Universal background checks

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Permits to exercise rights is not unconstitutional, according to SCOTUS. They've already made that determination regarding 1A rights. So, while there would most likely be a challenge to replacing the current background check system to one that involved a permit, the precedent for permits to exercise rights exists.

 

[riffraff]

But those who are engaged in the business of dealing in firearms without licenses by presenting themselves as private sellers at gun shows are already in violation of the law. There are already penalties for those abuses, and pretty significant ones at that.

I would say yes I agree, at gun shows or anywhere yes it's already against the law to operate a business selling firearms without a the license and running checks, but then it's also a public & organized event ripe for such abuses.

There are very few concessions I ever offer to make but forcing private sales at gun shows to go through an FFL, I could accept that.

 

[turkeestalker]

I'll go back to what Spatz McGee posted early on in this.

Fourth, not one more inch. We've given enough. The antigunners have been openly telling us for decades that they want to take all of our guns. Their claims that "nobody wants to take your guns" ring hollow in light of what I'm seeing on the national landscape. Their use of the word "compromise" is wholly inappropriate. If I let you keep half of your cash so that I don't beat the snot out of you and take all of it, it's not a compromise. That's how a protection racket works.

You can call me a fool for drawing a hard line, but I'm inclined to believe that the fool is the one who would surrender even more in the name of compromise.
We are on the verge of gaining a solid foot hold that will not give way for many generations to come if we only would do our part.
Our part does not include continuing to give it away under the presumption that somehow that will enable us to keep some of it.
It won't.

Those that believe that it will are part of the problem.

 

[44 AMP]

So, you're saying that because a permit would be required to buy, sell, or own guns that someone with a criminal conviction who wanted to do either could argue their 5th amendment rights were being violated? I suppose it could happen, but that seems like such a stretch to me. Don't felons already lose their 2A rights upon conviction?

Lets come at this a slightly different way, and see if it can be made clear to you...

lets say the felon (or other prohibited person) has a gun, and is in a place where it is required to register the gun.

AND You, (non felon, not a prohibited person) also have a gun, in the same place.

Neither of you registers your gun with the authorities.

Now, each of you has broken the law, but you have done it in different ways, even though you both did (or actually didn't) do exactly the same thing.

You are legal to have the gun, your crime is failing to register the gun, not possessing a gun failure to register the gun you otherwise legally posess.

The felon, (prohibited person) on the other hand is breaking the law by just having the gun. Period. That's their crime, having the gun, at all.

So they cannot (and will not) be charged with ALSO failing to register the gun they illegally posess. Registering the gun they illegally possess is admission of committing the crime of illegally having the gun, and THAT is the violation of the felon's 5th Amendment protections. In other words, he would have to admit to the crime of having the gun, in order to register it. The 5th Amendment protects him from having to admit to having the gun.

It does NOT protect him from being charged and found guilty of having the gun, it only protects him from being charged with failing to register the gun.

probably clear as mud now, right???

the felon cannot legally have a gun. Registering a gun is a statement of ownership. A felon stating he owns a gun is an admission of guilt. Since the 5th Amendment protects ALL of us from being required to admit guilt, the ruling is that the felon is not required to register the gun that he cannot legally have, because that would be admitting guilt.

I'm still trying to figure out how any of what you've posted about the 5th or 8th has to do with a national gun permit.

It's really rather simple in principle. You may not think its right, but it is simple. The 5th and the 8th Amendment define certain circumstances where the law prevents it self from charging people with certain crimes.

Under those circumstances, the law will not allow those people to be charged with violating any national gun permit system.

Those deemed mentally incompetent cannot understand the issues involved, and the system self regulates that by excluding them. It doesn't charge them with crimes they are incapable of understanding, they are dealt with in a different way.

The prohibited person cannot be required to admit guilt. Straight 5th Amendment rights, same for all of us. BECAUSE of that, the felon is exempted from having to comply with any permit system, as doing so would be an admission of guilt. So they cannot be charged with violating a system that the law itself exempts them from.

SO, any kind of national permit system could not be Constitutionally applied to felons and the mentally ill. Therefore, it can have no effect on them. Such a system can only be applied to those sane law abiding folks who have no need for it.

Does that help clear anything up? or just make it worse?

 

[Spats McGee]

My point is that a law requiring this hypothetical national gun permit will be unenforceable against previously-convicted felons and the (seriously) mentally ill.

