Skip to comments.What's the big deal about background checks?
Posted on 02/03/2013 9:43:35 AM PST by TurboZamboni
Among comments to my last piece, Lautenberg gun show bill as bad as expected, several were from well-meaning gun owners who honestly questioned why S. 843 ostensibly submitted to close the gun show loophole is really so bad.
A typical and knowledgeable comment went like this:
I am a very pro-gun person. I own a couple of rifles and I will never support any [assault weapon ban]. I don't even support the 86 [McClure-Volkmer] automatic ban. But background checks should be required for any and every sale. If that means transferring it at the dealer, then fine.
"But any kind of government-kept record of who owns what I am strongly opposed to. Make the bill less ridiculous and get rid of all of the registration clauses and I will not oppose it.
While reasonable and well-intentioned, the argument contains a presumption which, unfortunately, rarely pertains in politics: It presumes the intentions of the bill are honest. Below are the main three reasons why legislation purporting to require background checks is unacceptable.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
If you need permission from the fedguv to exercise a right, then it isn’t really a right.
I must have missed the background check segment in the 2nd amendment.
It is none of the government’s business who owns what guns. When the government wants to find out, that is a sign of totalitarian tendencies, and that is the point where it needs to be firmly quashed.
The way the feds are registering guns today is both illegal, and they don’t care that it is illegal, and is little known by the public.
That is, since the feds are not *supposed* to keep background check information, they require stores that sell guns to do so. Then, at their leisure, they go in and collect that, not “background check information”, but “Federal Firearms License information”. The same data. And they have zero requirements to ever destroy it.
So in effect, the “gun show loophole” of private sales is now the *only* way to get a legal gun that is not registered. Unless, of course, you buy it with a credit card, since that information is also cross checked by the government.
A no-buy list of felons and mentally ill is OK.
Past that it not the business of government who owns what....
Registration is indeed 1st step to confiscation.
New laws? Answer NO
1. It is a myth that most people can buy guns at gun shows without background checks. Only ‘private sales’ don’t need them in many states. Almost every gun sale has a background check.
2. The background check requirements being proposed and in some states would eliminate firearm transfers even between families without a background check. For example, a grandpa can’t give his grandson an old family .22 rifle without the grandson having a background check.
3. The proposed requirements would require a uniform national background check which would most likely have to require with the most stringent states such as New Jersey. So now, buying a gun in Texas that used to take less than 30 minutes because we are sophisticated and can run checks quickly, would take the 60 days it does in New Jersey.
Exactly correct. Private sales are the safety valve that prevents background checks to become registration.
A number of states have made it illegal to possess an unregistered handgun, so cash purchases of a handgun at a gunshow does not prevent prosecution for failure to register the handgun in those jurisdictions. This situationdemonstrates why firearms registrations have in evry case led to firearns confiscations and crminalization of the possession of firearms.
Actually it needed to be stopped the day before they stopped handing them back to prison inmates upon release.
If they’re too dangerous to own a gun they shouldn’t be released from prison.
Shouldn’t pretty much anyone who doesn’t pass the background check be in jail?
I am at a gun show with a for sale sign sticking out of the barrel of my AR-15.
A buyer approaches we agree on a price then say. To avoid this silly background crap, I'll meet you at Applebees parking lot down the street and we will conclude the sale.
Good idea. Is it legal? Of course we are not at a gun show. You never saw me today and I never saw you.
And to think, privacy applies to abortions but the asshats want to invade privacy if you own a gun? That’s messed up to say the least. Still trying to find where in the BOR abortions are covered as a right not to be interfered with. Guess I’ll keep searchin’. Kind of think I’m not gonna’ find it.
Perform a humanitarian act today. Send sandy fluke some condoms. PLEASE. We don’t want her pro-creating. Of course if she were to become preggers, she’d demand we pay for an abortion and demand privacy.
no new laws, every single one is a step towards confiscation.
Time to roll a few back.
Of course. Except the political class.
Thanks for the post.
Why the strong Democrat opposition to background checks on voters (outstanding warrants, illegally in the country, multiple registrations, etc.)?
How about we get background checks for every editor, publisher and reader of the Press.
