Background Checks

[44 AMP]

...but we as a society can't act like adults so until we can, things like background checks need to be implemented.

So say many today. I disagree. And I disagree simply because I can read history. Though, apparently, I understand it differently than many people.

Consider this historical fact,

The St. Valentine's Day Massacre
Fed 14 1929

Made the history books, for the huge number of people killed.

7

SEVEN, and all members of or affiliated with a criminal gang.

Weapons used, two (2) Thompson SUBMACHINE GUNS and two shotguns.

This happened at a time when there were no background checks, no federal prohibited persons no FFL dealers, no records requirements other than perhaps a sales receipt. ANYONE with the cash could buy a machine gun, and walk out the store with it, or have it mailed to their door.

High Capacity magazines (20, 30, 50, and even 100 rounds) existed. FULL AUTOMATIC as well as semi auto existed. There were NO Federal regulations or restrictions on them until 1934, and the NFA only restricted full auto, "sawed off" weapons, and "silencers", not semi autos.

SO, arguments about how these things are a modern phenomena are bogus.

What is a modern phenomena is people's willingness to shoot other people.

Why might that be? Are we fundamentally so different from our forefathers? I don't think WE are but I think society's values have clearly changed.

One thing that HAS changed is the punishment for murder. Compared to even 50years ago, execution for murder is rare, and even when it is done, it is usually years (if not decades) AFTER conviction.

This wasn't the case in earlier times. The gas chamber and the electric chair (and other methods, including hanging) were regularly used, and it might be only weeks, or perhaps a few months until they were. Punishment was considered to be real, and PERMANENT.

Even if a killer escaped the death penalty, they usually spent their remaining life behind bars. There was no 7 years and out with good behavior on a 20 to life sentence. Today, there is.

Another thing that didn't exist back in the Roaring 20s, was constant exposure to people being shot, for hours a day, and 24/7 over the last few decades. People, if well off enough, might go to the movies once a week, and see people being shot for an hour or an hour and a half. The rest of their lives, unless personally exposed to violence, didn't consist of constant "training films" showing how everyone, bad guys and good guys, solved their problems by shooting each other.

I doesn't take endless studies by learned folk to recognize a basic fact, that repeated exposure to anything (not immediately lethal) builds up a tolerance.

Might that not have a bearing on where we are today? I think it does.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

I’ve given some considerable thought to the issue of so-called “Universal Background Checks.” While no responsible person wants to see firearms in the hands of an Adam Lanza, Jerrod Loughner, or similar deranged psychopath, neither do we wish to see our firearms listed in some Federal database, or be subject to prosecution for loaning a gun to a hunting buddy or giving one as a present to a family member. Perhaps an “outside-the-box” approach, using the carrot rather than the stick, would enable responsible gun owners to ensure they are transferring firearms only to those eligible to receive them. Here's an idea that just might actually work:

First of all, the ATF form 4473 will be eliminated. Firearms dealers will no longer be responsible for running background checks on you every time you purchase a gun. Instead, you may run a background check on yourself, at your leisure, from any Internet-connected computer or smart phone. You would have to enter your full ID data, plus read through a list of prohibitions like the questions that are on the 4473. If you passed the background check, you would be issued a unique alphanumeric ID# that would be valid for, say, 90 days. This number, and your ID data, would be on a PDF file, which you could print out in however many copies you wished. For convenience, it might also contain blanks for the make, model, caliber, serial number, and additional descriptive data for the firearm you wish to purchase. This would be for you to fill in at the time of purchase, and would not be furnished to the gov’t.

To purchase a firearm or firearms, you would present this form to the seller. The seller could then call a toll-free number and enter the ID number from your form. The seller would then be informed that your number was valid, and provide your ID data. You would then show your ID to the seller to confirm you are the one who received a clean background check, and the transaction(s) would proceed. The firearm’s ID data would be entered onto the form, and both you and seller would sign the form. The seller would then retain the form, with a copy going to you, if you wished to have one, and would act as a bill of sale for the firearm. A dealer would retain the form as a record of sale.

A dealer would be required to check your ID number, just as (s)he is now required to do a background check. A private seller would not. There would be no criminal penalty for a private seller not checking the ID#, or not asking to see one. However, firearms sellers who can prove that they checked the buyer’s eligibility by producing a copy of the bill of sale would be statutorily absolved of any criminal or civil liability for selling the firearm, or for any misuse of the firearm by the buyer.

The ID# would be valid for the purchase of any number of firearms during the validity period. Upon its expiration, within three working days, the ID data associated with that number would be required to be purged from gov’t records. The only data the gov’t would retain would be the ID# and the dates it was valid.

