Universal Background Checks....

[manta49]

There's no sense piling on more laws that won't work for obvious reasons when no effort is made to enforce existing laws or plug the holes in the existing system so the supposed safeguards already in place have a chance of working

This this America we are talking about. Do you think the American government could not bring in firearms registration and if they wanted to. If they should or not is another matter.

Gun laws on the other hand are purely based in possession, not behavior with the object.

The laws would be to try and help prevent bad behaviour with firearms. Just like the driving laws are to try and stop bad behaviour with cars.

 

[Spats McGee]

Hogwash. Universal background checks on private sales serve no purpose. Common sense says that felons and the mentally ill will not abide by the law, and will not or cannot be prosecuted for failing to do so

No point in having driving laws then as some do not abide by the law.

Flawed comparison, and one that you've made several times now. Driving a car deals in the operation of the vehicle, not ownership. Universal background checks deal in ownership of a firearm, not possession or operation. Repeating your flawed comparison doesn't make it more true.

Besides, there are some real problems with UBCs on private transfers:

First, the whole idea driving the push for universal background checks is that it will keep firearms out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. Universal background checks on private sales will be almost entirely unenforceable. Both buyer and seller will have a Fifth Amendment right not to testify against themselves. Without registration of all firearms, it will be virtually impossible for a prosecuting authority to prove a violation of the law. Second, under an old 1968 case called Haynes v. U.S., I have a very strong suspicion that convicted felons and other prohibited persons will be virtually immune from prosecution for violation of same. Based on these two items, it's the Fifth Amendment that is standing in the way of this "common sense legislation."

As for the mentally ill, do you really expect them to abide by laws? Aren't the inability to recognize right and wrong, legal and illegal, and an inability to conform ones behavior ordinarily defenses to criminal charges?

Laws are intended to punish bad behavior and deter same. Given the first two items above, new legislation will basically only apply to law-abiding citizens, causing them to jump through more hoops, but it will not have any effect on either felons or the mentally ill.

In other words, private background checks on private sales will serve no purpose.

Driving laws apply across the board to each and every person operating a vehicle. Whether licensed or not, prior conviction or not. There's not a "prohibited persons" class which could not legally be required to register its cars.

 

[mack59]

The actual downside is bigger than any supposed benefit. In countries with registration there is no demonstrable measurable benefit. And because of widespread non-registration or non- compliance one would making criminals of millions of gun owners and creating an even larger black market in guns. Well, no benefit unless one's goal was primarily to create millions of new criminals.

 

[manta49]

Flawed comparison, and one that you've made several times now. Driving a car deals in the operation of the vehicle, not ownership. Universal background checks deal in ownership of a firearm, not possession or operation. Repeating your flawed comparison doesn't make it more true.

OK take the cars out of it. I am replying to some posts saying that their is no point in some laws as some might not abide by them. That's the logic i don't follow why have any laws in that case.

And because of widespread non-registration or non- compliance one would making criminals of millions of gun owners and creating an even larger black market in guns. Well, no benefit unless one's goal was primarily to create millions of new criminals

Requiring people to register would not make them criminals. Braking the law by not following it would make them criminals if that's the case they would have no one to blame only themselves and that would be their choice.

 

[Spats McGee]

Flawed comparison, and one that you've made several times now. Driving a car deals in the operation of the vehicle, not ownership. Universal background checks deal in ownership of a firearm, not possession or operation. Repeating your flawed comparison doesn't make it more true.

OK take the cars out of it. I am replying to some posts saying that their is no point in some laws as some might not abide by them. That's the logic i don't follow why have any laws in that case.

Well, you didn't quote "some posts." You quoted my post.

I'm not saying that we should not have any laws regarding firearms. That's never been what I've argued. Possession of firearms by certain categories of persons is already prohibited, and it should be. However, piling on more laws which: (1) will only serve to harass law-abiding gun owners; (2) without any realistic possibility of enforcement; and (3) without any foreseeable effect on crime, makes no sense. Heck, our DOJ isn't even prosecuting the laws we currently have with any regularity. How will they find time to prosecute more?

