Changed my mind on universal background checks.

gaseousclay - excluding some specific enhancement of the background check you mention and a government data-base that is essentially what happens now.

If the police choose to run a trace on a firearm the gun manufacturer is contacted and they tell what wholesaler they sold it to, then the wholesaler is contacted and they say what retailer (local FFL or LGS) the FFL then checks his form 4473's and tells them who he sold it to - name and address, make and model and serial number of gun to verify. There are many local jurisdictions and I believe some states that prohibit transfer of firearms to unlicensed let alone prohibited individuals and it is a crime to straw purchase - but I would be surprised if there are more than a handful of prosecutions based on such laws in the whole country in a years time - straw purchasers just say the gun was stolen. Usually it seems they discover it was stolen right after being informed it was used in a crime.
 
Laws prohibiting straw purchases work as well as laws prohibiting the poor elderly from selling their pain medications for extra money.
 
But we are in a debate over UBC that may be passed today. We are far behind the curve with public support and are relying on uncertain political maneuvers to probably try and block it in the House. I hope we can win that way.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that we are "far behind the curve" because I don't particularly trust the polling data. The only recent poll I can find on UBC's is one from Quinnipiac. That poll only sampled three states: two "purple" states which went for the president in both 2008 and 2009 (Pennsylvania and Virginia) and one deep blue state which hasn't gone for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988 (New Jersey).
 
To me it's a pretty simple matter. If a gangbanger one the streets breaks 15 laws in the process of obtaining a gun and using it to kill someone, do you honestly believe passing a 16th law is suddenly going to stop him?

So we now have a law that requires background checks on all private sales, do you really think that the family and friends of criminals that buy the guns for them are suddenly going to bring their gangbanger relative/buddy with them to an FFL dealer before they give them the gun?

I think the answer is pretty obvious. These new "common sense" gun reforms are anything but. A person with real common sense would stop and examine the facts to see what the problem is and what can be done about it, not railroad emotionally charged legislation through congress in the name of "protecting the children" without letting any facts get in the way.
 
I know this may be a stretch, but I have not seen it brought up in any debates over the UBC's.

Since we all know how much the govt. loves putting people on any one of a bazillion watch lists with no warranted reason, what is to stop them from saying "You want to acquire a firearm, you must be a terrorist, DENIED."

And you, you are supplying terrorists with firearms, you are now a prohibited person, turn in all of your guns or we are coming to get you.

We have all heard of their "No fly, watch list" Remember when Ted Kennedy found himself on it, don't think it couldn't happen.
 
SHE3PDOG
The United States DOJ in a study conducted in 2006 stated that 57% of felons arrested for violent crime had a prior arrest for a felony. 70% of violent felons had a previous arrest record. 67% of murderers had a previous arrest for robbery or assault. The problem we have with violent crime is not one of gun culture, but one of a broken justice system. More background checks won't help keep felons in prison

Source for Stats: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt
Click to expand...

Well said, I hope you don't mind but I stole this post to share with my friends and family. This is exactly the kind of information people need to hear and understand.
 
Thanks for the kind regard. I don't mind if you guys steal that for your own use; in fact, I encourage it. People need to understand the real cause of violent crime instead of just relying on emotions generated from tragedies to guide them toward the direction our country seems to be headed now. If the government spent the same amount of time, effort, and money trying to keep felons in prison instead of pushing for gun control, we would live in a much safer country.
 
44 Amp is one of the few folk that sees what the OP is driving at.

Ok, I understand what the OP wants, and it is not the background check of today, or one that is proposed by anyone, save the OP.
Click to expand...

I'm not for it either because I've thought a lot about it and it wouldn't do much good but I think, in a nutshell it might work like this:

Tom wants to sell a gun. Joe wants to buy it. They go to the police or a gun store and check Joe out. Joe is okay and the sale takes place. Tom knows he has NOT sold a gun to a felon. Nobody knows what gun Joe has bought.

