Are Background checks unenforceable?

[wolfgunner5150]

Where background checks can be enforced.
But doesn't stop criminals.

When I lived in CA all gun purchases required a FFL to do a background check. Through registration CA can enforces this law. Although I was offered deals many times that wouldn't go through a FFL I turned them down because I didn't want any headaches with law enforcement.

Problem -- If I could easily get illegal weapons when I don't want any how hard can it be for someone who dose want them to get them?




Why I don't believe background checks in many other states are enforceable.

I now live in UT . You can own anything here that's federally legal to own. If you go to a dealer they are required to do a background check unless you have a CCW. If you do a person to person transfer you don't have to go to a FFL to do a background check.

Problem -- Who says when the sale took place? Did I sell that firearm before or after the change in the law took place?


Bottom line is that people like me will obey the law even if it is unconstitutional. At least till we can change it.

Criminals will continue to break the law.

But the big problem is that a large percentage of people will still do face to face transfers with no background checks. They will simply say they did it before the new requirements. Thereby making background checks unenforceable.

Am I missing something? Is this just a step towards total registration. After all total registration is the only way Obama's new rules would be enforceable.

[BarryLee]

I believe you are correct and most of the anti-gun crowd knows this. Remember the goal is not to reduce crime, but to eliminate the civilian ownership of guns. One of the ways to do this is to reduce the likelihood that someone ever buys their first gun. So, one way to do this is to make the process as onerous and expensive as possible.

[Armorer-at-Law]

Would require universal registration to be enforceable. Expect a plea for that to follow.

[Aguila Blanca]

Even universal registration would apply only to the law-abiding who chose to comply with registration requirements. Guns that are already in the hands of criminals will never be registered, and guns that are stolen from registered owners will be listed as "stolen" but won't be tracked thereafter unless/until recovered at a crime scene.

And I have no doubt that gun control advocates are well aware of this.

[44 AMP]

Guns that are already in the hands of criminals will never be registered,

Under our law, "criminals" (meaning in this case all prohibited persons) are not legally required to register any guns they possess. NO new law can change that, either.

A felon can be arrested and charged with having a gun, but they cannot be charged with failing to register that gun. That would violate their Constutional rights! (5th Amendment).

As others have pointed out, despite the constant publicly stated goal, background checks do not, and cannot keep guns out of the hands of the criminally violent. They are only one more cost the law abiding are forced to put up with.

Consider this, if a background check is to keep us "safe", what good does it serve to check someone who ALREADY HAS A GUN????

WHY check every gun buyer every single time they buy a gun? What possible good can a check do to keep someone who already has a gun from misusing it? Nothing, is what. SO, if your purpose is "safety" your method is failed.

Another thing to consider, our current administration "doesn't have time" to PROSECUTE people denied due to their lying on the 4473 form. Thank you Joe Biden for being so clear on that point!

WHY should the public be burdened with new laws, and the expense and effects of their implementation when the government "doesn't have time" to actually enforce existing law properly??????????????

They constantly say they want to make guns more difficult to get, the reality is they can only make them more difficult to get LEGALLY. Some how the idea that someone bent on violence (for which there are already lots of laws saying thou shalt not...) would be stopped by a gun control law just doesn't seem to happen in the real world.

[Mac Sidewinder]

What really worries me is the average citizen who is not a gun owner and is on the fence about the subject of universal registration. I've heard the argument too many times that if you have nothing to hide then why are you worried about registration?

This is especially troubling when you have a presidential candidate who when asked if they supported mandatory buyback programs such as in Australia said that "That is something that will have to be seriously looked into."

[44 AMP]

if you have nothing to hide then why are you worried about registration?

simply because what is "nothing to hide" today can become "something to hide" is a very short period of time.

CA and NYC (to name just two) passed laws requiring registration of what they defined as "assault weapons". Along with all the firm assurances (at the time) that "no body was trying to take your guns away".

