daniel craig
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,815
I'd be conflicted. I think running someone's criminal history is probably a good idea before allowing them to purchase, but outside of that, the 4473 is basically otherwise useless.
What if the background check was removed permanently?
- Thread starter Darth-Vang
- Start date
- Status
Pudge
Member
[QUOTE
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.[/QUOTE]
My mistake, I wrote NICS when I should have written background checks. In proper syntax: What is the benefit of background checks?
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.[/QUOTE]
My mistake, I wrote NICS when I should have written background checks. In proper syntax: What is the benefit of background checks?
AlexanderA
Member
The Declaration of Independence has no legal effect. It was a masterful piece of propaganda in 1776. That's all. Your elementary school teacher was wrong.
The whole concept of "natural rights" is philosophically flawed, and is actually counterproductive from the point of view of rights activism. (If rights are "endowed" by a "creator," then we can sit back and passively wait for the creator to protect them. No. Human history shows that in every case, rights were forcibly wrested by the people from reluctant rulers -- who themselves claimed the divine right to rule. The American Revolution itself is a prime example of this.)
I voted no, because it is a different world than back in the 50s and 60s, when social norms and mores worked in ways that they now cannot. When people were growing up in small towns, "background checks" occurred throughout the day, every day. I am not saying that everyone could be trusted with guns, but folks with a felony record, alcoholics/drug users and mentally impaired were more likely to be known about and less likely to start blazing away at everyone within range. I don't know why that happens now, but it does.
Drunk driving laws don't keep all the impaired off the streets, but they are an important tool in reducing the incidence. We all know that laws don't prevent all transgressions. If someone has a felony, they are likely not to buy from an FFL, or the 4473 may dissuade. Maybe the girlfriend comes in, but maybe an alert dealer watches boyfriend pick out the gun, notes that the purchaser knows nothing about it, and discusses straw man purchases, elects not to sell, or notes identifying features that may be useful sometime later. It is an imperfect system but I haven't seen any workable alternatives. Unless chanting "freedom" will protect us.
Drunk driving laws don't keep all the impaired off the streets, but they are an important tool in reducing the incidence. We all know that laws don't prevent all transgressions. If someone has a felony, they are likely not to buy from an FFL, or the 4473 may dissuade. Maybe the girlfriend comes in, but maybe an alert dealer watches boyfriend pick out the gun, notes that the purchaser knows nothing about it, and discusses straw man purchases, elects not to sell, or notes identifying features that may be useful sometime later. It is an imperfect system but I haven't seen any workable alternatives. Unless chanting "freedom" will protect us.
Pudge
Member
Dogtown Tom posted some stats:
Federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)
Firearms Denial Cases Investigated and Prosecuted, Fiscal Year 2017
Federal NICS Transactions 8,606,286
Denials 112,090
ATF Field Division Investigations 12,710
United States Attorney’s Offices Prosecutions 12
So, 1.3% of the NICS transactions were denied, and of those denials 0.01% were prosecuted. What is the risk of giving it a shot even if you are a prohibited person? Does law enforcement really care if a prohibited person tries to arm themself? If the threat to society isn't worth law enforcement caring (and the statistics suggest there isn't real concern), why should society care?
Pudge
Member
Is there any evidence that background checks do more to protect us than chanting "freedom"?
Well, if you look at who wrote that, and see what that person believed, then what you said is true; and I don’t disagree with you in that. I didn’t say anything about passivity, or waiting for some deity to come save us. We have those rights based in the fact that we exist as humans. Whether we protect them or not is up to us. It doesn’t mean that we don’t have them as a birthright. Our rights are not granted by some politician or king or whoever. But it’s up to US to protect them.
Ha ha! I see what you did there! “Legal standing”, like there is some great and awesome “legal deity” out there that judges this stuff, and “philosophically flawed”, like that actually means anything. But I think I get your point.
Last edited:
Look at the Dogtown Tom stats you cite in the preceding post. 112,090 denials. That means prohibited persons that tried to obtain guns and could not because of the background check. I don't believe you can prove that they obtained guns by other means, but those that did had a harder time getting their guns, or they would have used that method in the first instance.
