What if the background check was removed permanently?

[DustyGmt]

Said Yes but wouldn't put an exclamation point on it. I understand that many evil doers would exploit the easement. But, I would be OK with it. Freedom is messy business and those that are prohibited find backdoor avenues to obtain firearms anyway.

I am really jealous of those from previous generations who could go to the hardware store and grab a gun out of a barrel and buy OTC, I wish we could go back to that...... I know it's a fantasy at this point, but that's the point. Freedoms seemed to be better understood years ago. Now it seems like more of a privilege and I don't appreciate the fact that I have no business going to a gun show anymore because I get delayed 9 out of 10 times. I know that probably reads like I'm willing to sacrifice 10's of thousands of loonies gaining access to firearms lest I be inconvenienced but it's just how I feel about it generally speaking. If the full extent of the law is applied, there is enough deterrent, if it isn't it doesn't really matter either way.

Maybe I'm wrong....

 

[Seedy Character]

A background check is what is performed when you apply for a carry permit.

Upon entering a dealer and initiating a purchase; showing dealer a carry license should be sufficient. Record license number one the 4473. Forget the stupid questions on bottom of the form. Driver license info, firearm info, carry license info, DONE!

Obtrusive, minimal
Hindrance to criminals, somewhat

There are 21k+ gun laws now in existence. Enforcing and PROCECUTING works. Creating more laws doesn't

 

[dogtown tom]

I think we ought to have background checks available, but in a very different form.

With blockchain technology, it's possible to build a secure and confidential inquiry system. Do that, and make the prohibited person list public through it. Only the buyer and seller have access to the information, except with a warrant.

Seller gets authorization to proceed, and with that, protection from any liability arising from the sale.

With that system, I wouldn't mind making the background check mandatory for all sales, but the government doesn't have access to it unless they can get a judge to agree that they have a good reason.
.

Oh heck no!
A prohibited person list that is "public" but also requires a warrant to view? What nonsensical nonsense is this?
Criminal records ALREADY ARE public information. You want police to first have a warrant to view a convicted criminals records? That's insane.

As a gun dealer I love the fact that I'm not the one responsible for the veracity of the background check.....thats on FBI NICS. I cannot imagine the maelstrom of public indignation if your blockchain technology background check system allowed someone to acquire a firearm and then committed a crime. The criticism and blame would go directly on the person who ran that check.......the dealer.

 

[dogtown tom]

..... We shouldn’t have to fill out multiple forms for every firearm we buy, especially if I buy a pistol and shotgun and/or rifle on the same visit.....

The Form 4473 covers every type of firearm and there is no limit to the number that can be transferred on a single 4473.
If your dealer has you fill out a different form for handguns, another form for rifles, another form for a shotgun, etc.......he's a moron.

 

[DT Guy]

Which are only "first purchase" records, and many are hugely out of date.
People buy and sell firearms all the time.
A given firearm will pass through many hands.
So, as has been repeatedly pointed out, it's not a very good "registry." Further, that "digitized" is not the same as "computerized." There are entire books that have been digitized. Finding a specific word in one of those is not a whiz-bang sure thing.
So, somebody asks BATFE "I have [serial number] what can you tell me about it?" What good will it be to have them tell you "It's a .38 Colt Cobra, bought by Elmer Fudd, 123 Last St, Vernon, Texas, on 21 February 1972, at ABC Gunz, in Idalou, Texas."

None of this contradicts the fact that the ATF has digitized millions of records, does it?

Not searchable, not indexed...but still in their possession. And I don't think anyone expected the ATF to have records from sales outside 4473's, which are, coincidentally, the only sales which require BG checks in most of America. I certainly never asserted they did.

Larry

 

[buck460XVR]

Back ground checks actually violate our rights.

I actually believe that back ground checks affirm our rights, by proving we are not prohibited. There would be no background checks needed, if there were no such thing as being prohibited.

According to our Bill of Rights, which does not grant rights but simply innumerates those rights granted to us by our creator, not the government, is extremely clear.

Since High School, over half a century ago, I have always believed that the Constitution never mentions "God", "our creator" or any other divine being for the sole purpose of keeping the document religion neutral, inline with it's First Amendment. Thus, it's hard for me to believe they were "protecting" a "God given" right. I do believe tho, they were protecting a right obtained by earning our freedom from tyranny. It was also an attempt to help keep us free from any Tyranny in the future.