A few years later, they passed laws confiscating these same registered guns. The owners could turn them in (for no compensation, and some were even charged with illegal possession WHEN THEY TURNED THEM IN!!), or remove them from the state. Some choice.

If you want an extreme example, German Jews had "nothing to hide in 1930. By 1935, it was a much different matter, which got steadily worse for them through the next decade.

Don't think for an instant that "it can't happen here"...it can.

Everything we do, all the fights we win, the stand we take for personal liberty don't make it impossible, they just make it much less likely.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The thing is, the government doesn't even investigate 1/10 of the existing denials by the NICS system and prosecutes only a handful.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

It is the classic case (so often observed in gun control laws) of: "We've lowered the speed limit to 70mph and they are driving 80mph, so let's lower it again to 60mph!" Without enforcement, there just isn't a lot of incentive to follow stupid, badly drafted laws.

The flipside is if enforcement increased, people would scream because you'd be enfocring stupid, badly drafted laws.

[kilimanjaro]

Being an active collector, FFL03, CCW, etc., I've probably had NICS checks run on me easily 200 times. Quite a lot of money and time was spent doing all this for absolutely no public good whatsoever beyond the checks needed for the first purchase or licensing process.

Having said that, background checks for private sales are enforceable only where they have been adhered to by honest citizens. Needless to say, enforcement is not required in that instance.

[Tom Servo]

The folks who've said they're unenforceable without registration are correct. The underlying idea was to get background checks first, then registration later.

And for what? There's no proof they have any effect on crime. Don't believe me? Here's some science-type folks on the matter.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Of course background checks are unenforceable.

*ALL* guns laws that don't require action directly starting at/from the reputable manufacturer are unenforceable.

Take NY's (un)SAFE Act as an example. A Browning BAR is perfectly legal UNLESS it also has a BOSS "muzzle brake", in which case it is suddenly an "Assault Rifle".

What criminal gives a rat's behind about that? They aren't going to be using that gun anyway and they wouldn't care if it were illegal or not if they were.

All it does is make potential owners who AREN'T willing to break the law not buy one. There's absolutely nothing (except the law) stopping anyone who wants to have their friend in another state buy one and drive there to get it. No one would ever know the difference. Yes, that violates several state and federal laws... and I'd bet you it happens on a daily basis.

There's that cliche that says some variation of "If guns are made criminal then only criminals will have guns." That's true from a number of angles. One not so small angle being that some number of folks will be willing to suddenly become criminals in order to bypass those laws.

Those folks aren't and never were dangerous to others and the folks who ARE dangerous to others never gave that same rat's behind anyway... so what do these laws do?

Disarm more of the innocents, that's what.

[Branko]

It's a pretty simple line of reasoning.

Expanded universal background checks need total registration to work. Has little immediate effect right now, but is expected to work after some time, because legitimate owners will register a lot of the guns, so they can still shoot them at the range, buy ammo and so on, so the supply of unregistered guns will go down fairly soon.

From there the next move is restricting ownership by making the background checks be less about checks and more about licensing. From that point the legal situation is essentially the same as most of Europe and with increasing complication the number of shooters and guns is going to decline in time (or in less time, in case of gradually tighter regulations) which makes it easier to pass further restrictions down the line.

It won't work? Great. People who simply hate guns will say that this is because existing regulation is not strict enough and must be tightened up. Crazy, sure, but look at us in Europe; one of the proposals in the aftermath of the Paris attacks from the EC is that they want to ban semi-autos. Because... well, I don't know (given they weren't used in the first place), but the Brits and Brussels salon socialists simply like the idea, and once something is a privilege it can be curbed at will.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

The flipside is if enforcement increased, people would scream because you'd be enfocring stupid, badly drafted laws.

I'm probably in a minority, but I think the best thing possible for bad laws to to have them strictly and vigorously enforced. When laws (good or bad) are ignored, nobody knows about them. When LOTS of good people start getting nailed for violating bad laws, all of a sudden the heat gets turned up on the lawmakers to unmake those bad laws.

