Universal background checks.

[Frank Ettin]

Frank - of course we're reaching to the choir, leftists don't tend to be stable, productive and engaged members of firearms boards....

You're using much too broad a brush. There have been folks with definite "left leaning" social philosophies who are also active members of the RKBA community and productive members of various gun boards. I also know a number of decidedly socially and politically "liberal" people who, while not gun owners, are not antagonistic to honest people responsibly owning guns and carrying guns in public.

The real point is that we, here, tend to fall too much in love with our arguments -- in part because we keep being reinforced by others who think similarly. That's a very dangerous trap to fall into if we hope to be effective advocates for the RKBA. We begin to lose sight of the fact that what really matters is how our pitches "play in Peoria."

...- 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.

And that's the kind of drivel that does not play in Peoria. So while you thus proclaim to choruses of "You tell 'em!", "Right on!" and "Halleluiah!" on gun boards, the voters of Washington State are forcing a highly unsatisfactory UBC law on the gun owners of that State. It wasn't a matter of Washington gun owners compromising their rights away -- their rights were taken away over their objections and on terms chosen by the opposition.

Welcome to real life.

 

[Koda94]

A background check alone isn’t doing anything other than proving your not a prohibited person its not asking for permission. Im curious about this because were losing and have been dealt a big blow from a well thought out strategy, when Washingtons gun violence doesn’t drop they will go for ownership next. The antis know this, I594 wasn’t about reducing crime.

How about a law that says the buyer must get his own background check on his own. Its valid for only 30 days. He must show this to the seller who then is required to call or otherwise validate the BC number as authentic. Once validated the sale or transfer can take place.

 

[Armorer-at-Law]

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.

How do you define "work"? What is the intended result and how does a proposed program accomplish it?

 

[44 AMP]

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?

It turns it into a privilege because even though you have not been found guilty of any crime that prohibits you from legally owning a firearm, you CANNOT legally possess a firearm without an FOID/permit from the govt. If you have to obtain permission first (even if that permission is automatic, absent other disqualifiers) if you don't get the govt permission, you are breaking the law.

We are being sold a bill of goods (aka a LIE) under the title of something that sounds reasonable. That's what con men do.

The (false) promise is that background checks will keep guns out of the hands of bad people, and keep bad people from doing bad things with guns.

It fails, on all counts, save one. It sounds like it would work. The promises we get about what the laws will do is not what they do.

Tell me how a background check stops anyone who is not ALREADY a prohibited person? Tell me how a background check is of any use at all furthering public safety if the person buying a gun already owns a gun?

And while you are at it, tell me, if you can why our government requires us to get their approval each and every time, but ignores and does not prosecute those people who commit a crime trying to buy a gun. It is a crime for a prohibited person to try and buy a gun. But when they get denied for a valid reason, nothing else happens. (ok, its not absolute zero, some people do get prosecuted, but the numbers are virtually zero - a few hundred, at most out of millions). When it comes to prosecuting these people, our beloved Vice President told us "we don't have time for that.."

I-594 passed because voters were lied to about what the law would actually do, and because too many people only looked at the title, and assumed it would only do what the title said it would do.

If you are ok with the idea of background checks, in principle (I'm not, for reasons stated above), if you think its a good idea, fine. Even if I agree with that concept, WHY are we NOT offered a system that is not invasive or "backdoor registration" ????

I'd be fine with a system where the only information is your identity, and prohibited or not. EVERYONE in the country is in one of these categories. Something that comes back, "John Doe, (identifier) no wants, no warrants, no convictions, no restraining orders..." then John can go anywhere, buy anything, and as many as he wants, after all, he not a prohibited person.

But something like that is not offered. Its not even being considered to be offered to us. Instead, we get things like 594 that require going through a dealer who (by law) has to record specifically what gun is going to whom. Records the government can access at their whim. The fact that the govt currently isn't putting those records into a master database (that we know of) does not mean that it cannot happen.

If the people pushing these laws were really about what they claim to be about, the laws they push wouldn't be what they are giving us today.

