Universal Background Checks....

[MLeake]

manta49, we have recent Supreme Court decisions that indicate the Second Amendment applies to individuals, and that weapons in common use are protected; previously, the Court had ruled that weapons suited for militia use were protected.

So, we now have a broad spectrum of weapons that are considered protected, and the antis have lost the argument about the Second Amendment being for the purpose of equipping state militias, only.

That changes the dynamic. Laws that might be passed have a serious Achilles heel that they did not previously have. Also, having seen what happened in 1994, gun owners have a better grass-roots organization and focus, now.

So, could laws be passed? Yes, of course, but they might not stand up to Constitutional challenges. Meanwhile, millions of gun owners are actively working to prevent passage of those laws in the first place.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by j3ffr0

My view is that further gun control in America will not make any difference regarding mass shootings . I do think some sensible common sense measures could be considered like requiring firearms to be safely stored when not in use.

If further gun control will not make any difference, why should we consider more of it?

Originally Posted by j3ffr0

If universal background checks were required for every gun purchase and those background checks screened for mentally ill people Cho probably would not have been able to purchase the guns legally like he did, and the VT massacre really might not have happened.

If "A," and if B, then maybe C. That's a whole lot of speculation in pushing for a change in law, even if you accept it as a tenable premise.

Originally Posted by j3ffr0

Even a straw purchase would have been unlikely, because it's not like Cho had a lot of friends. It's very probable that there would have been no massacre.

I suspect that the more likely scenario is that Cho would have either made some "friends" who would illegally sell a gun, or Cho would have chosen to build a bomb.

Originally Posted by j3ffr0

. . . .I'm not a wacko, and I have no problems with the govt screening for wackos. If y'all aren't wacko, neither should you. . . . .

Except that the above two statements overlook a whole host of reasons to object to universal background checks: further expansion of federal power, changing the nature of RKBA from Right to privilege; the prospect of full registration being necessary to make UBCs effective; the fact that the federal gov't likely will not be able to prosecute felons for failing to comply with the UBC law. . .

Originally Posted by j3ffr0

If we can't get behind common sense solutions to keep guns out of the hands of wackos, then someone else will come up with solutions for us....

If we start from the idea that what's being pushed is a package of "common sense solutions," we're already starting from a losing position.

Originally Posted by j3ffr0

Don't believe me? They are working on some stuff now -- I don't like most of it, but universal background checks is one good idea. If you guys don't support something that makes sense, you might not like what they come up with. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem. Even if nothing happens this time around, all it will take is for a couple more crack pots to crack off... When enough people get hurt, a tipping point will eventually be reached.

I maintain that UBCs are a rotten idea. One that will be utterly ineffective without full registration, which will be the next call. Obviously, you're free to go the appeasement route if you wish, but I am unwilling to give up some of my rights in order to be permitted" to keep others. If the antis want to take my rights, they'll have to do it without my acquiescence.

Originally Posted by j3ffr0

Unlike most of you, I do believe universal background checks can help stop mass shootings.

I don't think there's much to support this claim.

[AH.74]

I don't think i am a authority on politics or laws in America. But i can see that further gun controls are now happening or being proposed. The idea that the people can stop it we will see. They have stoped some gun control in the past but not all. I will give you a example i bought a 25 rd mag for my rugger 10/22 on the package it listed a number of states that it couldn't be sold in America. If gun control concerns were high on the list of who people vote for in America how did president Obama get in for a second term. PS I don't mean to come across as insulting and don't think i am superior.

You can't stop everything. Some of these laws have a history of many years and things were different when they originated. Some of them are from states where the culture has changed and become much more liberal and (we feel) overly sensitive and restrictive. Other states are going the opposite direction and loosening the laws- Arizona and Wyoming have gone to Constitutional carry, which flies in the face of all these new proposals.

I live in New Mexico, what people think of as being the heart of the "Old West." Billy the Kid country. Yet last Monday and today the house Judiciary committee is having hearings on HB-77 to restrict private sales. Another house rep has crafted a bill along the lines of the one passed in NY outlawing "assault weapons" and high cap mags (HB 42). These reps are liberals who have different values from most of the people they actually represent. Lying about your intentions to get into office is not unheard of.

I attended the hearing last week and will again today. Lat week there was huge turnout from people who do not want these laws passed and the bill stalled. They made changes and resubmitted. Hopefully today we will kill it.