An individual could get an ID# as often as (s)he wished. While there would be no requirement for a seller to ask for and check the buyer’s ID#, the fact that the law provides legal protection to the seller would be a strong incentive, especially since plaintiffs’ attorneys would be quick to seize upon the fact that failure to check the buyer’s ID# could easily be construed as negligence, with consequential civil liability.

You wouldn’t have to swear to a bunch of statements like on the Form 4473, but if you are, say, an illegal alien, you can still be charged with unlawful possession; just not the “stacked” charge of perjury.

In short, gives anyone the ability to check a buyer's background, provides relief from liability for selling to a buyer who misuses the firearm, and the gov't has no permanent record of who purchased a firearm, and has no record at all of the number or types of firearms the buyer purchased.

 

[osbornk]

I’ve given some considerable thought to the issue of so-called “Universal Background Checks.” While no responsible person wants to see firearms in the hands of an Adam Lanza, Jerrod Loughner, or similar deranged psychopath, neither do we wish to see our firearms listed in some Federal database, or be subject to prosecution for loaning a gun to a hunting buddy or giving one as a present to a family member. Perhaps an “outside-the-box” approach, using the carrot rather than the stick, would enable responsible gun owners to ensure they are transferring firearms only to those eligible to receive them. Here's an idea that just might actually work:

First of all, the ATF form 4473 will be eliminated. Firearms dealers will no longer be responsible for running background checks on you every time you purchase a gun. Instead, you may run a background check on yourself, at your leisure, from any Internet-connected computer or smart phone. You would have to enter your full ID data, plus read through a list of prohibitions like the questions that are on the 4473. If you passed the background check, you would be issued a unique alphanumeric ID# that would be valid for, say, 90 days. This number, and your ID data, would be on a PDF file, which you could print out in however many copies you wished. For convenience, it might also contain blanks for the make, model, caliber, serial number, and additional descriptive data for the firearm you wish to purchase. This would be for you to fill in at the time of purchase, and would not be furnished to the gov’t.

To purchase a firearm or firearms, you would present this form to the seller. The seller could then call a toll-free number and enter the ID number from your form. The seller would then be informed that your number was valid, and provide your ID data. You would then show your ID to the seller to confirm you are the one who received a clean background check, and the transaction(s) would proceed. The firearm’s ID data would be entered onto the form, and both you and seller would sign the form. The seller would then retain the form, with a copy going to you, if you wished to have one, and would act as a bill of sale for the firearm. A dealer would retain the form as a record of sale.

A dealer would be required to check your ID number, just as (s)he is now required to do a background check. A private seller would not. There would be no criminal penalty for a private seller not checking the ID#, or not asking to see one. However, firearms sellers who can prove that they checked the buyer’s eligibility by producing a copy of the bill of sale would be statutorily absolved of any criminal or civil liability for selling the firearm, or for any misuse of the firearm by the buyer.

The ID# would be valid for the purchase of any number of firearms during the validity period. Upon its expiration, within three working days, the ID data associated with that number would be required to be purged from gov’t records. The only data the gov’t would retain would be the ID# and the dates it was valid.

An individual could get an ID# as often as (s)he wished. While there would be no requirement for a seller to ask for and check the buyer’s ID#, the fact that the law provides legal protection to the seller would be a strong incentive, especially since plaintiffs’ attorneys would be quick to seize upon the fact that failure to check the buyer’s ID# could easily be construed as negligence, with consequential civil liability.

You wouldn’t have to swear to a bunch of statements like on the Form 4473, but if you are, say, an illegal alien, you can still be charged with unlawful possession; just not the “stacked” charge of perjury.

In short, gives anyone the ability to check a buyer's background, provides relief from liability for selling to a buyer who misuses the firearm, and the gov't has no permanent record of who purchased a firearm, and has no record at all of the number or types of firearms the buyer purchased.

Can you imagine the fraud and abuse your idea would generate? Does identity theft ring a bell? Do you think the government would actually delete your information (even if they said they did)?

 

[BBarn]

Given that so many of the individuals commiting these crimes passed background checks in the process of obtaining their guns it seems foolish that UBCs are being considered a solution. I guess most people don't wish to be confused with facts.

As a society I'm afraid we are reaping what we've sown.

 

[Cirdan]

I passed background checks several times.

So did the three shooters in Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton.

My problem is "common sense" gun control that doesn't do anything. We shouldn't pass laws just because something bad happened. We should pass laws that work. Assault rifle bans, background checks, waiting periods - pablum that won't solve the problem.

Truthfully - the only gun control laws that ever worked were stop, question, and frisk. It worked because it actually targeted criminals, not innocent people.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . . in possession of a document, like a concelaled handgun permit, that exempts you from the background check . . . .

Depends on the state you live in and WHO issues the CCW permit. Here in FLA NICS check is done regardless of what you have in your wallet

Actually, no. My statement does not depend on that. I didn't claim that all CC permits exempt buyers from background checks. In FL, a CCW permit simply isn't "a document that exempts you from the background check." (If memory serves, isn't it issued by the Dept. of Agriculture or something?)

