Universal Background Checks....

[Skans]

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?

Pros
1. I would feel better about selling a gun to someone I have verified is not a criminal
2. It would preserve the right of private sellers to conduct FTF transactions in state without an FFL
3. It may keep gun shows alive and available for private persons to sell firearms at.

Cons
1. This could be construed, or later used, as a firearms registration.
2. There would be some added cost to individuals doing a FTF transaction
3. It weakens our rights and we really get nothing in return like the repeal of the '89 import ban or the'86 machinegun ban.

I throw this out there for discussion. I would like to know where others stand on this. Feel free to tell me where Universal Background Checks, in a form that I've outlined above, are really bad for us gun owners. We will need good arguments if we are going to fight this, and this is a good place for you smart people to share them.

[bikerbill]

See above: cons

There's too many government noses in our business now. What we really should be working on is term limits for these bozos who have figured out a way to make us pay them for a lifetime of loafing, eating the occasional rubber chicken and showing up once in a while to cast a vote. Is there an easier job on earth than being a member of Congress?

[olddav]

The following is a generalization:

The "Pros" are to make you feel better about the law, rule or regulation. The "Cons" are what they really want to accomplish with the new law, rule or regulation.

P.S. If your not sure about my generalization, look for the following in their argument (talking points), "IT'S A GOOD FIRST STEP".

[hardworker]

The biggest con is that I don't want just anybody being able to run a background check on me. Complete invasion of privacy by our
Neighbors is where that would lead

[eldermike]

Incrementalism is the reason I am against it. I don’t need nor can I find a better reason, IMHO. The reason we are having gun control debates in the first place is based upon a method of change. It’s a method that takes today what it can get, and waits for the next crisis. Notice that without the crisis these great ideas never come up. That describes a deviant method of operating. I am against my government leading us sheep to an imaginary idealistic utopia one crisis at a time.

[Hal]

You missed the big one as far as cons...

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is a federal system.
It should only be used when interstate commerce takes place.

If you search out and read the texts of all the bills put before congress that deal with this, you'll see how carefully they dance around the interstate commerce clause.

Why?

Because the congress people know that's the hardest obstacle they have to overcome.

Please don't be fooled into just handing this to them on a silver platter.

[Alabama Shooter]

I am in favor. However I would like to see any reference to the type or description of the firearm removed from the equation when using the system. It should be a check on the person not the weapon.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I would like to know which actual, not theoretical, crimes would have been prevented by universal checks and how a law requiring universal checks would not have been circumvented by someone intent on mayhem.

[Alabama Shooter]

I would like to know which actual, not theoretical, crimes would have been prevented by universal checks and how a law requiring universal checks would not have been circumvented by someone intent on mayhem.

You want to prove the non-existence of a specific crime? That is a tall order right there.

[chiefr]

Concur entirely with Hal
Why should the Feds be involved at all??

[Spats McGee]

As far as I know, there is nothing prohibiting private citizens from going to an FFL and making a transfer, thus gaining (indirect) access to the NICS system. Accordingly, if a seller would like to take the extra step to ensure that he is not selling to a prohibited person, he is welcome to so.

Opening NICS up to private citizens opens the door to more incremental encroachments on our 2A rights. Here's one path that I can imagine, just off the top of my head:
1) Open NICS up to private citizens.
2) Require that all transfers go through NICS, on the theory that "the system is already open to the public, so there's no inconvenience in making folks use it. After all, it's for the children."
3) Learn that requiring all tranfers go through NICS didn't reduce crime, because it's darn near impossible to prosecute anyone for failing to use system without full gun registration.
4) Implement full gun registration.
5) Discover that convicted felons or other prohibited persons cannot be prosecuted for failing to register firearms that they should not have had in the first place. See Haynes v. U.S., 88 S.Ct. 722 (1968).
6) Figure that since registration didn't work, clearly the gov't didn't "go far enough" on gun control.
7) Decide on the next step . . . .

I am not in favor of opening it to the public.

[lcpiper]

Again Hal is spot on.

If background checks are to be required on personal sale of firearms, it needs to be done at the state level because the Federal Gov. is simply overstepping their power.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter

You want to prove the non-existence of a specific crime? That is a tall order right there.

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?

Has the background check ever prevented an incident?
Has failure to have background checks ever allowed an incident that would likely have been stopped if checks were in place?
Is the existing system effective in stopping crime or preventing criminal access to firearms?
Why would a universal system be better?

Obvious stuff. Real obvious.

The first question is whether or not the new regulation would help the problem. If it wouldn't, why bother?

[win-lose]

I'm in favor of universal background checks. I'm not in favor of just anybody with a phone or computer being able to run them.

Personally, I transfer my firearms through an FFL. To me, the peace of mind is worth the expense.

[rebs]

If we give up some freedoms now, what will be left for our kids and grand kids ? The gov will chip away a little at a time until we have no rights left and the Constitution is gone.

If you don't want to fight for yourself then by God fight for your kids and grand kids. Fight hard to ensure a future of freedom for them !!!!!
Veterans have fought, died and been wounded for our rights, respect them and keep the fight going.