The reps have different reasons for making these attempts- in some cases, they truly are trying to make a name for themselves by justifying their existence and trying to become the authors of new legislation. That looks good for them for their future political careers, at the expense of the people and their liberties.

[Hal]

Unlike most of you, I do believe universal background checks can help stop mass shootings.

Didn't help the 13 high school kids shot in Mexico...

http://www.loveworldchristiannetwork...eHZx&cate=aW50

They have background check and hoops to jump through out the wazoo in order to get a gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Mexico

[Alabama Shooter]

As a general proposition, it would not violate someone's civil rights for the state to require someone to prove their qualifications to perform the essential functions of a job before they may hold a license to do so. Having a clean record, absent of any convictions for child abuse, child endangerment, child molestation, etc., is a perfectly valid requirement to have a license to run a day-care center or a nanny's license (if they have those), for example. It's also unrelated to any membership in the protected classes.

However, job requirements, background checks, and licensing requirements could be tricky. For example, if the background check that I want to run on someone checks for "arrests" rather than "convictions," that can be problematic. Why? Historically, minority groups have gotten arrested more than whites. That means that if I reject a protected-class applicant for having more arrests (but not convictions) than another non-protected applicant, and get sued, a court could conclude that because minority groups get arrested more often than whites, I'm simply using "arrests" rather than "convictions" so that I have an excuse to not hire minorities.

For RKBA purposes, though, the courts will stick with the framework already established. While employment discrimination laws are rooted in constitutional law (as all laws need to be), they follow a different analysis.

Then I would say as a general proposition then it would not violate their rights to owning a gun by ensuring that they are not a prohibited person before purchasing a firearm. I see it as the same kind of analysis.

If the government can set the conditions for legal firearm ownership then they can set the conditions for the purchase. Enforcement for following the law needs to be upon the purchaser to prove legal ownership and not the seller.

They already have the authority to regulate trade under the ICC so really the only opposition is that we don't want them to do it. That is a tough sell with them throwing up dead babies on the TV every couple of hours that are not even a part of the equation we are discussing.

I think we are dancing about, and ignoring the critical part of the discussion. Its not about whether background checks work, or if they are, or are not a good thing. It is about whether the govt has the legal authority to compel us all to use them. Certainly they can compel us, by passing a law, and enforcing it, but do they have the right to do it?

I think establishing the legal authority to do a thing is very important that is why I have tried to make that the focus of the discussion. Short of having a sheriff standing over you with a weapon (even then) no one can compel you to follow the law.

See this trend in other areas of our lives. Just because something is a good idea, and might have benefits for us as individuals, or for society in general, is it our govt's place to compel us to do it by force of law? And is it their right in general, or just for guns, and some other specific things, because they are "dangerous"?

It depends.

Wearing seatbelts is a good idea. Wearing a motorcycle helmet is a good idea. Having healthing insureance is a good idea. And we got along fairly well, I think, for generations with these good ideas. But today, it is the LAW that you MUST do or have this. And if you do not, even though there is no injury, you get punished by the govt for not having it. IS that right?

Depends upon what you mean by "right". When people go do things that endanger themselves like fail to wear a seatbelt or a helmet and then injure themselves severely it affects me financially and possibly other ways as well. I pay taxes, required insurance, medicare, medicade, and various other programs that pay to repair stupid people who go out and do stupid things with their bodies and equipment in public places. Then I might even have to pay to sustain them for another 20-50 years of their lives as they may have disabled themselves. If I did not pay these taxes and I did not know these people I would probably simply laugh at their foolishness. Sort of the same way I laugh at people who refuse to use more energy efficient light bulbs. These laws if they are complied with help keep my from the poverty that the other laws are trying to bring about by giving my resources to the feeble minded.

There is a "study" that claims that 99%+ of all criminals ate bread, or a bread product within 30 days of commiting the crimes. Yet, at this time, no one is screaming we need to ban bread, or pass a background check to buy a loaf.

Why not?
after all, if it saves just one sandwich......

I am not sure what the rhetorical statement is asking?

[Alabama Shooter]

If further gun control will not make any difference, why should we consider more of it?

I think you have already shown that does make a difference with the limited study you posted.

Except that the above two statements overlook a whole host of reasons to object to universal background checks: further expansion of federal power, changing the nature of RKBA from Right to privilege; the prospect of full registration being necessary to make UBCs effective; the fact that the federal gov't likely will not be able to prosecute felons for failing to comply with the UBC law. . .

