Universal Background Checks....

[Tom Servo]

There are clearly laws supporting this system that need to be enforced.

Yep, and we can start by arresting criminals who attempt to buy guns. This is one thing I agree with Bloomberg on.

The problem with NICS is that we convinced ourselves of the need for it. Is there a drop in violent crime that can be associated with it? Nope. Folks just thought it was a good idea, just like some folks think banning 30-round magazines is a good idea.

The Republic survived just fine for 219 years without a background-check system for firearms purchases.

 

[mrbatchelor]

They will eventually add a tax to the private sale of guns then continue raising it to further discourage gun ownership.

Keep on mind that "taxes" are just about the only tool the government has. So of course that's how they will do it.

Remember when Social Security was passed the government was busy telling the people "this isn't a tax" to sell the bill while at the same time arguing in front of the Supreme Court that "it's just a tax" to defend the lawsuit.

Remember Obamacare is legal because "it's just a tax" instead of a compulsion.

 

[gc70]

Holy outofcontextalization batman! Were you paying attention to any part of the conversation? You understand that words have more than one meaning right? That in order to understand what they mean you have to read them within the context of the conversation? We were not for example talking about how to discriminate variables in a science experiment right?

Here is what you wrote.

The CRA and it most of it's follow ups were written to ensure that people have the necessaries in life (education, housing, employment, basic services etc) and not are not to be denied them for discriminatory reasons.

I personally believe that the tools for self defense (arms) are also a necessary and should not be denied without just cause. Therefore obtaining them should not be subject to discrimination (of course most of us know the history of arms control in the US has a long, long racial/ cultural background).

I think if you believe that you can discriminate on who you sell you guns to than you would have to accept it is not truly an essential right.

Your idea that legally prohibited discrimination is based on necessities of life and that legal discrimination in private affairs reflects something less than an essential right is simply wrong.

Discrimination is legally prohibited when it involves state supported activities or public establishments. The "right" that is protected by the Civil Rights Act(s) is generally the right to equal access, opportunities or treatment involving things that are supposedly equally available to all. If a person goes into a store to buy the most trivial item and is turned away on a prohibited basis (race, sex, color, etc.), that refusal constitutes legally prohibited discrimination because the person was not treated fairly and equally with others, and not due to the nature of the item the person wanted to buy.

 

[win-lose]

The problem with NICS is that we convinced ourselves of the need for it. Is there a drop in violent crime that can be associated with it? Nope.

Tom, I think we really need to be careful in presenting this argument as we will fall into the trap of making a case for registration (ie: we need better visibility in order gauge the effectiveness of our controls).

To my mind, this subject is our achilles heal. If we don't successfully argue it, either pro with limited scope or against, it will be expanded into a significant threat (registration).

 

[Hal]

AS - since you mentioned rentals and background checks and fair housing...

Re: a universal background check...
Why? Why do you want to run one? Is it to keep guns out of the hands of felons & crazies or is it because you don't want to assume a legal or moral responsibility for their actions? - this is an either or question, not a "both".

W/regard to rentals..

Say a prospective tenant applied to rent my house. Frank.
He's a single father with a teenage child. Frank Jr.

Should I be allowed to deny the house to him because he has a teen age child?
I can run a background check on him, but, not the teen age child since those records aren't available.

What happens if his teen age child breaks the law? Should I , as a landlord, be responsible for that child's actions?
What if the crime is committed, say, 250 feet away from the property line and in a public park?
Should I still be held liable?

Now, let's say you sell a gun to Frank. Frank has a clean record and passes the check no problem.
Frank's teen age kid , Frank Jr. is a different story. That little delinquent has been in trouble for years.
Should you still be legally or morally responsible if Frank Jr. busts open the gun safe and shoots up the neighborhood?



Heck, I'll even go you one further....

If Frank and Frank Jr. live in my rental house, should I be responsible for the little creep getting his hands on a gun and blazing away at the neighborhood?

I'm curious - where do you draw the line here?

