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

[HiBC]

GunXpatriot:Its OK to put your idea out for feedback..I lose patience with people who ask in the way you did,then argue.

Please consider this slowly,deeply,and I am not asking for feedback,I'm educating you.:

Your key premise,while based on an unverified assumption,brilliantly illuminates the wisdom of the authors of the Constitution.
You state the information for a NICS check is required by law to be destroyed,yet we may assume it is all stored and retained

Now,lets think about that.It is a Murphy's Law Principle our Founder's recognized"If it can go wrong,it will"or,If a government can abuse its authority,it will.Your fundamental premise is based on an unlawful abuse of our Liberty,yet,because we assume it is being done,incorporate it to policy!

That is why the Constitution is about limiting the powers of government,and protecting Individual Liberty.That is why our Founders used language like

"Congress shall make no law" and "Shall not be infringed".

And,while,sadly,I am sure I will draw criticism for pointing it out,a critical point is these are my God given Rights,not my government given rights.

Our Founders gave us a Government Of,By,and For the People.That endows each of us with the responsibility,as citizens,to uphold and defend the Constitution.

We Fail the Founders,and all Patriots,and our Children and Grandchildren when we abdicate and compromise these Liberties.

Permits?We don't need no stinking permits!!

We need to be able to shoot back!Stop the killer from killing!

I'm afraid,with the open border and what is happening in the world,it may become very important for the individual to secure our civil society.

Manta 49:I understand we are all free to have and voice our opinions here.I certainly value and respect Britain as our friend and ally.
Please review the British/American history from the Colony through the late 1700's.Considerable struggle determined that this United States of America had a different notion.We are not Subjects.
Our Constitution has provisions brought about specifically to address what we perceived as an unacceptable relationship with the British Government ,at that time.
With all due respect to all of Britain,there is a different Citizen/Government relationship in Britain than there is in USA.
There is no need to apply British solutions to American issues.
Can we agree the merit of British solutions is open to debate?(Were Holland and Holland,Rigby,Jeffers,Churchill,etc fine firearms chopped,crushed,destroyed ?)
Yet I would consider myself rather rude to comment on British domestic affairs.(such as Scotland secession)
I would expect to be told"Bugger off,Yank,none of your business!!" and rightfully so.
All with a smile,and I promise to have a Guinness before day is done!

 

[JimDandy]

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

The UK didn't actually have a reduction. They banned, got a gigantic uptick, that then slowly dropped back to the same homicide rate as before. All they really did was trade firearms for other means. Their overall rate is about the same as it was before ban. This particular link is from John Lott's work, so I'm loathe to link it, however it's just reproduced from official UK government production and the source is cited across the bottom.

 

[DAVID NANCARROW]

Manta, I doubt you understand the problem here fully. There are over 20,000 gun laws in America, most of which aren't enforced. Before all of this electronic nonsense came about to perform a back ground check, a purchaser still had to file a federal form in order to purchase a firearm. This form is still required along with whatever the state or county or city requires depending on the location.

The problem is that the law abiding citizens here are being done to death with rules and regulations which do nothing to lower the crime rate, and a lot of otherwise needed tax money to fund a useless wild goose chase. If legislation/registration did any good at all, would not have any crime to report.

 

[manta49]

Manta 49:I understand we are all free to have and voice our opinions here.I certainly value and respect Britain as our friend and ally.
Please review the British/American history from the Colony through the late 1700's.Considerable struggle determined that this United States of America had a different notion.We are not Subjects.
While I respect your right to express yourself,I do not place my Liberty in the hands of your opinions.
Recently there was a vote in Scotland over secession.How would you receive it had I taken a stance on that issue in the Scottish newspapers?
I would expect to hear"Bugger off,Yank,none of your affair!" and rightfully so.

The US was founded on the idea that here,in the USA,we have a fundamentally different relationship between citizen and government than you do in Britain.I am not arrogant and condescending enough to suggest Britain should bend to my opinions.It seems only a decent courtesy,don't you think

That's all fine but I am not sure what it has to do with my view that if the authorities in America wanted to have effective background checks they could. The last time it looked at my passport it said citizen not subject. And just like all Americans doint like apple pie not all Irish like Guinness including me. I can understand a bit of what you are saying about sticking your nose in another countries business, but coming for someone in America a country that has had its nose stuck in N Irelands affairs for as long as I can remember its citizens supplying arms to terrorist groups here that were used to murder hundreds people i find a bit rich. PS apologies for going of topic in my response some things need said.