I don't believe that, even for a second. The same restrictions that apply to felons and the adjudicated mentally ill under the current system would apply under a permit based system. One has to answer question 11c & f as it is, and the courts haven't deemed it to be unconstitutional.

Then don't believe it. That's your call. You're free to do your own research and believe what you want. While you're at it, though, go see if you can dig up a case in which a previously-convicted felon was convicted for failing to obtain a weapons permit from a government entity, or for failing to register a gun.

I'll tell you this, though: After 15 years of actively practicing law, including 10 years in constitutional litigation, I've learned to keep my own counsel.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I don't believe that, even for a second. The same restrictions that apply to felons and the adjudicated mentally ill under the current system would apply under a permit based system. One has to answer question 11c & f as it is, and the courts haven't deemed it to be unconstitutional.

Read it for yourself: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/85/

Prosecutions for 4473 are for lying on a federal form, not for failure to register a firearm.

 

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Does that help clear anything up? or just make it worse?

It makes sense in the case of registering guns, but I am not talking about registering guns. I can see how if the current system of background checks were expanded to require all sales to include such a check then it would require some sort of gun registry. But what I'm talking about is a new system that wouldn't require any kind of gun registry because a background check would not be tied to sales. It would be tied to getting the permit. Once you have the permit, you could buy a gun from a private party, dealer, online etc. without an additional check. The permit would also allow you to carry your gun nationwide. So Joe Blow could walk into any gun store, gun show, garage sale, answer an ad, etc., and as long as he had the permit he could buy a gun without having to pass a background check because he already passed the check to get his permit. Felons and the adjudicated mentally ill would be prohibited from getting the permit. It's a way of creating a universal background check system that I think would be simpler than what we currently have, address the private sale "loophole", and expand our carry rights.

 

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Read it for yourself: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/85/

Prosecutions for 4473 are for lying on a federal form, not for failure to register a firearm.

But you guys are thinking under the current system which is directly tied to the sale of a firearm. The sale is what triggers the background check. The permit based system I'm talking about replaces the current system with one that ties the background check to getting the permit.

 

[44 AMP]

It's a nice dream, but there are large practical problems with getting it to even be tried, let alone work.

The permit based system I'm talking about replaces the current system with one that ties the background check to getting the permit.

I get this. But, aside from having to go cap in hand to humbly ask the government's permission to exercise a constitutionally affirmed right, the system you propose is registering people, as gun owners, just not registering a specific ser# gun to them. And don't think there won't be such a registry. If its a govt permit, its required by law(s) to have records kept.

Then there is the fact that those people pushing the current system and its expansion won't accept anything other than their pet plans which contain the foundation for a gun registry. SO, you'd get opposition from both sides of the issue.

Next on the list of problems is the issue of state's rights. Federal law is not automatically supreme in every case. This is NOT an issue like slavery, where there is clearly a morally wrong choice. The states have a long standing, legally recognized, and vested interest in making their own decisions about some things, inside their own borders, and gun laws are one of those things, as currently recognized in our system. You, I, and the rest of the country might think those rules are wrong, stupid, pigheaded, and infringement of our rights, but if the majority of the people of that state don't think that way, they have a right to do so.

Remember that the same power and authority to say "you must" is ALSO the power and authority to say "you must NOT", and that goes for every issue you can think of.

This is the reason I oppose any kind of Fed govt top down imposition of a national carry permit type of thing. Not because being able to carry everywhere is a bad idea, but because forcing that idea on people (states) that don't want it is destructive to the checks and balances of our political system that retards and so far has prevented gross tyranny from a central government. (and note I said "gross" )

Another point against a permit system like you describe is the simple fact of time passing between getting the permit, and getting a gun. yes, most will have a gun in mind, and once they get the permit, will go get it straight away. But what about those who don't. Wait even ONE day, and a case can be made that you might have become a prohibited person after the issuance of the permit, so a current background check is still needed.

Personally, I think a better system would be to simply have the "limitless resources" of our government simply run a check on every single citizen, and put a gun/no gun icon on their driver's license or ID card.

Then, when you go to buy a gun, they can just run your driver's license number, with out any other information and find out if your legal status has changed since the issuance of the license. Doesn't need to contain any information about the gun in question either. Of course, in order to work correctly the system would have to be created within the government to ensure timley and proper updating of your "citizen license" and of course, there is a potential for abuse...

still boils down to a degree of registration though. If our govt is involved in any way, there will be some kind of record, somewhere. If it ever gets to the point of them rounding up gun owners, the list of people who applied for a permit is going to be their starting point, and it doesn't matter if you don't have any guns when they come for you, or didn't even get a gun at all, your name will be on their list and you'll be in the camps with the rest of us, if you survive the arrest....

don't stop dreaming, though. However unlikely sometimes dreamers do change the world.

