Universal Background Checks.... - Page 2

Pahoo · January 25, 2013, 12:31 PM

Federally mandated back ground checks will mean the end of Gun Shows. All it takes, is one documented private sale and the promoters will be held responsible. Given that this transaction could be staged, it would be enough reason to prosecute. ....

Be Safe !!!

win-lose · January 25, 2013, 12:37 PM

I'm not trying to push my views on anyone, so please take this as a good natured discussion.

It seems almost universal that everyone believes:

1) Criminals should not have access to firearms

2) People with severe mental issues should not have access to firearms.

So... what methods are available to us to keep firearms from these two groups?

MLeake · January 25, 2013, 01:04 PM

Hmmm... let's see... how about we actually make violent repeat offenders serve their full prison terms, rather than allowing early release or parole?

How about we prosecute straw purchasers, and incarcerate them?

How about we prosecute prohibited persons who are found in possession of firearms?

How about we make theft of a firearm a first degree felony?

eldermike · January 25, 2013, 01:09 PM

We have a revolving door criminal justice system and a totally broken mental health system so lets find a way to live with it. I am against any and all ideas that divert attention from actual problems.

Skans · January 25, 2013, 01:37 PM

I find what Spats McGee said in post 11 most persuasive for no universal background check laws.

The one issue that no one has addressed yet, however, is what would you want in return for universal background check legislation, so that it is not just incrementalism. Personally, I would agree to universal background checks IF the following was also agreed to:

1. Repeal of the '89 import ban or '86 machinegun ban.
2. specific language in the law that basically says this is it - no more bans, restrictions on magazines, etc., without a super-majority vote in the House and Senate.
3. Backgrond checks only to cost $5.00 and can be charged to credit cards - results must be returned within 30 minutes. Everyone is required to track their own transactions - however, the verification information would only be used if the gun is ever traced to a crime.

I could say "OK" to something like that. But, I wouldn't agree to anything less. Those are just my personal thoughts.

BlueTrain · January 25, 2013, 01:42 PM

I'm not so sure we have a revolving door criminal system (after all, there are 52 different systems, at least) but we certainly have more things against the law than practically any other country in the world. The prisons are full. In fact, prisons are a growth industry. Maybe that's where the money is.

On the other hand, I don't think there's much agreement on what the problem is.

MLeake · January 25, 2013, 01:44 PM

We already have that, Skans, it's called the Second Amendment, and it would take a supermajority of state conventions to change it.

Meanwhile, you'd exchange universal background checks for the promise that the antis would not use such to create a registry, and confiscation framework?

Really?

Sounds like promises frat boys make to sorority girls...

Alabama Shooter · January 25, 2013, 01:48 PM

Quote:

No, the planning would exist. The background check would have stopped it. The CT shooter, for example, failed the background check... was the incident prevented?

First I think the "failed a background check" is fictious or unproven at this point.

On the "planning" in order to prove such an incident had happened the person would have to essentially offer a fully confession or present evidence to the effect of his misdeeds. Otherwise we would have no way of knowing what he was thinking or planning. Again you are asking for something that is near impossible to prove and as a non-event we would likely not even know about.

This fictious evil person that you have created that would not be stopped by a background check does not represent the arguments or position of the OP reminds me of something. I am looking for the words....

Quote:

Has the background check ever prevented an incident?

You failed to defined "incident". So I will go with yes. Every year it prevents tens of thousands of felons from getting firearms. So it avoids felons in possession. With recidivism rates being what they are I am in favor.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nic...ps_report_2007
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/intro.htm

Quote:

Has failure to have background checks ever allowed an incident that would likely have been stopped if checks were in place?

If I understand your question correctly than the answer is resoundingly yes. Every criminal that every got a gun illlegally did not have a background check and would likely have been denied if they had one. If your question is another of those unprovable "prove the crime didn't happen" that you posted eariler than there is no telling.

Quote:

Is the existing system effective in stopping crime or preventing criminal access to firearms?

Stopping no. Reducing maybe? Can you prove it doesn't?

MLeake · January 25, 2013, 01:55 PM

Alabama Shooter, if you want to restrict a right, that puts the onus squarely on you to prove the benefit. You can't just say, "You want me to prove a negative?" and shrug it off.

