Background Checks

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Exactly. I have a bunch of guns already. More then enough to equip my entire neighborhood . How does doing a background check on me to buy ANOTHER gun make society safer????

It doesn't, and that's not the goal. The goal is twofold:

1. Increase the cost of firearm transfers to discourage gun ownership.

2. Create a registry for guns that are legally transferred, to make confiscation easier at a future date when gun grabbers become a majority.

They know this will have no effect whatsoever on crime.

 

[TDL]

I am curious as to why gun owners are against a mandatory background check before the purchase of a firearm?

1)
a) Because the experts -- left, right and center; government based and academic -- say that without national registration it doesn't work.
so we are not talking about just background checks, but national registration scheme which is currently against US law but which the other side is trying to enact.
b) No one can name a country that enacted such a scheme that did not then confiscate many legally owned guns, never used in a crime, based national registration scheme.

2) there is a proven fungibility weakness. People intending to get a weapon will find other ways, eg straw purchase.

3) Cost. in my juristiction an FFL transfer and background check costs $125. If I have my granddad's revolver I keep as an heirloom, a glock 19 for home defense, a g43 for carry and a two shotguns, one for my own skeet and one for my kids skeet, I have been made to pay $600 in fees. When I die, in jurisdiction heirs will have to pay $600 again. That is $1200 rfor maybe $1000 worth of guns

4) what "background" is being checked?
a) violent felonies convictions involving full due process with government subject to beyond reasonable doubt burdens, and proper full fourth and fifth exclusions? OK that probably has 99% agreement.; or
b) Some tit for tat not reasonable doubt expired order someone had in a custody fight ?

5) Slippery slope. Slippery slope is NOT a fallacious concern when it comes to Constitutional rights. The ACLU, and left federal judges have cited slippery slope as valid reasons for opposing a law affecting bill of rights liberties


.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here is a Bloomberg funded study from Johns Hopkins that concludes that California’s background checks laws did NOTHING to reduce gun deaths.
https://fee.org/articles/california...pact-on-gun-deaths-johns-hopkins-study-finds/

They haven’t even gotten UBCs yet and they are already seeding the ideological battlefield with the idea that background checks aren’t enough, we need: registration, licensing, bans, etc.

 

[USNRet93]

say that without national registration it doesn't work.
so we are not talking about just background checks, but national registration scheme which is currently against US law but which the other side is trying to enact.
b) No one can name a country that enacted such a scheme that did not then confiscate many legally owned guns, never used in a crime, based national registration scheme.

Don't know if that's gonna happen IN THE FUTURE or not(I suspect, with the political climate and the senate, it won't)...BUT there are somewhere above 350 million guns in the US now..and the government doesn't know who owns what. I suppose there could be a method to go to every FFL and determine who has what but that would take a YUGE amount of manpower, time and $..just don't see that happening any more than rounding up 11 million undocumented people, putting them on bus' and pointing them south.

 

[44 AMP]

I suppose there could be a method to go to every FFL and determine who has what...

Won't work, anyway. Or rather won't give you a list of who owns what. Will only give you a list of who bought what, from an FFL.

Want to find out where that AR-15 that I sold through a dealer, in 1989?, good luck.!!! The dealer has a record of who bought it. Then. I have no idea who has it now, or how many times it has been resold in the last few decades, and neither do they, especially since they went out of business in 97...ATF has their records, somewhere....

About 2000 or so, NYS contacted me and wanted their pistol permit back. Apparently they had finally noticed that I was not a NYS resident. Permit was issued in 1975 (paper - not even cardstock- non-laminated), and I moved out of NYS in 1979.

And, since I was no longer a state resident, the permit was invalid, they wanted the permit BACK! ALSO, they wanted to know where the pistols listed on the permit, were!

AS those guns belonged to my father, and I had seen none of them in over a decade, I was not inclined to be very helpful. Or polite...

Studies "proving" that Background checks cannot work without gun registration are crap. Though they are accurate enough with the given parameters the conclusion is flawed.

The main flaw is the premise that a background check system that has registration DOES work.

Next is the fact that deciding whether or not any system or proposal "works" requires a definition of "works". There are a host of other factors beyond these two, as well.

Question:
Does the current NICS (phone call to the FED) work??

(tricksy question, if you say yes, then that kills the "won't work without registration" argument, if you say no, then why are we wasting the people's money doing it???)

In my state (and yes different states do it differently) they use the Fed phone call check, and the only information given about the gun I want to buy is "long gun" or "handgun". That's it. As a registration, its kind of useless, other then it tells the FED I own some kind of gun. Telling the FED what gun(s) by make, model, caliber and serial # is needless information for anything BUT a registration database.