 

[DAVID NANCARROW]

So, you seem to have the answers, Manta. Exactly what might they be?????

 

[Aguila Blanca]

No registration, no gun owners list, just a vast pool of CCW holders who choose to exercise their rights or not.

Your vast pool of CCW holders excludes those persons who didn't chose to go through a NICS check to get the CCW, as well as persons who (for whatever reason) didn't pass the background check yet are not prohibited persons.

Are you proposing that every adult be subjected to a criminal background check, whether or not they wish to do anything requiring a background check? That seems pretty invasive to me, and of problematic constitutionality.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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. I’ve been kicking around an “outside-the-box” idea that, by using the carrot rather than the stick, would enable us to assure ourselves that we were transferring firearms only to those eligible to receive them. Bear with me, and please read the entire post. I’m certainly receptive to feedback, especially in the form of constructive criticism.

You seem to be forgetting or glossing over the fact the Adam Lanza didn't guy the guns he used at Sandy Hook. In fact, the existing system at that time worked, and he was not allowed to purchase a firearm several days before the incident.

So he murdered his mother in her bed and used HER guns -- ALL of which had been legally purchased under both federal law and Connecticut's extra layers of requirements to purchase a firearm.

 

[manta49]

So, you seem to have the answers, Manta. Exactly what might they be?????

If you read what I posted, I was commenting on some saying because criminals can get firearms even if there are background checks what's the point. To me you could say that about any law, what's the point because some will break the law. And that authorities don't uphold the existing laws, my point is just because the agency involve is not fit for purpose doesn't mean that it could not be done. If it should be done is another matter. PS I did not say that firearms bans in the UK lowered firearms crimes, and did not say I supported any of the bans. Do I think dangerous criminal should be legally buy firearms no, does the system in the UK prevent that happening yes.

 

[JN01]

We have to do something

Perhaps people need to face the fact that freedom sometimes has negative consequences, and that some problems can not be solved by ANY law.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It's nothing too out of the way, nobody really minds it.

Speak for yourself, Grasshopper, and don't get caught up in sweeping generalizations. "Nobody" encompasses a lot of people. I know a couple in NC who tolerate it because they have no choice, but they sure as [bleep} "mind" it. And if even one person in NC minds it ... your statement is automatically invalid.

Tolerating something is not the same as believing that's the way things should be. I need a permit to carry a handgun outside of my house. That's the law in my state, so I have the permit. And at every opportunity offered me I point out that the requirement to have a permit to carry a handgun is contrary to both the Constitution of the United States AND my state's constitution. Do I "mind" it, even though I comply with it? You betcha I mind it.

The reason is to keep felons from purchasing firearms, it works pretty well around here. In Charlotte, that's another story.

Grasshopper ... if it doesn't work in Charlotte, it doesn't work. Period.

 

[JN01]

Do I think dangerous criminal should be legally buy firearms no, does the system in the UK prevent that happening yes.

I guess you could say that the US system prevents felons from LEGALLY buying guns as well, but they continue to get them ILLEGALLY (black market, straw purchase, etc.)

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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

Whoa! Hold on, Mate. Did your first post say "Tell me what you think"? So now that we've told you what you asked for, you accuse us of jumping down your throat and attacking you?

The late Ann Landers used to advise "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." If you didn't want to hear our thoughts on your proposal, you shouldn't have asked for them.

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...

No, the existing system is quite capable of prosecuting people who lie on 4473s. The feral government has made a conscious decision NOT to prosecute such people. They have more important things to do ... like running guns to Mexico.

 

[Mosin-Marauder]

Sorry. Just didn't know it was so outrageous. It's been in effect for a rather long time. Besides, nothing I can do to change it, I like rifles better anyway.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

If such strict laws are so effective, why have armed robberies and "hot burglaries" (home invasions) escalated so drastically in both Great Britain and Australia immediately following the enactment of draconian new anti-gun laws?

 

[manta49]

I guess you could say that the US system prevents felons from LEGALLY buying guns as well

If that's the case that's good, of course criminals can get firearms illegally. Someone illegally obtaining a firearm and going on a mass shooting is bad. But can you imagine the outcry if the government knowingly allowed a known violent criminal to buy a firearm and he went on a shooting spree with it. People don't seem to be able to see the difference between someone legally and illegally owning a firearm, so the response is what's the point they will just get one somewhere else. As I said you could say that about any law.

