Posted on 05/06/2013 7:25:55 PM PDT by Lexi Cory
Why is it that people who oppose universal background checks (UBC) for gun ownership get labeled as extremists? Not all people who oppose UBCs are militia-forming, government-hating conspiracy theorists who think that "the government" is out to turn America into a totalitarian regime. Some of us simply know they won't be effective and in fact will only hinder Second Amendment rights for law-abiding citizens.
UBC legislation aims to close firearm sale loopholes at places like gun shows, enacting a universal background to ensure that no one owns a firearm who shouldn't. This includes every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals (family and friends included). However, there is nothing "universal" about universal background checks. They only include the citizens willing to follow the law, and those aren't the ones we need to be worried about. UBCs sound so reasonable, so common-sense, but before jumping to that conclusion, examine the history of background checks, their effectiveness, and the laws already on the books. UBC legislation would be ineffective in reducing gun violence and would infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens. In addition, the laws on the books that already mandate background checks aren't being enforced: it is useless to add more laws of this type without applying the ones already made.
The recent tragedies give light to the fact that background checks are ineffective in preventing them. Under current law, it is already illegal to purchase a firearm through a retail channel without a background check. It is already a federal felony to buy and sell firearms and ammunition with having a federal firearm dealer's license; it is also already a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check — that's all dealers, including at retail stores, flea markets, and yes, gun shows. Further, it is already a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. In many states, including New Jersey, New York, and Illinois, background checks are already required for all sales at gun shows, and we don't even have to bring up UBC's lack of effectiveness on their crime rates. Obviously, background checks at gun shows and in private dealings do not stop criminals, and it is foolish to think that expanding this same background check legislation will. Current legislation is not the problem, and more legislation is not the answer.
On February 23, House Republicans signed a letter declaring that it is "imprudent to simply call for more laws, without examining the efficacy of the current laws." Although it is a federal crime to submit false information on a background check, they note that, according to an official Justice Department report, 76,142 gun ownership permits were denied in 2010, with 4,732 cases being "referred to field offices for investigation. However, only 62 prosecutions resulted from these actions." Of those prosecutions, only 13 resulted in convictions. Even when felons do try to buy guns and are marked by the system, they are almost never stopped. Why are we looking at making more stringent laws when the ones we already have aren’t enforced? Vice President Joe Biden answered that question for us: "And to your point, Mr. [Jim] Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, [background check forms] we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately." We don't have the time? Then why is more legislation being pursued when we "don’t have the time" for what’s already in place?
The thriving firearm black market shows that illegal guns in circulation will not be stopped. UBCs will do nothing to keep a criminal intent on harming people from illegally obtaining a firearm on the black market, as many already do. Nearly 40% of crime guns are acquired from dealers in the business of black market dealing. In addition, as seen in recent shootings, often the perpetrators suffered from different levels of mental illness and all had legally obtained firearms. If the laws already in place had been enforced, these tragedies would not have happened. However, because they weren't, these tragedies did take place and no amount of background checks and banning firearms would have stopped them. This is nothing but a backdoor for gun registration records. UBC legislation that has already been enacted allows the government to keep a computerized government registry of gun owners. In fact, Obama's own Justice Department recently reported that the effectiveness of a universal background check system "depends on ... requiring gun registration." In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce universal background checks would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession, which is something that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986. A gun registry database would do nothing to monitor criminals who obtained guns illegally; it would only allow the government to keep tabs on law-abiding citizens. UBCs will not keep criminals from purchasing guns, and in fact they will only endanger law-abiding citizens and infringe on their rights.
Criminalizing private firearm sales would not have stopped any of the shooting tragedies. Shootings like the Sandy Hook tragedy were done with legally obtained firearms. The vast majority of crimes are not committed with firearms obtained legally. It is badly misinformed to think that UBCs will stop shootings and prevent criminals from purchasing firearms. We who believe this are not against sensible legislation that will control the violence; UBCs simply aren't that legislation. If the goal were public safety, the government would be focusing on enforcing the laws already on the books. Unfortunately, they are not being enforced by the administration lauding them the most, and it is outlandish to enact more laws thinking it will reduce gun violence. It would be more successful to enforce the laws we already have before enacting more legislation that will swamp the federal bureaucracies, hinder law-abiding citizens, and ultimately do nothing to impede gun violence.
Great points! This is not about background checks, but rather a national registry, which we should resist at all costs. A disarmed nation is no longer free.
Did you know that a felon cannot be charged with the crime of possessing an unregistered firearm (in states where there is a registry).
Good points in this article. Most opposition to gun control follows typical paths - constitutionality, no new laws because we don’t enforce existing ones, etc. Nothing wrong with that.
But I wish we had some congressmen with gonads that would go on offense instead of defense. Where are the top 20 violent crime cities in the US and which party runs them? What is the marital status of most violent criminals and what type families do these criminals come from?
The liberals and their policies are responsible for a large percentage of violent crime in our society.
Bttt.
First, it is hardly "universal" criminals will continue to ignore it like they do existing background check laws, other firearms related laws, and oh yeah, laws in general.
Second, while it will only target law abiding citizens, it cannot possibly work without a national registry of all existing firearms. All firearms. How else could anyone possibly know who is supposed to have what (or not) and who may have transfered which firearm to whom.
Third, it is insanely intrusive. (at least the parts of a State proposal I've heard) You cannot "transfer" your firearms to someone for more than 72 hrs without a background check. Going on vacation for a week? Going to have the neighbor's kid watch your pets while you're gone? Don't think so. Your trusted friend going for a long weekend hunting with his son, wants to borrow one of your rifles for his son? Sorry, not without a background check. You going to deploy to the sandbox, leave your personal weapons with spouse? Nope, not without a background check. Meanwhile of course real criminals will continue to buy/sell/trade firearms like gifts at a white elephant party.
Universal background check? Stop lying you gun-grabbing wanna-be fascists.
That's something we need to realize. This started a long time before Obama. It's what allowed him into the position he's in, and it's why he's been able to step it up to the level he has. Any victory we have within our broken government, is just buying us a little more time in a losing battle.
www.OathKeepers.org
Yeah, I love how when the Dems are talking about how hard it is to get new anti-rights legislation passed, they point to the failure of UBC, as if that would be expected to be far more palatable than an “assault weapon” ban. As in “See how intransigent those GOP NRA lackeys are? They won’t even go for background checks!” Idiots. In fact, background checks and the resulting registry are far more insidious than bans or restrictions on specific classes of weapons.
ping
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.