 

[thallub]

So some folks are apprehensive about selling privately owned firearms because the buyer could be a convicted felon. The federal government should absolutely not be involved in the sale of privately owned firearms.

1. Insist on seeing a concealed carry permit.

2. Have the local FFL transfer the gun for a fee.

3. Sell the guns to an FFL.

Because of advanced age i'm selling off my rather large collection. i want to see:

1. An active duty military id card.

2, A concealed carry permit.

3. An FFL or C&R permit.

4. A law enforcement officer id.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .But what I'm talking about is a new system that wouldn't require any kind of gun registry because a background check would not be tied to sales. It would be tied to getting the permit. Once you have the permit, you could buy a gun from a private party, dealer, online etc. without an additional check. The permit would also allow you to carry your gun nationwide. . . . . Felons and the adjudicated mentally ill would be prohibited from getting the permit. It's a way of creating a universal background check system that I think would be simpler than what we currently have, address the private sale "loophole", and expand our carry rights.

But you guys are thinking under the current system which is directly tied to the sale of a firearm. The sale is what triggers the background check. The permit based system I'm talking about replaces the current system with one that ties the background check to getting the permit.

I'm not sure why you think we're confused. I don't speak for anyone else, but I understood what you meant. You want a mandatory, national license for possession of firearms, without which possession of a firearm would be a crime. If I'm wrong about that, let me know which point is wrong, but it sounds like you want to register gun owners instead of guns. Here's what I said in my first post in this thread:

First, because they most certainly lead to registration, either of guns or of gun owners. You decide which is worse. . . .

You may not think registering gun owners (which is really what a national permitting system would do) is so bad, I think it's a horrible idea. In addition to the reasons that 44 AMP so ably articulated, there's the issue of "who sets the standards and how" when you get to the nuts and bolts of such a system. If it's a national system, then Congress would set the statutes in place and possibly delegate some of the details to a federal agency. To put it mildly, I'm not excited about the prospect of having to go, hat in hand, to BATFE or the FBI to ask permission to buy a .22 bolt action rifle for squirrel control.

In addition to the enforceability problem that I've already mentioned, I have a couple of other objections, as follows:

1. Clearly, a criminal history check would be part of the process. Beyond that, though, we don't know what we'd get:

• Will this system be in addition to the state systems, or will it replace them?
• Which agency will be tasked with handling permits?
  
  The FBI? They run NICS, so that makes some sense.
  The BATFE? They regulate guns & NFA stamps, so that makes some sense, too?
  Joint operations?
  [*]Will this be funded by taxes or permit fees, or some combination?
  How much will a permit cost?​
• Will the permit process be "may issue" or "shall issue?"
• Exactly what information must an applicant provide?
• Beyond a background check, what additional requirements will there be?

2. The one that causes me real heartburn is "d," above. You're talking about a national system on the federal level. By definition, that invites members of Congress of all states into the sausage-making party of hammering out the details. That means that states like California, New York, Illinois and New Jersey will get to "help" in crafting the language of the statutes. That means that they get a voice in setting the standards, too. I don't believe for one minute that they'll settle for "just a criminal background check, shall issue, and nationwide carry." I believe that such states will want things like:

• Extensive training requirements;
• Psychological exams;
• Personal references;
• Waiting periods.

Given the standards in those states, I'd be surprised if their congresscritters didn't try to turn the permitting process into the bureaucratic equivalent of a colonoscopy. They could even try to allow states to opt out, which would destroy the national nature of the permit. Perhaps more importantly, I have no recourse against the congressfolks of those states. If a whole bunch of standards were implemented with which I disagreed, I'd have to just hope somebody sued to invalidate the law while I waited for new legislation. It's not like I can sue CA's congressfolks for enacting something I don't like. And I can't vote them out of office.

It's not that I don't want nationwide carry. I do. I just don't want it done by the federal gov't. If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times: Interstate Compact on the Carrying of Concealed Weapons.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .Personally, I think a better system would be to simply have the "limitless resources" of our government simply run a check on every single citizen, and put a gun/no gun icon on their driver's license or ID card.

