Help w/ Argument Against Background Checks for Private Sale

[Uncle Richard]

I believe that background checks should not be required for private sale of firearms, but my argument seems on the weak side. I would appreciate some help to present a stronger justification…..

My reasons are: (1) government should not regulate private transactions, regardless of what is being sold; (2) if I want to sell a firearm to a friend or relative that I’m comfortable with, a background check would be unnecessary.

What other reasons carry more weight?

 

[ZeSpectre]

3) trying to sell private property is not a crime

4) background checks means a record, a de facto registration

 

[SuperNaut]

Private citizens are barred from using the NICS system; that's kind of a big deal.

 

[nazshooter]

It isn't a right if you have to get permission from the government before exercising it. Ask how they would like it if every book or newspaper issue had to be approved by the government prior to publication.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ivy Mike]

The problem is that you are arguing against a method for ensuring the government can do a job legally required of it by the constitution.

The constitution provides for the removal of rights through due process of law. If someone has been stripped of these rights, it is the responsibility of government to enforce the punishment handed down by the court or jury.

The governments operating in this country already regulate many private transactions. If you have financed a car through a dealership in the past ten years or so, you signed a sheet of paper that detailed the exact terms of the loan in very plain english. The math is done for you so you can check it and ensure you are getting the agreed-upon terms. This form is mandated by law.
Do you rent an apartment or home? Do you own your own home? Chances are you purchased or rented from a private company and your transaction was subject to a number of regulations regarding fair housing practices to prevent discrimination. These laws generally outlawed things like blockbusting.
Do you take prescription medications ever? Go to the dentist and get a scrip for some pain meds afterwards? Your transactions are governed by laws regarding the dispensation of prescription medication. Even more apply if your medication is a controlled substance and they are very common these days. A dentist won't think twice about a small prescription of hydrocodone for in-depth dental work.

About the only valid argument is that the onus is on the buyer to know whether or not they have been DQ'd from firearms ownership. While criminal records are generally public record, the accessibility of these systems is not exactly universal nor is it free in many cases. The other problem is that the seller has no responsibility to police who buys the gun. It is not your job or my job to verify that a buyer is not breaking the law. The right to keep and bear arms is to be cherished for those who still posses it. Those who have forfeited it by becoming a felon deserve no such protection and the NICS check is a good way to sort out who still has this right. A trip to your local police station or gun store to verify a buyer is not too much to ask.

 

[JustinJ]

When somebody proposes something it is generally better to attack their arguments first as they are the one calling for action.

However, if you believe you don't have a strong reason for your position why do you hold it in the first place?

 

[Teachu2]

If I sell a gun, I WANT a background check on the buyer - takes the spotlight off of me if there's a problem later.

 

[Quick Draw McGraw]

It isn't a right if you have to get permission from the government before exercising it. Ask how they would like it if every book or newspaper issue had to be approved by the government prior to publication.

I don't really see that as being a very valid comparison. To me it'd be more like comparing a background check to needing to show your press pass at an event or even supplying your username and password to log in to post on your blog. Given criminals' propensity for abusing rights, we unfortunately have to be watchful.

Hey maybe we should just come up with a law-abiding gun-owner's secret handshake.

 

[Spartacus]

Adding more rules and regulations only affects those who follow the rules. I am a law abiding citizen. I work, raise a family and pay my taxes. I'm essentially being punished because criminals don't follow the existing rules and regulations. If the law requires me to do background checks before I can legally sell a firearm, I will do so, because I obey the law. The cocaine dealer that throws down drug money for a full auto will not be affected.

 

[deadin]

Other than a perceived invasion of privacy, which really has nothing to do with firearms, what's the problem? You already have you privacy invaded every time you apply for a job, ask for credit or purchase from a dealer. If for some reason a buyer can't qualify to buy from a dealer, they shouldn't qualify to buy from a private source. (Other than the 18 YO vs. 21 YO disconnect between Federal law and State laws. These laws should be brought into alignment.)
I see a problem if, as part of the check, they also record firearm serial numbers, etc. (which they don't do currently.) We will have to wait and see how it shakes out.
One problem will be the bureaucratic nightmare created and we will obviously end up being charged more "fees" to exercise our rights.

