Universal Background Checks... A better way? What do you think?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nope. I was surprised when I learned that states had this "permit to purchase" mechanism a few years back.
Click to expand...
It's nothing too out of the way, nobody really minds it. Just have to go to the Sheriff and ask him for a permit, he does a background check and you're GTG.
 
Code: 
It's nothing too out of the way, nobody really minds it. Just have to go to the Sheriff and ask him for a permit, he does a background check and you're GTG.

I assume that you still have to undergo a Federal NICS check and the 4473 form as well at the time of purchase? So, in order to exercise your right to keep and bear arms, you must have permission from the Federal, State and or county governments? Seems like a lot of government to me, and for what reason?
 
Exactly my point: The NICS check is supposed to deny felons in the first place. A lot of felons who know they cannot purchase simply steal them or find another illegal way to obtain them

The only ones who don't mind the multiple checks or the increased cost of purchasing a firearm are the law abiding citizens who aren't criminals in the first place!

Once again the question...why must you, the law abiding citizen have to jump through a bunch of hoops in order to exercise your God given right of self defense?
 
Mosin-Marauder Wrote;
The reason is to keep felons from purchasing firearms, it works pretty well around here.
Click to expand...

I'll wager it does not work as well as you think. If a felon wants a gun, they simply go out to the street and either buy one or, steal one.

It may stop them from purchasing one at a retailer but, does nothing to deter a felon from acquiring a firearm .

The net result ? You sacrifice your liberties so that a felon cannot shop at Gander Mountain.
 
It may stop them from purchasing one at a retailer but, does nothing to deter a felon from acquiring a firearm
Click to expand...
Fun fact: NICS sometimes fails to do even that. I've dealt with several cases in which felons have gotten a pass from the system due to sloppy reporting from state and local agencies.

Add the number of false denials to the list, and we've got a system that doesn't work very well at all. Why would we want to expand its scope?
 
manta49 said:
Just because some people ignore a law and is not a good reason not to have it...
Click to expand...

Where the class of people at whom a prohibition is aimed is exactly the class most likely to ignore the prohibition, and the prohibition is also a restriction of a constitutional right, and the prohibition can be successfully and widely ignored by the target population, that's an excellent reason not to have such a law.

Such a law bears very little relation to any legitimate governmental purpose.
 
Um, wow. That escalated quickly.

Zukiphile. About the doing nothing, thing. I'm just trying to brainstorm, like I said. I'm not even trying to compromise. Just think of something that would benefit all of us in a number of ways.

But I think the only way for crime to truly go away, would be a complete change in the nature of Humans. And that... Might take some time.

But I do wanna clarify something. I'll ask again. Have you guys heard of the claims that even the current NICS system is a backdoor form of registration? And that every record of every purchase since it started, is still being held? Since pretty much all of us have been subject to a 4473 at some point, don't you think you're in there, somewhere?

I was going off that assumption. That they already have us "registered" anyway. And that this method would be LESS invasive. We'd still be "registered" as is very possible under the current system. HOWEVER. Each firearm purchase would not be logged, and they wouldn't know when you bought "something". To my understanding, the current system lets them know you made the purchase, but not what you bought. The Daily Kos OP's proposal would totally eliminate that.

But to have this done properly, is mostly a pipe dream since, like you guys said, the current NICS system isn't even handled properly and no one is prosecuted for trying to lie and buy a gun illegally.

See, maybe I'm trying to go after what can't be done. And I agree, having to go for a permit IS a reduction of liberties. But again, I was basing that off the assumption that most places required a permit for say, concealed carry. You guys should see the moronic requirements for a pistol permit in NY, let alone NYC (which is impossible).

Also, thanks for jumping down my throat/attacking me.

EDIT!!

CORRECTION! THANKS FOR "NOT" JUMPING DOWN MY THROAT! Some people brought this typo up after I posted this! SORRY!

Oh, and Tom, I've heard of that happening. People getting past the NICS check, I mean. I take it the NICS system is severely under-funded and under-staffed. Maybe that'd be a place to start. Prosecute those who try to squirm their way in. That can only be done with a fundamentally "better" system than we have now. Or rather, an improved current system that is actually accurate in what they're doing...

But as far as the proposal I posted, yes, the permitting process is agreeably sucky. But I think the rest is pretty decent, if you ask me. :o

Maybe I'm playing Devil's advocate a little, but I just figured that it was perhaps, an improvement to the current system for the aforementioned reasons.
 
