Don't get mad, just a question,

[IdahoSkies]

This is something I used to think would be okay to give on, but not now.

"universal background checks" will result in me having to "run a check" every time I lend a shotgun to my brother when he comes home from school and wants to go bird hunting.

As I understand it now the burden is on the purchaser, not the seller, to avoid criminal activity. "Universal background" checks changes the burden to the seller. That is a substantial change from where we are now. Not something i am willing to agree to.

 

[pseudonymity]

We get rid of the 4473 forms, and replace it with a 'pre-approval' process. In this case, the onus is on the buyer to get the check done. Anyone would be able to call or log in online to a NICS site and provide their information and be pre-approved for a gun purchase, that lets say would be good for a week or so. You would be given some sort of code or approval #.

Mind if I borrow your license for a few minutes?

Next step is for you to take a photo ID and your approval number to wherever you are buying the gun. For the sale to take place, the seller must then simply call or log in and provide the approval number and the name of the buyer, and would receive in return a simple yes or no - confirmation that the approval # is valid and they are fine to go ahead with the sale. The seller would not need to identify him/herself.

The seller would not have to check your ID either, since there is no benefit to them if they are not High Road. Even better - the seller dial up Joes Pizza on the corner, reads off your number, hands you the gun and then goes shopping with his new number in your name.

And thats it, it would apply to all sales. The plus I see would be that NICS would not know who the seller was, and in a similar fashion to the 4473 form, the buyer would only provide "handgun" or "long gun" in order to be approved, so there would be no way to trace an individual weapon. And just because someone calls to confirm the pre-appoval number doesn't mean that the sale actually went through. Additionally, since the seller is never identified, you would never know if the buyer were to re-sell that particular weapon in the future.

If the seller does not confirm the sale, then the system has to store the buyers information for at least the length of time the approval # is valid. What exactly do you think the information handling requirements on that data are going to be? It is almost certain to be backed up somewhere, and who knows where that collated data resides and who can access it.

If the seller does not confirm the sale, the buyer can purchase multiple guns with one approval number.

At some point you need to have a trusted third party for the system to work for both buyer and seller. Today, FFLs serve that purpose, because they have skin in the game in terms of their business.

 

[Blue .45]

Not to change the topic, but I was just listening to an interview with former RNC chairman, Michael Steele on a local radio station. He made the comment that about 75% of NRA members support universal background checks.

My question is,did the NRA conduct such a pole of its members? Did anyone receive a questionnaire on this issue? I haven't seen it.

 

[Phatty]

Not to change the topic, but I was just listening to an interview with former RNC chairman, Michael Steele on a local radio station. He made the comment that about 75% of NRA members support universal background checks.

My question is,did the NRA conduct such a pole of its members? Did anyone receive a questionnaire on this issue? I haven't seen it.

No. This was an MSNBC poll. Four of their employees signed up for the NRA. They then asked these four employees whether they support universal background checks. All four said yes, but MSNBC thought that 100% might not be believable, so they switched the answer for one of them and came out with the 75% approval number.

 

[mljdeckard]

It's total bull. The NRA has no such poll results. Michael Steele was always borderline anti.

 

[goon]

I was initially in favor of a mandatory background check for all sales, with some system that would allow private sellers to run background checks on one-another or allow private sellers access to NICS.

However, a letter written by the County Sheriff's Association of Colorado, the very state where one of the recent mass shootings took place, noted that mandatory background checks will increase the workload of police officers and not target the true source of crime. In other words, these Sheriffs, with their collective law enforcement experience, feel that mandatory background checks are pointless. Their opinion has changed my mind on the issue. I no longer support mandatory background checks.


http://www.washcountysheriff.com/documents/CSOCGunLegPositionPaper.pdf

 

[gossamer]

Wrong analogy. A firearm is not a car, boat, trailer, or motorcycle. There is no "shall not be infringed" right to own a car, boat, trailer or motorcycle.

If you're going to reply, please read the entire exchange.

"The government shouldn't be involved in my transaction of something that it is my right to have." is not a compelling argument. Because . . .

The govt. can and is involved in your transaction of guns, houses, cars, etc.. The law is already established that the govt. can and is involved. You will not un-ring that bell no matter how many times anyone posts this same thing on the internet.

More importantly, this is about the OPs question about checks for private sales.

