[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter

There is some merit to the "no background check at all" argument. However that would presuppose that there were no prohibited people. If there are prohibited people there must be a way to distinguish them.

I disagree that "no background checks at all" presupposes anything of the sort, but that's a little beside the point, because that wasn't the argument that I raised. Let's look at my original post again, and I'll add some emphasis:

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

Where we disagree is whether such a check should be mandatory for private citizens to use a background check for private transfers. I am of the opinion that it is the government's job to prove something (such as proving beyond a reasonable doubt that I have committed a felony crime) before I am prohibited from exercising fundamental individual rights, not that it is MY job to demonstrate to the government that I am not prohibited. I have likened such a restriction (mandatory background check on all transfers) to the prior restraint doctrine under the First Amendment. Once exercising a right becomes available only to those who get the governmental stamp of approval, it's not really a right any more.

To be clear, by "private citizens," I meant non-FFLs, and by "private transfers," I meant transfers between two "private citizens." My first problem with universal background checks is that it puts every citizen in the position of demonstrating eligibility to exercise the 2A right before the right can actually be had. That's a privilege, not a right. I'm not eager to convert the RKBA into a privilege which is much more easily restricted.

One of my other problems (among several that I have) is that such a system presumes that the government knows better than I about the people to whom I might transfer a firearm. We often speak of these private transfers, we discuss them as though they always occur between total strangers. I will grant you that many private transfers do occur between strangers, to be fair. However, under a universal background check system, I would be unable to give my child a rifle for Christmas without heading down somewhere and having it transferred, for a fee. I'm well aware that the Little McGee has no felony record, has never been adjudicated as a mentally defective, nor convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Why should I have to get a background check done before I can give Little McGee a rifle?

What about my bestest buddy? I've known him for 30+ years, and I know that he's been in LE for ~20. If I hit the lottery and choose to buy him a gun out of the goodness of my heart, why should I have to go and pay someone to have a background check performed on him? Because some third party somewhere else did something bad? The folks who really, really shouldn't have firearms (violent felons and violent, mentally ill), won't get background checks, anyway.

If you don't think universal background checks are a restriction, you're sadly mistaken. It will add extra cost, which is a restriction, and it will increase delay times, which is a restriction. It'll be a stroke of the pen to change the rules on who gets a firearm and how long the NICS check can delay someone. If the government wants to impose further restrictions on my rights, I, for one, insist that they come up with some reason better than "because some unknown third party might do bad things."