Why I Support Background Checks

[natman]

Background checks have some merit, but as currently implemented they have some serious drawbacks.

Background checks should be free. You shouldn't charge someone for exercising a constitutional right, just like you can't charge someone to vote.

Background checks should be quick. The "I" in NICS stands for Instant. Ten days is not "Instant". As long as we feel like it is not "Instant". If they're important enough to do at all, they're important enough to do with a system that does them quickly.

Background checks should not be used to perform gun registration.

None of these things are true in California.

 

[44 AMP]

If I made my living being an FFL dealer, I'd be very happy with background check laws, and especially the state ones requiring a check on EVERY transfer.

And, I'd also be happy that the NICS system is NOT open to the public.

This provides a guaranteed income stream for the FFL dealer. Even if the fee is capped by the law (in my state, no more than $35 per check) he's still making money.

One of the parts of our current system that has always bugged me is the requirement for passing the check for EVERY firearm purchase.

Given that one of the stated claims about the check system is that it will reduce/prevent mayhem with firearms, if I pass the check ONCE, then I have a firearm to commit mayhem with, so what can further checks do? Nothing.

The usual comeback to that argument is that checks are needed each time, to ensure your legal status hasn't changed, that you haven't become a prohibited person between the last time you bought a gun and now....

Seems sensible, BUT there are other, and I think better, and simpler ways to do that. How about if you are convicted of something that makes you a prohibited person, they mark that on your Driver's License (or whatever you use for ID). But that idea wasn't acceptable to the gun control people. Guess it made too much sense, (and of course doesn't provide a basis to build a gun registration on....)

Could the "firearms prohibited" marking on ID system be "hacked" in order to buy a gun, by using a false ID? Sure...but isn't that ALREADY a CRIME????

 

[Tom Servo]

Even if the fee is capped by the law (in my state, no more than $35 per check) he's still making money.

Ehhh, not so much. I was in the business when it looked like Manchin/Toomey had a chance at passage. At the time, we charged $30 for transfers.

That barely justified the time we put into them. First off, we're assuming all the following factors are in place:

• I have a legible copy of the sender's FFL or information so I can log the gun in
• I don't have the customer yelling at me that he doesn't want me to open it to check it in before he gets there
• The customer has correct ID when he comes in to pick it up
• The customer doesn't argue for twenty minutes about why he got delayed on the background check
• The customer doesn't want to argue about how it's in 90% condition instead of 95% like the Gunbroker listing said and expects me to intercede with the seller
• The customer doesn't barge into a class I'm teaching to demand I stop what I'm doing and check in his gun RIGHT NOW because he followed online tracking and FedEx delivered it 30 seconds ago

Transfers can actually be a real time sink, and they were something of a distraction from all the other stuff I needed to be doing at any given time. The boss had me crunch the numbers. If I was going to have to devote time transferring guns from Mr. Jones to Mr. Smith during peak times, it was going to have to be a lot more expensive. And, oh, imagine how people would yell about that on Facebook.

I've heard proposals to open up the NICS system to individuals for use, but that presents its own problems. There are certainly security concerns, and the system barely runs now. A flood of people who want to run background checks on their daughter's new boyfriend would grind it to a halt.

 

[44 AMP]

A flood of people who want to run background checks on their daughter's new boyfriend would grind it to a halt.

The system has already ground to a halt (or nearly so) just due to high volume of gun sales during the "panic" periods.

I think it would be a good thing if anyone could call and have the check run, PROVIDED the govt was willing to spend the tax dollars to expand it and staff it ENOUGH for the anticipated increase, and then some.

They aren't. They think they have better ways to waste our tax money, and some of the people in charge are quite happy with anything that inconveniences gun owners in general.

 

[dogtown tom]

natman ....Background checks should be free. You shouldn't charge someone for exercising a constitutional right, just like you can't charge someone to vote.

The FBI NICS does not charge for a background check. If your state does charge, its because of state law.

Background checks should be quick. The "I" in NICS stands for Instant. Ten days is not "Instant". As long as we feel like it is not "Instant". If they're important enough to do at all, they're important enough to do with a system that does them quickly.

What makes you think "Instant" means "Instant Proceed"? The check is instant....as soon as the dealer inputs the buyers descriptive information on eCheck or via phone the FBI NICS will give the dealer a status. Right then, INSTANTLY the dealer is told a status.