 

[Spats McGee]

The fact that I can go to a store, buy an AR with tons of ammo and be back home in 30 minutes is an issue.

So you're suggesting that we should make it harder for everyone to buy guns and ammo from stores?

I am all for background checks, safety courses, and waiting periods. They wouldn't affect me and shouldn't affect any law abiding citizen either.

Maybe they wouldn't affect you, but the rights of others aren't yours to give away. Somewhere out there is a victim of domestic violence whose stalker of a husband causes her to need a gun, and right now. But she shouldn't be affected, right? (Note: there's some sarcasm here.)

And I am 100% for the 2nd amendment but we as a society can't act like adults so until we can, things like background checks need to be implemented.

I think you and I have different definitions about what "100% for the 2nd amendment" means. I've acted like an adult for a long time now, and don't believe my rights should be curtailed just because someone 1000 miles away with whom I have never had any contact whatsoever did bad things.

 

[USNRet93]

What was done after Sandyhook?

Very interesting answers, but since something will be done, like it or not...

We have a POTUS who likes TV moments and may or may not follow through with this. You have a senate who is loathe to do UBC or federal RFL. Having 2 mass murders is less than 24 hours is the difference, plus the mass murders 'pain' seem to be additive.

There is no doubt that people who cannot pass a BGC, still get their guns through private sales where that is legal..even at gun shows...THAT will be closed, IMHO and some sort or RFL, plus 21 the minimum age for buying anything...BUT, with this congress and POTUS, every day is 'interesting'...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bad guys who can’t pass a background check have no need to go through the trouble of locating private sellers; because if they go to an FFL and fail a background check, nothing will be done about it.

As I explained to you in our previous conversations on this subject, out of 76,142 denials in 2010, 62 prosecutions, 23 guilty, and 12 pending. And some considerable evidence of false positives on denials throughout the system. This is the system we are now proposing be applied to every private sale as well - a system that hasn’t stopped dozens of mass murderers who WERE legally prohibited and that we can’t enforce when it does actually work.

And in return, peaceable gun owners will bear the burden of the regulation and it will be used as a stepping stone to take more rights. You don’t even have to take my word on it. You can already read the opinion pieces saying “The background checks and red flag laws we haven’t even passed yet of course will do nothing to solve gun violence, we must also *insert wish list for next massacre here*.”

And there will be another massacre, because these laws do nothing to address the problem. In fact, they are just extensions of the same law that has already failed to prevent dozens of mass shootings. It’s almost like the goal is to create restrictions that affect only peacable people and give excuses to come back for more.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I read it just a few minutes ago, and now I can't find it. Someone commented that the Virginia Tech shooter, the Sutherland Springs shooter, and the Aurora, CO, shooter were legally prohibited but had not been reported as such to NICS by the appropriate authorities.

I knew about the VT and Sutherland Springs shooters. If I knew that the Aurora shooter should bave been prohibited, I've long since forgotten it. Can anyone explain why he should have been prohibited?

 

[SIGSHR]

How about background checks for buyers of alcohol and controlled substances. Tie it to the driver's license. A hit comes up-a DUI-no sale!
What prevents false and malicious information from being entered ? An arrest, but no conviction, charges dismissed-an acquittal. People with similar names ? As has been noted, red flag laws try to ignore due process. A mere accusation becomes the equivalent of a conviction. We had a case here in NJ, a man fighting with his ex-wife, he refused to increase the child support, she reported him as in default, next thing he knows he's Public Enemy No. 1.

 

[HughScot]

What on earth does alcohol or controlled substances have to do with mass shootings? Nothing. It's these type of answers that show how little gun owners care about the problem.

 

[44 AMP]

What on earth does alcohol or controlled substances have to do with mass shootings? Nothing. It's these type of answers that show how little gun owners care about the problem.

I think you missed the point, which I took to mean that alcohol and controlled substances are ALSO things that can cause harm and death if misused, and that if a background check is needed for guns, it should also be needed for other things that are dangerous, and we have not, and are not doing that.

I don't see how pointing out an obvious double standard shows "how little gun owners care about the problem"
and just to be clear, WHICH problem are you referring to in this statement?

Mass shootings? or proposed solutions that we believe cannot, and will not work? or something else??

 

[L2R]

What on earth do background checks have to do with mass shootings? Nothing. It's these type of answers that show how difficult it is to have a real discussion with those who want something done to make them feel better but does nothing to deter the next attack.

Passing more stringent background checks on guns is the equivalent of fining everyone that drives because someone drove drunk and killed someone.
And to stop making chevy's (because it was the vehicle used in a killing) will not stop drunk driving.
That is the point and how it applies to this discussion.