Let me ask the question another way. Do you support Glock 17 vending machines in the local convenience store? Assume it can check for age as that is an obvious problem.
Also the natural rights argument is well known - it is a religious argument that states some characteristic of the universe gives us this right. Be it a personalized deity or just 'because' - is faith based. Given the long history of rights denial in the USA and our current debates on various rights (outside of guns) and views of whom has what rights across the world - it is obvious that rights are a social construct.
Also the natural rights argument is well known - it is a religious argument that states some characteristic of the universe gives us this right. Be it a personalized deity or just 'because' - is faith based. Given the long history of rights denial in the USA and our current debates on various rights (outside of guns) and views of whom has what rights across the world - it is obvious that rights are a social construct.
I have come to consider background checks as a minor inconvenience / nuisance. In a store like Scheels I sit down with a laptop, fill out the forms and zip zap I am at the checkout paying for my purchase and out the door I go.
I suspect background checks do keep some guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.
I suspect background checks do keep some guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.
CapnMac
Member
BATFE has required the records of closed FFL since 1969, and stored them as well, in "as is" condition.
No one planned far enough in advance what to do with paper records in storage for more than a decade.
In addition, FFL have closed due to fires and floods--those records were turned in as well.
For "records preservation" BATFE started scanning in the pallets of Bound Books in their possession. Now, the instructions say to fill in information "legibly"--a term that is hard to exactly define.
So, some portion of those records will be "squiggle" of "hen scratch" bought "smudge"--it's not magic.
They only have 4473, and no other records.
No, no "database investigation." It's a listing that could be stuck in Excell as it's a simple 2d listing (at around 8-11 million records, it would strain Excell). From memory, it's a DB III file using a COBOL based SQL query. All portions of those records are Public Information.
The only reason to restrict access to that information is federal bureaucrat staff job protection (and to prevent public outcry over the quality and completeness of the records).
Which are up to fifty years old , now, and only record the first sale.
If actual criminal history were reviewed, then, perhaps, there might be some merit. It's only just a check against a list. But, you cannot look up criminal history in under 4-5 days.
Everything is a construct.
“A bullet always tells the truth.”
“Freedom lies in the barrels of a warm gun”.
Etc etc.
There are many people that accept subservience to other humans, all over the world. Kings, dictators, religious figures, etc. That acceptance is a construct as well.
It all depends upon what people are willing to accept. I’ll take the one that presumes Natural Rights that must be protected, kinda like what is spelled out in our founding documents, as opposed to accepting the construct of bowing to some other human.
AlexanderA
Member
I'm guessing that many, if not most, of those denials were people who did not know they were prohibited -- for example, because of a domestic violence misdemeanor. If they knew, they would have used a straw purchaser or just got the guns on the street. A felon would be stupid trying to buy a gun from a gun shop. He would know by now that it would be a waste of time (even if he wasn't actually prosecuted for the attempt).
This is actually the crux of why background check laws don't work. Felons sidestep them, and the other part of the gun problem -- mass shooters, crimes of passion, and people that fly off the handle generally -- is not amenable to background checks because they haven't committed their crimes yet. Like a lot of aspects of gun control, this is a "feel good" measure with little practical effect.
Pudge
Member
Nor can you prove that those denials were for actual prohibited persons. Maybe they prosecuted everyone who was actually prohibited and lied on the 4473.
One can guess all one wants, but I don't think it would be wise to toss drunk driving, assault and fraud laws because they are violated all the time. That's nonsense.
I wish people would do the right thing without restrictions, but they don't, so our society does what it can. It's imperfect, but hardly futile.
Pudge
Member
But if the Glock 17 vending machine could do background checks, then you'd be cool with it? Because instead of grabbing one himself, the criminal would need to have his girlfriend run to the machine for him?
Social construct or not, background checks are nothing more than window dressing for political gains. They are in no way an effort to improve society in any measurable way.
