Background Checks, Hi Cap Mags...

Just to expand on something I mentioned earlier:


Every attempt to control guns has caused a backlash in gun sales that has been largely detrimental to those hoping for fewer guns and gun owners:

Bans tend to causing mass buying "before it is too late".

Politician media reaction to mass shootings tends to cause stock piling.

Feature bans tend to create improved classes of non-ban weapons (10 round mag limits led to better concealed weapons, military weapon feature bans led to more creative and better performing weapons.)

Bans of foreign made guns created new domestic manufacturing markets.

Bans increase the value of certain guns, leading to an increased perceived value and prestige of all similar guns, leading to more sales.


Gun control has probably sold more guns than not having gun control.
 
Exit_Wound
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?
Click to expand...

The idea of magazine capacities rubs me the wrong way for several reasons. Rather than type a lot, I'll point to my previous long-winded posts in a related thread:
1. On why I believe civilians, not police, are more-likely to need a high-capacity magazine, post 59:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=512975&page=3&highlight=ontario

2. On the empirical evidence of the advantage of being the "better to have it and not need it" club, post 14:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=512975&highlight=ontario

There's a lot of other good posts in that thread concerning the debate about magazine capacity. Welcome to TFL. This site will serve as a catalyst for education about all topics concerning firearms, their history, effective use, and the laws about them. All of it is worth knowing, even the parts that are worth knowing about in order to avoid their bad info.

Exit_Wound:
Five children escaped the sandy hook tragedy while the maniac changed magazines, if he had to do that more often, it seems logical that more lives would have been spared. Or at least given a non-insane, responsible gun owner time to react and defend...
Click to expand...

If you get a chance, read up on the Va Tech shooting report. The shooter's backpack held 17 empty magazines each with a capacity of holding 10-15 rounds. If you can believe the Hartford Courant, the shooter at Newtown didn't use the full capacity of his 30 round magazines.

My state, Colorado, has bravely decided to restrict the sales of magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds in response to the Aurora shooting and the Newtown shooting. Again, the empirical evidence of the two shootings that prompted the new legislation indicates that none of us in the state of Colorado are any safer b/c of this new restriction. IMHO, the logic of magazine capacity saving lives is fantasy logic. It's the logic of people clutching at straws to make sense of any part of a horrific event.

Dang, I got all long-winded again.... sorry about that
 
Sorry everybody, but I feel the need to make a somewhat snide comment. (Please don't take this as my making light of tragedies, because I abhor the pain and suffering caused by them.)

....so, snide comment time...
If anything, shooters using actual high-capacity magazines (e.g. magazines with greater capacity that the firearm manufacturer's design) tend to experience more malfunctions...so maybe them trying to use extended capacity mags is a good thing!

(Ref. Aurora and the Giffords shootings)
 
I think I have said here before that I am in favor of some expansion of background checks but I am TOTALLY against a ban of any kind of firearm or any magazine capacity limit. I come to this opinion because I see no reason why a reasonable and sane law abiding citizen should not be able to own whatever they want when it comes to firearms, from the lowly single shot 22lr to 100 round 50cal. I support the background checks because, just face it, there are some people who should never have access to guns of any kind, not even a single shot rifle. Hell, some should be banned from playing with objects sharper than a crayon!
Of course the devil is in the details and there should not be any sneaking in background checks for ammo or magazines. You also should be able to transfer to family members or friends without paperwork and I also think waiting periods are ridiculous. For the most part if we would just enforce the laws on the books we would probably be better off.
I'm also angry that I cannot bring my concealed carry handgun into gun shows but a convicted felon can buy a gun there, what's that all about?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You also should be able to transfer to family members or friends without paperwork and I also think waiting periods are ridiculous. For the most part if we would just enforce the laws on the books we would probably be better off.
I'm also angry that I cannot bring my concealed carry handgun into gun shows but a convicted felon can buy a gun there, what's that all about?
Click to expand...

So...on one hand you want private party transfers to be unchecked where you perceive it to be good for you, but on the other you complain about it and want them to be bg checked? Do you really want the government writing a law that defines "friends"? Even if it were implemented as you suggest it would still not stop people from doing straw purchases or just selling to their "friends".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think I have said here before that I am in favor of some expansion of background checks
Click to expand...
Even though they haven't been proven to deter crime and they only make life harder on the law-abiding? What's the point? Some folks might feel better? No thanks.

I'm also angry that I cannot bring my concealed carry handgun into gun shows but a convicted felon can buy a gun there, what's that all about?
Click to expand...
No he can't. It's against the law.

less than 2% of crime guns come from gun shows. It's not such a problem that it needs to be legislated away.
 
Sometimes these extra measures (laws) don't actually work as pleasantly as they sound when spoken, and sometimes they just plain "don't work" the way they should or were intended.