It is still a right. You can the lose right. Having a background check will not prevent you from getting a gun unless you have lost that right.

I still don't understand the registration argument. Here is the perfect chance to crush registration.

If we start from the idea that what's being pushed is a package of "common sense solutions," we're already starting from a losing position.

I must agree with you there. Everything else they proposed is a non starter and moronic.

I maintain that UBCs are a rotten idea. One that will be utterly ineffective without full registration, which will be the next call. Obviously, you're free to go the appeasement route if you wish, but I am unwilling to give up some of my rights in order to be permitted" to keep others.

This is not about appeasement. I thought it was a good idea to institute when the IBC system came on line.

I am curious. Have you bought many guns in private party sales?

Quote: Spats

I don't think there's much to support this claim

I would say there is no little or no evidence of that whatsoever. The mass shooters who buy in private party sales make straw purchases mostly where the seller knows that the person is prohibited but breaks the law anyway.


The reason there is little support is because there has been no valid impartial research. One of the dumbest (among many dumb things) the NRA did was assist in cutting off funding for research and then not do any "impartial" research on their own. This left a huge vacuum to be filled by the Bloombergers.

While they were busy patting themselves on the back Bloomberg was funding anti gun research at John Hopkins and other places with tens of millions of dollars over many years. This gives them the cover of authority and a huge head start. Foolish to let the adversary to get a head of you like that.

All it will do is reduce the supply of guns that are available with a background check, provided that people mostly comply with the law.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter

I think you have already shown that does make a difference with the limited study you posted.

I disagree. If memory serves (& there's no guarantee on that), the study showed something like 80% of felons got their guns from friends or family members. The smart money says that family and friends already knew that these fellers were prohibited persons, and they broke the law anyway. UBCs won't help that.

Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter

It is still a right. You can the lose right. Having a background check will not prevent you from getting a gun unless you have lost that right.

Yes, it's still a right. Yes, it can be lost. I do not see any value in having to prove my eligibility to exercise that right prior to its exercise, however. Perhaps we should require folks to demonstrate good and substantial cause for needing their A4 rights before we allow them to require a warrant? Oh, wait, in that case, the warrant is the government demonstrating good and substantial reason for searching a house . . .

As far as "getting a gun," it's not just about getting a gun. If my father chooses to give me a gun, why should I have to wait for a NICS check to come back? The way it's being pushed, it's simply because some unhinged third party has done something bad with a gun. That's not a very good reason to limit my rights. There's no evidence that I had anything to do with any mass shooting, anywhere, at any time. The same argument applies to millions of gun owners.

A right delayed is a right denied. The burden is on the government to show that it has a sufficient reason for denying the rights of gun owners. It has not met that burden.

Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter

I still don't understand the registration argument. Here is the perfect chance to crush registration.

Would you mind expounding on the "perfect chance to crush registration" for me? I don't see how we're at such a point, but if we are, I'd sure like to know.

The registration argument. Without having the legislation in place, this is largely speculation. With that said . . . As things stand right now, it's virtually impossible to prosecute anyone for failing to go through a background check on a private sale. Let's leave current FFL/NICS checks out of it for the moment, and focus on the prosecution of a private intrastate transaction.

In order to prosecute someone for accepting a transfer without the use of whatever system is put in place by the UBCs, the State will have to show:
1) That Defendant John Doe accepted the tranfer of a firearm;
2) After the effective date of the legislation;
3) Without using the UBC system..

Remember that John has an A5 right not to be compelled to testify against himself, so the State will have to prove its case without John's help. If John is already a prohibited person, then I suspect that US v. Haynes (1968) will prohibit his prosecution in the first place. If John is not a prohibited person, how will the State prove that he accepted the transfer after the effective date of the legislation? Chances are that the State will need the testimony of Ted Transferor, who sold John the firearm. Problem: Ted has also committed a crime in transferring the firearm without the use of the UBC system. That means that Teddy also has an A5 right to not testify.

So the only thing that the State can really prove on this one is that John is in possession of a firearm after the effective date of the legislation. The only way that the UBC law will be enforceable is if the gov't goes ahead and pushes for full registration of firearms. If that happens, then the State will be able to prove that: (1) John is in possession of; (2) a firearm registered to Ted; (3) after the effective date of registration; and (4) without the appropriate UBC.

[tyme]

Originally Posted by Battler

The most important thing in universal checks (logistically registration) is to pin the gun (and followup redtape to keep it, and ultimate surrendur) to a person, get rid of the "I sold it" crap they'd otherwise face.