 

[labnoti]

A universal background check without a central registry is unenforceable. I'm being specific about how it "won't work." It cannot be enforced.

Suppose a sale were to proceed without the proposed mandatory background check. How would anyone know it happened? Surely any acquisition of firearms associated with nefarious activity would prefer unrecorded sales without the background check, and there would be no way to enforce the so-called "mandatory" background check unless every firearm identifier (serial number) was traceable with a thorough transaction history that could tie the possessor to the transaction where they acquired it with the mandatory background check. That, in turn, creates a central firearm owners registry.

So the question should be, "why are firearm owners opposed to a central firearm owners registry?" I think the answer to that is more obvious.

What's worse is the cost in rights and liberties that such a central registry would incur would come with no practical benefit because we can already see that many people who have done horrendous evil could pass a background check until it's too late.


Edit: obviously, my answer is "no" NICS does not work. First, it fails to work because it does not stop a huge number of sales that bypass it and those sales cannot be forced into the use of NICS without some way to trace the transactions to prove the transfer was unlawful by skirting it. NICS also fails to stop sales to evil people that pass background checks. "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." All NICS succeeds in doing is putting an unnecessary burden on lawful gun purchasers and those who fund the process through fees and taxes.

 

[44 AMP]

One cannot create a crystal ball (that works) simply by passing a law requiring one.

my answer is "no" NICS does not work. First, it fails to work because it does not stop a huge number of sales that bypass it and those sales cannot be forced into the use of NICS without some way to trace the transactions to prove the transfer was unlawful by skirting it.

agreed, with some reservations. First, NICS was made to support sales through FFL dealers. And, for what ever reason, the government has refused to reconfigure the system or set up any other system so that private citizens may use it.

SO, by both choice, and necessity, the anti's have required us to go to, and through an FFL dealer for ALL "transfers" in some areas and are working to bring that vision to the rest of the nation.

This, of course, gets no real objection from FFLs, because aside from a few actual enthusiasts, most are in the business to make money, and nothing makes you money like a LAW saying people must use your services.

Next, other than seeking to prosecute people for paper crimes, why would anyone need to know or prove a background check WASN'T done, on a SPECIFIC firearm and individual??

And that's another point. Those pushing their versions of a "proper" check intend for there to be a paper trail (or electronic record) linking an individual with a specific firearm. This is their vision, allow the creation of a registration (whether or not a law specifically forbids it) for future use, which many of us believe the only possible use would be as an aid to confiscation.

Can anyone explain how a check on the PERSON, without the link to a specific firearm does NOT satisfy the stated objective?? (which is Keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them?)

I don't see why a check on the PERSON can't be incorporated into their ID. Particularly with the advent of "smart" ID.

Any CONVICTION that renders you a prohibited person, could be connected to your ID /Driver's license, etc. Any conviction could easily require a new ID
be issued, reflecting your change in status. All previous ID required to be surrendered and destroyed. In our modern world wouldn't it be a fairly simple thing? Have the presiding court order and see it is done?

Why don't we do that? No need for any registry linking buying a specific gun to a specific person, after all, what does that matter?

You cannot charge a prohibited person found in illegal possession of a firearm with failing to register it, or failing to have a background check done, the 5th Amendment prevents that. Like it or not, being a convicted felon does not strip them of ALL their Constitutional rights. Only the ones specified in law.

NICS also fails to stop sales to evil people that pass background checks.

NO background check can ever stop anyone who passes it. By definition, if they pass the check, they are "ok". IF a flaw in the system allowed someone to pass who shouldn't have, that we can address, and hopefully, improve.

Someone who has never (as of the date of the check) done anything won't be stopped, and COULD go on a rampage killing spree the very next day. OR years later, OR, like most people, NEVER. TO think otherwise is to deny reality.

This is what I dislike about the hype and "sale" of the background check idea. We are told by the most dishonest it will solve the problem, and by the slightly more honest that is it a necessary step but won't, by itself solve the problem.

It won't, and it can't.

The real problem, as I see it, is people who don't have any fear of punishment, moral or physical.

Some simply believe they won't be caught. Others don't care, they don't fear the results.

No one who actually believes in Hell does anything to be sent there. The death seeking Nihilist or Jihadist fears only failing in their chosen mission.

We rarely kill mass murders these days, and even more rarely do it in an expeditious manner. Years or even decades can pass, and often do.

At one time, our justice system operated under "if we occasionally hang an innocent man, that is the regrettable cost of justice for all" but that seems to have changed over the years into "better a dozen guilty men go free than a single innocent many go to prison".

Personally, I think we would be better off if our system worked somewhere between those two extremes.

