Universal Background Checks.... - Page 18

gc70 · February 11, 2013, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

UBCs create a hurdle to ownership, not possession.

I believe some current proposals for background checks do create a hurdle for possession. The background checks proposed in H.R.21 and S.150 both address "transfers" rather than just sales and both bills have specific exceptions for "a temporary transfer of possession" under limited conditions.

Ghost1958 · February 11, 2013, 02:42 AM

Most Americans do believe in the Constitution and what it stands for and guarantees when they are made to understand it.

There are times I question some responses I see here and other gun forums that are a minority but nothing I expected to see from professed 2a supporters and gun owners.

This is sort of hard to say, but I think a good number of our own are going to hurt us more than the antis ever could pull off by themselves with their willingness to be illegally regulated on a right that specifically states its not to be infringed.

Heres some facts for you. The first gun regulation ever passed accomplished nothing it was supposed to accomplish.
None to date have ever accomplished anything but make Good folks less able to defend against criminals and goverment.
None passed in the future will do anything more that the past ones did.

If some can show me where gun regs have reduced gun crime instead of causing it to rise where any particular one was tried in the U.S. please do. Old or new. Any takers?

Skans · February 11, 2013, 08:39 AM

Quote:

If some can show me where gun regs have reduced gun crime instead of causing it to rise where any particular one was tried in the U.S. please do. Old or new. Any takers?

I'll take a Nation of a relatively few one-off dumb criminals, even if they commit murders now and then, over a Nation of a few well organized Tyrants controlling millions of servants and the entire national wealth and resources. In other words, I consider the issue of crime statistics irrelevant to the bigger picture.....and the more dangerous well organized criminals propped up by a corrupt government.

arch308 · February 11, 2013, 09:39 AM

What is there about "shall not be infringed" that people can't understand? I for one won't stand by and watch my 2nd Amendment rights being whittled away while subversives are allowed to burn American flags and Gays are allowed to parade around promoting their agenda while hiding behind the 1st.
NO NEW GUN LAWS! We need to stand together on this people. Don't listen to the media. Don't fall into the emotional traps. The Bill of Rights was written for reasons that haven't changed and has stood the test of time. If we allow the erosion of the 2nd pretty soon they will be telling us what to think and which God to pray to.

Webleymkv · February 11, 2013, 11:31 AM

This whole issue becomes easier to understand if we put a few things in perspective first. First and foremost, it must be understood that under our current laws, any time a prohibited person acquires a firearm, at least one person has already comitted a crime. Not only is it illegal for a prohibited person to acquire a firearm under any circumstance, but it's also illegal for someone to knowingly supply a firearm to someone that they have reason to belive is a prohibited person.

Secondly, private party sales are but one means for a prohibited person to acquire a firearm and I've yet to see any evidence that it's the most prevalent, or even a particularly common, means. Theft and straw purchases are other means which come readily to mind. Since acquiring a firearm by any means is illegal for a prohibited person, why should we think that one would care which law they're breaking?

Third, the government has given us no reason to believe that they would enforce a law requiring universal background checks any more effectively than they've enforced the existing gun laws. If you are a prohibited person, you cannot fill out the 4473 truthfully and still appear able to purchase a firearm. I have to wonder how many prohibited people have turned to other means like theft, straw purchase, or private-party sales only after being denied on a NICS check. Perhaps if we prosecuted more of the people who lie on the 4473, posession of firearms by prohibited people would be less of an issue.

Finally, the only way to make Universal Background Checks even remotely enforceable would be through registration and even that could be circumvented by a clever enough person. There are currently between 390 and 465 Million privately owned guns in this country and they will likely remain in circulation for decades. Without registration, all a person would need to do in order to avoid prosecution for an illegal private sale is claim that the sale took place prior to the law's enaction. If anyone thinks for a moment that, without a registration requirement, the anti's will ever admit that Universal Background Checks simply don't work, then that person hasn't been paying much attention to the anti's playbook. Instead, they'll blame the failure of UBC's on the lack of registration and push for it later.

Even with registration, the law could be circumvented by the seller simply reporting the gun stolen. Since posession of an unregistered gun would already be a crime, why should the buyer care whether the seller reports the gun stolen or not since he's already in posession of illegal goods?

Registration is an extremely poor idea for a number of reasons. First, it allows for easier intimidation of lawful gun owners such as we recently saw with The Journal News in New York. Such an abuse would never have been able to happen without NY's registration requirement.