1. Denying based on Federal Loan or Tax defaut.

A few years ago I received a letter in the mail. It was a simple letter telling me a loan I co-signed on for my son for college was going into default. He had been out of school for some time. He and his wife had fell on hard times and he was in between jobs for a lenght of time and was having a rough go of it. To make a long story short, he was too ashamed to tell me about it and quite frankly forgot I co-signed. So should I be denied my right to buy or have a firearm? I've never been so much as arrested.

2. Denying based on simple infractions, or domestic violence.

Now I will admit I go back and forth with the domestic violence denials. However, I have a good friend who is as red blooded as they come. He is a veteran of the United States Marines (USMC), his son was seriously injured in the USMC when his Hummer rolled over, his youngest daughter is quickly advancing in the USMC because of her dedication and accomplishments. A number of years ago his wife and he got into a huge screaming fight. Two people going at it full on. Emotions quickly ran out of control and she called the police and said he was traumatizing her. The police came and said they seen a mark on her, she quickly said yes and off he went. His attorney told him to plead quilty and plea bargained it down to a small fine. He left happy. A couple years later when he went to buy a firearm because of a number of neighbor hood breakins, he was denied. He said he had no idea when he plead guilty a number of years ago, to something he never did, it would cost him so dearly. I was at the gun store the other day with him as I was buying a pistol; the look on his face as he stood there almost made me feel ashamed knowing what he and his family had and is giving to this country.

In both of these instances I don't think the law is "correct" And neither will stop a criminal from doing whatever he is so inclined to do.
 
Last edited:
By extension, outlawing murder hasn't decreased murders (arguably), but should we then give up on trying, legislatively?
Click to expand...

At some point we should stop trying. You can't just lock everyone in a cage, There will always be a certain amount of crime, even murder, that society will deem acceptable.

Are we at that point yet? Not in my opinion. But there are more effective methods than requiring background checks. Think about this- would you put a murderer or rapist back out on the street and depend on a background check for firearms to protect you and your family? Are you really going to chance having that guy living next to you as long as he ONLY had access to knives, machetes, baseball bats, cars, or illegal guns? Are you going to rest easy knowing he doesn't need a weapon to overpower the weaker people in your family, like your wife or small children?

Wouldn't it be better if he either stayed incarcerated, or was reformed?

-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!) :-)
Click to expand...

How do you know how many rounds you will need to defend yourself? And why limit yourself to 10, 7 or some other arbitrary number when more will fit within the design limits of your firearm?

-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.
Click to expand...

It would be almost impossible to enforce it without a registry. Let's say this law passes in 2014. In 2015 I sell a gun to my neighbor. I owned it for 15 years. How are you going to prove when it was transferred unless everything is on a list somewhere?

And half the time I do a private sale, it's a trade. I can just imagine both driving 20 miles to meet at a dealer, pay $40 each for the transfer. And if it's a handgun and the other guy doesn't It would be a complete pain in the butt, and does not prevent someone from getting a gun- we both already had guns.

You could restrict the transfer fee. In CA they limit it at $10 (last time I checked). But what happens when you artificially lower a price on a product? Suppliers are less willing to supply that product. And in California, some dealers will ignore transfers for hours while taking care of their own sales.

Or you could give private citizens access to the system. But then, how do you know whether the citizen used the system? They don't have licenses, inspections, 4473 forms, reporting requirements, or a bound book. Unless, of course, you license sellers and buyers, and register the firearms.

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.
Click to expand...

I missed the part about owing taxes. My dad had a dispute with the IRS that went unresolved for about 8 years. In 1988 dollars, it was $60,000 when they finally figured out he didn't owe it, and wiped it off the books. Are you proposing that while the federal government is attempting to extort money you don't owe, they should have the power to bar you from owning firearms while they're doing it? I disagree.
 
Last edited:
Exit Wound said:
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...
Click to expand...

You can? Because I think poverty should NEVER be used to strip away someone's right to defend themselves.

Exit Wound said:
-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?
Click to expand...

As Tom so aptly stated, background checks are designed to prevent, whereas laws work to establish punishments for behaviors detrimental to society. Your comparasin is leaky. Further, unless you have data from before murder laws have been on the books, your statement has no merit.

Exit Wound said:
-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)
Click to expand...

While this sounds good on its face, I can't agree with it. Property holders should always have the right to determine whether or not they want firearms on their property. My right to bear arms does not trump their right to manage their private property.

As far as passing some scrutiny, except in a few situations, we all did, it's called getting a permit/license to carry.

Exit Wound said:
-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!) :-)
Click to expand...

Because I never know when I'm going to need 33 rounds. Argument made. Now tell me why I shouldn't have it.

