Universal Background Checks....

Webleymkv said:
To those who wish to use part or all of my post in letters to their representatives:

I have no problem with you choosing to do so, but some of my post may go over the head of someone who is not a gun enthusiast. If you wish to use it, you might consider using the revised version that I've posted in L&CR:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5411855#post5411855
Click to expand...

Its sad to say that reasonably elementary concepts may go over the head of a US Senator. God help us.
 
Spats McGee said:
I have read S.150 (Feinstein's bill), but not HR21. I am somewhat short on time today, but let me as this: Does either of those bill create hurdles to possession which is not already in place? Extra hurdles? Or are we talking about possession by persons whose possession of firearms is already prohibited?
Click to expand...

As I read the bills, they create new hurdles to possession for people who can legally possess firearms.
  • Both bills require a background check for a "transfer" rather than simply for a sale.
  • H.R.21 does not explicitly define a "transfer" but the stated purpose of the bill is to expand background checks "to all sales and transfers of firearms."
  • S.150 says a transfer "shall include a sale, gift, or loan."
  • Both bills have exceptions for "a temporary transfer of possession" under specified conditions.
There would be no need for exceptions if the bills were not intended to require background checks for all transfers - permanent transfers of title and temporary transfers of possession. If that reading of the language of the bills is correct, it would create very substantial hurdles for possession.

Exceptions in H.R.21 include:
  • "the transfer is a bona fide gift between immediate family members"
    A gift is a permanent transfer, so temporary transfers to family members would seem to require background checks.
  • a temporary transfer "while in the home" of a person whose possession of a firearm is "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm"
    Unless danger was imminent, it would seem a background check would be required before loaning a firearm to someone (a family member?) for home protection.
  • "a temporary transfer of possession" at certain shooting ranges and competitions and "while hunting, fishing, or trapping" with conditions attached
    Temporary transfers while shooting on other than specified property would seem to require background checks.
Exceptions in S.150 include:
  • "temporary custody ... for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee"
    At least you can hold a gun you might buy without getting a background check.
  • "a temporary transfer of possession" to participate in target shooting, if the weapon "is, at all times, kept within the premises of the target facility or range"
    This sounds suspiciously like the range storage requirements in some European countries.
To summarize, all transfers covers a huge amount of ground and the limited exceptions in the bills do not provide relief in many common situations.
 
gc70, thank you for your response. It's clear that you put a lot of time and energy into that.

Based upon my reading of your response, perhaps what I should have said earlier is that the UBCs create only hurdles to ownership and legal possession. ;)
 
Art Eatman has graciously provided me with more accurate information regarding the number of privately owned guns in circulation and my posts in both this thread and the one in L&CR have been edited to reflect such.
 
Personally, I think that if someone represents such a danger to society that they cannot be trusted to own a gun, then that person should remain locked away from society until they are no longer a danger. Violent criminals need to either remain incarcerated or, if the crime is severe enough, be executed and the violently mentally ill need to remain institutionalized until they can be treated to the point of no longer being dangerous.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. Perhaps prison reforms, stricter sentencing, and some type of mental health care reform could solve the problem better than more gun laws ever could. Of course those things would be expensive, and people generally don't like the idea of spending even more money on criminals.
 
It seems that people who knowingly fail the check get arrested
Click to expand...
What qualifies as "knowingly failing?" A misdemeanor DV conviction from 1986 I didn't know would disqualify me? A felony charge that got dropped to a misdemeanor in 1979, but the paperwork didn't get filed right? What about misidentification?

Unintended consequences and all...
 
After reading the article on Graham's proposal, I'm not sure if he's differentiating between applicants who lied on the 4473 and were denied as a result, and applicants who answered truthfully, but their answers disqualified them. I'm all for prosecuting those who knowingly lie, but there are a lot of cases like the examples Tom brought up that I don't think warrant prosecution.
 
So, rather than "seem like an absolutist," you prefer to lie?

And, by lying, you prefer to enable antis to say, "Look, another gun enthusiast agrees with our position."

I know you are still young, but seriously...
 
Tom Servo said:
Glenn E. Meyer said:
It seems that people who knowingly fail the check get arrested
Click to expand...
What qualifies as "knowingly failing?" A misdemeanor DV conviction from 1986 I didn't know would disqualify me? A felony charge that got dropped to a misdemeanor in 1979, but the paperwork didn't get filed right? What about misidentification?

Unintended consequences and all...
Click to expand...

I know there can be unintended consequences, but a good point to begin looking would be persons who had actually been in prison for two or more years. A couple of years in prison is not something that a person readily 'forgets' when filling out a 4473.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top