So "I lost it" or "it was stolen" becomes the new "I sold it." What is gained?

Originally Posted by shogan191

I'm confused. Can't we use an FFL for personal sales right now? If you want to sell a firearm to another individual why not just use an ffl and do a recorded transfer?

Because the FFL will charge a fee for the transfer, and a buyer won't want to pay more? It also might not be convenient for both parties to meet at a FFL's place of business.

[Strafer Gott]

I lost a magazine somewhere in my house. I just can't find it. Nothing fancy, a 92S 15 shot. It's not a big deal here in New Mexico, but it could be a really big deal if I lived under Bloomberg's "Divine Shadow". Put on your best Brooklyn accent, and tell the nice officer "You found it."

[Tom Servo]

the study showed something like 80% of felons got their guns from friends or family members.

If you're thinking of the same study I am, it was more like 50%. Theft (which background checks won't affect) was another 40%. Straw purchases (ditto) made up the difference. Gun shows were something like 0.7%.

We're being asked to accept a burdensome, defective system that won't stop guns from getting into the wrong hands.

[wayneinFL]

Quote:
Originally Posted by shogan191

Because the FFL will charge a fee for the transfer, and a buyer won't want to pay more? It also might not be convenient for both parties to meet at a FFL's place of business.

For example, I once traded a CZ-52 pistol for a semi-auto rifle. The other guy was 40 miles north of me. We both drove 20 miles and met in the middle. Both of us walked into the transaction with a gun, and we both walked out with a gun. I can't honestly say whether he was a felon, but either way, he had a gun. The status quo did not change.

Can you imagine what a pain in the neck this would have been if we had to find a dealer in the middle? Find a dealer, wait in line, pay $35, actually $70 for both transfers, possibly make two trips for a conditional approval/non approval, or waiting period.

And what happens when I hand my guns down to my kids and grandchildren? Even if they regulate it at $10 a transfer, I'm paying at least $10,000 to have my guns down.

It's all horse crap. And can't be enforced without registration anyway. How else are they going to prove you transferred it and didn't already own it before the background check law? And what are they going to do about guns without serial numbers? They really weren't required until 68.

[wayneinFL]

And all the while, criminals will still be stealing guns and trading them for crack...

[lamarw]

What a pile of crap. So, it cost $25.00 for a tranfer. This is less than a box of ammo.

Lets face it, the truth is there is a group of business folks out there making a side living off buying and selling guns. They don't mean to sell to the wrong person but for a few bucks they might or might not care less. They will never know. They also want to limit their cost of business and do not want a record of transfer for tax reasons. Not to mention the cost of an FFL permit. They do not want to account for their total income. Tell me if I am wrong on this point.
Secondary gun sells are not the only type of business not wanting to report income.

Then you sell to a kin of yours, does everyone care whether they are spousal abuser or not or whether they suffer from PSTD? This includes gifts to others.

I understand the NRA Stand and I agree with it. There is a lot of other crap out there with private sales.

I never want to sell to the wrong buyer and have that on my conscience. I wish ever seller had the same morality. It is not a certainty, but at least the seller will know he did all he or she could do in the sell of a firearm.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

If you're thinking of the same study I am, it was more like 50%. Theft (which background checks won't affect) was another 40%. Straw purchases (ditto) made up the difference. Gun shows were something like 0.7%.

Actually, Tom, I was referring to the numbers found here: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

And it looks like you were right. 80% was for family, friends and illegal sources. That being the case, though, I don't think it makes any difference in the analysis of UBCs. Thieves sure aren't going to use background checks before they steal a firearm.

[HiBC]

How about if we take one part "Presumed innocent until proven guilty",and one part "Shall not be infringed",add one part"Guns don't kill people,people kill people"Blend.

Sip and ponder this.

Suppose to buy a gun or vote,maybe even to buy beer,you show your drivers liscense,card gets swiped,mag strip gets read.....

How about,instead of a newspaper posting names and addresses of lawful gun owners,violent and prohibited people are a matter of public record?

No,you cannot vote.You cannot be served alchohol.You cannot buy a gun.You made death threats on MySpace.You got drunk and beat your wife,etc.

That puts the burden where it belongs.And if,as a prohibited person,you attempt to purchase a firearm,law enforcement is notified.

For us law abiding citizens,we do not require permission or approval.

