I could walk in wearing two Glocks with true high-capacity magazines, yet I have to pass a background check to buy a Ruger Single Six .22 caliber revolver. Why?
Because they wrote the law that way. On purpose.
This goes back to what I said earlier, the problem isn't
just the idea of background checks, its
also the specific way the law(s) are worded.
WA got a UBS..er, pardon.. UBC law a couple years back. After being defeated in the Legislature, over 3 different election cycles (that I know of), they went the ballot initiative route. Because they were able to manipulate the opinion of enough people in the 5 counties of the Seattle metro area, it passed there. It only passed in those five counties, every other county in the state defeated it.
That didn't matter. Those five counties has enough people in them that passed the law to make it the law for the entire state.
It's the most poorly writing law I've ever seen. It's so poorly written that the WA State Police (and other WA LEOs) have refused to enforce it. (qualified with, refused to enforce it absent further clarification of what is, and is not a covered "transfer") Its been a couple years, but so far, as far as I know, that clarification has not been forthcoming, yet.
I see voluntary compliance at gun shows. One dealer sets up and does nothing but run the background checks for all the other dealers at the show.
And, yes, its one check per gun, if you buy from different people. Same day, could even be in the same hour, but if you buy a gun from two (or 3 or..) different dealers, each time you need a background check run.
I can see, a degree of justification (other than the wording of the law) for A check. One. The first one. I can see no valid reason or use for the 2nd, or 3rd, or whatever check other than to obey the wording of the law.
I have met dealers who, speaking as private citizens, detest the background check idea, but speaking as an FFL dealer (a businessman), they love it., It makes them MONEY!!! (nothing makes you money like a law that requires people to use your business...)
As to being able to have a "system" that does not require/create a registration database, it can be done. It could be done, except the anti's absolutely will not accept any idea that doesn't create a registration system.
They won't even entertain the idea. They refuse to consider, let alone support, any idea that isn't their own on this issue. As someone else said, so much for "compromise"....
As to enforcing such a law, after the point of sale..what a nightmare..
What are they going to do, come into my home and demand proof I had a background check run (which I do not, and CANNOT have) on each and every firearm I own???
They aren't doing it, today, but that doesn't mean that they never will...
It's a scary thought, that some jackbooted thug of an enforcement official (and whether they wear their jackboots openly or concealed doesn't matter, its an attitude, not an article of footwear I'm referring to..) demanding to see "proof" that I had a background check run on my grandfather's double barrel shotgun that has been in my family for 110 years!!!!!
You want to check something? How about, instead of checking me, and millions of other people who are not doing anything wrong or criminal, each and every time we buy a gun, you put that effort into creating a "watchdog" agency, who SOLE function is to go through all court records, everywhere, at all levels, to ensure all are/have been reported to NICS??
(and be sure to check and include the records of all those who have since died, as well. After all, they still vote in some places, so they might be out there trying to buy a gun, as well...
No doubt such a task is a moving target, but it would create lifetime employment for a number of people. Isn't that a good thing???
(and no, don't ask me to pay for it, and don't steal my money to do so without even the courtesy of asking.)
