Universal background checks.

[dayman]

What's the problem with them?
At least when it comes to advertised sales (like classifieds), and excludes family.

As long as there's no record keeping associated with it, I don't see the problem in making sure a person who's buying a gun is legally allowed to own one.
I've bought and sold a lot of guns privately, and I can't see that it would be all that much bigger of an issue to meet at a gun shop and pay $10 for a background check.

Apparently a lot of people do.

I'm wondering why - aside from any "slippery slope/ line in the sand" arguments.

 

[steve4102]

Please define,

Criminal Background check.

Universal Background Check.

Expanded Background Check.

 

[jnichols2]

1. The gun shop is required by law to maintain the Form 4473 for 20 years.
There are reports of ATF agents photographing them during "Routine Inspections".

2. During the last attempt to pass "Universal Background Checks" FFLs in the Austin, Texas area raised their prices from $50 to $75.

3. The Manchin-Toomey Background Checks Bill, had it passed, would have required a background check to pass my gun(s) to my grandson when I die. If he is still under 18 years of age, a background check can not be done. My gun(s) would pass to the government.

It also stated that if I went on a business trip for 7 days or more, and left my gun(s) home with my wife, they would automatically pass to her. With no background check having been completed, both she and I would become felons.

That's why we fought so hard to keep that bill from passing.

When the wolf invites you to "dinner"..............

 

[Frank Ettin]

....When the wolf invites you to "dinner"......

On the other hand, a particularly noxious Universal Background Check (UBC) law was adopted by the voters of Washington State by a 20% margin. There appears to be strong public support, at least some places, for such laws.

In some places it's not going to be a question of whether a UBC law is adopted. The challenge for us might be getting one we can best live with, rather than having a really bad version forced upon us.

 

[Koda94]

What's the problem with them?

its a registration scheme.

What part of make model and serial number that your selling has anything to do with the buyers background?

 

[Tom Servo]

There appears to be strong public support, at least some places, for such laws.

It depends on how much they know about the law. I've reviewed some of the ads for I-594, and the dishonesty is pretty worrisome. It was implied that this was mainly about gun show sales. I could find no mention of other private transfers. It was also promoted as something (and implied that it was the first law) that would keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers.

Those two aspects are what Washington voted for. I'd wager the vote would have been far different if people knew better.

As to the main question, I have several objections to background checks.

The first is that they haven't been proven to reduce crime. At all. During last year's push for federal regulation, we heard claims that the NICS system had prevented anywhere between 1.2 and 1.7 million murderers and rapists from buying guns. Not true at all.

Furthermore, there are far too many erroneous denials and the appeal process puts the burden of proof on the person appealing. This discourages many law-abiding people from owning guns.

Then we have the issue of registration. This isn't a "slippery slope" argument--it's simple fact. There is no way to know if someone got a background check in a private transaction without a registry of all guns.

 

[armoredman]

Tom nailed all my arguments.

 

[Koda94]

I'm curious what solutions are possible to complete a background check without a registration scheme attached?

I like the idea of requiring a CHL or FOID card and documenting the number on a bill of sale? No information of the firearm to be included.

What would be the flaws or other ideas?

 

[Frank Ettin]

It depends on how much they know about the law. I've reviewed some of the ads for I-594, and the dishonesty is pretty worrisome. It was implied that this was mainly about gun show sales....

Yup, that's probably how any such law will be pitched to the voters. In an initiative campaign it's hard to imagine that in general the electorate will be paying a lot of attention to the details.

We have good arguments, but they are non-intuitive and probably too "inside baseball" to have much impact.

Tom nailed all my arguments.

Yes, but he's also preaching to the choir. We do entirely too much of that here.

The real question is how those arguments will play to Suzi Soccermom.

 

[dakota.potts]

The problem with requiring a CHL or FOID is it turns the exercise of a right into a privilege. I can't bear arms without having a license to do so, how is it then my right to buy a firearm?

About the closest I can figure is using your driver's license or other state document to interface with the federal background check system much like NICS does. I don't see why we couldn't set it up in such a way where a citizen could run a background check on another and get a receipt of approval or denial that they could keep for their records with no matter as to what type of firearm (other than establishing the age requirement if handgun/other). There have been similar proposals like the Blind Instant Database System http://www.gunlaws.com/BIDSvNICS.htm

If we could find a way to integrate universal background checks so they are instant, cheaper than our current system, are presumptive on keeping rights rather than prohibiting them (i.e. no special license required to run it), and can be compiled without collecting any information on who is buying what gun when, I think we could work something out with them.

 

[Koda94]

The problem with requiring a CHL or FOID is it turns the exercise of a right into a privilege. I can't bear arms without having a license to do so, how is it then my right to buy a firearm?

I thought the purpose of the FOID card was to show you have no criminal record and the FOID card lists no firearms? How would that turn the right into a privilege?