 

[doofus47]

jimpage

... and "for the children"

I think that the recent shooting at the school in Washington probably pushed this result a bit. I don't believe the final investigative report is done yet, but everyone wants to "do something" to make this sort of event go away.


At first blush, UBC seems like a good way to check on malicious buyers, but it's ridiculously simple-minded solution that only works if the buyer is unaware that they're being checked. It's like deer hunting; if the deer thinks a predator is nearby, they're not going to hang around. They're going to go to another field to graze. Likewise, if someone is going to buy a firearm for bad intent (or if they know they will fail b/c they are a felon or such that is doomed to fail a check), they would never buy a gun that could be checked. They will straw purchase, they will buy a stolen gun from a vetted fence, they will NOT pay $ to undergo a UBC check that will fail. You might catch the stupid criminals (or the people that don't know they will fail) but you won't catch the people who the law intends to ban from possessing firearms.

Here in Colorado, we passed a UBC law in response to the Aurora theater shooting. However, the shooter didn't purchase his firearms from a buddy or a friend. UBC wouldn't have fixed that. Same thing with the latest local school shooting in Colorado. UBC wouldn't have stopped him either. Same with the University shooting in California. We passed a bunch of other equally ineffective laws and we were told they would make us safer. They haven't.

I do tech for a living. I fix bugs in code for a living. When I have a problem, I don't go inventing possible causes to a real problem and then concentrate on fixing my self-invented causes; I fix the real, provable root of THIS problem at hand. If another problem crops up, then I fix the next one I find in the same way.

So, tell me what the real, problem at hand is, and then we can discuss whether UBC, or any other legislative measure that you wish to discuss, is a solution for that problem.

Not ranting, just sayin...

 

[Bella]

I worked at a school for "bad" boys for six years. Most of the residents were gang bangers. More then one of them told me not no gun law, background check, or any gun legislation of any kind would prevent them from acquiring a gun on the street.

 

[carguychris]

More [than] one [gang banger] told me not no gun law, background check, or any gun legislation of any kind would prevent them from acquiring a gun on the street.

Yes, but under a law like I-594, the gangbanger could be put in jail for failing to get a BC. Thus, this argument- along with most other "...But Crooks Don't Obey Laws!" arguments parroted by our side- rings hollow with law-and-order types who aren't predisposed to see BC's as a significant infringement on their personal freedom.

Ask Suzi Soccermom about BC's: "I would pass one; I've never even been arrested. You've obviously passed them several times. What's the big deal?"

She sees this sort of law as a tool that the police can use to put BG's away, which is a Good Thing by default. Arguing for FEWER laws using overly simplistic reasoning ("The crooks won't care, and it's muh Right... because FREEDOM!!") will NOT convince her, because she's predisposed to believe that More Severe Laws = More Crooks Off The Streets.

In order to reverse this predisposition, we need to convince her that more BG's are more than just an inconvenience for the law-abiding, and we may need to present a reasonable-sounding alternative.

 

[Spats McGee]

More [than] one [gang banger] told me not no gun law, background check, or any gun legislation of any kind would prevent them from acquiring a gun on the street.

Yes, but under a law like I-594, the gangbanger could be put in jail for failing to get a BC.

Maybe. Or maybe his failure to get a get a BC will not be prosecutable due to A5 protections. See Haynes v. US. (Or maybe it was Hayes?)

 

[Bella]

Isn't it a felony for a felon to even attempt to purchase a firearm? How many of them have been arrested and/or prosecuted?

 

[Spats McGee]

Isn't it a felony for a felon to even attempt to purchase a firearm? How many of them have been arrested and/or prosecuted?

Not as far as I have been able to tell, unless he provides false information on the 4473. It is a crime for them to posses a firearm, and the NICS system will (or should) block the purchase from an FFL, but I'm unaware of a statute that makes it a crime for a felon to attempt to purchase a firearm, provided that he (or she) is honest on the 4473. I'm basing that statement on federal law. It may be that in some states, the attempted purchase is a crime, but I do not have the time to scour all 50 states' laws.