Because drug gangs smuggle guns, too, and have their own “background checks” to make sure you’re not a cop or rival or a rube that they can just rip off.
There already ARE background checks on members of academia and the press but occasionally a conservative gets through anyway.
IMHO, Here’s what’s coming.....When you go to get your hunting license, you’ll have to bring ALL your guns. They will inspect them, test fire them (bullet bank) register any numbers and keep them until you pass a background test.
Depends....Have you ever been caught for speeding?
Irresponsible behavior will be one of the criteria.
No gun for you...
The aim of all gun control is confiscation.
There is no rule of law now.
We have jumped the shark.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but the quantity and complexity of the laws exceed the intellectual grasp of a single individual. It's a Catch 22 situation. We'd be best served by a comprehensive reform of all of our laws, except that the process would be hijacked and we'd be worse off at the end of it.
I want to push for harsher laws regarding malice of the press and less restriction on having to prove it. Let's put the onus on them like they do on us: accuse them of it and then they must prove their innocence!
We must hold on to this picture for a sign in case hillary runs again.
As someone else asked on this site a while ago, why is the SERIAL NUMBER and MODEL NUMBER needed for a background check? It seems to me that you should ONLY check the person and be done with it. If he buys 10 weapons, 5 weapons, 1 weapon, or none, nothing is gained with serial and model numbers...unless someone is trying to build up a database.
Agree. Do a background check without the dealer having to maintain any form and no serial or model numbers given for the check and unless I'm missing something else I would not have a problem with universal. By the way this would include buying from a dealer.
“Agree. Do a background check without the dealer having to maintain any form and no serial or model numbers given for the check and unless I’m missing something else I WOULD NOT HAVE A PROBLEM with universal. By the way this would include buying from a dealer. “
I didn’t want to go there, but the poster that mentioned it was like you, good with it (without the gun ID info). I agree...it would be good to actually weed out the nutcases, without establishing a database.
The states’ CCW lists are legally protected from the federal government’s scrutiny.
Yet the instructor in my class said that Kentucky had already been approached by Big Sis for its list. And was refused. For the time being.
Could it be that we can’t trust the word of our betters in DC?
They don’t need the gun info. You get BG checked, they will assume you bought a gun. When the time comes, they will come after *anyone* that has had a BG check and demand guns.
A whore that says she loves you is more trustworthy than our federal government.
It has been suggested by some that folks should own a “throw away” gun or two to hand over when the jack boots come to the door, while carefully hiding the rest.
Background check - YES
Registration of Gun Owners - NO
Registration of Guns - NO
Register Sheep, Not Citizens.
The fact is we are not going to stop mass murder entirely, EVER. May as well say it, defenseless sheep will not survive, unarmed.
2+2 is simply still four, no matter how many other ideas you exhaust.
This has happened on the Federal level as the Examiner reported here. It's pretty much a case of "Remember your 1968 misdemeanor conviction? BOOM it's now a felony!"
No misdemeanor actually became a felony. It is an unfortunate mismatch in terminology between some state and federal statutes. At it's simplest, Federal laws prohibit purchase by any person convicted of an offense "punishable by imprisonment for more than one year." It does not say felony or misdemeanor. Some states, mostly back east, have (or had) misdemeanor offenses with indeterminate sentences. In other words the maximum sentence (for a misdemeanor) could have been longer than a year.
As I recall reading this all started because of some overzealous junior G-man who was upset at being assigned to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in WV and took it upon himself to decline the purchase despite long standing but undocumented policy to the contrary. The anti-gun powers that be decided it was a good idea and it took off and here we are. Criteria Creep
Here in California every firearm transaction except long guns over 50 years old must go through an FFL. It goes to the DoJ in Sacramento who runs a much more thorough check than the Feds. So what happened when ex-San Francisco DA and anti-gun zealot Kamala Harris became State Attorney General? Guys who had been buying guns for years with no trouble started getting denied. The California law clearly states "convictions" and she creeped it to "arrests" where the outcome is not in the system and demanding proof of the dismissal. So a lot of guys are running around trying to get court papers frpom the 70's and 80's and guess what? For dismissals, they trashed all the paperwork years ago.