 

[dakota.potts]

It's not a right if I have to go and apply for government permission and licensure to exercise it anymore than I should have to have a printing press owner identification card in order to print a newspaper.

 

[Koda94]

What if the law was changed so that you didnt need a FOID card to posess or own a firearm, just buy one?

 

[Tom Servo]

The problem with requiring a CHL or FOID is it turns the exercise of a right into a privilege.

Yes, but doesn't requiring a background check (and registration, for that matter) do the same thing?

I don't see why we couldn't set it up in such a way where a citizen could run a background check on another and get a receipt of approval or denial that they could keep for their records with no matter as to what type of firearm

There are some real privacy issues with that idea. Furthermore, what happens if I lose the receipt?

Trust me on this, gang: no "background check" system that runs on the honor system is going to appease gun control supporters. As soon as Washington's system (or a similar one) fails to stop a tragedy, we're going to see calls for registration. They'll probably call it "verification" or something, but the result is the same.

I really don't understand why so many of us are offering ways to make this simple. We gain nothing by offering appeasement options to the other side. We learned that 20 years ago.

 

[dakota.potts]

Tom,
If we can replace NICS with something that might actually work, cost less money, and be overall less invasive, I don't see why anybody wouldn't be for it.

That's the potential that I see for the BIDS once the details get worked out.

Koda, how does requiring an FOID to buy a firearm (but not own or possess one) do anything to help anybody? I still can't exercise my right because I have to get a license to buy a firearm and it's not like it's just going to fall from the sky. Otherwise, the only way you could buy one would be from a private sale, which is the very reason people are pushing more background checks. Not to mention, someone gets caught with an illegal gun, now they can say "You only need an FOID to buy a gun, not own one, so you can't prove I did anything illegal" while in the mean time law abiding citizens are losing rights.

 

[raimius]

Dayman, the devil is in the details...which unfortunately most voters won't examine.

Look at the Washington state discussion. As Pax noted, going and shooting with friends at their property (and exchanging guns to try out) would actually make pretty much everyone in the group an instant felon (with most committing several felonies and misdemeanors).

There are several problems.
First, violent criminals simply don't care about such laws. They already obtain many of their guns illegally. Adding one more charge to armed robbery or murder won't make much difference.
Second, it criminalizes behavior that harms no one. Me showing a buddy my new FN pistol in my back yard should not make both of us criminals!
Thirdly, it IS a slippery slope. Notice how gun-control supporters took less than 24 hours to call for even more restrictive measures after the Washington state law was voted in.

 

[2ndsojourn]

From Tom Servo:
"Trust me on this, gang: no "background check" system that runs on the honor system is going to appease gun control supporters. As soon as Washington's system (or a similar one) fails to stop a tragedy, we're going to see calls for registration...."

Yep. Once they realize that, there'll be more calls for more controls.


"They'll probably call it "verification" or something, but the result is the same."

It'll have the word 'safety' attached.

 

[JimPage]

... and "for the children"

 

[carguychris]

We have good arguments, but they are non-intuitive and probably too "inside baseball" to have much impact... [but Tom]'s also preaching to the choir. We do entirely too much of that here.

The real question is how those arguments will play to Suzi Soccermom.

+1. IMHO the best way to do it is to invoke the Heavy Hand of Big Invasive Government. Surveys have shown that even those who self-identify as left-wing will often claim to dislike big government. (Yes, it's incongruous, but political opinion surveys often are.)

Furthermore, although I haven't seem numbers to back this up, I would bet that a substantial number of voters in favor of WA I-594 were so-called "law and order" urban conservatives who should conceptually be on "our" side, but were swayed by the specious claims that UBC's will reduce crime. However, many of these voters dislike the Heavy Hand of Big Invasive Government far more than they dislike crime, and IMHO therein lies the key to victory.

That said, one of my main concerns with this issue is that the large gun-rights organizations have gotten so accustomed to choir-preaching and shrill fear-mongering that they've forgotten how to talk to Suzi Soccermom. The moment we start talking about doomsday prepping or black helicopters, or start the vacuous flag-waving "It's muh Right, because Freedom!" cheerleading, she's likely to change the channel.

 

[armoredman]

Frank - of course we're reaching to the choir, leftists don't tend to be stable, productive and engaged members of firearms boards. I haven't seen this on Facebook or any other media, so I assume nobody is posting it where others read?

If we can replace NICS with something that might actually work, cost less money, and be overall less invasive, I don't see why anybody wouldn't be for it.

I absolutely agree. Lets go for something that is very easy, cheap and non invasive - lets eliminate background checks completely. The Brady law has done nothing to save lives. Why? Because there is no other Constitutional right I have to pass a background check to exercise, only the one that leftists fear the most. Answer too simple? Not in my mind. I'm tired of whiny compromisers who always end up compromising my rights away - no more.