While I do believe in God, and I heartily support the Second, I do not think the two are in any way, divinely connected and I believe the Founding Father's felt the same way. But since there is really no way of knowing, all of this is just opinion.

None of this answers the question asked by the OP. I doubt very much if any of us will ever see BCs go away. No different than proving your age when it comes to those activities that have age restrictions. I have been buying guns for over 50 years, BCs have not hindered me or kept me from buying a gun.....ever. Since there are no real "loop holes" in the dealer to private citizen transactions, the odds of the addition of more(as in FTF transactions) would seem to be pretty much nil at the federal level. Again, just an opinion.

 

[denton]

Oh heck no!
A prohibited person list that is "public" but also requires a warrant to view? What nonsensical nonsense is this?
Criminal records ALREADY ARE public information. You want police to first have a warrant to view a convicted criminals records? That's insane.

As a gun dealer I love the fact that I'm not the one responsible for the veracity of the background check.....thats on FBI NICS. I cannot imagine the maelstrom of public indignation if your blockchain technology background check system allowed someone to acquire a firearm and then committed a crime. The criticism and blame would go directly on the person who ran that check.......the dealer.

Not quite what I said.

The system uses blockchain, so that only the parties to the sale have access, but also it also remembers forever.

The system accesses the prohibited persons database, and clears or denies the sale. If approved, the seller has a permanent record of the approval, showing that he performed due diligence, along with the identity of the buyer.

There is actually more than one database to search, and there are practical issues to work out, granted.

But the net result is a secure system where all transactions can be checked, and where the record of approval is secure, lasts forever, and is accessible only by parties to the sale, unless a government agency has a warrant.

There is no good reason that the government needs to run the approval system. I shouldn't need a bureaucrats approval to buy a firearm.

 

[Insignificant bill]

Criminals tend to be poor or uneducated. We used to exclude the poor from owning high performance guns with measures like the NFA -$200 in the 30s was like thousands of dollars today. You could buy a nice new Buick for under $600. Then we tried to restrict the poor from owning handguns with the GCA 68’s import ban on affordable small guns.

Tiring of that approach apparently, the Brady law targets the uneducated or not too bright (very inefficiently) by requiring a form to be filled out exactly and by encouraging the smarter criminals to use a straw purchaser.

None of this works well, and I don’t want to find out what the next strategy will be. It too will impose a disproportionate burden or restriction on the law abiding with very little actual gain except making some folks feel

I actually believe that back ground checks affirm our rights, by proving we are not prohibited. There would be no background checks needed, if there were no such thing as being prohibited.



Since High School, over half a century ago, I have always believed that the Constitution never mentions "God", "our creator" or any other divine being for the sole purpose of keeping the document religion neutral, inline with it's First Amendment. Thus, it's hard for me to believe they were "protecting" a "God given" right. I do believe tho, they were protecting a right obtained by earning our freedom from tyranny. It was also an attempt to help keep us free from any Tyranny in the future.

While I do believe in God, and I heartily support the Second, I do not think the two are in any way, divinely connected and I believe the Founding Father's felt the same way. But since there is really no way of knowing, all of this is just opinion.

None of this answers the question asked by the OP. I doubt very much if any of us will ever see BCs go away. No different than proving your age when it comes to those activities that have age restrictions. I have been buying guns for over 50 years, BCs have not hindered me or kept me from buying a gun.....ever. Since there are no real "loop holes" in the dealer to private citizen transactions, the odds of the addition of more(as in FTF transactions) would seem to be pretty much nil at the federal level. Again, just an opinion.

It does violate our rights. It's an infringement. Citizens have allowed the Federal government to overstep and violate the Constitution.

 

[General Geoff]

I have been buying guns for over 50 years, BCs have not hindered me or kept me from buying a gun.....ever.

I have been buying guns for a mere 18 years, but I can say with confidence that the FFL system has hindered me from buying guns several times, not because I'm a prohibited person but because requiring a handgun to be shipped to an FFL in my home state and then getting it transferred to me there is a big enough inconvenience and adds enough cost that I have declined to make several out-of-state handgun purchases. It's simply unnecessary.