The correct argument is, if you can't prove that your restriction of a right would have a demonstrable and readily proven benefit, you shouldn't even argue for restriction of the right in the first place.

Next, you point out that tens of thousands of transactions were stopped by the 4473 and NICS system. Please point out how many of those persons ended up doing prison time as a result?

(Last time I looked, at the end of the Clinton administration, the answer to that question was "2".)

Alabama Shooter · January 25, 2013, 02:21 PM

Quote:

The correct argument is, if you can't prove that your restriction of a right would have a demonstrable and readily proven benefit, you shouldn't even argue for restriction of the right in the first place.

Now that is a "real" argument and a good one too.

The point is that it is NOT a restriction. There is no reason why sane, law abiding people in the country legally can't own a firearm. There is absolutely nothing to prevent it from happening by having a background check.

Fishing_Cabin · January 25, 2013, 02:43 PM

One of the main issues I have with any of the proposed legislation, is that while we may be increasing what is illegal, we are not doing anything at all to increase enforcement efforts, nothing to increase efforts to prosecute, and nothing to increase the efforts to house those convicted of these crimes. Without that, well, we have no, or little effect.

For those who want "Universal Background Checks" why dont we first step up funding and possibly mandate investigation, and prosecution for violations of firearm laws already on the books?

After that step is taken, and a reasonable time has passed, lets do a study to see if there has been any reduction in crime, or violence, and then we start looking at adding new laws to reduce violence, if needed, but not infringe on a law abiding persons rights...

sigcurious · January 25, 2013, 02:47 PM

Quote:

There is absolutely nothing to prevent it from happening by having a background check.

Tread carefully with that word "absolutely", there are certainly things that prevent or hinder law abiding citizens from owning a firearm due to background checks. Identity theft, similar/same name as a felon, etc. Something that prevents or hinders...sounds awfully similar to restriction.

More broadly, if you say background checks are not a restriction. What is the purpose of them? Is the purpose not to restrict some people from owning firearms?

**Spats McGee** · January 25, 2013, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter

The point is that it is NOT a restriction. There is no reason why sane, law abiding people in the country legally can't own a firearm. There is absolutely nothing to prevent it from happening by having a background check.

I agree that there is absolutely nothing to prevent transfers from happening by background check. There is, as far as I know, nothing to prevent two private parties from asking an FFL to do a transfer, including NICS check. For those citizens who choose to do just that, more power to them.

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.

Skans · January 25, 2013, 03:16 PM

Quote:

We already have that, Skans, it's called the Second Amendment, and it would take a supermajority of state conventions to change it.

Meanwhile, you'd exchange universal background checks for the promise that the antis would not use such to create a registry, and confiscation framework?

Really?

Sounds like promises frat boys make to sorority girls...

Honestly, I don't know. Believe me, I'm not trying to convince anyone that universal background checks is a good thing or should be any kind of acceptable compromise. I'm just exploring this through discussion, that's all. I don't see the antis ever repealing the 86 or 89 bans or agreeing to some kind of super majority on more confiscatory laws, so I don't know if it really matters.

eldermike · January 25, 2013, 03:22 PM

Suppose it fails to produce a benifit however that would be measured, whats next?

KMAX · January 25, 2013, 03:25 PM

The Feds are not supposed to be involved at all with the peoples arms. See 2A of US Constitution.

Skans · January 25, 2013, 03:34 PM

Quote:

The Feds are not supposed to be involved at all with the peoples arms. See 2A of US Constitution.

But, they are and have been since the 1930's. Lots of luck turning that completely around right now.

win-lose · January 25, 2013, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Hmmm... let's see... how about we actually make violent repeat offenders serve their full prison terms, rather than allowing early release or parole?

How about we prosecute straw purchasers, and incarcerate them?

How about we prosecute prohibited persons who are found in possession of firearms?

How about we make theft of a firearm a first degree felony?

I agree with all those items... so, let's say that they are all done. At some point, these individuals are released from jail... should they be able to just go and purchase a firearm? If not, what is the measure to help prevent said person from getting access to a firearm?

sirdiealot · January 25, 2013, 04:09 PM

it would be another major pain in the butt if i had to do more background checks....it seldom takes less then 3 days to get my background check completed...so i would prob end up missing out on some good buys cause you alot of gun buys are guys needing some quick cash so whos gonna wait....seller will just find someone else to sell to

jimbob86 · January 25, 2013, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Every year it prevents tens of thousands of felons from getting firearms.