Secondly, it facilitates confiscation of lawfully owned weapons by over-zealous officials during a state of emergency such as we saw in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. While such confiscation may be illegal, it would have to be overturned throught he courts later and that would be of little help to the people who need their firearms then and there.

Finally, and most insidiously, it opens the door to selective enforcement and abuses of power by corrupt officials. Anyone who believes that officials in all levels of government could be trusted not to selectively enforce such laws only when politically convenient and only against those whom it is convenient for them to prosecute is deluding themselves. Without getting too political, the precedent has already been set by the executive branch of our government that enforcing laws which are deemed not to be politically expedient is optional. Why should we believe that gun laws would be treated any differently than the other laws which are selectively enforced?

So, when everything is considered, I can only come to the conclusion that Universal Background Checks, through an attempt to ban activities that are already illegal, would only place undue burden on law-abiding gun owners. Going the asinine route of making gun crimes "double illegal" isn't going to phase a criminal who, by definition, does not respect the law. The way to stop criminals from committing crimes is not to pile on more redundant and unenforceable laws, but to punish them for the crimes they've already committed. Personally, I think that if someone represents such a danger to society that they cannot be trusted to own a gun, then that person should remain locked away from society until they are no longer a danger. Violent criminals need to either remain incarcerated or, if the crime is severe enough, be executed and the violently mentally ill need to remain institutionalized until they can be treated to the point of no longer being dangerous.

Skans · February 11, 2013, 11:43 AM

WebleymkV - you have just stated the best argument I've heard against Universal Background Checks - I thoroughly enjoyed reading that!

Webleymkv · February 11, 2013, 12:11 PM

Quote:

WebleymkV - you have just stated the best argument I've heard against Universal Background Checks - I thoroughly enjoyed reading that!

Thank you.

mrbatchelor · February 11, 2013, 02:17 PM

>WebleymkV - you have just stated the best argument I've heard against Universal Background Checks - I thoroughly enjoyed reading that!<

Unless you object I'm stealing it and sending it to my CongressCritters.

Webleymkv · February 11, 2013, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Unless you object I'm stealing it and sending it to my CongressCritters.

Feel free.

AH.74 · February 11, 2013, 02:50 PM

Quote:

WebleymkV - you have just stated the best argument I've heard against Universal Background Checks - I thoroughly enjoyed reading that!

Agreed. Sensible, logical- too bad it therefore won't be understood by so many who should read it....

Thanks for an excellent post.

mrbatchelor · February 11, 2013, 03:01 PM

>Feel free.<

Posted to Congressional contact web form just now. I admitted that I wasn't the original author, but didn't attach any identifying info. They know how to use Google I'm sure.

**Spats McGee** · February 11, 2013, 03:51 PM

Very, very well said, Webleymkv!

**Spats McGee** · February 11, 2013, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gc70

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

UBCs create a hurdle to ownership, not possession.

I believe some current proposals for background checks do create a hurdle for possession. The background checks proposed in H.R.21 and S.150 both address "transfers" rather than just sales and both bills have specific exceptions for "a temporary transfer of possession" under limited conditions.

I have read S.150 (Feinstein's bill), but not HR21. I am somewhat short on time today, but let me as this: Does either of those bill create hurdles to possession which is not already in place? Extra hurdles? Or are we talking about possession by persons whose possession of firearms is already prohibited?

USAFNoDak · February 11, 2013, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Personally, I think that if someone represents such a danger to society that they cannot be trusted to own a gun, then that person should remain locked away from society until they are no longer a danger. Violent criminals need to either remain incarcerated or, if the crime is severe enough, be executed and the violently mentally ill need to remain institutionalized until they can be treated to the point of no longer being dangerous.
__________________

With this I fully agree. Why would we let anyone out of jail if we don't trust them to be law abiding going forward? Think of the logical disconnect here.

We let criminals out of jail whom we cannot trust to own firearms. They can get other weapons such as knives, tire irons, screw drivers, hammers, etc. They can even get guns on the black market. But we'll take our chances with them out on the street and hope that they don't injure or kill anyone.

But for you law abiding folks, we cannot trust you with a semiautomatic rifle if it has a pistol grip or any other cosmetic feature we deem to be unacceptable for civilian use. We just think that you're no better than a criminal whose been set free, for the most part. You cannot be trusted to behave.

