Background checks could be gun control deal breaker

yahoo ^ | february 1, 2013 | national constitution center staff

[lowbridge]

The idea of expanded background checks for prospective gun owners is quickly becoming the battleground in Congress for any changes in national weapons control legislation.

March On Washington Source: WikicommonsIn nearly a dozen national polls from varying organizations, an overwhelming large number of people seem in favor of more background checks on gun owners.

A Quinnipiac poll covering three states, Virginia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, showed that more than 90 percent of those polled favored expanding background checks to people who buy weapons at gun shows.

Last week, Constitution Daily looked at polling questions on guns from nine different sources, including Fox News, NBC, ABC, Pew Research, and Gallup.

On average, 89 percent of those people polled wanted expanded background checks. The background check issue, along with a desire to devote more resources to mental health issues, were the two ideas that had overwhelmingly large support in the polls.

At Wednesday’s gun violence hearings in Washington, the National Rifle Association and a key GOP senator downplayed the significance of expanding background checks.

[Polynikes]

For those that think the PTB will quietly observe privacy and not have access to lists and not share those lists. Behold the city of Los Angeles now has access to firearms purchasers lists and the DA sends out letters to recent purchasers in the form of a warning letter that smacks of blatant intimidation, ie: “We know who you are and what you did”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/la-gun-owners_n_2345364.html

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=693490

[SoothingDave]

Laws are very different in California. The question being discussed is whether federal law for background checks is the same thing as registration.

[andyk]

You’re the one insisting there is no registration, while acknowledging that gun dealers provide access to 4473 after crimes have been committed.

[Polynikes]

I know that but Kali has a reputation as being a pre-cursor to various social trends both good and bad.

[publius911]

The background check issue, along with a desire to devote more resources to mental health issues, were the two ideas that had overwhelmingly large support in the polls.

This does not bode well for both houses of Congress. Presumably, deficiency in mental health would logically have repercussions well beyond gun ownership, or merely the Second Amendment...

[publius911]

If your argument is that the gov’t will do what it wants regardless of any law prohibiting registration, then, pardon the phrase, what difference does it make what the law is?

The difference is that those entitled to ignore the law also decide whom it applies to.

The masters vs the producers; no contest, if they have all the weapons.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

That clarifies my confusion. Thanks.

[mosesdapoet]

Background checks could be gun control deal breaker, ez wrote:
Substituting the word “they” for the word “crooks” would make this poem equally applicable to government agents, who represent crooks anyway. :(

Whatever floats your boat and gets their goat.

Actually thought of using it but in certain groups and areas may not go over some of the guys in pointy hats (bishops) might not like it .... . Instead of offering a set design and hope the copy is kept. The object is to have it appear ir’s comming from the bottom up not from one central source and hopefully showing up all over the country. That scares the hell out of the powers that be including believe it or not the media. Besides as you say and I also thought of it. The word crooks does apply to to too many of them.

Also I could have signed it pushed my website http://www.theusmat.com/ etc etc but I’m most interested in to get a movement going rather than feeding my ego.

[Georgia Girl 2]

“Huh? We have background checks today on all sales from dealers.”

Universal means private sales in addition to FFL dealer transactions. How can anyone know a private sale went down if you don’t tell anyone? The answer is they won’t. So in order to track the weapons from private sales they need for all of us to register our weapons. How many folks do you know that have multiple guns that were never bought from an FFL dealer? So there is no record of them.

[Wonder Warthog]

"What part of this do they oot understand?"

Let me state up front that I am opposed to "universal background checks", because they will do zip to keep guns away from criminals.....BUT, it is POSSIBLE to have a check system that is "safe" from the gun owners standpoint....such a system would simply send the identifying personal info to the "check system".....and the query would be "is John Doe disqualfied from gun purchase?".

If there is no linkage with specific firearm identifying information, such an approach cannot be used to confiscate. After all, "John Doe" might have decided not to actually purchase after the background check.