 

[labnoti]

The LA Times reported, "'About a third of all firearms seized in Southern California now are unserialized, and that is expected to grow,' said Ginger Colbrun, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles region ATF office."

I have certainly not heard that unserialized guns were that prolific anywhere else, but they do nonetheless exist and they exist in substantial quantity. Needless to say, they are produced and sold without a background check.

 

[44 AMP]

The LA Times reported, "'About a third of all firearms seized in Southern California now are unserialized, and that is expected to grow,' said Ginger Colbrun, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles region ATF office."

That is interesting information, if true.

Though I wonder if "unserialized" includes guns with serial numbers removed or defaced.

If it doesn't, and means firearms that never had a serial number marked on them, I wonder what they are, and where they are coming from.

No legal factory will put out a gun without a serial number. Since 1968 serial numbers have been required by law, and have been in use on many guns since before the cartridge era. Until 1968, many "budget" shotguns and .22s didn't have serial numbers, and those guns are still legal today, as grandfathered items.

But if you make a gun, it requires a serial number if it is sold, and not having one is, I believe a violation of Federal law. Removing or defacing the factory applied number IS a federal crime.

So, one wonders what these guns are, and where they are made? Is it possible they are talking about home "printed" frames and the "ghost gun" some idiots brag about?

Is, perhaps some rogue plastic shop turning out black market Glock (or similar) frame for the criminal firearms trade?

or is it possible the statement was pure crap, intended to stir things up?

such a statement makes one wonder just what it is they are talking about...

 

[zxcvbob]

I don't think a homemade gun requires a SN if it's never sold and was not built with the intent of selling it. I would probably add a serial number anyway (0001) if I made a gun with a non-antique action, mainly because the feds might get all Wickard v. Filburn about it and insist it needs one because Commerce Clause. (or claim I intended to sell it, but did such a crappy job nobody would buy it )

I assume the article was talking about defaced serial numbers. "A third" sounds awfully high; perhaps they are seized *because* they don't have a SN, so you have some selection bias going on.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

But if you make a gun, it requires a serial number if it is sold, and not having one is, I believe a violation of Federal law. Removing or defacing the factory applied number IS a federal crime.

My state recently enacted a "ghost gun" law, so I did some research into this. I am not a lawyer (as Frank often reminds me), but here's what I've gotten out of my research:

• As you noted, since 1968 firearms manufactured for sale must have a serial number, and must also be marked with the name and the city and state of the manufacturer.
• It is legal to manufacture a firearm for one's own use. Such a homemade firearm does not require a serial number.
• It is often said/posted that a homemade firearm cannot be sold. This, I believe, is incorrect. One cannot make a firearm with the intent of selling it, but suppose you build a semi-automatic handgun. Five years down the road, you decide you're no longer interested in semi-auto pistols, you'd rather play with revolvers ... or rifles. You decide to sell the homemade semi-auto pistol. I believe that's legal.
• I could not find any law that requires a home-built firearm to have a serial number if/when it is sold. HOWEVER ... an FFL almost certainly won't accept it for consignment or for transfer, because all firearms that go through an FFL must be entered in his bound book, and the bound book has columns for manufacturer and serial number. Without that information, the FFL can't enter the firearm into his bound book. (Although I guess there's a way to enter pre-1968 firearms that never had a serial number.)
• All articles I have read on completing your own firearm (or receiver) from an "80-percent receiver" strongly recommend marking the completed receiver with a serial number and your name, city, and state. Some articles acknowledge that this is not a legal requirement; other articles implied that it is a requirement.

 

[44 AMP]

If a gun has a defaced or removed serial number, it will absolutely be seized. Possession of one is a crime. IF one comes into you possession, for any reason (found in attic, gift from great aunt Helen, been in Uncle Rodger's trunk since he died 30 years ago, etc,) the only legal option is to surrender it to the police. And, I would recommend having your lawyer do that, to avoid some of the risk of an overzealous DA.

Doesn't matter if you weren't the one who defaced the serial #, or WHEN it was done (even pre 68 it was a crime), simply having it is a crime.

Usually even ATF people are smart enough to make the distinction between "unserialized" and removed/defaced serial number. However, a "spokesperson" might not even know the difference. OR, as I suggested, it could be a deliberately misleading choice of words in order to promote a particular agenda.

I am uncertain of the law today, but in the past if you made a gun, and it was not for sale, and was never meant to be, you were not required by law to put a serial number on it, as long as you owned it.

However, if the gun transferred ownership (including if you gave it away, or your heirs inherited it, it was then required to be serial numbered.
People who did make their own recievers were encouraged to number them, but not required by law, other than as I have stated.

Today that might have changed, its not something I've closely followed in recent years, sorry.