Webleymkv · February 11, 2013, 06:54 PM

To those who wish to use part or all of my post in letters to their representatives:

I have no problem with you choosing to do so, but some of my post may go over the head of someone who is not a gun enthusiast. If you wish to use it, you might consider using the revised version that I've posted in L&CR:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...55#post5411855

mrbatchelor · February 11, 2013, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webleymkv

To those who wish to use part or all of my post in letters to their representatives:

I have no problem with you choosing to do so, but some of my post may go over the head of someone who is not a gun enthusiast. If you wish to use it, you might consider using the revised version that I've posted in L&CR:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...55#post5411855

Its sad to say that reasonably elementary concepts may go over the head of a US Senator. God help us.

gc70 · February 12, 2013, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

I have read S.150 (Feinstein's bill), but not HR21. I am somewhat short on time today, but let me as this: Does either of those bill create hurdles to possession which is not already in place? Extra hurdles? Or are we talking about possession by persons whose possession of firearms is already prohibited?

As I read the bills, they create new hurdles to possession for people who can legally possess firearms.

Both bills require a background check for a "transfer" rather than simply for a sale.
H.R.21 does not explicitly define a "transfer" but the stated purpose of the bill is to expand background checks "to all sales and transfers of firearms."
S.150 says a transfer "shall include a sale, gift, or loan."
Both bills have exceptions for "a temporary transfer of possession" under specified conditions.

There would be no need for exceptions if the bills were not intended to require background checks for all transfers - permanent transfers of title and temporary transfers of possession. If that reading of the language of the bills is correct, it would create very substantial hurdles for possession.

Exceptions in H.R.21 include:

"the transfer is a bona fide gift between immediate family members"
A gift is a permanent transfer, so temporary transfers to family members would seem to require background checks.
a temporary transfer "while in the home" of a person whose possession of a firearm is "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm"
Unless danger was imminent, it would seem a background check would be required before loaning a firearm to someone (a family member?) for home protection.
"a temporary transfer of possession" at certain shooting ranges and competitions and "while hunting, fishing, or trapping" with conditions attached
Temporary transfers while shooting on other than specified property would seem to require background checks.

Exceptions in S.150 include:

"temporary custody ... for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee"
At least you can hold a gun you might buy without getting a background check.
"a temporary transfer of possession" to participate in target shooting, if the weapon "is, at all times, kept within the premises of the target facility or range"
This sounds suspiciously like the range storage requirements in some European countries.

To summarize, all transfers covers a huge amount of ground and the limited exceptions in the bills do not provide relief in many common situations.

**Spats McGee** · February 12, 2013, 07:26 AM

gc70, thank you for your response. It's clear that you put a lot of time and energy into that.

Based upon my reading of your response, perhaps what I should have said earlier is that the UBCs create only hurdles to ownership and legal possession.

rebs · February 12, 2013, 08:23 AM

Webleymkv I agree with you 100%

Webleymkv · February 12, 2013, 08:53 PM

Art Eatman has graciously provided me with more accurate information regarding the number of privately owned guns in circulation and my posts in both this thread and the one in L&CR have been edited to reflect such.

Glenn E. Meyer · February 13, 2013, 10:46 AM

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...25.html?hp=r22

Here's the kicker - Rep. King is a Republican. I still have a bet with a friend that there is no AWB but the background checks will get through.

Just a prediction. However, if they do get through - the next time, AWBs will look soooooooooo sensible.

j3ffr0 · February 13, 2013, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Personally, I think that if someone represents such a danger to society that they cannot be trusted to own a gun, then that person should remain locked away from society until they are no longer a danger. Violent criminals need to either remain incarcerated or, if the crime is severe enough, be executed and the violently mentally ill need to remain institutionalized until they can be treated to the point of no longer being dangerous.

I agree with that. Perhaps prison reforms, stricter sentencing, and some type of mental health care reform could solve the problem better than more gun laws ever could. Of course those things would be expensive, and people generally don't like the idea of spending even more money on criminals.

Glenn E. Meyer · February 13, 2013, 05:32 PM

Graham is proposing his own solution

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...48.html?hp=r12

Not clear what it will be. It seems that people who knowingly fail the check get arrested -along with stricter mental health reporting and standards.

We will see.