Possession, on the other hand, is a different story.

 

[Tom Servo]

It is a crime for them to posses a firearm, and the NICS system will (or should) block the purchase from an FFL

Generally, they'll handle the firearm before purchasing it. In both cases I've dealt with, that was enough to warrant felon in possession charges.

Interestingly, NICS didn't catch either of those. In one case, the weapons charge was dropped because the defendant plead out to other charges. In the other case, the charge was dropped because the defendant cooperated with an investigation into the person to whom he sold the gun.

I have been told by two county prosecutors that the ATF takes little if any interest in these cases.

 

[carguychris]

...under a law like I-594, the gangbanger could be put in jail for failing to get a BC.

Maybe. Or maybe his failure to get a get a BC will not be prosecutable due to A5 protections.

I was speaking hypothetically- could rather than will. I'm well aware of the inherent 5A problem in most UBC bills; I brought it up in the I-594 thread.

My point is that the simplistic "Criminals will get guns anyway" argument is, by itself, easily deflected by UBC proponents. (Note that I didn't say refuted. I'm getting to that. )

I prefer to explain that criminals can easily dodge the UBC law by pleading the 5th, because unless the gun is brand new, there's usually no way to unequivocally prove that the crook obtained the gun after the law went into effect. Most of the prosecutions under the law will likely be "paper" violations by otherwise law-abiding citizens who transferred a gun with no ill intent, not knowing that a law was being broken- or worse yet, honest citizens who tried to comply and were snared by sloppy dealer record-keeping. It is a waste of law enforcement resources to go after these violators, and it does not serve the cause of justice.

This explanation invites Suzi to realize that SHE is more likely to be in the crosshairs of this legislation than the gangbanger would be.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The problem with Universal Background Checks is that they are a lie. The premise being sold is not the legislation being presented.

Let me provide a few examples:

1) Washington's I-594, which was sold as a "universal background check" actually makes law-abiding gun owners felons for doing something like loaning their hunting buddy a firearm temporarily.

2) The original Schumer bill filed in 2013 would have made a person a felon for leaving their wife a handgun while they were out of town on business.

3) The Schumer-Toomey-Manchin bill that was filed to replace it, would have exempted qualified Concealed Handgun License holders from the background check, because there is no need to background check people who have already been certified as good guys, right? Except, even though they were exempted from the NICS check, they would still need to go to an FFL and fill out a Form 4473 for a transfer. So exactly what is the point in forcing someone who is already exempt from the background check to register their firearms?

4) Senator Tom Coburn (GOA A+ rated) introduced a bill that was FAR more broad than Schumer-Toomey-Manchin. EVERY single transaction, ANYWHERE in the country regarding firearms would have been covered by a mandatory background check. However, the same bill would have also made firearms registration impossible and it would have allowed gun owners to sell and trade across state lines without an FFL. This bill did not even receive a vote in the Senate (even after Sen. Majority Leader promised all amendments would get a vote). It was blocked from ever reaching the floor. Sen. Coburn had been working with Schumer, and Manchin for months after Sandy Hook to develop this bill; but dropped out of that coalition after it was made clear for him he would not get any support for this bill from Schumer. Toomey was his unwitting replacement.

The people who claim to be selling "universal background checks" are lying to you. It is a stalking horse for selling firearms registration and burdensome firearms regulations designed to reduce the number of legal firearms owners to the point they are no longer able to wield political power. They sell these initiatives to the ignorant (see I-594) using arguments like "We just want reasonable background checks"; but every time you dig into those bills for the actual specifics, it is clear they want a lot more than that.

 

[jnichols2]

Well said !!

 

[dayman]

It seems like on one hand we're seeing that we don't like universal background checks because the laws are poorly written (and written by people with some support of long term anti gun agenda).
And then on the other hand we're saying that we want nothing to do with any background check law at all.
A lot of people even go so far as to attack any "pro gun" legislators who try to have anything to do with the writing process.

Aren't we basically cutting outside out of the debate?