 

[manta49]

I'm not saying that we should not have any laws regarding firearms. That's never been what I've argued. Possession of firearms by certain categories of persons is already prohibited, and it should be. However, piling on more laws which: (1) will only serve to harass law-abiding gun owners; (2) without any realistic possibility of enforcement; and (3) without any foreseeable effect on crime, makes no sense. Heck, our DOJ isn't even prosecuting the laws we currently have with any regularity. How will they find time to prosecute more?
__________________

I am not saying that registration should happen in America or would be a good idea. Its this idea that the government couldn't technically or have the means to require registration and enforce it i would disagree with they manage it in lots of other countries.

 

[2ndsojourn]

manta, you're just not getting it.

The existing background check law is a farce. Depending on who you listen to, untold thousands of people were denied the purchase of a firearm because they didn't pass the background check. They either:
1) lied on the submitted form, which is a felony, and only a scant few were prosecuted. So the existing law isn't being enforced. ; or
2) the information in the NICS system is flawed, and untold thousands were unjustly denied the purchase of a firearm.

Thirdly, people who know they won't pass a background check won't submit to one and will buy one illegally on the black market, or use something else to do their dirty deed.

So logic only tells you that piling any new laws on top of one that isn't enforced, or more people submitting to a flawed system, accomplishes nothing. Nada. Zip.

 

[2ndsojourn]

"I am not saying that registration should happen in America or would be a good idea. Its this idea that the government couldn't technically or have the means to require registration and enforce it i would disagree with they manage it in lots of other countries."

Those other countries don't have anything like our 2A either.

 

[Spats McGee]

I am not saying that registration should happen in America or would be a good idea. Its this idea that the government couldn't technically or have the means to require registration and enforce it i would disagree with they manage it in lots of other countries.

I have never said that the gov't couldn't put together the systems necessary to register the necessary number of firearms. It most certainly could, if it could get the political support necessary to pass the necessary legislation, and such legislation could withstand a 2A challenge.

There are several questions at play:
1) Is registration technically feasible? Yes.
2) Can the gov't get the political support necessary? I don't think so.
3) Could the legislation survive a 2A challenge? No way to know without seeing the legislation.
4) Is it a good idea? IMHO, no, it's horrible.
5) Will the American public cooperate? A very good question.

 

[manta49]

Thirdly, people who know they won't pass a background check won't submit to one and will buy one illegally on the black market, or use something else to do their dirty deed.

Yes and that would be illegal and they would have to face the consciouses if caught. We are back to the argument that no point in having a law because some would brake the law.

Those other countries don't have anything like our 2A either.

The A2 has not stoped the gun controls already in force in America. Why do you think it would stop future controls.

So the existing law isn't being enforced. ; or

That does not mean they could not enforced in the future.

 

[sigcurious]

Let's not forget...

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

Emphasis mine.
18 USC 926

 

[Spats McGee]

Thad does not mean they could not enforced in the future.

Then let's start with the ones already in place. I think there are a whole lot of gun owners that are pretty unwilling to start talking about new gun controls until the ones already on the books are enforced.

The A2 has not stoped the gun controls already in force in America. Why do you think it would stop future controls.

Actually, it has. I respectfully refer you to Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago..

Yes and that would be illegal and they would have to face the consciouses if caught. We are back to the argument that no point in having a law because some would brake the law.

Actually, we're back to the argument that maybe we should enforce the laws on the books. Possession by felons (for example) is already illegal, but prosecution of that law is almost non-existent.

 

[mack59]

Originally Posted by manta49
"Requiring people to register would not make them criminals. Braking the law by not following it would make them criminals if that's the case they would have no one to blame only themselves and that would be their choice."