 

[44 AMP]

Without that information, the FFL can't enter the firearm into his bound book. (Although I guess there's a way to enter pre-1968 firearms that never had a serial number.)

I had a Siamese Mauser in the late 80s, that needed some gunsmith work. It didn't have a serial number. (it had some kanji characters, but no number on it). The gunsmith entered it into all paperwork as "no serial number" in the ser# block of the forms. It was allowed, and the standard practice back then. I would assume it still is.

But I would check current law to be certain.

Aguiia, you can make firearms yourself, for sale. It is legal. However, the number must be small. Over the limit, and you are engaging in the business without a license, and don't ask what the number is, only the ATF knows what it is, TODAY. 30 years ago, I knew a custom rifle maker, NOT an assembler, he made his actions from scratch. At the time he said that the ATF told him, if he made less than a dozen guns a year, they didn't care, he wasn't "engaged in the business" as far as they were concerned.

TODAY, that number might be only one or two, I have no idea, but I don't see them being any more "forgiving" now than they were back then, and I expect a bit less so, today.

SO, if you made a semi auto (of your own design, or someone else's) yourself, and 5 years down the road you're tired of it and want to sell it, its not a big deal, just put a number on it, and sell it. (I believe at least 3 digits are required).

Maker's name and city (and country if not the US) are required, on anything made or imported for sale in the US. Am not certain exactly when that law went into effect, but I have seen many pre WWII guns with the country of the maker on them as well as the maker's name. Might simply be the law requiring country of origin marked on all foreign made items, and not specifically a gun law.

war trophy bring backs are not required to have such markings, as far as I know, never saw one that did, and I've owned more than a few. Surplus arms, imported for sale do have "importer's marks", with rifles such as Mausers, its usually on the barrel, often near the muzzle end.

 

[Tom Servo]

The LA Times reported, "'About a third of all firearms seized in Southern California now are unserialized, and that is expected to grow,' said Ginger Colbrun, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles region ATF office."

Gun control advocates have been making that claim, but a friend called the LA Field Division and they wouldn't corroborate that claim.

One of their pet "outrages" is the idea of "ghost guns" made on 3D printers. The scenario they're selling is that gang members have access to this stuff, and they're somehow cranking out tons of untraceable AR-15's. Kevin DeLeon's quip about it was pure comedy.

The claim is patently ridiculous. The vast majority of fatal firearms injuries continue to be from handguns, as are the vast majority of guns recovered. The whole thing is a meme being promoted by a website called The Trace, which is run by one of Michael Bloomberg's satellite organizations.

The gunsmith entered it into all paperwork as "no serial number" in the ser# block of the forms. It was allowed, and the standard practice back then. I would assume it still is.

It is. I had tons of guns logged in and out of the books that way.

 

[spacemanspiff]

Even tho illegal, gotta wonder how often it happens..Saw a video(which I can't find) of a Colorado gent, buying an AR type from a guy who pulled it outta his trunk, 'yer not a felon right?..snicker, snicker'....$400 later, the guy walked away with it.

The media would also have you believe that Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine walked into a bank, opened an account and walked out with a free rifle with no background check.

 

[44 AMP]

The media would also have you believe that Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine walked into a bank, opened an account and walked out with a free rifle with no background check.

At one time, you could do that. If I remember right, the Bank of Boulder did that, for some years. No idea if they still do.

You deposited $XXXX for X amount of time in a certain kind of account (no early withdrawl) and you could choose, the interest, over time, or a new Weatherby, today!

At one time, they were the no.1 Weatherby distributor in the country.

And there was no background check done, because in those days, there was no law requiring one!

 

[labnoti]

no doubt that's the source of the scourge of Weatherbys used in crime and mass shootings all over the nation since

 

[silvermane_1]

The media would also have you believe that Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine walked into a bank, opened an account and walked out with a free rifle with no background check.

Funny i always thought it was a free Big Mac.
But it in all seriousness yeah it was a free Weatherby.

 

[44 AMP]

But it in all seriousness yeah it was a free Weatherby.

No, it wasn't a "free" Weatherby.

This wasn't like a bank giving you a free toaster for opening an account.

You got either the rifle, now, OR the interest on the deposit over time.

If you chose the Weatherby, you paid for it with the interest. So, not "free" Just not requiring a cash outlay for the rifle at the time you got it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Everytime this subject comes up, the usual suspects here chirp forth their support of background checks; but not once do they ever explain why they believe the concerns the rest of us regularly raise are unfounded or not sufficient from their point of view.

I’d like to hear that argument; but I honestly don’t think there is a well-reasoned one. Just a vague belief that they’ll be able to put their hand in the alligator’s mouth and get away with it because they are “reasonable.”