 

[HiBC]

Manta 49,I do not deny my government has stuck its nose in places that it does not belong.My government can be aggressive,invasive,can exceed its authority..It is the nature of government.
If the topic were objecting to government over reach,we would probably agree.

I will say again,our Constitution,including Bill of Rights and 2nd amendment,were written to Limit Government and Protect Individual Liberty.

I might concede meddling in Northern Ireland as over reach,and,if I were better informed,we might completely agree.(I confess ignorance )

I do not understand advocating greater government involvement (US gun control) and lesser involvement(meddling in Ireland) in the same argument.
I advocate government operating within bounds,in both cases.

Yes,all governments have regrettable skeletons in their closet,the USA included.

Only night before last,I went on youtube and watched a two part documentary on Lawrence of Arabia and Sykes-Picot Agreement.I found it very enlightening about the world's situation today.I strongly recommend seeing it.

http://youtu.be/u1zLTXgYLbw

Perfect?Likely not,but an enlightening overview.

As Willie Nelson wrote in his song"I've got a long list of real good reasons.....And their ain't nothing I can do about it now"

Right now,in this moment,Individual Liberty,once lost,is seldom regained....

If it us restored,the process is bloody.

I suggest we take care of the Liberty we have.

I hope our OP can now say to himself"Well,OK,I learned something...?

HMMMM Well,I can enjoy a Guinness.Bushmills?Red Breast?McCallans?Tallisker?Not much into tea..though Twinings Lapsang Souchong hits the spot occasionally...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

People don't seem to be able to see the difference between someone legally and illegally owning a firearm, so the response is what's the point they will just get one somewhere else. As I said you could say that about any law.

Yes, you can say that about any law.

I'm officially a senior citizen. I can remember when I could buy cough syrup or allergy medication without question at the supermarket. Today, if I put cough syrup on the belt, everything stops until the cashier can hail a supervisor to come over with a key to do a register override so an old man can buy ONE bottle of cough medicine.

Has this stopped, or even slowed down, the production of meth and other illegal substances? Not much, but it inconveniences me and every person in line behind me every tine it happens.

How many things do you want to ban or regulate against the mathematically infinitesimal chance that someone, somewhere, some time, will do "a bad thing"? Prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, farmers could buy all the fertilizer and diesel fuel they wanted. Once Timothy McVeigh combined them to blow up a building, buying more than two or three bags of fertilizer requires an approval, identification, and gets recorded in a database somewhere. To what purpose? It inconveniences legitimate purchasers, but anyone who wants to blow up a building with a fertilizer bomb can just steal the fertilizer by cutting the fence at Home Depot late at night, and get all the diesel fuel they want by siphoning it out of trucks in a parking lot.

Once we begin banning and restricting and regulating everything in the futile hope of maybe preventing one crime, somewhere, somewhen ... where does it end?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I might concede meddling in Northern Ireland as over reach,and,if I were better informed,we might completely agree.(I confess ignorance )

The United States government did not meddle in Northern Ireland. Some Americans of Irish extraction illegally supported unlawful activities in Northern Ireland. The United States government prosecuted them when it caught them.

 

[P5 Guy]

So from reading most all of the above I have distilled the argument down to this. A proactive or reactive solution. Background checks, permits to purchase and such restrictions are intended to proactively deny firearms to those society has deemed unfit. The reactive path allows that all are found to be fit to purchase until that individual proved him/herself not to be. Then that person should be removed from society to enforce the restriction.
I think I'd rather deal with the reactive than the proactive solution, because those that intend to prey on the moral agents in society will do so no matter what. Restricting my access to the proper tools for my defense has no effect on those that would prey upon me.

 

[Spats McGee]

Sorry. Just didn't know it was so outrageous. It's been in effect for a rather long time. Besides, nothing I can do to change it, I like rifles better anyway.

For folks who have never known any system, except one in which a permit is required to purchase a pistol, it will never seem outrageous or invasive. For those of us who have never needed a pistol purchase permit, it can seem very invasive.

Incremental gun control happens by instituting one small, apparently-innocuous requirement to purchasing a firearm. In this case, it's a pistol purchase permit. Once the gun control crowd gets most gun owners accustomed to that requirement, along comes the next one. First, it's NICS checks by FFLs, then pistol permits, then we move along to special permits for semiautomatic rifles, and on, and on.

Never forget that after the AWB was passed in 1994, several highly-placed figures (whose names escape me at the moment) were quoted as calling that "a good first start."