 

[lcpiper]

Before calling someone foolish, perhaps you should read what they wrote.

No Win-Lose, you made the mistake. I said the concept was foolish and asked when you would come to that realization.

From your arguments it sounds as though "something must be done".

I am arguing that nothing must be done and that already too much has been done to no effect.

This is because of this same foolish concept that you can make the world safe with laws. It's just stupid. If this were the case murder would have ceased the moment Moses unveiled God's Ten Commandments, or surely after Charlton Heston took them to the big screen.

It is already against the law to kill people without cause.
It is already against the law for a prohibited possessor to have a gun.
It is already against the law to knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited possessor.

But trying to make it impossible for a prohibited possessor to obtain a weapon is foolish because you just can't do it. You can only punish them for it if you catch them at it.

 

[Spats McGee]

Before I get off into this, let me clarify something. Earlier there was some business about whether or not I believed that you supported a new AWB or something about the NFA. I reviewed my posts and don't think I was the one who said you supported renewing/expanding/etc. those things. Just to make it clear for the record: I'm not saying that you support those things.

I still think the CRA and impermissible discrimination is a derailment, but if you want to hash this out here, that's fine.

Alabama Shooter, I think where you're getting tripped up is the distinction between civil rights and constitutional rights, and the distinction between whether a man has a right, and whether I, acting as an individual, am capable of violating it. I have not gone back and re-read my previous posts this morning, but I may be partially to blame for that confusion, as I was perhaps not as clear as I could have been. In the interest of not derailing this thread any further, though, I'd like to move on to another topic. I may start another thread to address the other issues.

It is not a derailment. It is essential to the topic. The CRA and it most of it's follow ups were written to ensure that people have the necessaries in life (education, housing, employment, basic services etc) and not are not to be denied them for discriminatory reasons.

I personally believe that the tools for self defense (arms) are also a necessary and should not be denied without just cause. Therefore obtaining them should not be subject to discrimination (of course most of us know the history of arms control in the US has a long, long racial/ cultural background).

I think if you believe that you can discriminate on who you sell you guns to than you would have to accept it is not truly an essential right.

Agree or disagree? No need to get shaky knees and equivocate here. The question is pretty straight forward.

No shaky knees here. You haven't asked a single question with which I can simply agree or disagree. You've muddled two questions together and confounded two separate issues: (1) what I should do; and (2) what I legally can do. I'll break down your questions to illustrate. Going back to the first example of the private trasaction, in which the buyer is a member of a protected class:

Tell Frank you won't sell him the gun because he is Hispanic or Muslim. Watch Frank sue you for whatever he thinks he can get.

From a later post:

Now that you are NOT running a gun shop but that you simply offered a gun for sale (say an online ad). You are not acting as an agent for a business. Just you. If you offer and he accepts now you must sell regardless of whatever misgivings you might have if this protected activity right?

The "offer and acceptance" language that you've included implicates contract rights separate and apart from civil rights under the 2A and the CRA of 1968. For the purposes of narrowing the discussion, let's disregard potential contract law implications. Otherwise, we may never get through this.

The underlined section indicates to me that you believe that I cannot legally decline to sell a person my firearm based solely on his race or religion, as that would violate his civil rights under the CRA or the 2A. Is that a correct understanding?

My contention is that I, acting only as an idividual, can legally decline to sell under those circumstances, without violating his civil rights under the CRA, or the US Constitution.

Now, let's look at a couple of other quotes from your last post:

I personally believe that the tools for self defense (arms) are also a necessary and should not be denied without just cause. Therefore obtaining them should not be subject to discrimination (of course most of us know the history of arms control in the US has a long, long racial/ cultural background).

I entirely agree. In the above scenario, I should not decline to sell a person my firearm, based solely on race, gender, or religion. That would be wrong.

However, statements of "should" and "should not" indicate judgments of value, of right and wrong, better and worse. The law does not generally deal in "shoulds." It deals in "shalls," "shall nots," "mays," and "musts." It tells us what we may and may not do, what we must and mustn't do, but not what we should or should not do.

