Are Background checks bad legislation?

[SB88LX]

I've read here and there (THR, google, etc) about how the brady bill and background checks are no good. Are background checks inevitably intimately associated with registration, which of course overtime can serve as a tool for confiscation? Is it the governments definition of what 'felonious' charges or offenses are that prohibit one from owning arms thats at issue? Background checks seem like a good idea in preventing criminals from obtaining firearms. This is simply a thread for my own education on the subject thereof, so please, feel free to school me.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The background check system presumes you're guilty until you're proven innocent. That makes perfect sense under French law, but none under American.

 

[boofus]

If they would make the NICS check faster, free, less prone to false rejection, and destroy records of approved purchases it wouldn't be a big deal. It should be as simple as seeing if you are on the FBI's most wanted list... nope not there, enjoy the new gun.

You can bypass the check just by showing your carry license in most states anyway.

FFLs are prohibited from selling firearms to convicted felons. How exactly are they supposed to know if you are a bad guy or not without consulting with some outside information source?

 

[AZRickD]

Several criminologists and social-science researchers from Wright & Rossi in 1979-83 and Kleck and Lott and Cook & Ludwig and CDC (which compiled them all) could find NO gun control law that reduced crime.

If they don't reduce crime, the suspicious minds among us might wonder why the anti-gunners are so hot to pass more and more of them.

Rick

 

[whm1974]

Background checks seem like a good idea in preventing criminals from obtaining firearms

How will background checks prevent criminals from getting guns? Criminals either steal them, buy them, or in some cases use a straw purchase.

-Bill

 

[FeebMaster]

Background checks are pointless.

 

[boofus]

I support it more as a cover-your-ass for gun dealers than any kind of hokey measure to prevent people from committing perjury to buy a gun and then commit crimes. No law will stop a dirtbag from dumpster diving a bunch of personal information and then purchasing a gun under a stolen ID anyway, or straw purchasing, or just stealing a gun.

But if the dealer performs the required check it gives him half a chance of not losing his livelihood when some victim of crime bankrolled by VPC or Brady or Soros sues the dealer for selling the gun.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

This question has answers on two levels. Level One assumes that you accept the notion that some people, such as ex-convicts, will not be allowed to purchase firearms. IF you are willing to buy into this premise, then background checks make sense. The problem is that the law REQUIRES that once completed, records of the check be destroyed. Do you honestly believe that the gummint is going to do that -- giving up a ready-made way to compile a database of gun owners? I don't trust the gummint, and therefore even on this level I have reservations about the justification for background checks. As to its efficacy -- well, first you'll have to prove to me that it has any.

On Level Two we get to the Constitutional argument. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to "the people." It does not say to "some people," it says "the people." That means all of us. It is (or was) considered axiomatic that when a person had served their time and been released from prison, they had "paid their debt to society." If there is any substance to this premise, then there can be no Constitutional justification for barring ex-convicts from owning firearms.

Oh! Don't trust Thaddeus Clodthumper with guns because he used 'em to rob stores and kill people? Fine -- then why the heck are you letting him out of the slammer?

 

[boofus]

That's why I said they should check the list of the FBI's currently most wanted. None of those people on that list have 'paid their debt to society'.

You end up with really absurd situations if you go by the absolute approach of the 2nd Amendment. Example: Neither you nor the police can order an axe murderer to drop his weapon because it would violate his 2A rights. Our soldiers can't disarm captured Taliban soldiers because it would violate their 2A. etc...

The constitution has mechanisms for the courts to relieve you of ALL your rights, temporarily or permanently, including life and liberty. As long as you aren't being falsely identified as someone who has had their rights removed through due process then the only issue is the time it takes for the dealer to do the check.

The instant check system does need work in the speed and accuracy department but it isn't nearly as bad as say... applying for transfer of a NFA weapon. I'd be more riled up at the notion that certain kinds of firearms are completely off limits to us mere peasants rather than gun dealers looking at the 21st century equivalent of 'Wanted posters' to make sure you aren't on them before completing a deal.

Anyway just my $.02 take what you like, leave the rest.

 

[SB88LX]

Originally posted by whm1974...

How will background checks prevent criminals from getting guns? Criminals either steal them, buy them, or in some cases use a straw purchase.

I seem to have forgotten that, I apologize. Some would use the argument that its eliminating an avenue for criminals to obtain guns. Hawkmoon brought up an excellent point...

Oh! Don't trust Thaddeus Clodthumper with guns because he used 'em to rob stores and kill people? Fine -- then why the heck are you letting him out of the slammer?

You don't cure crap legislation and policies by adding more crap legislation, which being devoid of purpose as outlaws don't obey laws, can eventually only serve the purpose of control and registration, legal or not, by the government.

This post was more of a self-implemented swift kick in the ass for me, and I needed it.

Also, I guess the checking against a 'wanted' list is walking a fine line between productive crime busting and big-brother-like capture of 'criminals' and 'terrorists' defined eventually by anyone against state policies.

 

[Art Eatman]

I have no doubt that the checks are an infringement of 2A rights. However, the 2A is not an absolute right for all people, insofar as the intent of those who wrote it. This is evident from the commentary in The Anti-Federalist Papers that gun ownership would be denied to those who are insane or are of "ill repute".

