Universal Background Checks....

[TailGator]

Basically, give everyone the ability to do a background check and require them to keep a simple log of who they sold a firearm to (and proof of the background check) in the event it is later used in a crime?

That sounds pretty close to making all gun owners comply with FFL requirements.

On the rare occasions that I have sold a firearm, I have sold to gun shops, precisely because I did not want to sell a firearm to a stranger and not have confidence that it was going to a legal owner for legitimate purposes. But that is my personal standard. If I found a buyer of whom I had personal knowledge, should I not have had the ability to make that sale of my personal property?

I understand what you mean, though Skans - it is hard to argue against background checks to a public with 10-second attention spans.

 

[MLeake]

lcpiper, while I am by no means arguing for mandatory checks, and in fact I oppose them, there is a glaring problem with the example you gave:

Why would you have any buyer unknown to you come to your home, to look at a weapon?

Even without mandatory background checks, I think this is a particularly bad idea.

 

[win-lose]

The OP's question is about universal background checks.

Here is the whole enchilada as I see it.

Let your state pass it. That's cool, then I know I am not selling my gun to a prohibited possessor. But the State made the requirement and it's for everyone's benefit so the state can pay for it with our state taxes.

But remember, when the bad guys come to buy my gun and I say;
"Ok Dude, $350 is cool, let's go down to our local gun shop and run the background check".

And then the bad guy says" Ummmm. yea you know, the grip has a scratch, I don't think I can go more then $150".

So there is no sale. The next night my back door is busted in and this ******* has stolen my entire gun safe then forgive me if I regret my first reaction to this completely moronic idea.

Why would you bring the person to your home in the first place? Bringing them to your home is the mistake... not the background check.

 

[Pahoo]

Let the states do it !!!

If background checks are to be required on personal sale of firearms, it needs to be done at the state level because the Federal Gov. is simply overstepping their power.

In part, this is what Iowa has done by issuing a "Purchasing Permit" through the County's Sherif's office. You apply, they do the checking and three days later, you pick up your permit. The permit is good for one year. To be more specific, It's called an (Iowa Annual Permit to Aquire Pistols or Revolvers). This permit is accepted by all Iowa FFL dealers for "all" legal firearms. It works just fine. ....

Be Safe !!!

 

[sigcurious]

1. I would feel better about selling a gun to someone I have verified is not a criminal

Great, then conduct your private sales at an FFL voluntarily. Don't muddle the waters with further questionable federal involvement. Secondly, people already commit straw purchases for criminals to circumvent the system, why would this be any different? Now, are you so sure you're not actually selling to a criminal?

2. It would preserve the right of private sellers to conduct FTF transactions in state without an FFL

You sure about that? The easiest way to implement universal background checks would be to force private transactions to be done at an FFL, to utilize the system that already exists. Rather than spending additional money to alter the system to allow anyone to access it along with protecting privacy concerns. One of the recent EO's indicates the stronger possibility of implementation through FFLs rather than revamping the system.

3. It may keep gun shows alive and available for private persons to sell firearms at.

Welcoming more intrusion for something that "may" happen? This third "pro" is really an extension of #2, which relies heavily on assumptions.


I see a list of "I hope/wish" not explicit pros associated with implementing universal background checks. The explicit cons are certainly there, expansion of federal power under the guise of "interstate commerce", as Hal pointed out is the biggest for me.

 

[Pahoo]

The day Gun-Shows died

Federally mandated back ground checks will mean the end of Gun Shows. All it takes, is one documented private sale and the promoters will be held responsible. Given that this transaction could be staged, it would be enough reason to prosecute. ....

Be Safe !!!

 

[win-lose]

I'm not trying to push my views on anyone, so please take this as a good natured discussion.

It seems almost universal that everyone believes:

1) Criminals should not have access to firearms

2) People with severe mental issues should not have access to firearms.

So... what methods are available to us to keep firearms from these two groups?

 

[MLeake]

Hmmm... let's see... how about we actually make violent repeat offenders serve their full prison terms, rather than allowing early release or parole?

How about we prosecute straw purchasers, and incarcerate them?

How about we prosecute prohibited persons who are found in possession of firearms?

How about we make theft of a firearm a first degree felony?

 

[eldermike]

We have a revolving door criminal justice system and a totally broken mental health system so lets find a way to live with it. I am against any and all ideas that divert attention from actual problems.

 

[Skans]

I find what Spats McGee said in post 11 most persuasive for no universal background check laws.

The one issue that no one has addressed yet, however, is what would you want in return for universal background check legislation, so that it is not just incrementalism. Personally, I would agree to universal background checks IF the following was also agreed to:

1. Repeal of the '89 import ban or '86 machinegun ban.
2. specific language in the law that basically says this is it - no more bans, restrictions on magazines, etc., without a super-majority vote in the House and Senate.
3. Backgrond checks only to cost $5.00 and can be charged to credit cards - results must be returned within 30 minutes. Everyone is required to track their own transactions - however, the verification information would only be used if the gun is ever traced to a crime.

I could say "OK" to something like that. But, I wouldn't agree to anything less. Those are just my personal thoughts.

 

[BlueTrain]

I'm not so sure we have a revolving door criminal system (after all, there are 52 different systems, at least) but we certainly have more things against the law than practically any other country in the world. The prisons are full. In fact, prisons are a growth industry. Maybe that's where the money is.

