yeah I got a good idea. Leave government out of firearms ownership. Look at any gun ban state. Gun control works. How about finding out why people do the horrible things they do? Instead of trying to take the tools they use to do them.
-
If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.
Universal Background Checks? Yes or No? Ideas?
- Thread starter rebel1022
- Start date
yeah I got a good idea. Leave government out of firearms ownership. Look at any gun ban state. Gun control works. How about finding out why people do the horrible things they do? Instead of trying to take the tools they use to do them.
I have a great idea.
Negate all state laws restricting the ownership of firearms, repeal NFA, and obey the Constitution.
Internet win.
And free birth control IUD implants for the welfare class, but that's another argument for another thread
OK, first things first, this proposed law is only 'universal' in the eyes of the gun-control industry. No criminals will be doing background checks before buying black-market firearms.
The term 'mandatory' background checks fits better, because it shows that these are a legal requirement, not some kind of voluntary program.
My first issue here is that this is a solution seeking a problem.
The National Institutes of Justice did a study that found less than 5% of all criminal firearms it traced back entered the black-market through private transfers. The other 95% were either stolen, or became illegal firearms through 'straw' purchases, in equal numbers.
(For anyone that doesn't know, a 'straw' purchase is where a criminal convinces or forces a person who can pass the background check to knowingly buy a firearm for them).
Last year, law enforcement prosecuted around 100 straw-buyers, and I think 44 were actually convicted. The BATFE says they receive 'thousands' of call from dealers reporting straw purchases, yet this is all they can handle.
So, which makes more sense, focus all our resources on the path that provides 5% of the 'crime guns' available, or one that provides 50% of them?
Without at least tripling the current expenditures, you can't do both (and right now we can't even do one).
Second is the law itself.
This bill was written by NY Sen. Schumer, who is a gun-control industry shill to his core and it's booby-trapped everywhere possible.
Get arrested (not convicted, or even charged, just arrested) for any drug crime? You are now a prohibited person.
Have to take any kind of mental evaluation, ordered by anyone (work, insurance, military, courts)? No matter how it turns out, you are now a prohibited person.
On a 'no-fly' list, or confused with someone who is? You are a prohibited person.
And since there is no way to be 'removed' from that list, and 116 agencies who can add you, good luck with getting that straightened out. The late Sen. Kennedy never could.
And with the new executive order allowing other government 'lists' to be used in the screening process at the Department of Justices discretion, this problem will only get worse.
Not bad enough? Try this out for size...
Any check done at a dealer will also require a form 4473 being filled out, but those are kept on-site like they are now. However the firearms data will be 'cached' at NICs, so they will always have a record of every transfer for every firearm in their database.
Even if you have a carry permit, you still have to send the firearm information from the 4473 into the BATFE (although not the personal data) within 30 days of the transfer.
At that point, all we need is one change in the law to have all the 4473 personal information sent in, and we have our very own firearms registry.
And we all know there has not been a case in the last 100 years where a firearms registry did not lead to confiscation within a decade.
Last but not least are the philosophical issues.
You mention the car example, and I equate that to a dealer with an FFL having to follow the government rules. You are a business engaging in the purchase and sale of automobiles, and the government can make a claim to regulate you on the basis of the commerce clause.
However, if you sold a car through the classifieds, or to your neighbor, did you have to call the same hotline number?
Of course not.
The same is true for firearms, and literally any other personal property. I can't think of a single type of legal personal property that the government even attempts to regulate when the transaction is between individual citizens.
Once the government gets this 'right', where do you think it will end?
I could list a dozen examples of places the government would love to have a say on what you can and cannot own as a private citizen, but you can use your own imaginations.
Needless to say, this is one of the slipperiest slopes you can imagine.
A well written law might avoid some of the legal issues.
Unlimited funds might alleviate some of the budgetary issues.
However nothing avoids the most critical issue, that any law like this is a fundamental intrusion into the lives of private citizens by our government.
The term 'mandatory' background checks fits better, because it shows that these are a legal requirement, not some kind of voluntary program.
My first issue here is that this is a solution seeking a problem.
The National Institutes of Justice did a study that found less than 5% of all criminal firearms it traced back entered the black-market through private transfers. The other 95% were either stolen, or became illegal firearms through 'straw' purchases, in equal numbers.
(For anyone that doesn't know, a 'straw' purchase is where a criminal convinces or forces a person who can pass the background check to knowingly buy a firearm for them).
Last year, law enforcement prosecuted around 100 straw-buyers, and I think 44 were actually convicted. The BATFE says they receive 'thousands' of call from dealers reporting straw purchases, yet this is all they can handle.
So, which makes more sense, focus all our resources on the path that provides 5% of the 'crime guns' available, or one that provides 50% of them?
Without at least tripling the current expenditures, you can't do both (and right now we can't even do one).
Second is the law itself.
This bill was written by NY Sen. Schumer, who is a gun-control industry shill to his core and it's booby-trapped everywhere possible.
Get arrested (not convicted, or even charged, just arrested) for any drug crime? You are now a prohibited person.
Have to take any kind of mental evaluation, ordered by anyone (work, insurance, military, courts)? No matter how it turns out, you are now a prohibited person.
On a 'no-fly' list, or confused with someone who is? You are a prohibited person.
And since there is no way to be 'removed' from that list, and 116 agencies who can add you, good luck with getting that straightened out. The late Sen. Kennedy never could.
