Changed my mind on universal background checks

[huntsman]

those of you who seek reasonable guns laws remember how the healthcare law was handled, and empty bill to be filled in by bureaucrats at a latter date.

 

[barnbwt]

I keep hearing people say bgc's or even registration will protect them from making an illegal sale. In reality it is the opposite. If you manage to give possession to an apparently unlawful person, you will have zero plausible deniability. The only reason there is any risk for a seller today is because of those dumb 4473s and manufacturer distribution records. As with all bad laws this attempts to circumvent bad judgment with a prohibitive rule that, as always, cannot physically intervene against bad behavior. Exercise good judgement when selling your guns, and no harm will befall you.

Don't think a grieving widow won't come after you if the gun you sold legally was used for her husband's suicide. Legal transfer, but that paper trail can always be used against you.

TCB

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

I don't believe there has been a single mass shooting that a background check would have prevented so you cannot call Sandy Hook an anomaly. People who have decided to kill their fellow man are going to find a way to do it. If they didn't have guns they would use propane or gasoline bombs (as Dillon and Klebold planned), car bombs, or phone detonated devices. People seem to forget the Aurora theater shooter had so many booby traps and bombs in his apartment that it took the police half a day to secure it.

We should not compromise on anything because regulating and limiting firearms will not make us one bit safer.

 

[TNBilly]

I guess with that reasoning I give up my rights each time I buy a firearm through a dealer. Why aren't we fighting to do away with the instant checks that are in place now?

yes you do! and good question........

 

[FrankB1948]

This morning on Meet the Press, Mark Kelly presented the same argument for UBCs that we frequently hear. One million (or whatever number is quoted) people were prevented from purchasing guns by background checks. The unverifiable number is then used as a supposition for what these individuals would have done if they had been able to purchase a gun. However, I have never heard the consequence for illegally attempting to purchase a firearm. Were these individuals subsequently visited by law enforcement to ascertain why they lied on their application? If they didn’t lie, then why were they denied the right to make the purchase? My point is, if we are not enforcing the current laws then what good is another one?
As an Arizonan I am also concerned that John McCain may be waffling on this issue. I base this on his response to a letter I sent him regarding the proposed legislation. He refused to commit that he would oppose the proposed legislation.. Instead he made the following statement “While I am an unwavering supporter of the Second Amendment, please know that I will seriously consider all reasonable public safety legislation that comes before the Senate”.

 

[JayBird]

To the OP. If you want to run a background check on a private sale. Go right ahead.

Bring your guns down to your local FFL and ask them to complete the transfer for you. I am sure they will have no problem taking your money and transferring your guns at a 'reasonable' fee.

Just dont force it on me.

I am not sure we have a choice left though. http://www.politico.com/blogs/polit...t-for-universal-background-checks-157222.html

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

People here seem to forget that it's in gun owners' own self-interest to try to prevent unsuitable individuals -- those likely to commit crimes -- from getting guns. Remember, it's massacres such as that in Sandy Hook that lead to draconian gun laws. If we can prevent a massacre, we protect our gun rights. The difficult part is setting up a system that weeds out the unsuitable individuals but doesn't trample on the rights of the responsible and law-abiding. That's the area in which we need to have a constructive dialogue.

You cannot prevent incidents such as sandy hook. They are actions that are neither preventable or is one able to predict such incidents. They will happen guns or no guns. Todays its guns tomorrow its gasoline or chemicals or whatever.

 

[dvlhntr]

The problem with UBC's is being played out in colorado right now.

The bill for UBCs basically means I can't loan a gun to a friend unless I am standing right next to him or her for the entire time. E.g. if my friend is going hunting and needs to borrow a gun I can no longer lend one of mine to him if I am not there.

If my girl friend lives in a shady area of town I can longer leave one of my guns for her self protection if I am not around.


It means I can't will one of guns to someone other than family without fees.

I could go on and on. the problem with these bills is they subvert the bill of rights, and only punish those who follow the law.

it's private property, - the government needs to stay out of it.

The whole point of no registration is so the government doesn't know how many guns are really out there.

 

[hso]

I've changed my mind on universal background checks...

Why, what do you think it will constructively achieve?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

People here seem to forget that it's in gun owners' own self-interest to try to prevent unsuitable individuals -- those likely to commit crimes -- from getting guns.

Sandy Hook - shooter murdered his mother and stole her legally owned firearms. How would a UBC help?
Aurora - shooter bought his firearms through an FFL and passed NICS check
Giffords - shooter bought his firearms through an FFL and passed NICS check
VA Tech - AFTER being adjudicated as a danger to himself or others, shooter bought firearms through FFL and passed NICS check

A universal background check would not have prevented ANY of these incidents.

Remember, it's massacres such as that in Sandy Hook that lead to draconian gun laws.

So why would we adopt a solution that has failed to prevent the last 4 massacres and which will also lead to a database of who owns what guns? What is going to happen WHEN that next massacre occurs? What "reasonable compromise" will be demanded from gun owners now that they know who owns what?

