US gun law reforms

[shooterdownunder]

Hi All,
Please don't take this the wrong way but I'm just curious as to why people seem to be so against having to have background checks done when buying firearms? Just seems like common sense to me.

[Plumbnut]

I'm for background checks for ANY transfer of a firearm...even between family. It may not be a popular position but thats my right.

[manta49]

They have background checks here and I have no problem with it. That doesn't mean that most on this forum won't have a problem with checks.

[SPEMack618]

Well, considering that until 1934 I could mail order a machine gun and have it delivered to my door with no background check other than making sure I was able to pay for it, I see background checks as an undue government infringement into my personal life.

The GCA of '68 was passed in response to the hue and cry from the high profile assasinations of the '60s, not as any sort of magnanimous attempt from the government to make life better.

Furthermore, I fail to see how background checks deter crime, especially when out of the thousands of failed checks, less than 50 people are prosecuted for the crime.

And this doesn't even begin to cover issues that abound with registration of firearms if unviersal background checks are mandated.

[jnichols2]

shooterdownunder,

I'm not against background checks per se. In fact, I was for the Toomey-Manchin Amendment until I carefully read this thread: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=522340

It's a bit of a complicated read, but will show why so many were against it. It isn't what i was advertised to be.

Just like the 90% poll, they advertised this amendment as simply requiring background checks at gun shows. But they seem to have come up with something that no lawyer could understand, that seems to hide a whole platoon of devils in the details.

I could still agree with a background check bill that was actually reasonable, but I begged my Senators not to vote for this bill.


Plumbnut,

I see you are for checks even between family members. What about leaving your guns to an underage son or grandson? Unless a "close family" exception were put into the bill, you would be unable to do so. If this desired transfer were due to your untimely death, you may be making a very nice gift to the government instead.

I'm not trying to be snide with either of you, but this amendment was just terrible law.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by shooterdownunder

Please don't take this the wrong way but I'm just curious as to why people seem to be so against having to have background checks done when buying firearms? Just seems like common sense to me.

I don't think most of us are against background checks per se. What we are against is a background check system that generates a permanent record of the check. This becomes a de facto registry, and we view a registry as contrary to the intent of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution.

We also don't think we should have to go through the hoops of a background check to transfer a firearm to someone whom we know not to be a prohibited person ... such as a father, son, brother/sister, etc. The law already prohibits transfers to people who the seller "suspects" of being a prohibited person. If you peruse other thredas on this and other gun forums, you'll find that a great many people who buy and sell in face-to-face transactions routinely ask to see that the buyer has a pistol permit (whatever it's called in the respective state). Since one must have undergone a thorough background check in order to obtain a pistol permit, if a prospective buyer of my Mega-Blaster X-15 Magnum shows me that he has a permit -- I already know he's not a prohibited person. Why, then, should I have to run another, redundant, background check to prove what he has already documented?

The simple fact is, no matter how many more laws they enact requiring background checks for more and more types of firearms and types of people under more types of circumstances -- the gang bangers selling stolen firearms on street corners late at night are NOT going to run background checks, and those are the people we don't want buying guns. So you then have to ask ... what purpose will more background checks actually serve?

[thallub]

Yep, if we allow universal background checks to become law the anti-self defense and anti-gun advocates will want more "common sense" gun laws. In a decade or two we will have gun registration and confiscation like the folks down under in Australia.

[JerryM]

I am against background checks that would require a BC if you gifted or sold a gun to a member of your family, or a close friend whom you had known for years, and were sure he would pass. In fact he may have had a BC due to buying from a dealer.

So I am against universal BC, although not really opposed to BC when buying at a gun show.

Jerry

[CWKahrFan]

the gang bangers selling stolen firearms on street corners late at night are NOT going to run background checks...

For me, the above is the essence. Anyone with a few hundred bucks and determination can buy a gun under the radar. It's always been that way and will always BE that way no matter what laws are passed. The word outlaw means "outside of the law".

Some politicians figure it's cool to appear to be "doing something" but it's all appearance. Criminals don't give a hang about gun control because IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THEM. These types of laws only harrass law-abiding citizens.

[44 AMP]

I'm just curious as to why people seem to be so against having to have background checks done when buying firearms? Just seems like common sense to me

Welcome to TFL shooterdownunder!

Why are so many of us against background checks? We're not. We're against government mandated checks on transfers between private individuals and penalties for not doing them.