Last edited:
Fun fact: NICS sometimes fails to do even that. I've dealt with several cases in which felons have gotten a pass from the system due to sloppy reporting from state and local agencies.
Click to expand...
That tells me that the system is not fit for purpose, not what it is supposed to be doing is necessary wrong. I am sure there are other instances were bad or sloppy work from agencies have let people get away with crimes, that doesn't mean the law is bad.
 
Alright, something else that many may disagree on... I read on this forum that a guy happened to save the day in a robbery. Um... I think it had been something about CC. And then someone said,

"if you're in a position to stop another Columbine, I doubt you'd be prosecuted for having a gun at a school."

And another replied "I don't know about that", more or less.

And it was a story about a robbery that occured somewhere. I believe there were two guys robbing three others. Two that they were robbing were producers of something... So I think one of the guys put his gun down every now and then. So one of the victims runs and grabs the gun, and shoots (and I believe kills) both of them.

Alright, luckily the hero saved the day, right? Well apparently not. The guy who shot the robbers happened to have a drug conviction much earlier in his life. It was not violent, but that conviction made it illegal to even touch a firearm. I believe he's now doing time... That is, if I got this story right...

Anyway. And many would probably disagree. But if someone had committed a non-violent / white collar crime much earlier in their life, they should eventually be able to have their rights restored. Now this guy had committed a small-time drug crime. Most likely possession, I would think. I believe this had been many years before the aforementioned event. This is a prime example of someone who should not be barred from their fundamental rights for the rest of their life.

I only think about this sort of thing, because about 35 years ago, my uncle had unknowingly committed a white-collar felony like this. He was mixed up with some questionable business partners. They received some product from another group. As it turned out, the stuff had been paid for with a bad check. On the other guys' end, I mean. He hadn't made the deal himself, but his partner did, and he got mixed up in it. He was charged with receiving stolen goods, or something.

Anyway, it is now 35 years later, and he can't vote. He can't own a firearm. He can't do anything, though he's worked his way back up a little and has gotten back into business. I dunno, many might disagree with me on this, but I feel like it's something that in a lot of cases, should be addressed.
 
Code: 
Fun fact: NICS sometimes fails to do even that. I've dealt with several cases in which felons have gotten a pass from the system due to sloppy reporting from state and local agencies.

Add the number of false denials to the list, and we've got a system that doesn't work very well at all. Why would we want to expand its scope?

I really do understand the intent behind all of the background checks, permits and licenses, but they do not work as intended.
Thanks to NICS, I always get a "hold" whenever I buy, probably because someone with my name or similar SSN or something is on their list. So I wait the 3 business days and pick it up. Its annoying to say the least, and I don't purchase all that often, so it doesn't impact me much. But why should I have to put up with it?

Pay heed to all of those lists of gun owners which some in government drool at the thought of confiscating. Couldn't happen you say? Read history.

The criminals break the law, arrests are made sometimes, and are plea bargained to nothing so the bad guys are out doing what they always do. Maybe a bit better because of their education in the pokey by some of the smarter crooks during their brief stay. I am sure there are a lot of law enforcement officers out there ready to snatch themselves bald-headed in frustration because of it.

Background checks to me are nothing more than registration, and while the data itself is harmless, in the wrong hands is very dangerous.
 
That tells me that the system is not fit for purpose, not what it is supposed to be doing is necessary wrong.
Click to expand...
It was sold to the public as a measure to reduce gun violence. It has never been proven to have an effect on gun violence.

Is it wrong to want to reduce gun violence? Not at all, but it is wrong to keep pumping money and resources into an intrusive program that doesn't do what it promised. There's certainly no reason to broaden its scope.

Also, thanks for jumping down my throat/attacking me.
Click to expand...
Nobody's jumping down your throat. We are attacking the idea, which is misguided if well-intentioned.

Oh, and Tom, I've heard of that happening. People getting past the NICS check, I mean. I take it the NICS system is severely under-funded and under-staffed. Maybe that'd be a place to start. Prosecute those who try to squirm their way in.
Click to expand...
I've been arguing that for years. Actual prosecutions of gun crimes are lax to the point of absurdity. Last year, claims were made (and refuted) that the NICS system had prevented 1.6 million disqualified people from buying firearms. Despite that, we could find only 62 cases in which prosecution had been brought.