That's sound good but recall our Founding documents allowed slavery, denied women the right to vote and restricted the voting rights of even white men.
In any case, arguing you have a natural right for a gun is not an argument that has resonance outside of the already committed to gun rights.
Next, we do have some cases of folks who should have been denied and were not because of screw ups and then they went on to commit horrors. It's an unknown about who has been prevented from such. Unless you can control alternate time lines, we will never know.
Again, Glock 17 vending machines across your city in the convenience stores - who is ok with that? If they could do background checks - why not? I'm in favor of the current NICS system.
What started as a poll seems to have become a fracas. If there are new voices, now is the time. Otherwise, time to move on.
Old Dog
Member
New voice here (in this particular thread)...
The part of me that's worked in law enforcement these past many years says no, I cannot be "truly okay with that." I have come face to face with, witnessed, and sometimes, even interviewed, evil. On the intellectual level, I know that the background check does absolutely zero to prevent someone with bad intent from procuring a firearm. But I also have enough experience to know that some criminals are truly stupid, and a background check can certainly delay some from procuring a firearm, especially legally. This is also important when it comes to the part of prosecuting someone for crimes involving firearms. It's another legal hammer to use against those that obtain, and use, firearms unlawfully. This is something that a lot of gun rights activists disregard. It's so easy to spout stuff such as "liberty can be messy" until it's your toddler daughter or niece that dies because of someone's stupidity
As for those who keep quoting, "shall not be infringed..." Good grief. Just stop. Y'all got your Safeway Club Cards? Cabela's Rewards Card? ANY credit or debit cards? Every purchase you've ever made (internet porn, Gunbroker, Armslist, liquor) the government already knows about. You've all given up your 4th Amendment rights, so ... just please stop.
Color me "conflicted."
The constitutionalist (strict constructionist) and the libertarian in me says I should be okay with that.
The part of me that's worked in law enforcement these past many years says no, I cannot be "truly okay with that." I have come face to face with, witnessed, and sometimes, even interviewed, evil. On the intellectual level, I know that the background check does absolutely zero to prevent someone with bad intent from procuring a firearm. But I also have enough experience to know that some criminals are truly stupid, and a background check can certainly delay some from procuring a firearm, especially legally. This is also important when it comes to the part of prosecuting someone for crimes involving firearms. It's another legal hammer to use against those that obtain, and use, firearms unlawfully. This is something that a lot of gun rights activists disregard. It's so easy to spout stuff such as "liberty can be messy" until it's your toddler daughter or niece that dies because of someone's stupidity
As for those who keep quoting, "shall not be infringed..." Good grief. Just stop. Y'all got your Safeway Club Cards? Cabela's Rewards Card? ANY credit or debit cards? Every purchase you've ever made (internet porn, Gunbroker, Armslist, liquor) the government already knows about. You've all given up your 4th Amendment rights, so ... just please stop.
Color me "conflicted."
They don't keep the loonie from getting a gun; they just keep the loonie from getting a gun at that location.
hemiram
Member
That's true, but anything to make it more difficult or delays it is a plus. A former teacher of mine who had obvious mental health issues(Us kids all thought he was a whacko for years) for a long time, was stopped minutes away from killing the principal of his school, who he thought was having an affair with his wife, but actually the wife was calling the principal (Her husband had one of those old calculator phone logging things, and saw her calling his private number almost daily) and begging him to get him help. Nobody did a thing until he was on the way to the school with his 12 gauge to kill the principal. His wife didn't even know he had a gun until that morning. He bought it at a local hardware store a day before.
Demi-human
maybe likes firearms a little bit…
But not by the background check…
He passed that.
Isn’t it strange, when we hear of something crazy going down, we always know when they are found, “Yup. That guy was nuts. I can see him doing that.”
But before they go bonkers we are supposed to walk on egg shells and respect personal issues, when we all see them unraveling.
AlexanderA
Member
I don't think, at this point, that the background check system should be scrapped. But, at the same time, I realize that it's a "feel good" provision that does not accomplish its stated purpose (to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them). That's why I voted "conflicted" in the poll.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