 

[hso]

Murder rates in the U.S. were highest in the period 1974-1991. Background checks didn't start until 1994. Why were murder rates dropping BEFORE background checks were implemented? Further, if background checks had a significant positive impact on reducing murder rates you'd have seen a leveling off of the benefit within a decade as the impact stabilized, but murder rates continued to fall after 2001 and have fallen to a new low. Obviously the break in the curve didn't take place so the background check implementation didn't contribute enough to change the slope of the trend. All of this is available in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports to anyone that wants to look at the data itself.

We need to look for functional solutions to violent crime and murder, but people keep fixating on firearms and suggesting restrictions on firearms owners as a "solution" in spite of the data showing that there's no relationship that can be established.

 

[Deanimator]

Remember, it's massacres such as that in Sandy Hook that lead to draconian gun laws.

No, it's a desire for draconian gun laws that leads to draconian gun laws.

If NOBODY was shot for the next three years, Feinstein would STILL want an AWB.

Gun control isn't a means to an end for these people (and their fifth columnists here and elsewhere), it is AN END IN ITSELF. Any claim to the contrary is delusional.

 

[316SS]

I fully support the UBC bill so long as it is amended to include a poll tax on voting in federal elections and government background checks as a condition of employment for members of the news media. Edited to add: the previous sentence is sarcasm.

If your goal is to wipe your [self moderated] with the Bill of Rights, might as well use the whole thing not just the 2A.

 

[Alaska444]

No, it's a desire for draconian gun laws that leads to draconian gun laws.

If NOBODY was shot for the next three years, Feinstein would STILL want an AWB.

Gun control isn't a means to an end for these people (and their fifth columnists here and elsewhere), it is AN END IN ITSELF. Any claim to the contrary is delusional.

They have these moves drawn up and wait for the "right" opportunity to put them in place by never letting a crises go to waste.

 

[r1derbike]

I haven't changed my position on UBCs; THE ANSWER IS STILL NO!

NO! What part of NO, does anyone pushing for this not understand?

 

[Ehtereon11B]

I thought universal background checks would be a good idea. But between THR and looking at how many true denials at NICS (not just a denial for spelling your name wrong that is repealed) but how many times NICS has actually stopped a violent felon or otherwise prohibited person has actually worked. UBC won't reduce gun violence. Not all criminals get weapons with straw purchases, stolen firearms etc. UBC will just go after family transfers and other nonsense. It is a feel good piece of legislation and nothing more.

 

[Zak Smith]

For the last couple months Colorado's background check backlog has been 5-10 days. And not everyone lives within a few minutes of an FFL. So you'd be denying rights. No go.

 

[2ifbyC]

First, I want to say I am against UBC for many of the reasons that have already been stated.

Since it’s the politicians that will determine the fate of UBC, I have tried to get inside their mindset. Getting reelected is their number one priority, but second to that is the need to have their ego stroked. UBC allows them to feel good about themselves and offers them the rationalization that they have done something.

Based on polls (?) of the American public showing anywhere from 60 - 90% in favor of UBC including NRA members, they are eager to throw another 2A infringement of the backs of pro-gun advocates. Some in the Senate have just been elected and have six years to tap dance and justify their vote. The House however is a different story.

This brings me to paraphrase a quote from the wicked witch of the West, “I’ll get you my Congressman and your colleagues too.”

 

[flynlr]

so there are around 20K laws concerning firearms on the books. I propose this compromise. lets repeal less than half of them starting with NFA 34 and GCA 68

 

[Vector]

To the OP. If you want to run a background check on a private sale. Go right ahead.

Bring your guns down to your local FFL and ask them to complete the transfer for you. I am sure they will have no problem taking your money and transferring your guns at a 'reasonable' fee.

Just dont force it on me.

I am not sure we have a choice left though.

Well put.

BTW - Your link is messed up and made my Norton anti-Virus go nuts!

 

[beatledog7]

Does freedom mean nothing anymore?

Somebody above alluded to the poorly named "Affordable Health Care Act" and how we're still learning in how many ways that piece of legislative diarrhea will affect us. We could all cite examples of how various federal and state agencies, set up with supposed good intent, now freely run roughshod over individual rights in ways never anticipated by most of us when they were legislated into existence.

And now we're supposed to trust that UBC won't escalate into registration and eventually confiscation?

Power granted to government always escalates. Brew that coffee strong and inhale its aroma deeply, my friends.

 

[Billy Shears]

Originally Posted by AlexanderA
People here seem to forget that it's in gun owners' own self-interest to try to prevent unsuitable individuals -- those likely to commit crimes -- from getting guns.

Sandy Hook - shooter murdered his mother and stole her legally owned firearms. How would a UBC help?
Aurora - shooter bought his firearms through an FFL and passed NICS check
Giffords - shooter bought his firearms through an FFL and passed NICS check
VA Tech - AFTER being adjudicated as a danger to himself or others, shooter bought firearms through FFL and passed NICS check

A universal background check would not have prevented ANY of these incidents.