Exit Wound said:
-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.
Click to expand...

Again, as others have suggested, the avenue for individuals to secure a background checks for private sales exists- anyone can go to an FFL and do a transfer. 1 month after Colorado mandated UBC, they tracked the results:
561 transfers yeilded 10 denials. Again, that is the gross number of denials, which is not necessarily the number of improper persons who attempted to purchase a weapon. Less than 2%.

Exit Wound said:
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?
Click to expand...

This is the absolute SILLIEST ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER HEARD!!!!!

Broken laws do not means laws are ineffective.

The place I work has a road that lets out onto a 4 lane highway with a 45 mph speed limit. I was in a wreck because I got T-boned by someone who was going above the speed limit, and faster than I thought. They recently put in a stop light. THE HUGE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO COME TO THE LIGHT STOP. The light is working to make the intersection safer.

Now, if the light began showing both sides as green, would I say that stop lights failed. No, I would say the light needs to be fixed. Did you know that no state is compelled to provide mental health records to NICS?

Annemarie Timmons said:
Source: The Concord (NH) Monitor
But the federal government does not require states to make relevant records available to its National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). And many don’t.
Click to expand...

With all the trumpeting about the role of mental illness in acts of violence, we use a broken system for preventing the severely mentally ill from purchasing a firearm. While I am not 100% as to the legal reasoning, the best explanation I have found is that the 10th Amendment prohibits the Fed from forcing or compelling the state to turn over mental health records, because mental health is administered almost entirely by the states. As such, many states hesitate to provide the information due to privacy laws and the concerns of oversight and maintanance of those records.

The problem we have is that our system is mediocre at best. It does some things well, but others not so much. Browse through forums about people with no criminal records who got denied on their NICS check.

The traffic light needs to be fixed. Sending more people through the intersection will do nothing to prevent an accident.
 
JimmyR:
Again, as others have suggested, the avenue for individuals to secure a background checks for private sales exists- anyone can go to an FFL and do a transfer. 1 month after Colorado mandated UBC, they tracked the results:
561 transfers yeilded 10 denials.
Click to expand...

Actually, these numbers only become more meaningful in comparison to the number of rejections before the law was passed.
edit: Actually, actually, these numbers only become more meaningful if we know whether the checks are being done against citizen to citizen transfers that are now mandated by UBC. If these failures were failures on transfers from other states or new purchases from FFLs, then the UBC is a complete failure.

If 3% of attempts were failing before the law was passed, then the law has yielded exactly 0% increase in effectiveness in stopping unqualified people from buying a firearm.

No, I don't feel safer. I just feel put upon. I pointed out to all CO lawmakers using the crime statistics of the colorado state police to show that a UBC system isn't warranted here.

edit:
jimmyR
The traffic light needs to be fixed. Sending more people through the intersection will do nothing to prevent an accident.
Click to expand...
Best metaphor ever to describe our current check system.
 
Last edited:
One huge loophole in the whole expanded background check argument is what happens when someone fails a background check.

Adam Lanza failed a background check. Nothing was done, nor is anything done to 99+ percent of all those who fail.

And of course, Biden admits there's no desire to follow up on those who fail.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/18/b...rosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks/

Since background check supporters want to include more mental health issues as a disqualification, its good to look at mental health laws. A lot of people don't know that just months before Newton, there was a bill defeated that would have allowed mentally ill to be institutionalized before they harm others.

According to the ACLU, it would “infringe on patients’ privacy rights by expanding [the circle of] who can medicate individuals without their consent.”

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/201...efeated-months-before-deadly-school-shooting/

Remember, under the bill of rights for the mentally ill, they have a right to refuse treatment unless it is court ordered.

http://www.mhaging.org/help/bill-of-rights.html

Granted, that's for PA, but most states have something similar.
 
I'm not a Veteran and I have no personal experience with this.

I have been told by a person on the inside of the VA that Veterans are encouraged to apply for a post traumatic stress benefit or disability.

As in "Here,I can get this for you"

Just sign on the line right here.

And (I could be wrong,but,as I understand) at that point your 2nd Ammendment Right is gone.

IMO,the shooting sports and Veterans who enjoy shooting is ham and eggs and good all around.

If what I have been told is true,it is an example of how this sort of feel good law can,and is ,insidiously twisted to erode the Bill of Rights and defecate on our Veterans.
 
Again, just because people run stop signs all the time, should we remove them altogether?
Click to expand...

Funny you mention that - many towns in Europe did exactly that, removed ALL road signs, lane lines, EVERYTHING, and even put a kid's park in a traffic circle where there are ZERO markings/signs, etc.

Traffic issues dropped dramatically, so maybe instead of going in your direction, we should be going back to the way it was pre-68 and even pre-34.......

Just sayin'.........................
 