Background checks should not be used to perform gun registration.

Well, they aren't. FBI NICS only asks if the transaction involves a handgun/long gun/other firearm. They aren't told manufacturer, caliber, model or serial#. Kinda hard to have a registry without that.

 

[dogtown tom]

44 AMP

Quote:
A flood of people who want to run background checks on their daughter's new boyfriend would grind it to a halt.

The system has already ground to a halt (or nearly so) just due to high volume of gun sales during the "panic" periods.

How many FBI NICS checks have you run?
I ask because in the fourteen years I've been an FFL I run them every day. It is exceedingly rare for the FBI NICS to grind "to a halt", in fact if the phone check has a wait the dealer can still use the online eCheck. eCheck is available 24/7/365 and the phone NICS is open seventeen hours a day every day of the year except Christmas Day. Without question, FBI NICS is the best run customer service system in the federal government.

I think it would be a good thing if anyone could call and have the check run, PROVIDED the govt was willing to spend the tax dollars to expand it and staff it ENOUGH for the anticipated increase, and then some.

First, enjoy the ability to not be required to verify the buyers background. Secondly, Oh heck no! Allowing nonlicensee sellers to run background checks with a buyers personal information is a nightmare only the liberals could dream up....."just a second sir, can you give me your full name, address, place of birth, birth date, height, weight and oh yes......your drivers license # and your social security number as well?" Holeeeee identity theft Batman.

 

[imp]

The OP has lost me. The system failed, and he congratulates the system.

 

[natman]

The FBI NICS does not charge for a background check. If your state does charge, its because of state law.

What makes you think "Instant" means "Instant Proceed"? The check is instant....as soon as the dealer inputs the buyers descriptive information on eCheck or via phone the FBI NICS will give the dealer a status. Right then, INSTANTLY the dealer is told a status.

Well, they aren't. FBI NICS only asks if the transaction involves a handgun/long gun/other firearm. They aren't told manufacturer, caliber, model or serial#. Kinda hard to have a registry without that.

All that may be true at the national level. Go back and re-read my post (#21) and it clearly says "None of these things are true in California."

 

[44 AMP]

First, enjoy the ability to not be required to verify the buyers background.

I might if I had that ability, but in my state, I am required to verify the buyers background, using an FFL dealer to do so, by state law.

 

[dogtown tom]

natman

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom View Post
The FBI NICS does not charge for a background check. If your state does charge, its because of state law.

What makes you think "Instant" means "Instant Proceed"? The check is instant....as soon as the dealer inputs the buyers descriptive information on eCheck or via phone the FBI NICS will give the dealer a status. Right then, INSTANTLY the dealer is told a status.

Well, they aren't. FBI NICS only asks if the transaction involves a handgun/long gun/other firearm. They aren't told manufacturer, caliber, model or serial#. Kinda hard to have a registry without that.

All that may be true at the national level. Go back and re-read my post (#21) and it clearly says "None of these things are true in California."

I did see that in post 21...well its also true in New York City and other states with laws more restrictive than federal law.

Are you implying that you live in California? We aren't mind readers. You neglected to list your state in your profile and your posts never mentioned your state of residence.

 

[natman]

I did see that in post 21...well its also true in New York City and other states with laws more restrictive than federal law.

Are you implying that you live in California? We aren't mind readers. You neglected to list your state in your profile and your posts never mentioned your state of residence.

As a matter of fact, I do live in California. But where I happen to live has nothing to do with it, the post stands as written, none of the characteristics a good background check should have apply in California.

 

[44 AMP]

none of the characteristics a good background check should have apply in California.

I'd venture to say that the people running California (and who put their laws in place) have a different opinion of what constitutes a "good background check".

Always remember that the people who promote gun control don't think they are doing anything wrong. Usually just the opposite. They think they are the good guys, they are protecting us, and as long as there is some legal method available to legally own a gun, no matter how restrictive, complex, burdensome, expensive or time consuming, as long as you can still do it, then they think that they haven't violated anyone's rights.

I think they're wrong, but that's just me...

 

[armoredman]

...coulda sworn I had a post on this one...
Background checks are wrong, plain and simple, and could eventually fall to Bruen.

 

[amd6547]

When I was young, any American could order any firearm delivered right to their door…no check of any kind, other than the bank check you sent in to buy it.
They used an incident concerning a patsy named Lee Harvey Oswald to put an end to that.