**Tom Servo** · February 13, 2013, 05:51 PM

Quote:

It seems that people who knowingly fail the check get arrested

What qualifies as "knowingly failing?" A misdemeanor DV conviction from 1986 I didn't know would disqualify me? A felony charge that got dropped to a misdemeanor in 1979, but the paperwork didn't get filed right? What about misidentification?

Unintended consequences and all...

ScottRiqui · February 13, 2013, 05:58 PM

After reading the article on Graham's proposal, I'm not sure if he's differentiating between applicants who lied on the 4473 and were denied as a result, and applicants who answered truthfully, but their answers disqualified them. I'm all for prosecuting those who knowingly lie, but there are a lot of cases like the examples Tom brought up that I don't think warrant prosecution.

February 11, 2013, 11:31 AM	#430
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,446	This whole issue becomes easier to understand if we put a few things in perspective first. First and foremost, it must be understood that under our current laws, any time a prohibited person acquires a firearm, at least one person has already comitted a crime. Not only is it illegal for a prohibited person to acquire a firearm under any circumstance, but it's also illegal for someone to knowingly supply a firearm to someone that they have reason to belive is a prohibited person. Secondly, private party sales are but one means for a prohibited person to acquire a firearm and I've yet to see any evidence that it's the most prevalent, or even a particularly common, means. Theft and straw purchases are other means which come readily to mind. Since acquiring a firearm by any means is illegal for a prohibited person, why should we think that one would care which law they're breaking? Third, the government has given us no reason to believe that they would enforce a law requiring universal background checks any more effectively than they've enforced the existing gun laws. If you are a prohibited person, you cannot fill out the 4473 truthfully and still appear able to purchase a firearm. I have to wonder how many prohibited people have turned to other means like theft, straw purchase, or private-party sales only after being denied on a NICS check. Perhaps if we prosecuted more of the people who lie on the 4473, posession of firearms by prohibited people would be less of an issue. Finally, the only way to make Universal Background Checks even remotely enforceable would be through registration and even that could be circumvented by a clever enough person. There are currently between 390 and 465 Million privately owned guns in this country and they will likely remain in circulation for decades. Without registration, all a person would need to do in order to avoid prosecution for an illegal private sale is claim that the sale took place prior to the law's enaction. If anyone thinks for a moment that, without a registration requirement, the anti's will ever admit that Universal Background Checks simply don't work, then that person hasn't been paying much attention to the anti's playbook. Instead, they'll blame the failure of UBC's on the lack of registration and push for it later. Even with registration, the law could be circumvented by the seller simply reporting the gun stolen. Since posession of an unregistered gun would already be a crime, why should the buyer care whether the seller reports the gun stolen or not since he's already in posession of illegal goods? Registration is an extremely poor idea for a number of reasons. First, it allows for easier intimidation of lawful gun owners such as we recently saw with The Journal News in New York. Such an abuse would never have been able to happen without NY's registration requirement. Secondly, it facilitates confiscation of lawfully owned weapons by over-zealous officials during a state of emergency such as we saw in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. While such confiscation may be illegal, it would have to be overturned throught he courts later and that would be of little help to the people who need their firearms then and there. Finally, and most insidiously, it opens the door to selective enforcement and abuses of power by corrupt officials. Anyone who believes that officials in all levels of government could be trusted not to selectively enforce such laws only when politically convenient and only against those whom it is convenient for them to prosecute is deluding themselves. Without getting too political, the precedent has already been set by the executive branch of our government that enforcing laws which are deemed not to be politically expedient is optional. Why should we believe that gun laws would be treated any differently than the other laws which are selectively enforced? So, when everything is considered, I can only come to the conclusion that Universal Background Checks, through an attempt to ban activities that are already illegal, would only place undue burden on law-abiding gun owners. Going the asinine route of making gun crimes "double illegal" isn't going to phase a criminal who, by definition, does not respect the law. The way to stop criminals from committing crimes is not to pile on more redundant and unenforceable laws, but to punish them for the crimes they've already committed. Personally, I think that if someone represents such a danger to society that they cannot be trusted to own a gun, then that person should remain locked away from society until they are no longer a danger. Violent criminals need to either remain incarcerated or, if the crime is severe enough, be executed and the violently mentally ill need to remain institutionalized until they can be treated to the point of no longer being dangerous. Last edited by Webleymkv; February 12, 2013 at 08:51 PM. Reason: more accurate information