 

[3850remhep]

If the world was perfect, I would be fine without them, but every so often, the background checks actually keeps some loonie from getting a gun. It's rare, and even rarer for someone to actually be prosecuted, but I don't agree with getting totally rid of them. Last time I went shooting at a local range, I saw more than a couple of people who shouldn't have a gun for medical, psych, or just plain safety of handling reasons. It wasn't confidence inspiring at all. One guy appeared to have Parkinson's at a level he couldn't hit much of anything he tried to actually hit. It's like the show I see of truly sad people with major issues being allowed to renew their driver's license at the BMV. Some of them are so far gone they have to bend over backwards just to get them to use the eye test machine. Watching them drive away after they "pass" the test is pretty scary.

HIPPA regulations preclude an automatic linking of psychiatric issues with the BATF, at least that is my understanding of HIPPA.

Background checks offer no indication of firearm proficiency.

I see it as a self-perpetuating institution. I was looking at my bookshelf this evening and noted "Unintended Consequences", IMHO, a very good read with perhaps a slanted, but fair perspective of life post 1968. I can still see the bumper sticker my Dad had in '68: "When Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns."

Rather than background checks, I'd be far happier with a certification of proficiency and link that to psychiatric lack-of-issues. Let the BATF keep tabs on cigarette package tax stamps.

 

[swg1]

Background checks. Fine. There is a list of bad guys. Am I on that list? No? We are done. My name doesn’t need to be recorded, nor does any information regarding what firearm I purchased. No record required.

It is a simple yes or no.

 

[CherokeeGunslinger]

Digitized background checks are registration, and registration leads to confiscation. Ask the German Jews, the Canadians and the British.

As far as I'm concerned, "shall not be infringed" applies to background checks and to prohibited persons. I'm not a criminal, let alone a dangerous criminal, so it shouldn't be on me to prove I'm not a criminal before exercising my constitutional rights. We all know about how Johnny McFelon can get a gun on the streets of Chicago without a background check, so background checks are like putting up a fishnet to protect yourself from waves. Therefore, if you can't be trusted to have a gun, you can't be trusted to roam the streets. If you can be trusted to roam the streets, you should be trusted to have a gun.

The ATF needs to go back to fishing donuts out of the vending machine and leave us alone.

 

[kwguy]

I have always believed that the Constitution never mentions "God", "our creator" or any other divine being for the sole purpose of keeping the document religion neutral,

The Declaration of Independence is where a “creator” is mentioned, in order to illustrate that we have certain Natural Rights, and not rights simply granted by the whim and will of other humans. These rights are in the constitution, and further codified in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Darth-Vang]

No it isnt.
Its absolutly normal and needed to have requirments to use some "tools" like cars, planes or guns.

Dont get blindsided just because guns are your hobby or because you dont thrust your goverment. We already know and see, that in society are ppl who will hurt others for that or that reasson. Why make it easy for tham?

Over here you need for your gun licence:
Clear criminal record - there are ofc cathegories of records what matters and you also can ask to erase that record (its procedure, not granted),
Health check - we have public heatlh care so everybody have its own doctor.
Prove that you can safely manipulate with gun - written test and practical exams. Its absed on types of licence (collectors, hunting, sporting, proffesional and carry)

And i really dont see why this should be problem. Its almost same requrments as with driving licence.

Robert is right. Driving in the USA is a privilege and not a right. Here’s some insight from Quora: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right

 

[dogtown tom]

Not quite what I said.

The system uses blockchain, so that only the parties to the sale have access, but also it also remembers forever.

Which is STILL far less desirable to the current FBI NICS system:

1. Only the dealer has access to FBI NICS.
2. Records of successful transactions are deleted at the end of the NICS business day.

The system accesses the prohibited persons database, and clears or denies the sale. If approved, the seller has a permanent record of the approval, showing that he performed due diligence, along with the identity of the buyer.

What the heck do you think FBI NICS has been doing for decades?

There is actually more than one database to search, and there are practical issues to work out, granted.

You are fixing a problem with a worse problem.

But the net result is a secure system where all transactions can be checked, and where the record of approval is secure, lasts forever, and is accessible only by parties to the sale, unless a government agency has a warrant.

Big Brother loves you and your work.

There is no good reason that the government needs to run the approval system.

Horsehockey. Federal law, created by YOUR elected representatives decided it was necessary. Being that a centralized system to compare information from multiple government databases makes for a pretty efficient system. It's not a perfect system because the information databases draw data from thousands of jurisdictions and reporting agencies, but I'll take FBI NICS over your secret blockchain with permanent records every freaking day.

I shouldn't need a bureaucrats approval to buy a firearm.