Then, when you go to buy a gun, they can just run your driver's license number, with out any other information and find out if your legal status has changed since the issuance of the license. Doesn't need to contain any information about the gun in question either. Of course, in order to work correctly the system would have to be created within the government to ensure timley and proper updating of your "citizen license" and of course, there is a potential for abuse...

If it's being run on EVERY citizen (no opt-out provision), at the state level, I'd be way more comfortable with this than a national permit. Still, I need to let this one "ferment" in my head before I decide if I can really get behind it.

 

[SonOfScubaDiver]

As I already pointed out in another post, the devil would be in the details. It would require a complete revamping of what we currently have to create one system that would be the same in every state that covered everyone. I have no doubt that some folks on the pro gun control side would still not be satisfied and that some folks on the pro gun rights side would also be unhappy.

 

[Tom Servo]

A bit late to the party, but I'm going to put on the lampshade and ask one simple question: why?

I have asked gun-control advocates more times than I can count to show me where and when permitting or background checks have reduced violent crime. It doesn't even have to be strict causation; I'll settle for a strong correlation.

The answer? A change of subject or an accusation that I'm a lapdog for the "gun lobby."

Remember, we were told that requiring background checks under the Brady Act would trigger massive decreases in violent crime. That didn't happen. In fact, even studies funded by anti-gun think tanks have trouble establishing the most tenuous relationships between background checks and minuscule decreases in crime. Same goes for requiring permits.

These measures have nothing to do with reducing violence. They are simply intermediate roadblocks to gun ownership. If Proposal A passes and we have another shooting, then obviously we need Proposal B, which is far stricter. Then another shooting. Well, Proposals A and B just didn't go far enough, so we need Proposal C. And so it goes.

These aren't compromises. They're concessions. And we shouldn't be lining up to hand them to the anti-gun lobby.

 

[peterg7]

Judging by this discussion gun ownership will be severely limited in the future, if gun people are advocating a national ID or restrictions on private sales we’ve lost. More than RKBA basic freedom as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spats McGee]

As I already pointed out in another post, the devil would be in the details. It would require a complete revamping of what we currently have to create one system that would be the same in every state that covered everyone. I have no doubt that some folks on the pro gun control side would still not be satisfied and that some folks on the pro gun rights side would also be unhappy.

As Tom asked, why?

Why on God's green earth would I ever consider supporting a "complete revamping" of the system that:

• will cost an arm and a leg in the overhaul;
• will not be enforceable against previously-convicted felons;
• allows states like NY and CA to "help" decide if I'm eligible to own a gun;
• will not reduce crime; and
• will be replaced by stricter measures in pretty short order.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Because of advanced age i'm selling off my rather large collection. i want to see:

1. An active duty military id card.

2, A concealed carry permit.

3. An FFL or C&R permit.

4. A law enforcement officer id.

Asking to "see" one of the above is one thing. I've gathered from past discussions on this point that most people here wouldn't object to "showing" one of the above, but they balk at the point where the seller wants to photocopy it or write down the information. It's a non-issue for me because I live in a nanny state that already requires state police approval for private sales, but for those who live in free states, I sympathize with the idea that a private sale should be a private sale. A paper trail takes it out of that realm.

Do you just want to see a qualifying document, or do you also want to write down the buyer's personal information for your records?

 

[Tom Servo]

Do you just want to see a qualifying document, or do you also want to write down the buyer's personal information for your records?

I'd want to see something along those lines, but that's my preference. The problem arises when I use the government as a cudgel to mandate the application of my preferences to everyone else.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'd want to see something along those lines, but that's my preference. The problem arises when I use the government as a cudgel to mandate the application of my preferences to everyone else.

The question was posed to thallub, as a direct response to his post, but I think you missed the point. Many pro-gun, pro-2A people don't have a problem showing a private seller something that demonstrates they're not a prohibited person, but they draw the line when the seller wants to record the buyer's personal information for posterity. We understand that the seller wants to protect himself, but we also understand why buyers may want to NOT leave a paper trail. It's not that they want to do something illegal. In fact, it's precisely because their purchase IS legal that they don't think there's any reason to have it recorded for posterity.

I sympathize with that. It's not an option in my home state but, if it were, I would not buy a gun from a seller who insisted on recording my data. If I want a paper trail, I may as well just buy from an FFL.

It's a bit of a conundrum.

 

[thallub]

Do you just want to see a qualifying document, or do you also want to write down the buyer's personal information for your records?

i want to see the document and write down nothing. The name of the person goes in the Disposition column of my spreadsheet.