 

[HiBC]

Why do we give the few bad guys so much power to take away the freedom of the many good guys?

How about we empower good guys and disempower bad guys?

"Because some delinquents string toilet paper all over the homes and landscaping of local Citizens,we have passed an ordnance to ban toilet paper"

Makes perfect sense. And if only one home is spared being TP'd,its worth the price!!"

Comments have been made about "Poking the bear". I've never posted a video about anything anywhere.
"Poking the bear" implies "Now you have done it!! I'm angry and you will pay!!" Its emotions. Federal Agencies should not be controlled by emotions.

Review "Transactional Analysis" . "I'm OK, You're OK. " Adult to Adult transactions versus Parent/Child transactions. Its messed up for a Federal Agency to go into "Raging Critical Parent Mode" and inflict mass punishment (You are ALL GROUNDED!!)

Its a dysfunctional reaction to losing control. There is too much energy devoted to bureaucrats maintaining the illusion of control.

Our Founders Declared Independence over being controlled by a bunch of inbred syphilitics. They wrote a Constitution to limit the power of Government to coerce, bully,and control the Adult Citizen.

If I am not "Robbing your pocket or breaking your leg" (Jefferson?) I am to be left alone.

Too much power to coerce and persecute is directed at the Peaceful Citizen who is deemed to have "Potential to do harm" That "Potential" is a product of the persecutors imagination.
"Every person who buys gasoline "Could Be " an arsonist!!" Yes,and every person with a KaBar combat knife COULD BE a nocturnal mass murderer.

Well,you COULD be. You seem suspicious, Prove you are innocent!! Oh,and Pay A FEE !! Fill out these forms so we can keep an eye on you.

Then WE (the Grown Ups) MIGHT give you (the Child) Permission.....

And thats Life in America Today.

 

[Jim Watson]

But they know from NICS that you did buy a gun at that place on that day.
All they have to do is hit up the dealer for a look at his forms or bound book.

It isn't a central registry on a computer server, it doesn't cover all private sales, but it is registration.

 

[Tom Servo]

All they have to do is hit up the dealer for a look at his forms or bound book.

They'd need a warrant to do that. They're allowed to issue a trace request, but that applies to a specific firearm, not they buyer.

 

[44 AMP]

As I understand it, the ATF is allowed 1 (perhaps 2?) inspections per year, anything else has to be part of a specific, official investigation, and, follow all the rules. (warrant, etc.)

"fishing expeditions" are not allowed....

 

[dogtown tom]

natman

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom View Post
I did see that in post 21...well its also true in New York City and other states with laws more restrictive than federal law.

Are you implying that you live in California? We aren't mind readers. You neglected to list your state in your profile and your posts never mentioned your state of residence.

As a matter of fact, I do live in California. But where I happen to live has nothing to do with it, the post stands as written, none of the characteristics a good background check should have apply in California.

What you or I may think is a characteristic of a "good background check" is irrelevant. And the same qualities of a "good background check" apply nationwide, even in California.

The background check conducted by the FBI NICS (as used by California) is a review of several databases of prohibited persons. It's not for the same purposes as background checks for security clearances or federal employment. The Brady Law required a national namecheck system for FFL's to determine whether a person can legally buy or own a firearm.

The Brady Law did not require interviews with your neighbors, present or former employers, local PD or your family MD. All of which may be part of other federal background checks.

 

[44 AMP]

One of our (many) problems is that certain states require more from a background check than Federal law does.

In WA the current law requires an "enhanced background check" in order to purchase a "semi automatic assault rifle".

Trouble is, though the law went into effect in 2019, the state has yet to provide any definition of what an "enhanced background check" is.

Absent clarification from the state, law enforcement is not enforcing that provision. (which I feel is entirely right, and proper).

While the law is under legal challenge, the "Catch-22" is that since law enforcement is not enforcing it, there is no test case to be ruled on. Plus the virtual shutdown of nearly everything during the "panicdemic" has slowed things even more than the usual glacial pace of our court system.

I completely agree that a background check for firearms purchase should only be a check to see if you are legally prohibited, and nothing else.

Of course, I also think tis barking stupid to run that check on someone who already legally owns a gun. Probably a good thing I don't make the laws, otherwise a bunch of people would be out of work....