[manta49]

If further gun control will not make any difference, why should we consider more of it?

Were did i say there should be further controls. I would see safe storage as common sense and responsible firearms ownership not gun control.

[MLeake]

manta49, if done voluntarily, it's "responsible ownership."

If mandated by the government, it is gun control.

If government can dictate that guns must be stored, then government can dictate:

1) a minimum thickness, weight, and other specifications for a storage device - this could potentially be cost-prohibitive for many people, and an anti jurisdiction could deliberately set standards that typical citizens could not afford;

2) that ALL guns must be stored - there is a lawsuit going on in California, IIRC, about a city requiring gun owners to lock up all guns at night, and the plaintiff arguing that he might not have time to unlock and load his nightstand gun in the event of a break-in;

3) criminal penalties for failure to meet arbitrary standards.

That's all gun control, by any other name.

[lcpiper]

I never want to sell to the wrong buyer and have that on my conscience.

This is what I fail to understand. What does it matter?

I get the sentiment, the "Oh my, If I hadn't sold him that gun" thing.

But it's an object, you didn't provide motivation and if he is motivated he will find a way with or without your gun. I simply do not understand this idea that you can prevent these things without foreknowledge of his intentions.

That study I did of the 16 mass shooting that occurred in 2012, did anyone fail to get the idea that almost every one was completely unavoidable by background check. In at least 10 cases the criminal/madman wasn't a criminal or a madman until he started shooting people. Sometimes times it was with stolen firearms. Usually it was legally owned weapons from people who had no reason to be listed as prohibited possessors at all.

[manta49]

manta49, if done voluntarily, it's "responsible ownership."

The problem is that not all firearms owners are responsible.

I see firearms control as the baning or limiting in some way firearms ownership and use.

I found this after a quick Internet search. I am sure there are thousands like it.

A 4-year-old boy in Houston accidental shot himself in the head and a 5-year-old girl in Philadelphia shot herself in the foot after both children got a hold of their parents' guns Tuesday night while playing at home.

The unidentified 4-year-old boy climbed onto a tall furniture chest and found a hidden handgun around 11:40 p.m. Tuesday, according to the Houston Police Department.

If the the parents were required to store firearms safely similar could be prevented.

[Tom Servo]

If the the parents were required to store firearms safely similar could be prevented.

I'd submit that anyone foolish enough to leave loaded firearms poorly stored around children isn't likely to follow a law mandating minimum storage requirements.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

I'd submit that anyone foolish enough to leave loaded firearms poorly stored around children isn't likely to follow a law mandating minimum storage requirements.

And therein lies the crux of the issue.

First, accidental deaths by firearms are so rare that most studies don't even list them separately, instead lumping them in with all statistically minor causes, under "Other". "Other" combined together add to small percentages, firearms alone are not a blip on the radar.

Second, responsible persons already prevent unauthorized access in some reasonable way.

Third, unreasonable persons will not comply with any such safe storage laws. Just like seat belts and helmets. I've never known a single person who wears one because its the law but I know quite a few people who refuse even though it is or even specifically BECAUSE it is the law.

[win-lose]

Third, unreasonable persons will not comply with any such safe storage laws. Just like seat belts and helmets. I've never known a single person who wears one because its the law but I know quite a few people who refuse even though it is or even specifically BECAUSE it is the law.

Not sure how great of an analogy this is... I know lots of people who wear seat belts because they got ticketed for not wearing them. Yes it makes them mad, but it is better than a ticket.

I think publishing reasonable guidelines on storage and aggressively prosecuting those who are found grossly negligent (not through inspection, but rather from "after the fact" investigation) might be a good way to handle the storage issue.

This is still very different from ubc's....

[manta49]

Just like seat belts and helmets. I've never known a single person who wears one because its the law but I know quite a few people who refuse even though it is or even specifically BECAUSE it is the law.

Yes and there are consequences if they are caught. I don't think because some people don't obey laws that's a good reasons for not having them.

[Brian Pfleuger]

It's a secondary point.

1) The law is unnecessary.

2) The law will be ineffective.


Why then?

[Tom Servo]

I don't think because some people don't obey laws that's a good reasons for not having them.

In a free society, there is never a good reason for having a law. Laws are a necessary evil to place checks on certain behaviors deemed offensive or harmful by society.

Passing laws to fix a virtually nonexistent problem might feel like a good idea, but the net effect is a loss of liberty to folks who didn't need the law to be responsible in the first place.