Costs, Benefits, and Background Checks

National Review ^ | Apr. 4, 2013 | Review Staff

[EXCH54FE]

Universal background checks for gun purchases are an attempt to address a legitimate problem: It really is easy for criminals to get guns, and it really is hard to prosecute those who sell guns to criminals. While licensed gun dealers are required to perform background checks and maintain records, private citizens may sell their guns without so much as asking a question. To prosecute a citizen for an illegal sale, the government must prove that the citizen knowingly gave a gun to a criminal or bought a gun for the sole purpose of transferring it to another party. In surveys, a large percentage of criminals report procuring guns through friends, family, and other private sources, yet these suppliers rarely face charges.

But the fact that the problem is real does not mean this proposed solution would be helpful. Universal checks might be an inherently unworkable idea. And a universal-check policy capable of passing the current Congress will certainly not do much good. It is time for legislators to direct their efforts elsewhere.

The issues with Charles Schumer’s bill have been ably laid out by our own Charles C. W. Cooke, and they highlight the practical hurdles any such policy will face. Under the bill, Americans would be charged a fee — of an amount to be determined later, by bureaucrats — for exercising a constitutional right; the only alternative is for the government to shoulder the costs. Law-abiding Americans could face prosecution for various temporary, everyday gun transfers, but exemptions that are too generous could make the law difficult to enforce. Gifts between family members are not covered, which is reasonable and politically necessary — but also a significant loophole. Adam Lanza and countless other murderers have obtained guns through family.

[EXCH54FE]

But let’s not kid ourselves. Criminals and their enablers will not conduct background checks, it will be difficult to prove they didn’t, and oftentimes the policies under consideration won’t even require them to. There is not nearly enough benefit here to outweigh the substantial cost.

[SoFloFreeper]

Another line:

Many gun owners don’t want to be in a permanent database for merely exercising a constitutional right, and fear that if the government ever were to seek — in an unlikely scenario — to confiscate guns, a registry would be a necessary prerequisite.

"An unlikely scenario"? Ha.

[KeyLargo]

IBD Editorials

U.S. Agrees To U.N. Global Gun Control

Posted 04/04/2013 06:09 PM ET

Global Gun Control: Despite a prior Senate rebuff, President Obama will likely sign and push a treaty embraced by the world’s oppressors and thugs who fear armed citizens.

The treaty’s prior rejection by the Senate 53-46 in a nonbinding test vote as part of the budget debate in a body where a two-thirds vote to ratify is required would seem to doom the United Nations pact endorsed by the Obama administration.

However, the president will likely sign it and, as is his custom these days, try to enforce key provisions by stealth, executive order and by “common-sense” regulations and restrictions.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040413-650572-us-agrees-to-un-global-gun-control.htm#ixzz2PbXyturj
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

[Venturer]

hatis exactly why the Government wants background checks, and confiscation is the whole plan in a nutshell.

[marktwain]

Not a bad article. I think they left out the most important cost, though it is implied:

The tremendous chilling effect on the exercise of an expicitly Constitutionaly protected right.

Every year, over a hundred thousand citizens are denied their rights by the current “background check” system. It denies Constitutional rights every bit as much as literacy checks on voting or poll taxes, probably much more.

We know that over 150 thousand people are denied the right to buy a firearm each year. Most of those are false positives, which is why out of 73 thousand denials in 2010 by the Federal government, there were only 44 prosections. There has not been a study on how many, exactly, of the 150,000+ background checks are false positive, but all the anecdotal evidence that I have gathered indicates that the vast majority of them are.

[rktman]

Yup. They may agree to it but I don’t, so they can KMA! The senate in it infinite “wisdumb” won’t ratify it. They may try but it ain’t gonna happen. This, despite king hussein lying about everything to do with guns. Even though we have photographic “evidence” that he likes to go out and shoot his single shot over under side by side semi-fully automatic multi round 10/20 gauge shot gun with pistol grip and a flash supressor and silencer at clay pigeons made of not toxic materials as mandated by the epa.

[faithhopecharity]

I may like the idea of “background checks” but it is a direct violation of our constitution. Our founding fathers considered the larger issue of liberty (versus tyranny), plus the natural right of man to seld-defense (including defense of family and community). A 100 percent perfect world being impossible, our founders decided on the best possible outcome, namely that the government may NOT infringe the citizen’s right to arms. The benefits of this approach still (some would say especially) make sense today.

[rellimpank]

--and, while I don't have a link (other than it was reported in the Denver Post) with the vaunted Colorado check system, about 60% of denials which are appealed are removed by the appeal system --

--with an inaccuracy record such as that the whole thing is suspect--even more so than the federal terror suspect list , on which the redoubtable Senator Kennedy found himself---

[RWGinger]

“Despite a prior Senate rebuff, President Obama will likely sign and push a treaty embraced by the world’s oppressors and thugs who fear armed citizens.

0dumbo can sign it but if the Senate doesn’t approve it, through 2/3 vote of Senators present, it means NOTHING here is USA

If he signs it he only does to to make himself look good elsewhere
The POS’ ego has no limits

[FlingWingFlyer]

Voter registration must be used as a model for firearms registration or the whole mess will be deemed as “unconstitutional”. You can’t charge anyone a “fee” to register for the right to vote. How can you charge anyone a “fee” for their right to own a firearm? You can’t do a background check on anyone desiring to exercise their right to vote. We have them sign on the dotted line and take their word for it that they are a US citizen. How can it be constitutional to do background checks on anyone planning on exercising their right to keep and bear arms under the Bill of Rights? That is unconstituional. Also, under the Motor Vote Fraud Act, ATF would be required to offer all gun owners the opportunity to register to vote and track that these offers were made to the gun owners. Americans need to push to make sure that gun owners are treated the same as those applying for welfare and those registering to vote. The right to keep and bear arms is one of our civil rights.

[TLI]

If he signs it he only does to to make himself look good elsewhere

To his future employer, the UN.

.

[nascarnation]

Yes I could definitely see Caliph Baraq has major domo of the UN, with occasional appearances as guest host on MSNBC.

[TLI]

with occasional appearances as guest host on MSNBC.

Let's not leave out The View or the The Talk.

Hussein needs to unwind with the gals now and then ya know...

.

[nascarnation]

Well said. And unfortunately we’re not talking satire here.
It will happen....