-AlabamaShooter

If this is so, being as how it says right on the 4473 that providing false information or buying for another person is punishable as a felony, right above the sgnature aand date lines, why are there not "tens of thousands" of people prosecuted for attempting to buy a firearm? Seems to me that if a felon or other prohibited person puts down false info, signs the form and the check comes back denying him a firearm because he is a felon, that'd be a slam dunk case, right?

That does not seem to happen, though, and when Joe Biden was asked about it, he said "We don't have time for all that."

Hooey.

MLeake · January 25, 2013, 04:26 PM

win-lose, when they are released from jail, what's to stop them from abducting a schoolkid or raping a woman at knife point?

When they are released from jail, what's to stop them from doing anything?

Preventive laws are generally useless against those with criminal intent and any degree of intelligence. The trick is in applying punishments that act as deterrent, and in properly focusing law enforcement, judicial, and penal priorities.

manta49 · January 25, 2013, 04:29 PM

Quote:

I know this is a touchy topic. I would like to know what objections people have to opening up the NICS background check to everyone, not just FFL's. Basically, give everyone the ability to do a background check and require them to keep a simple log of who they sold a firearm to (and proof of the background check) in the event it is later used in a crime

They have similar in the uk. I have no problem with it as i have nothing to hide.

MLeake · January 25, 2013, 04:37 PM

manta49, they already used your system for a confiscation scheme,j both in the UK and in Australia.

You are ok with that. We will not allow it over here.

jimbob86 · January 25, 2013, 04:42 PM

Quote:

They have similar in the uk. I have no problem with it as i have nothing to hide.

Let's just dump the 4th Amendment, as we have nothing to hide, right?

And the 3rd, as well, 'cause we all support the Military, RIGHT?

Ah, just dump all of our protections for our personal Liberty, because we all know the Government is much better judge of what's good for us than we are, right? They are Professionals, after all- they must know what is best for us .......

I understand now why some refer to the "UK" as the "land that was formerly Great Brittain", and how Brittain lost that status......

sirdiealot · January 25, 2013, 05:02 PM

and im guessing if we wanted to follow the UKs laws we prob wouldnt have had the revolution....we wanted our own set of laws and rights

January 25, 2013, 12:31 PM	#26
Pahoo Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2006 Location: IOWA Posts: 8,783	The day Gun-Shows died Federally mandated back ground checks will mean the end of Gun Shows. All it takes, is one documented private sale and the promoters will be held responsible. Given that this transaction could be staged, it would be enough reason to prosecute. .... Be Safe !!! __________________ 'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.

January 25, 2013, 01:42 PM	#31
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	I'm not so sure we have a revolving door criminal system (after all, there are 52 different systems, at least) but we certainly have more things against the law than practically any other country in the world. The prisons are full. In fact, prisons are a growth industry. Maybe that's where the money is. On the other hand, I don't think there's much agreement on what the problem is. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

January 25, 2013, 03:25 PM	#41
KMAX Senior Member Join Date: June 20, 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 1,185	The Feds are not supposed to be involved at all with the peoples arms. See 2A of US Constitution. __________________ This is my gun. There are many like her, but this one is mine. I'm not old. I'm CLASSIC!

January 25, 2013, 04:09 PM	#44
sirdiealot Senior Member Join Date: September 25, 2012 Location: kansas Posts: 187	it would be another major pain in the butt if i had to do more background checks....it seldom takes less then 3 days to get my background check completed...so i would prob end up missing out on some good buys cause you alot of gun buys are guys needing some quick cash so whos gonna wait....seller will just find someone else to sell to __________________ 9mm Luger: ...Wildly popular all over the world, mostly in countries where people don’t carry guns, and cops don’t have to actually shoot people with theirs.

January 25, 2013, 05:02 PM	#50
sirdiealot Senior Member Join Date: September 25, 2012 Location: kansas Posts: 187	and im guessing if we wanted to follow the UKs laws we prob wouldnt have had the revolution....we wanted our own set of laws and rights __________________ 9mm Luger: ...Wildly popular all over the world, mostly in countries where people don’t carry guns, and cops don’t have to actually shoot people with theirs.