February 11, 2013, 02:17 PM	#433
mrbatchelor Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2010 Location: South Carolina Posts: 237	>WebleymkV - you have just stated the best argument I've heard against Universal Background Checks - I thoroughly enjoyed reading that!< Unless you object I'm stealing it and sending it to my CongressCritters. __________________ "The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority.” - Martin Luther King, Jr. NRA Endowment Member

February 11, 2013, 03:01 PM	#436
mrbatchelor Senior Member Join Date: April 18, 2010 Location: South Carolina Posts: 237	>Feel free.< Posted to Congressional contact web form just now. I admitted that I wasn't the original author, but didn't attach any identifying info. They know how to use Google I'm sure. __________________ "The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority.” - Martin Luther King, Jr. NRA Endowment Member

February 11, 2013, 03:51 PM	#437
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	Very, very well said, Webleymkv! __________________ I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

February 12, 2013, 07:26 AM	#443
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	gc70, thank you for your response. It's clear that you put a lot of time and energy into that. Based upon my reading of your response, perhaps what I should have said earlier is that the UBCs create only hurdles to ownership and legal possession. __________________ I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

February 11, 2013, 02:42 AM	#427
Ghost1958 Junior member Join Date: December 15, 2012 Posts: 164	Most Americans do believe in the Constitution and what it stands for and guarantees when they are made to understand it. There are times I question some responses I see here and other gun forums that are a minority but nothing I expected to see from professed 2a supporters and gun owners. This is sort of hard to say, but I think a good number of our own are going to hurt us more than the antis ever could pull off by themselves with their willingness to be illegally regulated on a right that specifically states its not to be infringed. Heres some facts for you. The first gun regulation ever passed accomplished nothing it was supposed to accomplish. None to date have ever accomplished anything but make Good folks less able to defend against criminals and goverment. None passed in the future will do anything more that the past ones did. If some can show me where gun regs have reduced gun crime instead of causing it to rise where any particular one was tried in the U.S. please do. Old or new. Any takers?

February 11, 2013, 09:39 AM	#429
arch308 Senior Member Join Date: November 6, 2011 Location: DFW, Texas Posts: 876	What is there about "shall not be infringed" that people can't understand? I for one won't stand by and watch my 2nd Amendment rights being whittled away while subversives are allowed to burn American flags and Gays are allowed to parade around promoting their agenda while hiding behind the 1st. NO NEW GUN LAWS! We need to stand together on this people. Don't listen to the media. Don't fall into the emotional traps. The Bill of Rights was written for reasons that haven't changed and has stood the test of time. If we allow the erosion of the 2nd pretty soon they will be telling us what to think and which God to pray to.

February 11, 2013, 11:43 AM	#431
Skans Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2008 Posts: 11,132	WebleymkV - you have just stated the best argument I've heard against Universal Background Checks - I thoroughly enjoyed reading that!

February 11, 2013, 06:54 PM	#440
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,446	To those who wish to use part or all of my post in letters to their representatives: I have no problem with you choosing to do so, but some of my post may go over the head of someone who is not a gun enthusiast. If you wish to use it, you might consider using the revised version that I've posted in L&CR: http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...55#post5411855

February 12, 2013, 08:23 AM	#444
rebs Senior Member Join Date: January 10, 2012 Posts: 3,881	Webleymkv I agree with you 100%

February 12, 2013, 08:53 PM	#445
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,446	Art Eatman has graciously provided me with more accurate information regarding the number of privately owned guns in circulation and my posts in both this thread and the one in L&CR have been edited to reflect such.

February 13, 2013, 10:46 AM	#446
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...25.html?hp=r22 Here's the kicker - Rep. King is a Republican. I still have a bet with a friend that there is no AWB but the background checks will get through. Just a prediction. However, if they do get through - the next time, AWBs will look soooooooooo sensible. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

February 13, 2013, 05:32 PM	#448
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Graham is proposing his own solution http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...48.html?hp=r12 Not clear what it will be. It seems that people who knowingly fail the check get arrested -along with stricter mental health reporting and standards. We will see. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

February 13, 2013, 05:58 PM	#450
ScottRiqui Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2010 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 2,905	After reading the article on Graham's proposal, I'm not sure if he's differentiating between applicants who lied on the 4473 and were denied as a result, and applicants who answered truthfully, but their answers disqualified them. I'm all for prosecuting those who knowingly lie, but there are a lot of cases like the examples Tom brought up that I don't think warrant prosecution.