Your other statement is not a statement of "should," though. It's a statement of "can," by which I presume you mean "can do so legally," not "whether Spats is physically capable of" declining to sell.

I think if you believe that you can discriminate on who you sell you guns to than you would have to accept it is not truly an essential right.

This question is separate from what I should do. This is a question of what I legally can do. Acting as a private individual, without holding myself out as a public business, can I legally decline to sell to a man just because of his race? Yes.
Assuming this man is not prohibited:
Does that man have a 2A right? Yes.
Does he have a right to purchase a firearm? Yes.
Does he have a right to purchase my firearm? No.
Do I have a right to dispose of my own personal property? Yes.
Does he have a right to purchase my firearm, sufficient to trump my right to dispose of my property? No.

The CRA was enacted in 1968 to protect minorities from discrimination in matters made available to the public at large, and state or governmental matters. Voting, housing, public facilities. (I seem to recall a case invovling the Howard Johnson's line of hotels and restaurants, for example.) In discrimination law, there are several protected classes (race, religion, gender, age, for example) and protected activities (voting, public facilities, education, housing, and employment for example). The private purchase of firearms, from private individuals, is not included in the list. If we were talking about the purchase of a firearm from a store, held out to the public for public business, that would be a different story. The CRA was not enacted in such a way that it protects from purely private discrimination. Whether or not it should have been is an entirely separate question. Whether I believe the 2A is an "essential right," does not enter into the equation.

The 2A right, on the other hand, was enumerated at the end of the 18th century, but that right, RKBA, is not listed in the CRA. So it's not covered by that. Bear in mind, though, that the 2A wasn't even incorporated to the states until 2010, IIRC. In other words, SCOTUS hadn't even told states that the 2A applied to them until 2A. Just because a provision is in the US Constitution does not automatically mean that it applies to the States. As it stands now, though, it has finally been incorporated, which means that States must comply with it. That means that State are now limited in what laws they may enact in restricting the RKBA. It does not mean that private individuals may be forced to sell their private property to other private individuals.

 

[win-lose]

Before calling someone foolish, perhaps you should read what they wrote.
No Win-Lose, you made the mistake. I said the concept was foolish and asked when you would come to that realization.

From your arguments it sounds as though "something must be done".

I am arguing that nothing must be done and that already too much has been done to no effect.

This is because of this same foolish concept that you can make the world safe with laws. It's just stupid. If this were the case murder would have ceased the moment Moses unveiled God's Ten Commandments, or surely after Charlton Heston took them to the big screen.

It is already against the law to kill people without cause.
It is already against the law for a prohibited possessor to have a gun.
It is already against the law to knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited possessor.

But trying to make it impossible for a prohibited possessor to obtain a weapon is foolish because you just can't do it. You can only punish them for it if you catch them at it.

Your arguments will not persuade anyone... if anything, it sounds like you are arguing for anarchy, which is the last thing our side needs to be doing. Like it or not, this is a very real fight. You can pound your chest and call every thing/one foolish or you can contribute substance. Without a sound argument against back-ground checks, we will need a sound argument for limiting its scope to not include registration.

Again, to date, I have not heard one persuasive argument from ANY figurehead against background checks. Most completely evade answering the question posed. This is very dangerous. I see the purpose of this thread to attempt to produce such arguments.

 

[Hal]

Again, to date, I have not heard one persuasive argument from ANY figurehead against background checks.

Then sir - you're either not listening or support a large powerful central government.
It really is as simple as that.

Mandatory background checks, as proposed by the federal government, usurp the rights of a state to regulate intrastate commerce.

 

[Tom Servo]

Tom, I think we really need to be careful in presenting this argument as we will fall into the trap of making a case for registration (ie: we need better visibility in order gauge the effectiveness of our controls).

Not really. Like I said, we went for over 200 years without background checks. Society didn't crumble. There's no proof that the NICS system reduced crime.