January 25, 2013, 12:37 PM	#27
win-lose Senior Member Join Date: August 3, 2009 Posts: 509	I'm not trying to push my views on anyone, so please take this as a good natured discussion. It seems almost universal that everyone believes: 1) Criminals should not have access to firearms 2) People with severe mental issues should not have access to firearms. So... what methods are available to us to keep firearms from these two groups?

January 25, 2013, 01:04 PM	#28
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Hmmm... let's see... how about we actually make violent repeat offenders serve their full prison terms, rather than allowing early release or parole? How about we prosecute straw purchasers, and incarcerate them? How about we prosecute prohibited persons who are found in possession of firearms? How about we make theft of a firearm a first degree felony?

January 25, 2013, 01:09 PM	#29
eldermike Senior Member Join Date: January 24, 2013 Location: NC Posts: 545	We have a revolving door criminal justice system and a totally broken mental health system so lets find a way to live with it. I am against any and all ideas that divert attention from actual problems.

January 25, 2013, 01:37 PM	#30
Skans Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2008 Posts: 11,132	I find what Spats McGee said in post 11 most persuasive for no universal background check laws. The one issue that no one has addressed yet, however, is what would you want in return for universal background check legislation, so that it is not just incrementalism. Personally, I would agree to universal background checks IF the following was also agreed to: 1. Repeal of the '89 import ban or '86 machinegun ban. 2. specific language in the law that basically says this is it - no more bans, restrictions on magazines, etc., without a super-majority vote in the House and Senate. 3. Backgrond checks only to cost $5.00 and can be charged to credit cards - results must be returned within 30 minutes. Everyone is required to track their own transactions - however, the verification information would only be used if the gun is ever traced to a crime. I could say "OK" to something like that. But, I wouldn't agree to anything less. Those are just my personal thoughts.

January 25, 2013, 01:44 PM	#32
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	We already have that, Skans, it's called the Second Amendment, and it would take a supermajority of state conventions to change it. Meanwhile, you'd exchange universal background checks for the promise that the antis would not use such to create a registry, and confiscation framework? Really? Sounds like promises frat boys make to sorority girls...

January 25, 2013, 01:55 PM	#34
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Alabama Shooter, if you want to restrict a right, that puts the onus squarely on you to prove the benefit. You can't just say, "You want me to prove a negative?" and shrug it off. The correct argument is, if you can't prove that your restriction of a right would have a demonstrable and readily proven benefit, you shouldn't even argue for restriction of the right in the first place. Next, you point out that tens of thousands of transactions were stopped by the 4473 and NICS system. Please point out how many of those persons ended up doing prison time as a result? (Last time I looked, at the end of the Clinton administration, the answer to that question was "2".)

January 25, 2013, 02:43 PM	#36
Fishing_Cabin Senior Member Join Date: February 10, 2010 Posts: 720	One of the main issues I have with any of the proposed legislation, is that while we may be increasing what is illegal, we are not doing anything at all to increase enforcement efforts, nothing to increase efforts to prosecute, and nothing to increase the efforts to house those convicted of these crimes. Without that, well, we have no, or little effect. For those who want "Universal Background Checks" why dont we first step up funding and possibly mandate investigation, and prosecution for violations of firearm laws already on the books? After that step is taken, and a reasonable time has passed, lets do a study to see if there has been any reduction in crime, or violence, and then we start looking at adding new laws to reduce violence, if needed, but not infringe on a law abiding persons rights...

January 25, 2013, 03:22 PM	#40
eldermike Senior Member Join Date: January 24, 2013 Location: NC Posts: 545	Suppose it fails to produce a benifit however that would be measured, whats next?

January 25, 2013, 04:26 PM	#46
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	win-lose, when they are released from jail, what's to stop them from abducting a schoolkid or raping a woman at knife point? When they are released from jail, what's to stop them from doing anything? Preventive laws are generally useless against those with criminal intent and any degree of intelligence. The trick is in applying punishments that act as deterrent, and in properly focusing law enforcement, judicial, and penal priorities.

January 25, 2013, 04:37 PM	#48
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	manta49, they already used your system for a confiscation scheme,j both in the UK and in Australia. You are ok with that. We will not allow it over here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search