Why I Support Background Checks

A

Arkady Kobach

Moderator
Some years back I took a job as a pawn shop manager in a small Midwest city and that shop dealt heavily in firearms.


In the first week I was there a fellow bought a Raven .25 cal. semiauto pistol, leaving a deposit so he could pick up the firearm on his payday. On payday he paid the balance, filled out the 4473 and left with the firearm and a single box of ammunition.


The next morning as I was opening the shop I was visited by an investigator from the parole board of the state in which the shop was located who asked me to give her the 4473 of the sale. I refused to do so as she lacked law enforcement credentials and I was right.


Shortly thereafter an agent of the state investigation bureau showed up and I cooperated fully.


Seems the fellow who had purchased the firearm had kidnapped a local taxi driver, killed him with a shot to the head and wounded a police officer who had tried to intervene. The perp was captured an ensconced in the local hooscow facing kidnapping, first degree murder, assault on a police officer, attempted murder of a police office and parole violation!


"PAROLE VIOLATION!", I thought and was then informed by the agent that the perp was on parole for a long series of felonies and living in the local halfway house.


The address he gave on the 4473 struck me as familiar but as a new resident of the town it didn't register with me that it was the address of the halfway house.


Needless to say, I was devastated and it took me some time to reach the conclusion that I was not responsible for the tragedy by selling the firearm but had been failed by the law.


The taxi driver left a disabled wife and three children behind and I spend some time helping them get assistance from both the state and federal governments.


A background check would have stopped the sale in its tracks and gotten the perp immediately locked up and facing charges of a felon attempting to purchase a firearm.


All rights have limitations; one cannot shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire without facing consequences. one cannot vote more than once in a single election, one cannot take the property of others except in due course of law and one can't roller skate in a buffalo herd.


The perp is locked up for the rest of his miserable life.


Background checks are a good thing.
 
The Las Vegas Harvest Festival shooter also passed a background check for each of the firearms he used in that mass murder. In fact, do your homework on mass shootings over the past decade and you'll find that a great number of the firearms were purchased legally -- with background checks.

They aren't totally useless -- but they are nowhere near effective.

A background check would have stopped the sale in its tracks and gotten the perp immediately locked up and facing charges of a felon attempting to purchase a firearm.
Click to expand...

Really? It might have stopped the sale, but it wouldn't have gotten the guy locked up. Do you remember what then-Vice President Biden answered when asked why the federal government didn't prosecute more than a tiny percentage of known cases in which people lied on their 4473s? Don't remember? Let me help:

"We don't have time for that."
 
I'll add that "Background Check" can be "Point of Sale" or "Universal"

OP, you mentioned that you filled out the 4473, and when law enforcement came, you produced the 4473.
Am I missing something? Was there no NICS check with the 4473 authorizing the sale? I am accustomed to filling out the 4473,then the ffl calls in for a NICS check. We wait for the call back authorizing the sale. Thats "background check" Did you do that?
So the background check failed . The murder,etc was committed. What good did the background check do? Made LEO paperwork easier in the aftermath?

A problem with "Universal Background Checks" is mechanism of enforcement.

How will they know what was inherited a gift,or face to face sale? The gov will need a full, auditable inventory of your guns. If you are +1 or -1 , it proves an illegal transfer and you are now a criminal.
We are hearing reports of ATF knocking on doors "Just to look at your guns"

Are random or periodic audits coming?

I get it the OP worked at a pawnshop, transferred a firearm that was used in a crime and feels bad about it. Counciling/therapy might be better than more laws.
 
Last edited:
All rights have limitations; one cannot shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater
Click to expand...

That's a common refrain from gun-control advocates, but it's very misleading. You can, in fact, shout "fire" in a crowded theater if you have a reasonable belief there's a fire. The origins of that phrase, and the underlying argument, are misunderstood.

Even if we accept that rights may have limitations, the contours of those limitations and the actions the government can take to impose them are the issue. The background-check system issues erroneous denials to law-abiding citizens far more often than it stops criminals from buying guns.

And, as Aguila pointed out, nearly every mass shooter in recent memory bought his guns at retail and passed the background check. That includes people who had serious contacts with the justice system but weren't tracked by the system for some reason. The Naval Yard shooting, Parkland, and the recent Club Q shooting all have one thing in common: the perpetrators had significant incidents involving law enforcement, but they still passed the background check.

Would a background check have stopped the person in your case from buying a gun? Maybe. Maybe not. I was in the business for the better part of a decade, and we only had law enforcement follow up once on a denial. And in that case, it was because I was proactive about contacting them.
 
Arkady Kobach said:
Some years back I took a job as a pawn shop manager....a fellow bought a Raven .25 cal....On payday he paid the balance, filled out the 4473 and left with the firearm and a single box of ammunition..... A background check would have stopped the sale in its tracks and gotten the perp immediately locked up and facing charges of a felon attempting to purchase a firearm.....
Click to expand...
You did a 4473, but no background check? From the sounds of things, the shop held an FFL. If you (acting as an agent of the FFL) sold that fellow a gun from business stock (and not from a personal collection), you were required to do a background check. That 4473 was part of the process. If you failed to do so, that's on you, that's not necessarily a condemnation of face to face sales w/o background checks. Whether or not the background check would have actually stopped the sale is a separate question altogether.

Also, let me know the next time you hear of a prohibited person actually facing a charge of attempting to purchase a firearm. Historically, the number of people actually prosecuted for that has been laughably low.
 
You did a 4473, but no background check?
Click to expand...