[Dufus]

When LOTS of good people start getting nailed for violating bad laws, all of a sudden the heat gets turned up on the lawmakers to unmake those bad laws.

But those good people are now criminals, and most likely felons, and therefore cannot legally own a firearm.

[rebs]

It is simply another step towards registration and once they have registration its a matter time before confiscation. The goal is to disarm the American law abiding citizens so we will have no means to resist tyranny. When Cuomo passed the safe act everyone with an AR had x amount of time to register it, however only 0.4 % registered out of millions of AR owners in the state. Then came the New York legal AR's and they are being sold all over the state. The magazine has to be pinned so it is non removable or you can have no features, so if you only have a pistol grip you replace it and you can keep the removable magazine. There is a guy in NY that will give you the new grip for free if you make a donation of 20.00 that goes to the NYSRPA. What did the safe act do to stop criminals from getting an AR ? Nothing ! You can go stand on a couple street corners in Buffalo's rougher neighborhoods and within a short time someone will ask you if you want to buy an unregistered gun. They cannot stop criminals from getting guns and they know it. It is not about gun control, it is all about people control.

[44 AMP]

Are Background checks unenforceable?

Unenforceable? I don't think so. but the effort needed for 100% compliance is something else. Enforcement in dealer sales, simple and voluntary, is, and has been done for some time. That's what the "instant check" is.

Now, here's the thing, "enforceable" and "effective" are different things.

First off, a background check requirement is a presumption of guilt, NOT a presumption of innocence, which is the opposite of what we are taught (are we still taught this??) is the way our legal system is supposed to work.

Proove thou art worthy! (booming voice from above...)

so, you do this...and buy a gun

now we have to deal with someone coming along and shouting "prove that you proved yourself worthy!" ???? (prove you complied with the background check law)

well, just how are we supposed to do that? Govt has those records, I don't. Oh, wait, isn't there a law saying the govt isn't supposed to KEEP those records??

yes, it is a registration scheme, because, well, what does a background check actually check? the gun? NO! It checks YOU! Everyone saying you can't have it "work" without registration is correct, BUT only if you need to answer this question, "Did you have a background check done when you purchased this (specific) gun?"

TO do that, you need registration tying the gun and you together, AND a record of the background check done, ALSO listing the gun, and you, by serial number.

This is why every proposed plan requires it, so they can get full registration.

You COULD create a system that would work, at least as well as what is current law or what is proposed, that does NOT involve the gun (as a specific item) at all! They don't want that. It does not further their agenda of registration.

Everyplace there has been firearms registration, it has been followed, soon, or later, by increased restriction, and often confiscation. Those places who still "allow" some ownership simply have not implemented full confiscation YET.

A national database, checking only the person, and available to everyone via a phone call, is POSSIBLE. WHY don't they offer that, instead of ones that require gun registration? Simple answer, it doesn't fit their plans.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You COULD create a system that would work, at least as well as what is current law or what is proposed, that does NOT involve the gun (as a specific item) at all! They don't want that. It does not further their agenda of registration.

That's an important point. If we just wanted to check whether the buyer was a prohibited person, there are ways to do that which protect privacy and do not require records of the gun.

Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (GOA's most important election of 2006, A+) actually tried to work with Chuck Schumer after Newtown and proposed an attempt at such a system (albeit not a great one) and they not only kicked him out of their little coalition; but after then Senate Majority Leader promised all gun amendments would get a vote, it didn't get a vote either - and this is for a bill that covered far more sales than Schumer-Toomey-Manchin.

Make no mistake - they want registration. They do not give two poots for background checks unless they can be used to advance that goal.

[lagavulin62]

Well the way I see it, since hardly anyone registered in those states that recently required it and considering all of us have our share of "loophole" guns, I don't think a total gun ban would disarm much of anyone except for those who had no guns at the time of the ban.