Guns are tools.
People make decisions and are the root cause of these killings. You can remove a tool from the shed but then they will just pick a different tool.
So stop demonizing the tools and those who use them wisely.

Meanwhile, the general public is ok with letting the government side step those pesky, old fashioned concepts which are the building blocks of our laws like:
*innocent until proven guilty,
*due process,
*a hearing to face your accuser
*protections from search and seizure without a warrant

Understanding the problem is complex. I doubt anyone totally understands it. We all agree it is horrific and we need solutions.

We just want for people to stop by-passing the constitution because A- it isn't helping and B-we know that it won't stop at the 2nd amendment.

 

[zukiphile]

What on earth does alcohol or controlled substances have to do with mass shootings? Nothing. It's these type of answers that show how little gun owners care about the problem.

Are we allowed to care about more than one problem?

Where people give some scrutiny to proposed laws with little prospect of actually making anything better while restricting peoples' rights, they may foresee additional problems resulting from the "solution".

 

[Aguila Blanca]

What on earth does alcohol or controlled substances have to do with mass shootings? Nothing. It's these type of answers that show how little gun owners care about the problem.

As 44 AMP asked and zukiphile implied: What problem?

Alcohol and/or controlled substances may or may not have anything to do with mass shootings, but are we only concerned with mass shootings? Drunk drivers kill and injure orders of magnitude more people every year than mass shooters. If "government" is concerned with saving lives, and if a logical approach is to first attack the issues that cause the most deaths and injuries, why is "government" so laser focused on GUNZ! when drugs and alcohol in conjunction with automobiles kill so many more people?

According to the NHTSA web site, drunk drivers killed 10,874 people in 2017. How many people were killed by mass shooters in 2017? My numbers show 221 people killed by mass shooters in 2017. Drunk drivers killed FIFTY times as many people as mass shooters that year ... where's the outrage about drunk driving? Where are the legislative proposals to eradicate the problem? Or aren't drunk driving deaths a problem? They are to me -- the people are just as dead.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I knew about the VT and Sutherland Springs shooters. If I knew that the Aurora shooter should bave been prohibited, I've long since forgotten it. Can anyone explain why he should have been prohibited?

Going from memory; but there are a lot of complex issues to unpack in the examples you offered.

The Sutherland Springs shooter WAS a prohibited person. He simply wasn’t reported to the NICS system because neither state nor federal agencies are required to report that information. It may be policy; but it isn’t law.

The Aurora shooter was NOT a prohibited person. He certainly could have been but many of the people who were aware of his issues didn’t want to take that kind of dramatic step that would dramatically affect the future of a young man who might just be confused and who would eventually straighten up and fly right. Lots of people “expressed concern” but noone followed through.

The VA Tech shooter falls into a gray area. Under federal law “adjudicated as a mental defective” isn’t defined by statute. ATF has their own opinion of what constitutes “adjudicated as a mental defective” and the VA Tech shooter met those standards. However, at that time, the state of Virginia wanted to intervene early in potential problems without ruining a young person’s life, they did not intend for that particular state law to deprive the shooter of any rights, including his 2A, so they did not report the situation to NICS, even though they would have reported other types of adjudications. So the VA Tech shooter was a prohibited person based on ATF regulations; but not based on state law and with contrary federal law interpreting that conflict.

 

[5whiskey]

If I knew that the Aurora shooter should bave been prohibited, I've long since forgotten it.

There are 2 Aurora shooters, one in CO and one in IL. The Aurora CO theater shooting is significantly more well known, but the Aurora IL shooting was national news a few months ago. The CO shooter was not prohibited, and probably the best example of how a RFL could possibly prevent a mass shooting as the shooters psychiatrist noted that he had homicidal tendencies but he thought he was “borderline” so he did not commit him. The CO shooter was not a prohibited person. The IL shooter was recent, and he passed a background check and had a FOID card, despite a prior felony conviction in another state. His FOID card was ultimately revoked, but no one came for his firearm(s).

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Ah. Thank you, 5whiskey. My comment was in response to someone else who mentioned that the VA Tech, Sutherland Springs, and Aurora shooters were all prohibited people. I assumed that this was a reference to the Aurora, CO, theater shooting. Perhaps the author of the post I saw was referring to the IL shooter.

 

[5whiskey]

Perhaps the author of the post I saw was referring to the IL shooter.

Pretty sure they were, as I’m pretty sure I was the poster. I’m adamant about a “fix NICS” type law before any additional laws are passed. There are major incidents where the shooter was a prohibited person but passed the NICs check because a cleric somewhere didn’t enter it, or a state didn’t agree that adjudicated mentally deficient meant, well... adjudicated mentally deficient. A fix NICs law would affect law abiding citizens almost zero, and actually could stop a criminal from purchasing firearms through legit channels.