The gun is not 'registered'. Joe is just checked out to make sure he is not prohibited from buying a gun.

How would this system prevent sales between folks who don't do the check? It wouldn't.

How much good would it do? Not much like I said before.
 
The United States DOJ in a study conducted in 2006 stated that 57% of felons arrested for violent crime had a prior arrest for a felony. 70% of violent felons had a previous arrest record. 67% of murderers had a previous arrest for robbery or assault. The problem we have with violent crime is not one of gun culture, but one of a broken justice system. More background checks won't help keep felons in prison
Click to expand...

Well said.

The issue with the universal checks is that it plays into the flawed thought process: "why wont the gun owners/NRA compromise."

Because a loss of rights, even a tiny one, when that loss involves targeting an innocent group as part of a diversion form the real problem, is a slippery slope.

I can pass a background check and don't per se object it is that the current government and the anti second amendment lobby are selling this as a solution to a problem that isn't being address.

The problem is when universal background checks turn out to be utterly ineffective, the logical next step is more gun control
 
The issue with the universal checks is that it plays into the flawed thought process: "why wont the gun owners/NRA compromise."

Because a loss of rights, even a tiny one, when that loss involves targeting an innocent group as part of a diversion form the real problem, is a slippery slope.

I can pass a background check and don't per se object it is that the current government and the anti second amendment lobby are selling this as a solution to a problem that isn't being address.

The problem is when universal background checks turn out to be utterly ineffective, the logical next step is more gun control
Click to expand...

I could not agree with you more. I'm not worried about passing this kind of background check, but once this is taken off of the table, what will take its place when the next tragedy occurs?
 
The issue with the universal checks is that it plays into the flawed thought process: "why wont the gun owners/NRA compromise."
Click to expand...

I would add that there has been no compromise offered. In a compromise, neither side gets all of what they want but both sides get something. For example, if UBC's were offered up in exchange for getting rid of the Hughes Amendment or gun-free-school-zones, that would be a compromise. Instead, our side of the debate is being told that because UBC's are "common sense" and "reasonable," we should all just sit down, shut up, and be thankful that they didn't want more. That's not a compromise, that's extortion.
 
TDL I am right there with you.

I can pass a background check and don't per se object it is that the current government and the anti second amendment lobby are selling this as a solution to a problem that isn't being address.

The problem is when universal background checks turn out to be utterly ineffective, the logical next step is more gun control
Click to expand...

I do see problems, I do want to see these killings stop. But I don't want them to waste time and effort chasing a policies that will not work while they ignore real threats.


EDIT: And as for compromises, lol. A compromise is another word for deal. Everyone makes deals, some are better at it then others. But the person that manages to force an unwilling participant to the table has already won because anything he gets is more then what he had before, the other guy can only lose because they are not offering us anything.
 
I hope you are right Glenn. FFL dealers have to retain their 4473's but a private citizen is not necessarily required to save anything. And if they did, how would the enforce it? .... must of lost it. sorry. Hence the registry concept which no pro gun person is going to support. What does it matter if a particular rifle was bought and sold 10 times. I think they watch too much NCIS. Or they simply require private sellers to only transfer through a FFL dealer for a fee. That is the easy call and where they are headed eventually.

If the UBC's are implemented, why not have the federal government send you a check for $20 for using their system?
 
The 2d Amendment has been compromised for over 100 years. It started with the first compromise. What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" doesn't those who own guns understand? If those who own guns will not stand up without compromise, why should anyone else? Politicians compromise. America slides closer to socialism and fascism. Gun owners comprosmise and we slide closer to tyranny. Just a thought...
 
For the previous post - we have pretty well established that the BOR is more complex than absolute. Look at freedom of the press and speech - so can we move beyond cliches?

Limits on rights do exist but need strict scrutiny.

That being said, the Washington Post has a take on background checks that reports that industry types and retailers are more favorable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...4f2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html?hpid=z1

It breaks down support and suggests mayors threaten Glock and the NSSF, for example.
 