And with the new executive order allowing other government 'lists' to be used in the screening process at the Department of Justices discretion, this problem will only get worse.
Not bad enough? Try this out for size...
Any check done at a dealer will also require a form 4473 being filled out, but those are kept on-site like they are now. However the firearms data will be 'cached' at NICs, so they will always have a record of every transfer for every firearm in their database.
Even if you have a carry permit, you still have to send the firearm information from the 4473 into the BATFE (although not the personal data) within 30 days of the transfer.
At that point, all we need is one change in the law to have all the 4473 personal information sent in, and we have our very own firearms registry.
And we all know there has not been a case in the last 100 years where a firearms registry did not lead to confiscation within a decade.
Last but not least are the philosophical issues.
You mention the car example, and I equate that to a dealer with an FFL having to follow the government rules. You are a business engaging in the purchase and sale of automobiles, and the government can make a claim to regulate you on the basis of the commerce clause.
However, if you sold a car through the classifieds, or to your neighbor, did you have to call the same hotline number?
Of course not.
The same is true for firearms, and literally any other personal property. I can't think of a single type of legal personal property that the government even attempts to regulate when the transaction is between individual citizens.
Once the government gets this 'right', where do you think it will end?
I could list a dozen examples of places the government would love to have a say on what you can and cannot own as a private citizen, but you can use your own imaginations.
Needless to say, this is one of the slipperiest slopes you can imagine.
A well written law might avoid some of the legal issues.
Unlimited funds might alleviate some of the budgetary issues.
However nothing avoids the most critical issue, that any law like this is a fundamental intrusion into the lives of private citizens by our government.
I have thought this through and through and the only issues keeping me from drinking the koolaid are the costs associated with keeping such a database and the ability for anyone to access it.
- With the cost factor, as stated previously, it is going to costs tax dollars to keep such a system updated and to make it universally accessible on the Internet. Those costs are going to come from tax dollars paid by you and me and anyone else who pays taxes, or they are going to come from a fee-based service associated with the purchase of a firearm (so that only gun owners pay for the system). I am against both of these options.
- I see it as an infringement on privacy if anyone can check anyone in this database. Sure you only get a go or a no-go from the query, but that is still too much data to pass around freely. i can imagine people running "free" background checks on their friends, neighbors, etc more than people using the system for legitimate gun sale reasons. While the check wouldnt tell you why a person is unable to buy a gun, it does tell you they are some type of a felon, drug user, convicted of domestic violence, crazy, dishonorably discharged, etc. AKA more info than I would like to make public for everyone's use.
- With the cost factor, as stated previously, it is going to costs tax dollars to keep such a system updated and to make it universally accessible on the Internet. Those costs are going to come from tax dollars paid by you and me and anyone else who pays taxes, or they are going to come from a fee-based service associated with the purchase of a firearm (so that only gun owners pay for the system). I am against both of these options.
- I see it as an infringement on privacy if anyone can check anyone in this database. Sure you only get a go or a no-go from the query, but that is still too much data to pass around freely. i can imagine people running "free" background checks on their friends, neighbors, etc more than people using the system for legitimate gun sale reasons. While the check wouldnt tell you why a person is unable to buy a gun, it does tell you they are some type of a felon, drug user, convicted of domestic violence, crazy, dishonorably discharged, etc. AKA more info than I would like to make public for everyone's use.
Also just to clear something up, the NICS/4473 system can not (by current law) be used for any type of national gun registration. That was added to the Firearms Owners Protection Act of (I think) 1986 before it was passed. Registration would have to come from a different database (ie, the new executive orders from last month allowing data mining from new sources), or by a partial repeal of the FOPA.
Also, in a 4473 NICS check, only the type and manufacturer of the firearm are sent for the check, the serial number is written on the form but is not used for the NICS check. So, in order to really use that data for registration every FFl would have to send their 4473's to the ATF, or the ATF would have to go to every FFL and get the forms. I dont see either method going anywhere any time soon.
Also, in a 4473 NICS check, only the type and manufacturer of the firearm are sent for the check, the serial number is written on the form but is not used for the NICS check. So, in order to really use that data for registration every FFl would have to send their 4473's to the ATF, or the ATF would have to go to every FFL and get the forms. I dont see either method going anywhere any time soon.
Now this is an excellent and informative debate isn't it. I love the free IUD implants for Welfare recipients that's awesome. People that do the kind of crazy **** they did like Sandy Hook and Columbine did it because they were freaking crazy!!! So how do you keep a crazy person from getting a gun? I know how you can stop a crazy person from killing a lot of people at a movie theater or school or mall or just about any public place....are the other people in said public place! If one of us was in the movie theater the night James Colmes came in many more people could have survived. If just one teacher had a gun within reach at Sandy Hook many of those parents would not have needed to bury their children. Armed Resource officers at the college and high school campuses could have stopped the Virgina Tech and Columbine shootings before they got out of hand. Calling local law enforcement is still too slow, it takes minutes to get there and in that time to many people have already been injured or killed. The NRA said it best "only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". I believe everyone has a right to defend themselves and if we allow them to do so this may be a very effective way to combat these acts of terror at home.
I also want to add that I just saw that MO is trying to put forth a bill to not only ban assault weapons in their state....but to confiscate the ones you already have and thus make you the criminal if you do not turn them in within 90 days. WTF