Remember, it's massacres such as that in Sandy Hook that lead to draconian gun laws.

So why would we adopt a solution that has failed to prevent the last 4 massacres and which will also lead to a database of who owns what guns? What is going to happen WHEN that next massacre occurs? What "reasonable compromise" will be demanded from gun owners now that they know who owns what?

Let's be fair here. You're not telling the whole story. The reason that three of the four shooters you mentioned were able to purchase their weapons after passing a background check was a failure in reporting people with mental health issues to the NICS database. The reporting of people with criminal histories has been pretty reliable; the reporting of people with potentially dangerous mental illness has been extremely spotty, and in some states practically non-existent. This is an eminently correctable problem. And if it is corrected, as it should be, there is no reason why such background checks cannot become more effective in detecting people who have been judged a danger to themselves or others by mental health professionals. A lot of the reason reporting of such individuals has been so spotty is opposition by medical professional on the grounds of privacy. In the wake of these recent mass shootings, that opposition is waning fast.

No, checks still wouldn't have stopped Lanza, but a lot of people here look to be making best the enemy of good, and since no perfect system can be designed, oppose ANY system of background checks. Folks, this strikes me as helping the antis paint gun owners as fringe wackos.

Now I'm not saying I support universal background checks. In fact, I don't, but on practical grounds. I can't think of any system that could be enforceable. If one were passed, and my dad just gave me the old Colt Commander he bought in the early '80s as a gift, how could anyone prove he hadn't given it to me ten years ago, as long as he and I both claimed that was what he'd done. This is just one example of a practical problem with UBCs. There are many others.

But as AlexanderA pointed out, there are reasonable proposals we can entertain, and too many gun owners refuse even to talk about them. For example, I just got an email a few days ago (subject title was "Betrayed!"), saying the Virginia legislature was considering two bills, one, SB 1377 "turns you into a criminal for defending yourself at a college or university. Under this bill, any law-abiding adult who defends herself on campus would almost certainly face a class 3 felony charge, EVEN in a clear-cut self-defense case." Except reading the bill, it does nothing of the kind. It says you can be charged with carrying a gun on a campus "with the intent to commit a felony." In other words, if you used a gun to rob someone, a felony, you could also be charged under this new law. It would function exactly like the current "use of a firearm in commission of a felony law" already on the books, and people who are found to have defended themselves are not charged under that law. I see nothing in the text to make me think this new one would be any different.

The second bill, SB 1378, according to the email "increases the potential criminal penalties for buying and transferring guns; meaning that law-abiding Virginians could be slapped under a microscope, locked up for 10 years and fined up to $100,000, for virtually any non-government sanctioned firearms sale." However, read the text of the bill. The penalty is for knowingly transferring a gun to a person legally ineligible to possess one. I think such a bill could use a little tweaking to make sure the burden of proof is sufficiently high for the commonwealth to establish anyone who sold a gun to a felon did so knowingly, but in principle, I see nothing wrong with such a law; it penalizes an action -- knowingly putting a firearm into the hands of a felon -- not ownership or sale of a gun.

When gun owners not only dig in their heels and say "NO, NO, NO! Not one more inch!" to actually sensible proposals aimed at charging criminals for taking specific actions, rather than blanket laws regulating or restricting mere ownership or sale of guns, but also misrepresent such proposals in alarmist terms, we are doing ourselves more harm than good. AlexanderA is right: it's in our interest to keep guns out of the hands of wackos, and there are practical, sensible proposals we can entertain. We need to appear at least willing to talk about them, and if we find a proposal violates the second amendment or penalizes lawful gun owners, then is the time to draw the lines in the sand.

 

[Deanimator]

We need to appear at least willing to talk about them, and if we find a proposal violates the second amendment or penalizes lawful gun owners, then is the time to draw the lines in the sand.

Do you judge every Nigerian "404" email individually on its "merits"?

Do you seriously entertain the possibility that a Nigerian prince (or Chun Du Hwan's widow) wants to share millions of dollars with somebody, and of 6,000,000,000 people in the world, they chose YOU?

I can't think of a gun control proposal I've heard characterized as "reasonable" that wasn't of a kind with virtually every lame internet scam I've gotten by email for the past twenty years.

Serious gun owners have written off the other side's "compromises" for the simple reason that they are UNIFORMLY FRAUDULENT.

I have no more reason to give up even the MINUTEST part of my 2nd Amendment right on the word of an anti-gunner than I have to send "Prince" Abdullah my banking information and PIN so that I can receive "millions".

 

[ACP]

Any person who buys a firearm in America anywhere, anytime, for any reason, needs a thorough background check before they are allowed to own a firearm.
That is just common sense, pure and simple. How else do you keep firearms put of the hands of the mentally ill, the violent (domestic violence, etc.), and ex-felons.

 

[Deanimator]

How else do you keep firearms put of the hands of the mentally ill, the violent (domestic violence, etc.), and ex-felons.

You CAN'T.