The idea of requiring background checks seems philosophically satisfying at first. Our opponents did their best to capitalize on that last year. However, there isn't a practical way to implement a system that isn't terribly intrusive and inefficient.
 
Tom makes some real good points, well most everyone here does. Ill admit I didn't read the entire thing. When someone suggests that I submit not only to background checks but a permit system after that I quit reading into it. On top of that I think there is a law that dictates it is unconstitutional to delay the exercising of a right, obstruct the exercising of a right and so forth. This is a gun forum. Needless to say to come on here and voice pro-permit system/ pro-background check, pro-gun control will be met with high resistance.
 
It was sold to the public as a measure to reduce gun violence. It has never been proven to have an effect on gun violence.

Is it wrong to want to reduce gun violence? Not at all, but it is wrong to keep pumping money and resources into an intrusive program that doesn't do what it promised. There's certainly no reason to broaden its scope
Click to expand...

I am not saying its a good or bad idea that background checks are carried out in America. They are carried out here in the UK and have being as long as I can remember, they are very effective here regards the authorities carrying out the checks. If they can effectively carry out the checks here how can it not be done in one of the most technically advanced country in the world. So for me it could be done if it should be or not is another question.
 
GunXPatriot, I certainly was not jumping down your throat. If any sort of registration did actually work as intended, I would have no issues with it whatsoever. The problem as I see it is that I have yet to see a registration system which truly did what it was intended to do. Be it human error, computer glitches or what have you. Even if some system was devised and was 99% accurate, that still means that a lot of American citizens are going to be unfairly wronged by such a system.

Denying a fellow citizen unfairly of their right is something I really have issues with.
 
They are carried out here in the UK and have being as long as I can remember, they are very effective here regards the authorities carrying out the checks.
Click to expand...
How do we determine their effectiveness in your country? Have they published any evidence?

There may have been a decline in gun crimes in the UK over the last two decades, but how much of that is attributable to background checks vs. the sweeping bans they enacted?
 
Be it human error, computer glitches or what have you. Even if some system was devised and was 99% accurate, that still means that a lot of American citizens are going to be unfairly wronged by such a system.

Denying a fellow citizen unfairly of their right is something I really have issues with.
Click to expand...
If you didn't bring in a law unless it was guarantied that there would be no errors are computer glitches, then there would be no laws. Some people in America are happy to put their citizens to death in a system that that is not perfect and gets it wrong. You can't deny a citizens rights much more than the state killing them only to find out later that they were innocent.

How do we determine their effectiveness in your country? Have they published any evidence?

There may have been a decline in gun crimes in the UK over the last two decades, but how much of that is attributable to background checks vs. the sweeping bans they enacted?
Click to expand...
They are effective in stopping people that are not allowed firearms getting them legally, I doubt if they are effective in stopping people getting them illegally. But there is a difference government allowing someone that is known to be a danger to themselves and others to legally obtain firearms, and the person illegally getting them. You cain't stop anyone doing anything illegal that's not a good reason not to have laws. just punish them if and when they are caught.

As for firearms banns in the UK I don't think having background checks made any difference one way or the other. If they didn't know who had firearms they would just have said anyone having a certain type of firearm they wanted to ban after a certain date they would be breaking the law and would have to face the coincidences if caught with an illegal firearm, up to 5 years in jail the last time I looked.
 
Last edited:
GXP said:
Zukiphile. About the doing nothing, thing. I'm just trying to brainstorm, like I said. I'm not even trying to compromise. Just think of something that would benefit all of us in a number of ways.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with brainstorming, but one should understand the basics of the product, the proposal.

Where the subjects are a constitutionally protected right and an ability to do harm, a scheme that revokes the right on the projected possibility that the harm will be reduced by disabling everyone (except criminals) is going to be a problem, and may be a problem far worse than the harm it is purported to avoid.

Where a remedy is tightly focused on addressing a specific problem, like a suit for defamation (laws that provide liability malicious, untrue and damaging statements) or conviction and incarceration of a serial murderer (laws that provide criminal liability for unjustified homocide), you will find copious support. Where a proposed remedy makes mincedmeat of a right, like speech restrictions on some entities prior to an election or prior investigation of everyone's "papers" before they can possess arms, the focus on the problem is lost, liberties are shrunk, and people rightly object.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top