So.......approval by Facebook? Amazon? Microsoft? Any business that just happened to be the low bidder? Oh.Good.Grief.
"A bureaucrats approval"?
-Marriage license
-Divorce
-Birth Certificate
-your kids 7th grade essay on the Bill of Rights
-your Drivers License
-a Medical license
Literally thousands of "a bureaucrats approval" are required every freaking minute of the day. It's WHAT OUR TAXES PAY FOR. nIt's the services WE chose to assign to government.

And just a minor point......." a bureaucrats approval" implies that FBI NICS can arbitrarily deny or approve a firearm transaction. In fact, the law requires a "proceed" when no disqualifying information on the buyer is available.

 

[dogtown tom]

HIPPA regulations preclude an automatic linking of psychiatric issues with the BATF, at least that is my understanding of HIPPA.

HIPPA has nothing to do with anything regarding a firearm purchase from a licensed dealer.
Question 21 f. asks "Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?".
The instructions to Question 21.f. Adjudicated as a Mental Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

It's not a medical decision, but a court decision.

 

[dogtown tom]

Digitized background checks are registration, and registration leads to confiscation. Ask the German Jews, the Canadians and the British.

There is no "digitized background check" whatever that is supposed to mean. Federal law prohibits the FBI NICS from keeping a record of successful transactions beyond the close of business day. The FBI NICS only gets told whether the transaction is for a handgun, long gun or other. Even if the did keep a record, they wouldn't know whether it was a pistol or revolver, a rifle or shotgun or whether it was a frame, PGO firearm or AR lower. No serial#, not even who made it.

Therefore, if you can't be trusted to have a gun, you can't be trusted to roam the streets. If you can be trusted to roam the streets, you should be trusted to have a gun.

Soooo...........after his prison sentence for embezzlement, the felon should get his old job back? A child molester return to work at a kindergarten?
An armed robber does his time and gets the slate wiped clean?
Oh good grief.

The ATF needs to go back to fishing donuts out of the vending machine and leave us alone.

ATF wouldn't be doing what they do if it wasn't for the idiots who elected idiots.

 

[glove]

Why not do away with it, It does not stop criminals from buying guns.

 

[CherokeeGunslinger]

There is no "digitized background check" whatever that is supposed to mean. Federal law prohibits the FBI NICS from keeping a record of successful transactions beyond the close of business day. The FBI NICS only gets told whether the transaction is for a handgun, long gun or other. Even if the did keep a record, they wouldn't know whether it was a pistol or revolver, a rifle or shotgun or whether it was a frame, PGO firearm or AR lower. No serial#, not even who made it.

It seems you're woefully ignorant of what the ATF is actually doing, or even the scope of the conversation at hand. We're talking about an electronic gun registry created by digitizing ATF Form 4473s.
https://theparadise.ng/atf-reveals-it-has-a-national-gun-registry-already-in-place/
https://www.ammoland.com/2022/01/atf-keeping-920-million-searchable-firearm-records/

Federal law prohibits the FBI NICS from keeping a record of successful transactions beyond the close of business day.

Nice to see you put so much stock into words written on paper. We wouldn't even have background checks if the federal government saw the importance of rule of law.

Soooo...........after his prison sentence for embezzlement, the felon should get his old job back? A child molester return to work at a kindergarten?
An armed robber does his time and gets the slate wiped clean?
Oh good grief.

If you want to strawman my arguments in favor of rationalizing infringements upon everyone's rights, including your own, on a forum where people should logically be against those infringements, be my guest. It won't get you a free pass when they come to strip away what 'rights' you have.

ATF wouldn't be doing what they do if it wasn't for the idiots who elected idiots.

I voted for Trump in 2020. I'm pretty sure that most people in this forum voted for Trump in 2020. I don't see the point you're trying to make though, the ATF is a self-empowering federal bureaucracy with the power to declare you a felon with a rule change. If that doesn't scare you, nothing will.

 

[Coyote3855]

Shall not be infringed.

Any of those denied based on 4473 and a background check will get firearms anyway.

 

[DT Guy]

And again, the arguments that 'it doesn't stop bad guys from getting guns, but we should still keep doing it'....?

I suppose this is either simple inculcation or a variation of the 'we have to do SOMETHING' we see from the media and government. It's just disappointing that people who fight some restrictions so vociferously support others (which they acknowledge don't really work) just as stubbornly.

It's a reminder that many, many gun owners aren't really adamant about real freedom; they just want restrictions that don't impact THEM.

