Universal Background Checks? Yes or No? Ideas?

[spencer60]

Also just to clear something up, the NICS/4473 system can not (by current law) be used for any type of national gun registration.

This new bill would change all that... except the token restriction of the database being populated not actually being called a 'registry'.

The explanations I've seen for this 'cached' data is that it will somehow make the process more efficient.

This is also the reason given for why they want to keep all the previous failed checks (including personal information) in the system as well, even though 99.999% are due to administrative and clerical errors.

Once this data is there, a single change to a single law could require that the personal information on the 4473's be entered and you now have a fully populated, mandatory system of registration.

As for the costs... it's the same NICs system that is currently crumbling under the load today. You will have to travel to an FFL and fill out a 4473 to do this check, and there is no provision for it to be free, anymore than it currently is.

The increased costs will be expanding the number of operators at the call center to meet the millions of new checks every year. Larger systems to support the processing increases. More storage to support the increase in data. More managers to supervise the workers. More buildings to house the new workers. More salaries. More benefits.

You get the picture.

Or you can leave it the same, and wait a day, a week or 6 months (like the NFA branch)for the approval to come back.

All to add background checks to a process that is only a problem in Mayor Bloomberg's (the inventor of the 'gun show loophole') imagination.

 

[captdave77]

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.

There is no law that would have kept a gun out of Lanza'a hands. He stole legally acquired firearms from his mother.

There is no constitutional way to keep "crazy" (the only caveat is criminally insane) people away from guns and the tying of mental health records to state databases is problematic to say the least.

If we as a society want to keep these tragedies to a minimum, we will have more good guys with guns in more places.

 

[rebel1022]

There is no law that would have kept a gun out of Lanza'a hands. He stole legally acquired firearms from his mother.

There is no constitutional way to keep "crazy" (the only caveat is criminally insane) people away from guns and the tying of mental health records to state databases is problematic to say the least.

If we as a society want to keep these tragedies to a minimum, we will have more good guys with guns in more places.

Exactly.......Did anyone catch the early reports that Adam Lanza used 2 handguns to kill all those children? The first Police reports stated they found the AR-15 style weapon in the trunk of his mothers car. The car he drove to the scene. Why haven't we heard more about this? Was it reported wrong or does the media want the weapon to be the AR-15?

 

[chucklenut]

I'm against it. What I would like to see stolen firearms lists used by cos to made public. That would keep me from buying a stolen weapon. More to the point is I can't think of any reason why it's kept hidden

 

[GeauxLSU]

Speaking from a personal law enforcement perspective, universal background checks will have zero impact on criminals, that is why they are criminals, they DO NOT obey the law, hence the term criminal...

This seems so simple... but apparently it's not since the concept of requiring even more government interference in the gun ownership is actually being discussed on a gun trading site! I must be missing something......

 

[GeauxLSU]

Okay so you guys don't like my idea so.....anyone got a better one?
There is nothing wrong with a little debating now is there?

Yeah, it's called Constitutional Carry.
Actually there IS something wrong with gun owners entertaining further restrictions on gun ownership. It's called defeat.

 

[captdave77]

Exactly.......Did anyone catch the early reports that Adam Lanza used 2 handguns to kill all those children? The first Police reports stated they found the AR-15 style weapon in the trunk of his mothers car. The car he drove to the scene. Why haven't we heard more about this? Was it reported wrong or does the media want the weapon to be the AR-15?

Yeah...I don't buy into the tinfoil hat stuff. The coroner's report would have to be faked. More likely the press saw the Saiga 12 come out of the trunk and thought it was an AR.

 

[Bgolden84]

All this would do is side step our rights to commerce with one another. Or make us criminals for doing so. Its also a few steps away from outright baning private sales of firearms. Then the next thing you know unregistered firearms will be taken away from there owners and destroyed. This is bull sheot. I dont think thisn Is a good idea

 

[Aegis]

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.

one of the bills proposed would have done just this. sent in the serial # information.

However, knowing individual guns is not the immediate registration theyre going for right now, the slippery slope step they'd get by Universal Background checks is Gun OWNER Registration. theyd know who HAS a gun, even if they dont know what.

 

[Thor827]

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.

Excellent post!