 

[Quick Draw McGraw]

The cocaine dealer that throws down drug money for a full auto will not be affected.

Very true, such a law will not affect one criminal selling to another criminal, but I can see such checks being effective when a law-abiding gun-owner is the seller and a criminal is the buyer. As it is now, I can ask to see an ID, but that is by no means any indication that someone is not a criminal. I would guess in most cases it would probably mean that criminals would not attempt to buy from a gun owner that would do the nics check for fear of being denied and flagged. They would still get their guns through non-legal means, but at least it would cut down access a little bit. Maybe drive up the price of illegal guns, heh.

 

[lloveless]

I don't see that doing a nics for a private sale is going to help deter crime. We pretty well know to whom we sell. I really doubt criminals follow ads to buy a gun.
ll

 

[Quick Draw McGraw]

We pretty well know to whom we sell.

Well I guess that is a good policy, but is it one that everyone follows? I guess I personally have only dealt with people I know when doing private transactions in the past, but I know of cases where friends have dealt with strangers as well.

 

[Kiln]

Lets see how background checks would have stopped either of the last two mass shootings:

1. The man involved in the Aurora theater shooting was not a criminal (prior to the shooting) and therefore background checks wouldn't have stopped him from getting a weapon. Even if the gun he wanted was illegal, he would have simply accomplished his goal through other means. He booby trapped his house with 30+ explosive devices so something tells me that if he hadn't gotten a rifle, he would've just used a backpack full of explosives instead.

2. The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. This was done by a man who killed his own mother by shooting her four times in the head and then taking her firearms. There's no way a background check would have changed the outcome of this because the guns were never actually passed to his hands by anyone.

I'm sorry but background checks won't be obeyed by people who are passing guns around under the radar anyways. Magically saying that everyone must now do a background check isn't going to make it actually happen, especially with people who want to do things like the two horrible events that I listed previously.

 

[boatmanschneider]

What is to stop them from including "Christians, Returning vets and Ron Paul supporters" on the list of people to be denied the ability to purchase a fire arm?

What other studies will come out and be used by politicians to advance their agenda?

I don't want them to have that power.

 

[Old Fuff]

The proposal to require background checks does not mean that individual sellers can personally check out a potential buyer. The game plan is to require that all sales be made through a FFL dealer, including that the firearm(s) be entered in their bound book, and a #4473 form be filled out and retained by the dealer.

To a lot of private sellers that could make a big difference, and someone would have to pay the dealer whatever fee they demanded.

The procedure would do nothing to prevent straw buyer sales or the use of forged identification documents.

While the Constitution grants the federal government the power to regulate interstate business, it does not empower them to do the same with intrastate sales of private property. But a lack of clear constitutional authority does not concern the advocates of a big, all-powerful federal government.

Placing intrastate private sales under the FFL umbrella increases the probability that the information will eventually end up in a central database where it can be used to force registration or even confiscation.

 

[Quick Draw McGraw]

Well I don't really want to become the spokesperson for background checks, so I'll take a break after this post. Definitely not a hill I want to die on.

But, I don't feel that saying:

What is to stop them from including "Christians, Returning vets and Ron Paul supporters" on the list of people to be denied the ability to purchase a fire arm?

is the best argument to use when discussing this with an anti. I could see it being construed that you are actually arguing that you want to have a way to circumvent the law regarding who is allowed to possess firearms. I do think I understand your sentiment, but I would think the key would be making sure, through our votes and political activism, that there is no expansion of the "people to be denied" as opposed to trying to find ways around the prohibitions.

Also,

The proposal to require background checks does not mean that individual sellers can personally check out a potential buyer. The game plan is to require that all sales be made through a FFL dealer, including that the firearm(s) be entered in their bound book, and a #4473 form be filled out and retained by the dealer.