There are FAR MORE compelling arguments agains them than trotting out comparing it other things you buy with government involvement.

 

[Blue .45]

Thanks. That's what I figured.

 

[jungle]

Most of you would not believe how much data is stored on each of you and how easy it is to get a complete history of an individual given access to a number of data bases that already exist.

Many of these data bases are shared among government agencies and include many types of financial and other records, travel, criminal/court records, phone, email and just about any other activity that generates a record.

Ever wonder how they figure out who bought how much ammo on the internet in just a few hours after a crime?

 

[zorro45]

In my state this is a moot point because a duplicate form just like a 4473 goes to the state police. (not saying this is a good thing) Also, in many of those
"must inform" states, the police run the serial #s on the gun you are carrying. Are these stored somewhere?

Just FYI, also in a local case a dirtbag employee stole 33 guns from a LGS.
He plead out on one charge, and got an 18 month suspended sentence. This is how the existing guns laws are enforced.

 

[Quick Draw McGraw]

Mind if I borrow your license for a few minutes?

Yes, and do we even look alike? Actually I assume you mean that this could be exploited in some form of straw purchaser arrangement? Is that what you're getting at? I don't see that as being any different than any other form of security that uses a photo id. If you have a fake ID that can be passed off as legit, than yeah I would think you could exploit any number of security measures. But again, I'm not of the philosophy that just because it wouldn't stop everything it's worthless.

If the seller does not confirm the sale, the buyer can purchase multiple guns with one approval number.

I don't see the issue with that. In my mind the point of a background check is to confirm that you are a law-abiding citizen and thus are free to exercise your second amendment rights. That week time period was just a general time frame tossed out with the thinking that there is a relatively small chance for your "law-abiding status" to change within any given week's time. As long as you are a law-abiding citizen, you should be able to buy as many guns as you want and can afford.

And again, generally speaking, background checks are only useful in the case of a law-abiding seller selling to an unknown buyer. In all other cases background checks are useless for one reason or another. So again, there are plenty of scenarios where any form of background check system is pointless, and you certainly won't see me out campaigning to have them implemented. But the issue of universal background checks has been posed, and so I've been thinking about how a system might look that both ensured as much privacy as possible while still providing some security for that one instance in which a background check might help - a law-abiding seller selling to an unknown buyer.

 

[jerkface11]

Whats wrong with just locking up the people you'd be denying their right to bear arms?

 

[larryh1108]

Whats wrong with just locking up the people you'd be denying their right to bear arms?

They already served their time for their crime. However, they gave up their right to bear arms when they committed and were then convicted of doing their crime. No one took anything from them. They chose to give it up.

 

[jerkface11]

If they're so dangerous maybe they just shouldn't be on the streets. If they're not dangerous there's no problem with them being out.

 

[Skribs]

I don't see the issue with that. In my mind the point of a background check is to confirm that you are a law-abiding citizen and thus are free to exercise your second amendment rights. That week time period was just a general time frame tossed out with the thinking that there is a relatively small chance for your "law-abiding status" to change within any given week's time. As long as you are a law-abiding citizen, you should be able to buy as many guns as you want and can afford.

The concept of the background check treats you as guilty until proven innocent. That's not how we're supposed to do things in a free country.

I hadn't thought of it earlier, but people fake IDs and steal identities as it is, now. I couldn't imagine the amount of trouble I could get into if someone stole my FID and bought some weapons, which were at some point used in a crime (with me having no paper trail when the ATF shows up).

 

[paintballdude902]

if someone can show me definitively that it will keep guns from getting into the hands of bad guys then im game.


but it wont and never will. countries with the strictest gun control still have illegal guns.

 

[goon]

If they're so dangerous maybe they just shouldn't be on the streets. If they're not dangerous there's no problem with them being out.

Exactly!

Why not let someone who has served their time and lived without committing crimes after getting out for say... maybe three years, to once again vote and own firearms?

If you can't trust them, why are they out?
And if they wanted to get a gun illegally, they could anyhow.

 

[larryh1108]

I have a better idea!
Don't commit a felony.
When you decide to do the crime, you give up your rights.
It's part of the punishment and you know it when you proceed to do the crime.
You willfully give up your rights.

 

[cluck]

Exactly!

Why not let someone who has served their time and lived without committing crimes after getting out for say... maybe three years, to once again vote and own firearms?