We're against the package of firearms restrictions in the proposed laws that include expansion of background checks. Like a lot of things, the devil is in the details, and the law they wanted to pass (and are still trying) is a bunch of crap.

We ALREADY have background checks, when you purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer, and have had for DECADES!!!!

And we get checked each and every time we go to buy a gun from a dealer, or through a dealer.

We have, and have had for a long, long time, state laws that say (in one form or another) that as a private citizen, you cannot sell a gun to a person you have reasonable belief is not allowed to own one. Things like being of legal age to purchase, being a state resident, etc. It is left up to each seller to decide what meets those requirements when selling their personal property.

What the proposed laws would do is change that, making it mandatory that all transfers, even loaning a friend a gun to try at the range, would require going through a FFL dealer (because the Federal background check system is not open to private citizens). And of course, the dealer would have to be compensated for their time and effort.

As propsed, if you went on a trip, and left a gun at home with your wife, unless you did a background check, you (and her) would become ciminals, because you have "transferred" the gun!

The press and the politicans make it sound like there are no checks done, and that is not true.

Also, besides the fact that the system is not fully accurate, it can only check what is in the system. People who have never been in trouble with the law, or adjudicated mentally incompetent, have NO records in the system. No matter what their future plans (and several of the recent mass murderers had no criminal record before they went on their rampage), the system would pass them.

AND, to make matter even more irritating, our govt only prosecutes a tiny fraction of 1% of those who ARE denied by the system. (and, yes it is a crime to try and buy a gun if you are a prohibited person). Our own Vice President publically stated "we don't have time for that"...

ITs not that we oppose the idea, its that what they want to make law would not do any good, and put even more honest people at serious risk of becoming criminals without even knowing it.

There's lots more details, but that's it, in a nut shell. The sound bites in the news are deliberately giving a hugely distorted and inaccurate version of the real situation. Sometimes, they lie, outright. Mostly they just tell a portion of (their version) of the truth.

[Plumbnut]

Jnichols2,

Sure if I decide to leave a gun to an underage son or grandson I would want them to have a background check as well.

Just because they are my relative doesn't mean they should have a gun,they should have a background check as well.

[shooterdownunder]

Thanks Jnichols and AMP 44.
That link in particular was quite interesting. Being all the way down here my understanding was based on what I saw in the media (which admittedly is rather anti gun here) so all I knew about was expanding background checks to gun shows.

[jnichols2]

Plumbnut,

Isn't it sufficient that you check their background? I'm sure you can do better that the government.

shootdownunder,

The media is anti gun here too.

[Brian Pfleuger]

...expanding background checks to gun shows.

That in itself is a lie.

There are already background checks required for all purchases from gunshow vendors. The only time a background check is not required is when two private individuals meet and make a deal.

In other words, the only thing that has anything to do with the gunshow is that the deal happens there or near there. The same private deal could happen in a parking lot or at their home or anywhere else.

It's not a "loophole". It has nothing to do with gunshows at all.

[Plumbnut]

Jnichols2,

No not really,I think the goverment could check better than I could or would.

[tyme]

I'm for background checks for ANY transfer of a firearm...even between family. It may not be a popular position but thats my right.

Why? What would that accomplish? If you don't know a family member's character well enough to transfer a gun to them without a background check, why would you transfer a firearm to them at all?

I may be wrong, but it sounds like you've drunk the background check kool-aid. Background checks sounds like a great idea. Background checks catch people who shouldn't possess firearms, so why wouldn't everyone want background checks for all gun transfers?

For the same reason we shouldn't have background checks before we sell pressure cookers, or ball bearings, or other miscellaneous hardware or fertilizer products or samurai swords, all of which can be used to kill. Because the government has no business meddling in those transactions, creating a de-facto registry of sellers and owners. Whenever such records exist, there is a risk of problems. The government might try to confiscate them (doesn't have to be all guns... they could confiscate only certain classes of guns that the SCOTUS doesn't deem to be protected), or the media might decide to go on a moral crusade, uncover such records (or ask the government for them if the records are public), and publish lists of owners, as they did in New York recently.

Collecting any data on people, including data on purchases, transfers, etc., is bad unless it's absolutely necessary, because these days, once collected, those data are going to stick around forever.

[dakota.potts]

Because previous systems of background checks have done nothing to reduce crime.

Because the proposed systems are outlandish and either misunderstood or willingly complicated to become a law that could be used to punish anyone with prejudice.