That may indeed change things. It is of course one thing to simply suggest, "you should make sure the person you are selling to is not a criminal," but taking it further, which it sounds like might be the case, could have different implications. I think that's similar in the background check vs. pseudo-registration balance as well.

 

[tyeo098]

1. The man involved in the Aurora theater shooting was not a criminal (prior to the shooting) and therefore background checks wouldn't have stopped him from getting a weapon. Even if the gun he wanted was illegal, he would have simply accomplished his goal through other means. He booby trapped his house with 30+ explosive devices so something tells me that if he hadn't gotten a rifle, he would've just used a backpack full of explosives instead.

2. The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. This was done by a man who killed his own mother by shooting her four times in the head and then taking her firearms. There's no way a background check would have changed the outcome of this because the guns were never actually passed to his hands by anyone.

This needs to be repeated everywhere.

 

[Kiln]

This needs to be repeated everywhere.

Everyone should spread it because it is a FACT that cannot be argued against..

 

[On__Target]

If we believe that the right to keep and bear arms (for the purpose of preservation of human life against those evil persons who would threaten our lives) is a natural human right (not granted by the US Constitution but acknowledged there) then the government should have no say whatsoever in transactions by law-abiding citizens in this matter.

We agree that we should not need governmental approval prior to writing a news article, sending a letter, going to church, or posting on the Internet. This matter should be no different.

 

[deadin]

The game plan is to require that all sales be made through a FFL dealer, including that the firearm(s) be entered in their bound book, and a #4473 form be filled out and retained by the dealer.

Old Fuff,
I can believe that but, as of right now, do you have solid documentation that this is true of is it just conjecture?

 

[beatledog7]

I'll make this simple:

1) Arrest violent criminal
2) Try him
3) Convict him if you can. If you can't, track him until you can arrest him again. Try him. Repeat as needed.
4) Sentence him IAW his crime
5) Lock him up
6) Lose the key

Now, all the known violent criminals are in prison. No background checks to detect a violent criminal record required.

 

[AlexanderA]

Old Fuff wrote:

The proposal to require background checks does not mean that individual sellers can personally check out a potential buyer. The game plan is to require that all sales be made through a FFL dealer, including that the firearm(s) be entered in their bound book, and a #4473 form be filled out and retained by the dealer.

That may be the most likely path to "universal background checks," but it doesn't have to be that way. As an alternative, the NICS could be opened to private individuals, who, after entering the identifying information of the buyer (no identifying information on the gun) would get a "proceed" or "don't proceed" indication. (The buyer would fill out a Form 4473, which would be kept by the seller.) Heck, this could even be made voluntary. The incentive to participate would be immunity from civil liability if the gun was later misused.

If anything in Obama's plan is passed, this "universal check" would be it. We need to be thinking of counterproposals if it looks like this thing is making headway.

I have a sneaking suspicion that funneling the checks through FFL's is a way to gain their support for the plan (after all, this would be an additional stream of income for them). That's the strategy of "co-opting stakeholders," or, if you will, "dividing and conquering."

 

[StewNTexas]

If you get the background check, what will they want? Is it like the NICS checks where no record is made of the serial number, or will the 'new' system want lots of other info.

If you do this, does this make it a documented exchange of firearms?

What about one you get in a will from a relative? Would this be undocumented?

Remember what the 'Left' thinks undocumented means. You may get some free healthcare, some foodstamps and a free Obama phone.

 

[Ivy Mike]

The possibility that was mentioned in another thread was to include on any state issued ID a line that says NO FIREARMS or something to that effect. All the criminal background/mental deficient checking is already done and is easily accessible to a private seller without the need to create more paperwork or unreasonable demands like a private citizen keeping a 4473 for 20 years.

A more stringent background check would not have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter nor is the universal check being floated as an idea to stop such tragedies on its own. The idea is to create more responsibility about how and when guns move between individuals. Accountability for ones own firearms is stressed. The acquisition process becomes similar for all gun purchases.
This type of checking system may do more to make guns less accessible to those who regularly commit violent offenses with them rather than the guy who snaps after watching too much Bill O'Reilly and Doomsday Prepper reality TV.