As such, expanding it to cover everybody results in huge outlays in terms of infrastructure. That means taxpayer money, and a lot of it. All that would be for naught if proponents have no proof it'll do any good.

And the burden of proof should be on those proposing it, not on us.

Though I have no idea where they got this number, the anti-gun crowd is crowing that 40% of guns are purchased at gun shows without background checks. Let's accept that figure for the moment.

Less than 1% of crime guns are acquired at gun shows, whereas 13% of crime guns are purchased at retailers. By that logic, the NICS system makes us less safe.

OK, maybe that's a bit loopy (and a bit snarky, sue me), but I'm not seeing the problem that universal checks are going to fix.

 

[win-lose]

Quote:
Again, to date, I have not heard one persuasive argument from ANY figurehead against background checks.
Then sir - you're either not listening or support a large powerful central government.
It really is as simple as that.

Mandatory background checks, as proposed by the federal government, usurp the rights of a state to regulate intrastate commerce.

Hal, I don't believe in large central governments, in fact I can't stand them.

Perhaps I wasn't paying as much attention to this particular argument. Addressing it now... I don't think this argument is very strong... The Feds already do regulate intrastate commerce... they regulate Dr.'s writing prescriptions for their patients and pharmacies filling them, they regulate securities exchanges between the broker/seller and purchaser, they regulate local banks, etc....... I think we need a better argument.

 

[sigcurious]

Though I have no idea where they got this number, the anti-gun crowd is crowing that 40% of guns are purchased at gun shows without background checks.

GEM found the source of that number. Discussion here.

Unfortunately, that number has been co-opted by other "credible" sourcesmaking it difficult to sort out. That "source" was used a cite in this anti-document. If you look at both of them you see multiple problems. The anti-document says it's "fact", while the "source" says perhaps 40% yet provides no basis for that number.

 

[sigcurious]

they regulate securities exchanges between the broker/seller and purchaser, they regulate local banks, etc.......

Those are interstate commerce(anything to do with banking or securities is interstate).

 

[win-lose]

OK, maybe that's a bit loopy (and a bit snarky, sue me), but I'm not seeing the problem that universal checks are going to fix.

We get into a catch 22.... we say that we want better mental health controls/reporting and overall better State reporting into the system, but why if we don't think that we should have background checks?

I'm being a stubborn goat on this issue because I see this item as being the one item with the greatest chance of coming to fruition and the anti's are going to load it to the best of their ability. What makes me so sure of this prediction is MY OWN conviction that I PERSONALLY should do "due diligence" in ensuring that I don't sell a firearm to a prohibited person. This is going to ring very true to most "middle of the road people", as evidenced by the foxnews poll quoted earlier in this thread.

Now, if all that is going to be said has been said, then I will say "Uncle" and let this be....

 

[Tom Servo]

Unfortunately, that number has been co-opted by other "credible" sourcesmaking it difficult to sort out.

Oh, so it's like Kellerman's data, but for the 21st century.

For those who don't remember, Arthur Kellerman did a study in the 1980's in which he claimed that someone was 43 times more likely to be a victim of gun violence if they kept a gun in the home. He never provided raw data, his methods of collection were suspect, and he later recanted to some extent. However, the media picked up on that number, and the horse was out of the barn.

I'm seeing a real parallel here.

 

[lcpiper]

Well then how about this link as a foundation.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootings-happened-2012-84-dead

This is a link to a news article listing all of 2012's mass shootings defined as

multi-victim shootings where those killed were chosen indiscriminately.

Now I spent over 8 hours researching each one going right down the list to determine which ones actually qualified under the definition above and collected many little details as well, such as were the guns used legal purchased, or were the gunmen prohibited possessors, and of course would any of today's legislation like background checks for personal firearms sales have made a difference or even come into play.

I made many notes, I have a text file I have attached with the notes, but alas I was well into the document when I figured maybe I should have noted the links to the info. Alas, take it for what it is, unproven documentation from unproven sources but, it isn't that inaccurate.