Because it's a small step to registration and confiscation (See: California)

You say it yourself. It's common sense. Common sense dictates the small details. If I sell to my neighbor who I've known for 12 years, I'm going to know him better than a background check. Sure, he may go on to commit a crime, but there's a first time for everything and everybody's innocent until they've committed a crime. It doesn't stop first time offenders, which include almost every mass killer here. Finally, most criminals acquire guns through illegal systems anyways per FBI statistics and I have no reason to believe that number wouldn't go higher given more restrictions.

[Plumbnut]

If the goverment wants your guns they dont need a book telling them you sold one to your bother or your neighbor.

If it comes down to them wanting the guns they will take them.

Last I checked the guns we all have dont work to well against tanks and ma dueces....now do they? If they want your guns they will take them. background checks or not.

Thats just my opinion and its a reasonable one I think.

[dakota.potts]

Well, Plumbnut, that is one of the reasons I am for citizens owning automatic weapons, anti-tank cannons, Howitzers, 20mm rifles etc. if they so wish.

Besides that, it happens one family at a time. They can't come to take them if they can't prove I have them. For example, during Katrina they did round up guns. I know if I were stuck in their position with looters, I would want my guns.

[thallub]

Shooterdownunder:

Licensed gun dealers in the United States are required by law to run background checks on every gun sale. The buyer fills out a form 4473 and the dealer calls in the check. If the buyer is approved the sale is completed and the buyer leaves with the gun. Some states have waiting periods, etc.

A person who lies on a form 4473 is subject to being charged in federal court and going off to federal prison: Here comes the problem. The present administration refuses to charge folks who lie on the form 4473. The US vice president says his government has better things to do than charge convicted felons who attempt to buy guns from licensed gun dealers.

There is a federal law that allows federal prosecutors to charge convicted felons who use guns to commit subsequent crimes. Again the present administration is not upholding the law. Very few convicted felons who use guns in subsequent crimes are ever charged with a federal crime.

The same administration that refuses to uphold existing federal law is ranting for more federal laws.

[Tom Servo]

Because previous systems of background checks have done nothing to reduce crime.

And we have a winner! There's absolutely no evidence that the NICS check system has had any effect on gun crime, or on violent crime in general. Gun control is presented as good social science, but if we're to accept it, shouldn't we expect some proof of a benefit?

As a nation, we went for over 200 years without the need for checks. Sure, they seem like a good idea, unless you're one of the many folks who get erroneously denied and then have to go through an arduous appeals process. In the meantime, those who are justifiably denied are nearly never prosecuted.

I know of no other enumerated right subject to such obstacles.

[pmeisel]

Background checks aren't effective in keeping criminals from getting guns. But they are legalized harassment of law abiding citizens who want to purchase a gun.

Some of you from other countries may notice that the average rural American does not trust government very much.

[scrubcedar]

I'm against background checks for reasons that have been lightly touched on above. That is because I simply don't think that even effectively stopping the flow of firearms to bad guys will prevent people from killing or harming each other.
I don't think laws keep criminals from getting things they want. Anyone here think we're winning the "war on drugs"? Prohibition is another ugly example.
Shooterdownunder you've probably heard of Al Capone.

Guns are complicated mechanical devices that need true skill to work quickly and accurately. Explosive and incendiary devices are not at all hard to build and don't really need to be aimed. Take a look at the Boston bombers pictures, do they look like criminal masterminds?
What happens after the first bright one creates an easy repeatable IED and spreads the word on the internet first? What happens when we turn them all into effective bombers and arsonists instead of shooters of limited effectiveness who are unfortunately deadly?

Background checks don't solve the problems mentioned above, in fact they might even cause them.

[Plumbnut]

Some peple are so worried the "goverment" is making a list of guns they own so they can take them ...and at the same time some of you guys are on the internet talking ALL about your guns. Googling all kinds of gun stuff I'm sure. Whats the logic in that? Anyone ever thought about that? Maybe the goverment is making a list of everyone on this forum? Possibly they will come to your house first?

Background checks cause crime?? Please I want to read more about that....I guess if he could buy one he wouldn't have stole yours?? LOL

I'm all for gun rights but gun rights doesn't mean they cant do background checks.

[Tom Servo]

Background checks cause crime?? Please I want to read more about that....I guess if he could buy one he wouldn't have stole yours?

I don't believe anyone said they cause crime. However, unless they can be proven to be a deterrent to crime, I don't see any reason to support them. They represent unnecessary meddling.