• Require training for a permit? Sure, because I've had training.
• Big fees for a permit? Sure, I can afford it.
• A limit on magazine capacity? I carry a revolver.
• Ban semi-auto rifles? I shoot trap.
• Ban handguns? I shoot rifles.
• Ban sporting guns? I only hunt.

Liberty only really works when you're as willing to give it away as you are to demand it for yourself. These threads really point out the folks who aren't concerned about real liberty, only their own 'rights' to own what they want.

Larry

 

[Pudge]

If background checks were eliminated today, would the impact on violent crime be as significant as when they were enacted?

Seriously, what would you expect? More violent crime, less violent crime, stay the same? And what was the impact when background checks were required?

How effective are background checks at limiting a violent criminal's access to firearms?

What is the benefit of the NICS?

 

[dogtown tom]

It seems you're woefully ignorant of what the ATF is actually doing,

No, YOU are woefully ignorant because the "digitized background check" you believe occurs is NOT run by ATF, but the FBI.
Yeah, WE ALL KNOW about the recent BREAKING NEWS about ATF digitizing out of business records from delaers.....ITS OLD NEWS. ATF has been doing it for years and ITS NOT NEWS!

or even the scope of the conversation at hand. We're talking about an electronic gun registry created by digitizing ATF Form 4473s.

Beg your pardon. The "scope" of the conversation isn't about ATF and an electronic gun registry.....its about BACKGROUND CHECKS.
Background checks are run by the FBI NICS and have absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH ATF.

Nice to see you put so much stock into words written on paper.

I'm required to.

We wouldn't even have background checks if the federal government saw the importance of rule of law.

Huh? That's silly. The "rule of law" includes laws passed by our elected representatives. whether we agree or disagree it's still the law. And so far, the US Supreme Court hasn't seen fit to dismiss the ATF or their regulations.

If you want to strawman my arguments in favor of rationalizing infringements upon everyone's rights, including your own, on a forum where people should logically be against those infringements, be my guest. It won't get you a free pass when they come to strip away what 'rights' you have.

So, tell us more about your "digitized background checks". When you make statement that are based on absolutel nonsense expect it to be refuted.
Read my first post.

I voted for Trump in 2020. I'm pretty sure that most people in this forum voted for Trump in 2020.

So did I. But really.....WHO CARES? It has zippity do da to do with this thread or the scope of this thread or anything to do with digitized background checks or any other fantasy conspiracy theory. Keep politics out or the mods will close the thread.

I don't see the point you're trying to make though,

Thats obvious. You don't even understand what the thread is about.

the ATF is a self-empowering federal bureaucracy with the power to declare you a felon with a rule change. If that doesn't scare you, nothing will.

Horsehockey.
Federal agencies can only make use of the rule making and regulatory process as empowered by federal law. If the underlying law doesn't permit a change then we have recourse through the courts.

If ATF rule changes upset you.....why did you vote for Trump? His pressure on ATF caused a regulatory rewrite of the definition of "machine gun" to include bump stocks. Frankly, I'm embarrassed that I voted for that anti gun clown.

 

[dogtown tom]

And again, the arguments that 'it doesn't stop bad guys from getting guns, but we should still keep doing it'....?


I suppose this is either simple inculcation or a variation of the 'we have to do SOMETHING' we see from the media and government. It's just disappointing that people who fight some restrictions so vociferously support others (which they acknowledge don't really work) just as stubbornly.

It disappoints me to see how many don't get it.

It's a reminder that many, many gun owners aren't really adamant about real freedom; they just want restrictions that don't impact THEM.

No one needs a hi capacity magazine.
No one needs a telescopic sight.
No one needs a semi auto.
No one needs a silencer.

I hear those statements every week......from a guy buying a gun. It's shameful.

 

[dogtown tom]

If background checks were eliminated today, would the impact on violent crime be as significant as when they were enacted?

I think the recordkeeping and background check do deter people from buying from a licensed dealer. And not just criminals. Theres a fair amount of people that dont want to fill out the paperwork or undergo a background check.

How effective are background checks at limiting a violent criminal's access to firearms?

They are effective only at preventing a prohibited person from acquiring a firearm from a licensed dealer in person.
That dissuades only those too stupid to send a girlfriend into the store.

What is the benefit of the NICS?

Never heard of the Brady Law?
Passed in 1993 it mandated background checks.
NICS eliminated the five day waiting period required by the Brady Law.