Here are my analytic notes;

16 Mass shootings resulting in at least one fatality in 2012.

Despite the articles claim that victims were selected randomly or indiscriminately it is obvious that 9 of the case were neither. The victims or target locations were selected for a specific reason.

6 of the 16 may have involved an AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle but some reports had no evidence for certain.

9 of the cases involved legally owned firearms.
6 of the cases involved stolen firearms.
1 case involved a prohibited possessor who "legally" purchased his firearms before his status could be updated in NCIS so his check went through clean.

4 cases specifically involved a prohibited possessor, at least 3 others should have, but at least 3 cases were specifically gang or criminal in nature.

Of these 16 cases the Background Check system only failed once and a new Background Check requirement on private sales may have had an effect on one case[England/Watts]

The headlines read "leaving at least 88 dead". The numbers break down to;
Dead Assailants 10 with 6 killing themselves, 4 killed by Law Enforcement.
85 actual slain victims including slain Law Enforcement.

But if you tweak it down to only those events where the shooting might have been effected by background checks or a beefed up mental reporting system where troubled people are spotted and flagged more effectively, and rule out their ability to still obtain weapons illegally, the numbers are more like this(I left the Sandy Hook incident in as well);
Seven shooting incidents.
Dead Assailants 6 with 4 killing themselves, 2 killed by Law Enforcement.
45 actual slain victims including slain Law Enforcement.

Grand total of all fatalities is 51 and 27 are from Sandy Hook alone.

Of these seven cases, four might have been prevented by better mental health reporting procedures. One by faster NCIS updates of prohibited possessors and one perhaps by Private Sales background checks, and one I don't think could have been stopped at all, the laid off Accent Signage Systems employee.

So as far as background checks goes, we have one case where closing the loophole might have had some effect, [England/Watts] Tulsa hate crime shooting, three black people killed, randomly selected, but not truly random because the target selected was the entire black race.

 

[lcpiper]

Persuasive only by your standards Win_lose.

The Feds don't need to be pushing this because it's a State issue. When my State brings it up our people will deal with it our own way.

But assume it is proposed at the State level;

No one can show that a background check on personal sales of firearms would prevent a single crime and in fact the very concept is completely illogical.

I have explained this to you several times and you keep blowing it off never addressing it.

Laws have a purpose, they guide the law abiding, they form a justification to punish the law breaker. But laws can not prevent illegal actions.

My proof is simple, if laws themselves could prevent illegal actions then there would be no crime.

I say this is a perfectly valid argument though you refuse to acknowledge it.

Lastly I bridle at your dogged pursuit on this topic. I could have used the same 8 hours I spent screwing around about background checks actually researching something that actually has a chance to be an effective measure. **** I could have at least gone to bed early enough to have gotten some from my wife

 

[2ndsojourn]

@lcpiper,
Was the Ft Hood shooting included? If so, would the following also apply...

"So as far as background checks goes, we have one case where closing the loophole might have had some effect, [England/Watts] Tulsa hate crime shooting, three black people killed, randomly selected, but not truly random because the target selected was the entire black race."

..as the shooter was asian descent and all the victims were white.

 

[lcpiper]

No, the Fort Hood shooting happened in 2009, not during the last year, 2012.

..as the shooter was asian descent and all the victims were white.

If my understanding of the details are correct. Maj. Hassan is being charged by the Army under the Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ). This system makes no distinction between murders motivated by hate from any other murder. For the Army, murder is just murder. What an outstanding concept.

 

[Tom Servo]

I'm on the Brady Campaign's mailing list. Long story, but nobody there has figured out that Pynchon Voltaire isn't my real name yet.

Anyhow, this went out today in response to the Senate hearings:

We support President Obama's comprehensive plan to prevent gun violence. His legislative plan — which includes measures such as universal criminal background checks for all gun buyers — can immediately reduce gun injuries and deaths across America.

That's a pretty big promise to make.