On the other hand, I don't think there's much agreement on what the problem is.

 

[MLeake]

We already have that, Skans, it's called the Second Amendment, and it would take a supermajority of state conventions to change it.

Meanwhile, you'd exchange universal background checks for the promise that the antis would not use such to create a registry, and confiscation framework?

Really?

Sounds like promises frat boys make to sorority girls...

 

[Alabama Shooter]

No, the planning would exist. The background check would have stopped it. The CT shooter, for example, failed the background check... was the incident prevented?

First I think the "failed a background check" is fictious or unproven at this point.

On the "planning" in order to prove such an incident had happened the person would have to essentially offer a fully confession or present evidence to the effect of his misdeeds. Otherwise we would have no way of knowing what he was thinking or planning. Again you are asking for something that is near impossible to prove and as a non-event we would likely not even know about.

This fictious evil person that you have created that would not be stopped by a background check does not represent the arguments or position of the OP reminds me of something. I am looking for the words....

Has the background check ever prevented an incident?

You failed to defined "incident". So I will go with yes. Every year it prevents tens of thousands of felons from getting firearms. So it avoids felons in possession. With recidivism rates being what they are I am in favor.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2007-operations-report/ops_report_2007
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/intro.htm

Has failure to have background checks ever allowed an incident that would likely have been stopped if checks were in place?

If I understand your question correctly than the answer is resoundingly yes. Every criminal that every got a gun illlegally did not have a background check and would likely have been denied if they had one. If your question is another of those unprovable "prove the crime didn't happen" that you posted eariler than there is no telling.

Is the existing system effective in stopping crime or preventing criminal access to firearms?

Stopping no. Reducing maybe? Can you prove it doesn't?

 

[MLeake]

Alabama Shooter, if you want to restrict a right, that puts the onus squarely on you to prove the benefit. You can't just say, "You want me to prove a negative?" and shrug it off.

The correct argument is, if you can't prove that your restriction of a right would have a demonstrable and readily proven benefit, you shouldn't even argue for restriction of the right in the first place.

Next, you point out that tens of thousands of transactions were stopped by the 4473 and NICS system. Please point out how many of those persons ended up doing prison time as a result?

(Last time I looked, at the end of the Clinton administration, the answer to that question was "2".)

 

[Alabama Shooter]

The correct argument is, if you can't prove that your restriction of a right would have a demonstrable and readily proven benefit, you shouldn't even argue for restriction of the right in the first place.

Now that is a "real" argument and a good one too.

The point is that it is NOT a restriction. There is no reason why sane, law abiding people in the country legally can't own a firearm. There is absolutely nothing to prevent it from happening by having a background check.

 

[Fishing_Cabin]

One of the main issues I have with any of the proposed legislation, is that while we may be increasing what is illegal, we are not doing anything at all to increase enforcement efforts, nothing to increase efforts to prosecute, and nothing to increase the efforts to house those convicted of these crimes. Without that, well, we have no, or little effect.

For those who want "Universal Background Checks" why dont we first step up funding and possibly mandate investigation, and prosecution for violations of firearm laws already on the books?

After that step is taken, and a reasonable time has passed, lets do a study to see if there has been any reduction in crime, or violence, and then we start looking at adding new laws to reduce violence, if needed, but not infringe on a law abiding persons rights...

 

[sigcurious]

There is absolutely nothing to prevent it from happening by having a background check.

Tread carefully with that word "absolutely", there are certainly things that prevent or hinder law abiding citizens from owning a firearm due to background checks. Identity theft, similar/same name as a felon, etc. Something that prevents or hinders...sounds awfully similar to restriction.

More broadly, if you say background checks are not a restriction. What is the purpose of them? Is the purpose not to restrict some people from owning firearms?

 

[Spats McGee]

The point is that it is NOT a restriction. There is no reason why sane, law abiding people in the country legally can't own a firearm. There is absolutely nothing to prevent it from happening by having a background check.

I agree that there is absolutely nothing to prevent transfers from happening by background check. There is, as far as I know, nothing to prevent two private parties from asking an FFL to do a transfer, including NICS check. For those citizens who choose to do just that, more power to them.

Where we disagree is whether such a check should be mandatory for private citizens to use a background check for private transfers. I am of the opinion that it is the government's job to prove something (such as proving beyond a reasonable doubt that I have committed a felony crime) before I am prohibited from exercising fundamental individual rights, not that it is MY job to demonstrate to the government that I am not prohibited. I have likened such a restriction (mandatory background check on all transfers) to the prior restraint doctrine under the First Amendment. Once exercising a right becomes available only to those who get the governmental stamp of approval, it's not really a right any more.

 

[Skans]

We already have that, Skans, it's called the Second Amendment, and it would take a supermajority of state conventions to change it.

Meanwhile, you'd exchange universal background checks for the promise that the antis would not use such to create a registry, and confiscation framework?

Really?

Sounds like promises frat boys make to sorority girls...

Honestly, I don't know. Believe me, I'm not trying to convince anyone that universal background checks is a good thing or should be any kind of acceptable compromise. I'm just exploring this through discussion, that's all. I don't see the antis ever repealing the 86 or 89 bans or agreeing to some kind of super majority on more confiscatory laws, so I don't know if it really matters.

 

[eldermike]

Suppose it fails to produce a benifit however that would be measured, whats next?