LancelotLink said:
Adam Lanza failed a background check. Nothing was done, nor is anything done to 99+ percent of all those who fail.
Click to expand...
Adam Lanza did not fail a background check. Adam Lanza was not 21 years of age, so he was not eligible for a carry permit in Connecticut. That meant he could not walk into a store and buy a firearm on the spot, he had to wait two weeks.

He didn't want to wait two weeks. The attempted buy was just a couple of days before the shooting. If he had put down a deposit on the gun (whatever it was he was trying to buy), the two week clock would have still been ticking when he went to the school and committed the massacre. There was nothing to be "done" -- he didn't fail anything.
 
All the points concerning the subjects initiated have been appropriately addressed. I would ask the OP to consider one point. Why is it the government constantly seeks to limit our right to own weapons under the guise of public safety when there are no statistics whatsoever out there linking gun ownership to crime rates? There are quite a few out there demonstrating that gun ownership is a deterrent to criminal activity. There are a few possible explanations:1) they are utterly ignorant of facts and operate from a knowledge base gleaned from what they are told by a solidly anti-gun media. 2) They are utterly ignorant. 3) They wish to remove weapons from our hands in order to more adequately control us. If you can think of more please do not hesitate to add them.
 
-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.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, Exit_Wound. Right now, if I were of the mind to commit a crime and I needed a gun I sure wouldn't use one of mine. I would go to one of the gun shows that don't require a background check or simply buy off of armslist. If background checks were required (without a registry, naturally) and that was posted and advertised on every website, gun show and store that sells guns AND there was any easy way for us average Joe's to do it online, then I think that would be a deterrent to many people that may want to buy a gun for nefarious reasons.

I'm not naive either. I know this will not stop everyone from buying guns without a BG check but it would stop many. How many? There is no way to know. It would stop people that are not lifelong criminals, that are off their meds or people that are usually sane but have a break and decide they need a gun to prove to the world they aren't losers. Yes, I know it won't stop all of them but it would stop some and I don't think that can be denied. No, I don't have statistics/studies to back that up. It would certainly stop me. I have no idea where I would even start to go find a gun without a background check if I couldn't buy one online, privately, at a gun show or at a gun store. Would you?
 
Speaking to the issue of magazine limits:

1) Trained police officers routinely expend multiple standard (15 -30) round magazines subduing a single suspect. Gunfights are dynamic, messy, unpredictable events wherein a combative assailant's threat often continues after the first several rounds fired.

Since trained police officers (who presumably have better training, aim, more steeled nerves, and radio backup at their beckon call) need full or standard capacity magazines, then lesser-trained, less battle-seasoned citizens are in far greater need of the same advantage. This is particularly true in the event of multiple assailants.

2) The entire point of the second amendment is to equalize the disparity of force between the citizen and the unlawful attacker. Only if the hundreds of millions of full capacity magazines could be vaporized from the earth, unavailable to those who would use them for nefarious purposes, could a magazine limit be enforced without eviscerating the amendment of it's primary function of providing an at least equal degree of force to oppose any attack.

3) The militia clause, until and unless repealed, remains the only stated purpose for the amendment, although we know from Heller and McDonald that the core right is one of self defense. That purpose is to preserve the capability to raise a militia should a state deem it necessary. Citizens in the historical militia are required to provide arms of the kind that are in common use for traditionally lawful purposes. Those arms must be up to the task for the amendment to have it effect.

SCOTUS and several other federal courts have acknowledged an anti-tyrrany function to the amendment. The Heller court said that although the advent of modern tanks and bombers may have created a disconnect of the 2A from its militia/anti-tyranny purpose, that fact can in no way can diminish or alter their interpretation of the right. In any case, few modern wars have failed to eventually descend into door-to-door, close-quarter-battle involving primarily small arms.

If lawful citizens are not permitted to have the same capacity magazines as their government (or any criminal who would attack them) then the anti-tyranny/militia purpose, the force-equalization purpose, as well as the self-defense purpose to the amendment will have been gutted, and rendered utterly meaningless.
 
I have no idea where I would even start to go find a gun without a background check if I couldn't buy one online, privately, at a gun show or at a gun store. Would you?
Click to expand...


Criminals generally do not BUY guns, and they sure don't pay the going rate. Most people who commit violent crimes do not have the money in their pocket to buy firearms. If they do BUY a gun, it is typically from somebody who is not the rightful owner. If I wanted to commit a crime with a gun, I would not waste my time at a store, at a gunshow, or through a lawful private sale because chances are I wouldn't have $500 to plink down. I would break into a gunowners home when I knew they were gone, and take what I could carry, and I would not call myself in for a background check.

Adam Lanza did not buy or own any guns. He murdered his mother and stole HER guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top