[rellik74]

whats next, selling gold or silver thru a dealer. Selling you car thru a dealer.

[MLeake]

Skans, I am opposed to making any such thing mandatory.

As an optional thing, on those occasions where I sell a gun to a stranger, for instance via GunBroker, I choose to conduct transfers through an FFL.

For people I know, who live in my state, I don't use an FFL.

(Note: I am not in the business of selling guns, but with a baby on the way, I've sold a few, and with a full safe, if I want a new one, I sell an old one.)

But I am firmly in the camp that believes if the government can force "Universal Background Checks" down our throats, a federal registry won't be far in the future.

[sirdiealot]

Im guessing that just because it was a law that you had to do background checks the only people that do them would be law abiding people. The bad guys we want to keep guns away from would still get guns. So really no help at all.

[jimbob86]

whats next, selling gold or silver thru a dealer. Selling you car thru a dealer.
__________________

It IS incrementalism.

You are already required to have permission to sell, or even give away produce/livestock .....

At what point will you have to get pemission to buy and sell ANYTHING?

Maybe they'll require an indelible biometric ID to keep it all straight?*



*a "mark"? see Rev. 13-17

[lcpiper]

The OP's question is about universal background checks.

Here is the whole enchilada as I see it.

Let your state pass it. That's cool, then I know I am not selling my gun to a prohibited possessor. But the State made the requirement and it's for everyone's benefit so the state can pay for it with our state taxes.

But remember, when the bad guys come to buy my gun and I say;
"Ok Dude, $350 is cool, let's go down to our local gun shop and run the background check".

And then the bad guy says" Ummmm. yea you know, the grip has a scratch, I don't think I can go more then $150".

You can not stop crimes with laws

So there is no sale. The next night my back door is busted in and this ******* has stolen my entire gun safe then forgive me if I regret my first reaction to this completely moronic idea.

[TailGator]

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?

That sounds pretty close to making all gun owners comply with FFL requirements.

On the rare occasions that I have sold a firearm, I have sold to gun shops, precisely because I did not want to sell a firearm to a stranger and not have confidence that it was going to a legal owner for legitimate purposes. But that is my personal standard. If I found a buyer of whom I had personal knowledge, should I not have had the ability to make that sale of my personal property?

I understand what you mean, though Skans - it is hard to argue against background checks to a public with 10-second attention spans.

[MLeake]

lcpiper, while I am by no means arguing for mandatory checks, and in fact I oppose them, there is a glaring problem with the example you gave:

Why would you have any buyer unknown to you come to your home, to look at a weapon?

Even without mandatory background checks, I think this is a particularly bad idea.

[win-lose]

The OP's question is about universal background checks.

Here is the whole enchilada as I see it.

Let your state pass it. That's cool, then I know I am not selling my gun to a prohibited possessor. But the State made the requirement and it's for everyone's benefit so the state can pay for it with our state taxes.

But remember, when the bad guys come to buy my gun and I say;
"Ok Dude, $350 is cool, let's go down to our local gun shop and run the background check".

And then the bad guy says" Ummmm. yea you know, the grip has a scratch, I don't think I can go more then $150".

So there is no sale. The next night my back door is busted in and this ******* has stolen my entire gun safe then forgive me if I regret my first reaction to this completely moronic idea.

Why would you bring the person to your home in the first place? Bringing them to your home is the mistake... not the background check.

[Pahoo]

If background checks are to be required on personal sale of firearms, it needs to be done at the state level because the Federal Gov. is simply overstepping their power.

In part, this is what Iowa has done by issuing a "Purchasing Permit" through the County's Sherif's office. You apply, they do the checking and three days later, you pick up your permit. The permit is good for one year. To be more specific, It's called an (Iowa Annual Permit to Aquire Pistols or Revolvers). This permit is accepted by all Iowa FFL dealers for "all" legal firearms. It works just fine. ....

Be Safe !!!

[sigcurious]

1. I would feel better about selling a gun to someone I have verified is not a criminal

Great, then conduct your private sales at an FFL voluntarily. Don't muddle the waters with further questionable federal involvement. Secondly, people already commit straw purchases for criminals to circumvent the system, why would this be any different? Now, are you so sure you're not actually selling to a criminal?

2. It would preserve the right of private sellers to conduct FTF transactions in state without an FFL

You sure about that? The easiest way to implement universal background checks would be to force private transactions to be done at an FFL, to utilize the system that already exists. Rather than spending additional money to alter the system to allow anyone to access it along with protecting privacy concerns. One of the recent EO's indicates the stronger possibility of implementation through FFLs rather than revamping the system.

3. It may keep gun shows alive and available for private persons to sell firearms at.

Welcoming more intrusion for something that "may" happen? This third "pro" is really an extension of #2, which relies heavily on assumptions.


I see a list of "I hope/wish" not explicit pros associated with implementing universal background checks. The explicit cons are certainly there, expansion of federal power under the guise of "interstate commerce", as Hal pointed out is the biggest for me.