Form 4473 went into use in 1968. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-faqs
Background checks became norm in 1998. https://fee.org/articles/the-history-of-gun-background-checks/

So it is possible to have sold a gun while using a 4473 and not conducting a background check.

A background check would have stopped the sale in its tracks and gotten the perp immediately locked up and facing charges of a felon attempting to purchase a firearm.
Click to expand...

Nope. It might have stopped that sale, but he still would have gotten a gun through other means.

With that said, NICS isn't always functional. You can fill out a 4473 and NOT get approval from NICS and still sell the firearm legally, releasing it to the buyer 3 business days later if NICS still hasn't gotten back with approval. A note is made attesting to the details, but the firearm can be released to the buyer. https://www.atf.gov/file/61086/download
 
Just coming out of lurkdom briefly to suggest GAO-18-440 which is entitled:
Few Individuals
Denied Firearms
Purchases Are
Prosecuted and ATF
Should Assess Use of
Warning Notices in
Lieu of Prosecutions

Here is a link to the .pdf https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2020/WorkGroups/House%20Judiciary/Bills/H.610/Written%20Testimony/H.610~Jeffrey%20Wallin~GAO%20Report%2018-440%20Firearms%20Background%20Checks~2-5-2020.pdf

I still want an actual link to the reported "We don't have time for that" comment - not doubting it at all, I'm just too google-challenged to find out when/where he said it, and would like that information to furnish to those who deny the veracity of the quote.
 
One thing I've observed happening, but I never hear the dots connected:

All of the non-proseuctions we are observing for what should be felony prosecutions. If a 'felon' is let off without being convicted, or plead down to a misdemeanor, then they won't end up in the NICS as a denial.

Hence we have potentially violent people roaming around able to legally purchase a firearm. Which is the ENTIRE point of the NICS system.
 
This must have been pre-Brady bill? I’m confused. Always had a background check with a 4473.

Your desire to do a background check is a good desire. You want to make sure you and your customer are following federal law. In another situation, you might withhold someone’s handgun purchase and they would be killed that evening by their enraged boyfriend. I guess I’m saying when we try to be judge, jury and executioner, people lose out and we are responsible. Like when Waffle House had their stores marked no guns and there were several shoot outs inside Waffle Houses.

Something we need to consider is that the illegal behavior of others is not a valid reason to infringe the lawful majority. People are always breaking the law. That needs to be dealt with. Blocking the rights of the lawful rarely gets you much benefit.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily. I heard from the FFL I deal with that he knows of a number of licensees who have been busted by ATF for, among other things, not doing the background check at the time of transfer. Just lazy or in a hurry. And there are states, including Ohio, that accept a current License to Carry as satisfying that requirement.
 
While I regret that you are an indirect victim of this criminal keep in mind these folks get guns everyday through various means. So, if he had failed at your location, he would have just stolen one or purchased it from someone else who had. Criminals will not be stopped by gun laws. The anti-gun movement is a tool used by one Political Party to churn up an emotional response and get well meaning people to put logic aside and vote for them.
 
Aguila Blanca, wrt post#10, thanks for the links!

I've read about the discussion with Jim Baker so I was wrong to ask when and where he said it. Actually had the Daily Caller piece bookmarked.

My real problem is that the people I'm trying to talk to would not accept 'hearsay' evidence, from Daily Caller, and I'd like a video clip of him making the 'not enough time for that' statement in public. Not going to happen.
 
IF you were managing a shop that sold firearms and "some time back" was more recent 25 years ago, AND you let a guy buy a pistol and walk out with it without doing anything other than filling out the 4473 form, I believe a case could be made that YOU broke the law. Along with the purchaser....

I have a number of issues with background checks AS CURRENTLY DONE, and I have some issues with the entire concept.

The American people were lied to...pardon me.,,,,intentionally mislead about what background checks can, and cannot do, and most people swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

We were promised the stars and were delivered dirt not even fit to grow weeds...in my opinion.

We've discussed this before, at length, nothing has changed since, other than our governments doing more of what didn't work as promised to begin with, somehow apparently believing that somehow, it magically would.

One of the currently popular definitions of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". Using that definition, our current background system is insane.
 
A CCDW (or CCW) is not a 'pass' to skip a background check. A NICS is a federal requirement.

But, there are states that have systems in place that the ATF recognizes as sufficient to prove that a valid CC(D)W is proof that a NICS background check has occurred within the last 30 days.

What that means is that holders are processed through NICS every 30 days. The state will show up to confiscate the license if they fail a check.

Hence, they don't need another NICS to buy a gun.

(PS) Methinks OP thought that they were on a 'gun board' and therefore we all reflexively objected to background checks.
 
Last edited:
When I moved to my state, 44 years ago, the state had a waiting period for handgun purchases. Having a state CHL meant you could bypass the waiting period. This was over a decade before the Brady national check law.

When the "instant check" arrived, dealers had to do it. The state permit meant nothing in regard to the Federal law. But still got you out of the state waiting period.

Laws passed in this state in the last few years have taken that benefit away from CHL holders. Seems like popular voter initiatives trump constitutional rights these days. We do live in interesting times.....:rolleyes:
 
ghbucky said:
What that means is that holders are processed through NICS every 30 days. The state will show up to confiscate the license if they fail a check.
Click to expand...

Is this real? Are you saying every ccw holder is being NICS checked every 30 days by some process regardless of gun purchase. It seems due to the NICS error rate, we would be confiscating about 2% of the ccw permits every 30 days then!

Got a citation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top