If you can't trust them, why are they out?
And if they wanted to get a gun illegally, they could anyhow.

You have a lot of optimism in our corrections system. IMO Most who go into the corrections system just learn how to be better criminals when they get out.

 

[jerkface11]

Then don't let them out. Execute the murderers and rapists. Don't even bother locking up the nonviolent ones. Expecting the rest of us to give up our rights so that someone who shouldn't even be on the street can't get a gun is ridiculous.

 

[Blue .45]

I saw this story linked in a different thread. Presumably it is intended to promote new gun legislation, but it points out some issues with background checks.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/health/mental-illness-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Gerald Hume was described in the affidavit as a "known schizophrenic (who) hears voices, and requires treatment" and who has had "several mental health interventions with OCPD" and a history of violent behavior.

He didn't steal his guns or borrow them. He bought them.

"He bought them like any normal person would -- he got them at Walmart," said Oklahoma City Police Capt. Dexter Nelson.

Many law enforcement and gun merchants are frustrated with the system, he said. But "what could (the retailers) do if a person passes a background check? They don't have the authority to check if he's lying. We as law enforcement don't even have that ability, because mental health records are kept in each separate jurisdiction in Oklahoma. Those files aren't transferred to a central state or federal system we can check.

"It's far too easy to pass a federal background check."

The system is only as good as the data. And "the data is the real problem," said Mark Glaze, the director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an organization whose recent in-depth study found millions of mental health records were missing from the federal background check system.

 

[Skribs]

You have a lot of optimism in our corrections system. IMO Most who go into the corrections system just learn how to be better criminals when they get out.

The problem with the way our prison systems work right now is the cause of a lot of repeat offenses. If the biggest penalty to being a violent offender is that you can't vote and can't legally own a gun, what's the big deal? Your options, if you want to repeat offend, are to illegally own a gun (not a big deal for someone willing to use one in the commission of a crime) or use another, unregulated weapon (kitchen knife, sports equipment, tire iron, fists...).

The fact is, there is no law that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Even if you could, you won't stop crime. The only way to prevent a repeat offense is to keep the criminal behind bars. If the crime justifies it, execute them. If the crime does not, keep them locked up. Violent offenders should be locked up until middle age, when testosterone starts to wane. "Let's let these violent sociopaths free to rehabilitate them...we'll keep people safe by making sure they can't buy a gun" is a utopian dream that just doesn't happen in real life.

 

[larryh1108]

And "the data is the real problem,"

Very true.

However, with the passage of obamacare, medical records will be centralized. Now it gets scary. People who have mental issues will get flagged. Maybe that is good but who determines if it's bad enough to take away his weapons?
Next it will be people who have been diagnosed as alcoholics. If he's an alcoholic, he shouldn't have access to guns, right? (abuse of the system). They will have volumes of our records available at the push of a button. They've already stated that smokers will have a huge penalty tax, perhaps $1000 a month. Where will it end? Once they have our personal information anything goes. I do not trust the government with any more information than they already have. It's downright scary.

 

[gc70]

THat's kind of the test that I'm trying to put it to. Would THEY accept any form of check which is effective, but WON'T retain any information that would lead to registration?

Such a form of check already exists, but you would have to judge its effectiveness.

There are 22 states that issue firearms purchase permits or concealed carry licenses that qualify as alternatives to NICS checks. While the states vary, ATF allows the permits or licenses to be valid for up to 5 years.

In my state, a person can buy a gun from an FFL and there is no call to NICS; the FFL simply records the permit or license number on the 4473. Similarly, many sellers record the permit or license number of purchasers in private transactions, which is the same the same thing FFLs do for "background checks." Since the only interaction with NICS is when the permit or license is issued, individual private transactions involve no call to NICS and no creation of records that could be retained to lead to registration.

 

[Quick Draw McGraw]

if someone can show me definitively that it will keep guns from getting into the hands of bad guys then im game.


but it wont and never will. countries with the strictest gun control still have illegal guns.

So do you mean "keep guns from getting into the hands" of ALL bad guys or SOME bad guys?

The question of whether a law or policy is worth it if it won't prevent ALL cases of what it is designed to protect against seems to be something that a lot of gun owners and 2nd amendment supporters disagree on. When these discussions happen it seems a lot of people kind of talk around each other because they have differing views on this issue.