And I'm sure we could start a trend where volunteers would go to gun stores and do "dummy purchases" (i.e. have a background check, but buy no gun). Heck, have each NRA member do it once a year.

[andyk]

I will admit that I had no idea the law allowed for registration via FFLs being required to store for 20 years+ (i.e., they're handed over to the ATF after a store closes).

I'm equally surprised that you think it's okay to require governmental approval to exercise a natural right.

[andyk]

That's the only way? You couldn't just run stings? I think so.

At least you acknowledge it's an honor system.

[ez]

Well in that case perhaps “crooks” is ideal. :)

[mosesdapoet]

Been ordered to stop spreading the news. Worried about “threads”.

[DugwayDuke]

check this thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2984906/posts

[Boomer orrompl]

If this administration were really interested in true background checks and not a “under the radar” gun registration, they could facilitate that tomorrow, without any new laws or any significant additional cost. Yet I have yet to see anyone in a position of influence or who had the ear of anyone in this administration, offer the following suggestion.

1. Develop a simple one page form, downloadable from the FBI or ATF web site or a 1,000 other places, with the following:

Part 1 of Form: Space/prompts at the top of the page for the following:

Name of buyer of firearm
Address of buyer
Date of birth of buyer
Social security number of buyer
A space to fill in a “background check reference #.

In the middle of the page would be a tear-line, to separate the top of the form from the bottom of the form, such as :
****************************************************

Below the tear-line would be the following information:
Part 2 of Form:

Name of buyer
Address of buyer
Model and serial number of the weapon being checked
Background check reference #
A statement to the effect:

Under penalty of providing false information as part of a federal firearms background check, which is a federal felony (T18 USC, SS 1001), information provide by buyer of firearm identified above by model and serial number has provided true and accurate information as to his/her identification, on which this background check is being conducted.
Signature of buyer:_____________________________

2. Anyone wishing to transfer a firearm to a buyer would have buyer fill out both the top and bottom with the required information. Seller would fill in the required gun information.

3. The buyer and seller would jointly call the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) with a toll free number, and the seller would provide the name, address, and identifying info for the buyer over the phone to the NICS staff answering the phone. NICS would then advise that the buyer was OK or not OK to purchase the firearm, and provide a reference # that could be used to verify that a background check had taken place if ever needed by the buyer or seller.

4. The seller would then enter the reference # in both Part 1 (top) and Part 2 (bottom) of the form.

He/she would then tear the form along the tear line, and give the top part with the buyer’s personal identifying information to the buyer, and retain the bottom of the form with the buyers name, address, signature statement as to truthfulness of info provided, and the NICS reference #, for their own personal records.

5. NICS could record that simply a background check was conducted, recording only “Name, DOB, SS# of buyer, and if the purchase was approved or denied, and the reference #. Nothing more. No gun info or seller info.

If there was ever a legal need to prove that a background check had been performed, the seller would have a document with a NICS reference number to prove that one had been conducted, and that they transferred a firearm in good faith to someone who legally was qualified to purchase it.

Firearm info, and seller info, would not be conveyed to NICS. Hey, this is a background check on the buyer…nothing more. If we truly want to have background checks and not federal registration, what else is needed? No taxation on transfers, no paying someone to handle the transaction, and no registration.

While the “progressive/socialist” will cry “foul- we can’t trace a firearm if we do it that way” – well, you can’t trace it either if we just keep doing it the way we are doing it now.

And to keep the feds honest, we could all call in regularly with false names, dobs, and SS#s, so that if the feds ever started to go out and try to contact the people who were checked to try and take their guns,they would have 1000s of names and addresses mixed in with the legit ones, that there wouldn’t be enough jackbooted thugs to get anywhere with it....

boomer

[Wonder Warthog]

I can't agree. All that is needed is your "Part 1". The rest simply provides too much information that couples a specific individual with a specific gun (i.e. registration). Despite the lamentations of the left, the government does NOT need it, and should not have it.