I still stick to my guns on this one. While these proposed Universal Back Ground Checks will make some people feel better and make some politicians look better, and make the anti's and gun grabbers feel like they have won a victory. The result will be the same.

Legal gun owners will still sometimes lose their minds and misuse their guns hurting or killing themselves and others. Those who can't legally own guns will still steal them and perform horrible acts to try and outdo the last posted "Top Score". And true criminals will still get guns, if they can't find one for sale that they can buy easily then they will either buy a stolen gun or they will rob peoples' homes to get them.

All I see is more of the same gun violence in the news as we do nothing tangible to mitigate it and an increase in home burglaries and home invasions as a result of our failed efforts to prevent actions with laws which never actually ever prevent anything.

In the mean time big city Law Enforcement continues to support the band-aid policies while at the same time refusing to enforce them.

The gun owners will be forced to pay for the country's newest false security blanket.
 
For the previous post - we have pretty well established that the BOR is more complex than absolute. Look at freedom of the press and speech - so can we move beyond cliches?
Click to expand...
Glenn I agree that the poster you are referring to is both behind the times and slipping into clichés.

On the other hand virtually all limits/actions on speech/press are after use has caused harm, and target specifically and only the individual or entity who/which caused the harm.

We don't regulate computers hardware on illegal speech/press use because some hundreds of users are using that hardware to display child pr 0n.

Courts might hold firingline or the NYT liable for copyright or libel, but the federal and state governments cannot require firingline to maintain liability insurance in order to have website and forum. They cant require you to prescreen comments (say equivent to requiring locks) and they cant require you to submit any material to a government agency for pre approval. You may exercise your own prudence in editing, moderating, and even if need be insuring, but it cant be required ahead of any harm.

Pre exercise infringement, prior restraint, of speech is extraordinarily limited in the US. Essentially you have schematics for atomic weapons subject in the past to prior restraint and that is it (beyond mutual contract obligations like sec. clearance, and contractual obligations on IP.)

Essentially it is correct to look at a lot existing gun control and certainly many of the suggestions as prior restraint against a class where demonstrably almost no one in the class causes any harm.

So I agree with the fourth amend, it has "moved beyond" absolutes. But
I don't think we can escape the fact that suggested and existing popular, academic and even judicial rationals for infringing the second amendment can be applied to quite shockingly and frighteningly to many other rights in the bill of rights. In that sense it is always good at some levels to step back and assert of starting point of "shall not be infringed."

In the early part of this century free speech laws had been massively infringed including by the supreme court with the absurd fire in a theater BS surrounding the infamous sedition act.

later supreme courts and speech rights activists did not say: "well that is where we are now" No they said the whole body around the sedition act and the absurd rulings was wrong and forced it back. And that was hardly a "clean case" since it involved the KKK.

I do agree with you if you mean that practicalities right now and the near future are more conducive to a defense fight on the Second because of social and political reasons. So in that sense we have a more complex discussion and tactics than asserting soley: "shall not be infringed." On the other hand we should not fall for the idea that the existing infringements are written in stone
 
Last edited:
mack59

Just keep in mind that your definition and Dianne Fienstien's definition of a "universal background check" are going to be quite different. You think of it as something minimally intrusive. Senator Feinstein thinks of a universal background check (UBC) as a huge stepping stone towards eventual gun confiscation. If you see the likes of Senator Feinstein proposing "common sense" UBC legislation; don't be surprised if it is 2,000 pages long with very little common sense in it. And always remember "the devil is in the details."
 
TDL - good post. I was simply pointing out that the 'infringed' statement isn't enough argument nowadays for the battle for public opinion. We should remember that the 2nd could be washed out with another amendment. Then kiss 'shall...' bye bye.

It's like in another thread when we were discussing whether buying ammo to flip it and whether such practices were hurting the RKBA - in terms of inhibiting competitions and training. A poster said what part of 'shall..." didn't we understand. Wasn't relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top