Ya gotta remember that in the days before peoples' power was delegated to what we know today as "police" that one's neighbors would decide whether or not you were insane or of ill repute. If so, they'd disarm you.

Art

 

[El Tejon]

From a utilitarian standpoint, feckless. They do not stop killers, e.g. Patrick Purdy who went through multiple background checks.

From a constitutional standpoint, they are illegal burden shifting and prior restraint. Imagine a background check before one could be allowed to attend a house of worship or buy a book.

 

[Waitone]

NICS assumes the data collected is valid. In the case of felons I have no trouble.

However, what happens when an idiot politician, any politician, thinks it a good idea to issue a restraining order anytime a woman files for divorce? Whether or not it is requested is beside the point. A woman files for divorce and the court issues a prophylatic restraining order.

Said RO is now part of the database. The hapless male of the species celebrates his future freedom by purchasing a firearm. Opps, can't because of the RO.

I approve of the theory behind a NICS system. The implementation is just loaded with dangers. NICS is the gate to firearms purchase. Like Clintoon understood, close down NICS and you close down firearms purchases.

Not A Good Thing.

 

[Wildalaska]

The background check system presumes you're guilty until you're proven innocent.

Thats pithy Wolf, but is it philosophically justifiable?

If they would make the NICS check faster, free, less prone to false rejection, and destroy records of approved purchases it wouldn't be a big deal.

Maybe its my winning personality, but I can get a check done in about 2 minutes.....I understand that records are now destroyed....

As to false rejections, havent seen more that 2-4 of those in well over 10,000 transfers....

Background checks are pointless.

I can personally attest to four timnes its caught someone, including a fugitive...,.

Wilditdontbothermee..toomuchAlaska

 

[FeebMaster]

I can personally attest to four timnes its caught someone, including a fugitive...,.

Well hooray. I guess background checks aren't pointless after all.

 

[Deavis]

The background check system presumes you're guilty until you're proven innocent.

Almost every system in the world operates this way. You show up for a DL and they assume you don't know how to drive and make you prove that you can, i.e. take a test or show another valid license. Even human interactions are this way in most circumstances. You assume that a stranger does not have you best intentions at heart until he proves otherwise. Those cases being made, it doesn't mean that the proof is all that hard to come up with. Hop in, drive around the block, done. Smile, extend your hand, be friendly, done.

I think the real issue here is whether you want felons who have served their time to own weapons. If the 2nd amendment is absolute then a man who has served his debt to society should be allowed to own a weapon (They can in Texas under strict rules). So, if all your felons are locked up and suspects of crimes are in jail awaiting trial, then it doesn't matter who buys weapons because they are not criminals. Even if they commit a crime later, they were not a criminal when they bought the weapon.

So, unless you are for former felons owning weapons, then the NICS system is the only way catch a felon purchasing a gun. I guess the real issue is that the courts have has said that extremely well tailored tests are not an infringment of your rights, the NICS might fit that.

Regardless, I think it should be a yes or no system that is consulted when you purchase and no record is kept. If records aren't kept then why do FFLs have to send all their "infamous yellow" forms in when they do not renew their license?

 

[armoredman]

The NCIC is well out of date. Some state information is less than 40% accurate.
As for letting someone out of the slammer, we have to - it's called flat sentance expiration, or parole. Trust me - I have watched MANY violent felons walk right out of VCU onto free ground. THIS is why I carry a gun 24/7.
BTW, when libs ask about laws, ask them how many sex crimes have been stopped by requireing sex offenders to register whereve they live? It works just about as well as gun control.....

 

[Telperion]

Wildalaska,

What eventually happened to those people who you caught?

From your own experience, the false denial rate is on the close order of the true denial rate. That's not awfully inspiring.

I suppose these laws are only of use if one labors under the belief that forcing criminals to use secondary and black markets substantially reduces criminal access to firearms; I remain doubtful.

 

[Wildalaska]

What eventually happened to those people who you caught?

I know that one got time, the others I am not ware..

Of the false deials, two were based on erroneus state records....

WildlikethesystemAlaska

 

[Smurfslayer]

legislative creep.

Hawk hit the nail on the head by bringing up the fact that people go to jail to pay their debt to society and _should be_ released when that debt is paid in full. In reality, that does not happen any more. The problem with this is that as a result of our kinder, gentler treatment of prisoners, all of us - the law abiding - are made to suffer the background checks, with all the baggage that this carries. Putting aside the philosophical, never to be answered discussion of whether or not "Felons with guns" is a good or bad idea, consider this.

As a matter of principle, conceding that background checks are "OK" with gun owners essentially gives the other side a building block to use against us. It enables them to make more and more prohibited behavior 'flag' the person 'applying' as "of ill repute" to use a phrase from above...
Right now, all that is required to "disable" a gun owner is a restraining order in some states. As seen here on THR, SC is using a person's speeding convictions to deny him his CHP. Whether you agree or not, these concessions to the Permit system for shall issue, NICS instead of waiting periods have had equal and opposite reactions.

I also think that as a matter of principle, NICS should be chipped away at as we have had restriction after restriction put upon us. Continuing to push for NICS exemptions for permit holders is one example. The more ground we compromise, the less ground we have left to defend.