Now thanks to another quirk of California law known as "underground regulation" this will nipped in he bud once the wheels of justice grind, but they grind slow and there is no Federal equivalent. Their ultimate grand plan is to "creep" every gun owner into a prohibited class and this is how it starts.
Which others of the Bill Of Rights must I take out a permit or a license to practice?
“It has been suggested by some that folks should own a throw away gun or two to hand over when the jack boots come to the door, while carefully hiding the rest.”
That’s the point...as long as they don’t have serial numbers they will either have to believe you or do some serious searching.
They will not believe you, that's my point, they will assume everyone is "guilty". And they will do some serious searching. Once they force themselves in, they aren't going be content looking only in your closets and dresser drawers.
The 4th Amendment is the big deal about background checks.
Without any evidence of wrongdoing (or intent thereto) suitable for asking a judge for a warrant, there is no grounds for government interference in an otherwise legal transaction.
“They will not believe you, that’s my point, they will assume everyone is “guilty”. And they will do some serious searching. Once they force themselves in, they aren’t going be content looking only in your closets and dresser drawers.”
I hear you, but they will have quite a task, without any clue what to look for. Here in Texas at least half of the homes have guns, so the having the list of who might have guns only has slightly more value than a driver license list...if that, since many already have guns and will not be on that list, hopefully.
“Background check - YES”
I’m buying a gun. What the hell reason do you have to interfere? Get a warrant or get out of my way!
To clarify, it takes 60 days or more in NJ to get your FID card initially. After you have your FID card, it is lifetime, the background check at the gun store takes less than 30 minutes as in Texas. This is for long guns. For handguns you must get a permit for every purchase from your local police. This can take a day or a few weeks. Both have been true for me. With permit, the background check at gun store takes less than 30 minutes. This has been my experience for buying firearms in NJ the last couple of years.
Background check means everyone has a profile in the sytem.
That is not acceptable because it means registration, the first step of confiscation.
A No Buy List for illegals, felons and those declared dangerously mentally ill is the solution. The list would not be that large. The mentally ill no buy individuals cannot be simply deemed so by some bureaucrat.
What the government really wants is an extensive FBI file on every citizen including political profile. That is NOT ACCEPTABLE, EVER.
By the way, the FBI has known my background because of my father-in-law for the past 40+ years. He was in the weapons industry.
Background check captures a felon, narrowing his weapon procurement to the cartel underground. It does not capture the law abiding in any manner, or your purchase. It does not register your name, or your newly purchased gun.
Otherwise, felons have the same privileges as you do. Make them have to feel their way through the high risk alleys, in dark, damp places, before they can get a gun from a guy who might break their neck after selling them a gun.
Ah, the old “what have you got to hide?” principle.
There’s this thing alongside the 2nd Amendment called the 4th Amendment. It basically says that if there isn’t any indication of wrongdoing (to a sufficient degree a judge can adjudicate thereon) then the government has to stay the heck out of someone’s private affairs and dealings. To wit: if I’m buying a gun in a perfectly normal manner which is legitimate in nigh unto all cases, you (ie.: the government) has no business interfering with a “guilty until proven innocent” approach.
Jobs are contingent on clearing a background check, so it seems our names are already in the system. Liability risk for gun sellers would be as severe as for employers, companies and corporations, without the background check, it seems to me.
Registration is a bridge too far, of invasive information collection, but the BC is probably here to stay.
What other rights would you deny me? My felony was carrying a concealed gun in Illinois.
I didn't even knowingly break the law. I had been out shooting (legal), slipped the pistol in my heavy coat pocket and promptly forgot it was there. The next day, it was still there when I hung my coat at a restaurant, waitress saw it, called the cops and at age 57, after a $1500 fine, $2500 lawyer fee, 18 months probation, I was a convicted felon.
Sorry, that is not what I had in mind.
Of course I would not include that.
Yes the left is making a mockary of “the law”.
Experienced “criteria creep” myself firsthand.
It can happen at the local(county level) in addition to state and federal.
Mine was at the county level. There are plenty of little tyrants out there.
If the seller wants to run a background check, fine.
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.