't have felonies on their record prior to a transfer.

Is there something I'm missing?

It would seem so, yes.

As far as high capacity magazines, I read on one of these forums that if you need more than x number of bullets in your gun, your problem isn't the lack of bullets in your magazine, it's lack of people fighting on your side.... seems logical to me, no?

It's possible that you read that in my signature line. We're talking about rights, not needs. I don't need to vote for Gilligan in the next presidential election. Do you believe that I should not have a right to do so?

Basing rights on statistical probabilities (i.e. only having a right to things I'm likely to need) is a monumentally bad idea. I'll also tell you that a great deal of the Bill of Rights is very much about protecting the individual from the majority.

If you limit the number of magazines that can be loaded into a gun, logic tells us that the law-abiding gun owner will, well, abide by the law. What, precisely, is to make us believe that either violent felons or the mentally ill will abide by it? I feel pretty confident in saying that a two-time felon who takes a gun to a carjacking probably doesn't care how many bullets he's "allowed" to possess. Why should the single mother inside be limited?

. . . .All I'm saying is that, while the specific terms of the background checks, or the actual number of bullets in the legislation can be debated (i.e. 10 vs 15 shot mags, or if owing taxes should or shouldn't not be a factor), the practicality of such legislation seems logical. . . .

The devil is in the details. I do not see any way that universal background checks or magazine limitations are either practical or logical. One major fly in the ointment is that criminals have a bad habit of breaking laws. That's what makes them criminals.