Since the majority of people seem to be for the idea of universal background checks of some sort, shouldn't we be putting more effort into coming up with a way to make that happen that wouldn't be a lead in to registration?
Maybe something as simple as removing the section of the form that asks for serial number, and/or not requiring ffls to maintain records of background checks they run for private sales.

No matter how much we dislike the idea, it's probably an inevitability that they're going to become the norm, and I for one would rather not leave the fine print up to Blomberg and company.

I think the honor system would work fairly well, or at least I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. My state basically uses the honor system currently - in that you can only sell to other residents, and you can't suspect they're going to commit a crime.

If background checks were the legal norm, would you want to to business with someone that specifically didn't want one?
Hardened, connected criminals might not be deterred, but I'd imagine a fair number of basket cases might be.

Maybe they wouldn't do much good, but you have to admit that - in a society that has decided to limit/remove the gun rights of some people (felons, domestic abusers, the mentally ill, etc.) - the ability to advertise private gun sales online and conduct them without any verification of the buyers ability to legally purchase a gun is a fairly large loophole.
If I'm being honest, I can't say for sure that I've never sold a gun to a felon.

And the current policy of no compromise seems like it's not going to work out in our favor in the long term.

 

[Tom Servo]

the ability to advertise private gun sales online and conduct them without any verification of the buyers ability to legally purchase a gun is a fairly large loophole.

Please define the word "loophole" as you understand it.

Since the majority of people seem to be for the idea of universal background checks of some sort

The majority of people can be led to believe just about anything. The mess in Washington is a good example. Would the majority support it if they knew what it really entailed?

No matter how much we dislike the idea, it's probably an inevitability that they're going to become the norm

Sure, as long as we assume it is and resign ourselves to it. I won't be doing that.

We were having this conversation last April. Many were resigned to the "inevitability" of it happening on the federal level. Thankfully, they were wrong.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Would the majority support it if they knew what it really entailed?...

It's hard to know, but quite possibly. At least the vast majority of non-gun owners who voted for I-594 could easily think that what we see as major flaws are just minor inconveniences and a reasonable trade off for what they perceive as the benefits. And with I-594 there was a 20% margin. Reduce that margin by three-quarters, and I-594 still wins by 5%.

...Aren't we basically cutting outside out of the debate?...

Here's the problem. If we think we can win, we need to pull out the stops to try to defeat things like UBC. But if winning all the marbles is doubtful, we need to be at the table to try to help craft something the least obnoxious.

It becomes a judgment call. But if we're wrong, we can wind up with an I-594.

 

[Bella]

Ask the good people of California how compromising on gun rights and laws has worked for them.

 

[armoredman]

And that's the kind of drivel that does not play in Peoria.

Just because your state is lost doesn't mean the rest of us are - it may not play in Peoria, but it flies in Phoenix! I realize you must be despondent over that voter initiative in Cali that potentially reduces firearms THEFT to a MISDEMEANOR...but just across the cactus wall things aren't quite so bad. Yes, we have some serious lefty clubs in Phoenix from Chicago, and Tucson from Cali, but I think we'll do OK. Even with San Francisco lawyers throwing insults at our positions. I don't just talk the talk, I walk the walk, with the outfits I support, letter writing, e-mails, donations, etc., and in regards to the person who worked at the reform school - I've had inmates returned to custody in less than 24 hours for committing a new crime. If they want a gun, they will get one, even if they have to steal it in Cali...they can probably pay the ticket.
I'm sorry you think what I say is "drivel", but I believe it and live it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Just because your state is lost doesn't mean the rest of us are - it may not play in Peoria, but it flies in Phoenix!...

But it doesn't play in Washington State.

...I don't just talk the talk, I walk the walk, with the outfits I support, letter writing, e-mails, donations, etc.,...

And that's not such a big deal in a place like Phoenix. Every place isn't like that, and we need to learn to deal with the Washington States and the New Jerseys and the Massachusetts, etc., of the country.

...I'm sorry you think what I say is "drivel", but I believe it and live it.

I know you do, but I stand by my statement. Your platitudes are not helpful in dealing with reality in many States.