It is clear given the evidence of Canada - that people in America will not by a large majority register their guns. Other countries do not have the same culture or history of gun ownership that America does. Recent threats of gun bans and confiscations will reinforce that decision to refuse to register. They would not be left with finding themselves to blame, on the contrary they would blame those that chose to pass such legislation into law and there would be organized resistance and protest; Civil disobedience and a greater disrespect for the legitimacy of government and the law. Clearly an awful law with no demonstrable benefit and a huge downside. But hey, knock yourself out and go for it. It would hugely energize the RKBA movement and change the political landscape until it was repealed.

 

[arch308]

Nothing I hate more than people who call their point of view "common sense". It is extremely rude IMO and I can no longer give any creedence to their opinions!

 

[wayneinFL]

Quote:

Hogwash. Universal background checks on private sales serve no purpose. Common sense says that felons and the mentally ill will not abide by the law, and will not or cannot be prosecuted for failing to do so

No point in having driving laws then as some do not abide by the law.

Manta, my main issue with the effectiveness of the law is not just that criminals will not abide by it, but that it will be almost impossible to enforce. There are 270 million guns already out there in circulation and the vast majority are unregistered.

Driving a car- pretty easy to enforce- it's out there, people can see it. A pistol under someone's seat, or under a bed- almost impossible for officers to get a look at it, run numbers, etc.

If I sell a gun to a private party without a background check, how will the police know? In the odd chance they do pull the buyer over or find a reason to come into his house, find some reason to search, come up with some sort of reasonable suspicion to run numbers on the gun, how do they know it wasn't sold before the UBC law was in place? And how do they know he got it from me?

Thirdly, people who know they won't pass a background check won't submit to one and will buy one illegally on the black market, or use something else to do their dirty deed.

Yes and that would be illegal and they would have to face the consciouses if caught. We are back to the argument that no point in having a law because some would brake the law.

But it was already illegal for him to have a gun. If it happened today, with no background checks, he would already be charged with a felony. Not to mention the felony they were investigating him for when he was caught with the gun. So why do we need the extra law?

Answer is we don't. It's completely useless. It has no purpose, but to burden FFLs with extra paperwork, make FFLs money on unnecessary transfers, or trip up honest people.

 

[AH.74]

Manta, it sounds to me as if you're making the same argument over and over, using the same terminology- yet you aren't listening to the explanations people have given to you- repeatedly.

What is your goal here? Are you open to the explanations offered, or do you not want to consider them?

 

[NWPilgrim]

This this America we are talking about. Do you think the American government could not bring in firearms registration and if they wanted to. If they should or not is another matter.



The laws would be to try and help prevent bad behaviour with firearms. Just like the driving laws are to try and stop bad behaviour with cars.

Sorry your logic fails again. Comparing bad driving behavior (actual behavior) to possession of an object prior to any behavior with it good or bad. And in the far majority of possessions of said object it does not lead to bad behavior.

You really are not making any sense in comparing gun laws of possession to laws fir actual bad driving.

 

[manta49]

It is clear given the evidence of Canada - that people in America will not by a large majority register their guns. Other countries do not have the same culture or history of gun ownership that America does.

This is a gun enthusiast forum so you would expect most to resist firearm controls. So to a certin extent you are preaching to the converted.

My question is the rest of the population in America as against gun control as most on this forum. ?

 

[mack59]

Since in Canada estimates were that 70 percent of long gun owners refused to register their arms until the law was finally repealed as a massive expensive failure and since a recent poll of American gun owners showed that 65 percent said they would not register their firearms which is similar to the Canadians response - the evidence is fairly solid that that would be the case.


Edit to add: that would mean 65 million or more new criminals - good luck with that. Their passion anger at being made criminals would influence the views of some of their loved one's such as spouses, adult sons and daughters, friends, and other relatives and support for the law would drop. Gun owners are notorious for often being single issue voters unlike gun control advocates. Registration would impact millions more citizens than the 1994 ban did. That's a huge can of hurt to open.

On second thought - go for it.

 

[2ndsojourn]

"My question is the rest of the population in America as against gun control as most on this forum. ?"

No, but most of them just don't care, are driven by passion instead of reason, and their brains are poisoned by too much MTV.