Posted on 02/06/2019 10:25:08 AM PST by Kaslin
Let’s say a stalker threatens a female friend of yours. She asks you if she can borrow your handgun. She is trained and has no criminal record. Should you loan her your gun?
Under a bill being heard today before the House Judiciary Committee, loaning her your gun soon could land you in prison. An exception is made only for cases of “imminent” danger — where her stalker is right in front of her at that very moment. Even those annual Boy Scout shooting trips will face legal dangers. Adults who lend troops their guns for a day might soon find themselves in prison.
Those are just a couple of the hidden consequences if Congress passes the bill just submitted by Democrat Congressman Mike Thompson. Everyone wants to keep criminals from getting guns. But the current background check system is a mess. It primarily disarms our most vulnerable citizens, particularly law-abiding minorities. Virtually every time the government stops someone from buying a gun, it is a mistake. We’re not talking here about preventing guns from falling into the wrong hands — these are people who legally can buy a gun.
Gun control advocates keep claiming that federal background checks have stopped 3 million dangerous or prohibited people from buying a gun. However, what they should say is that there were 3 million “initial denials.” Relying on phonetically similar names along with birth dates doesn’t allow for much accuracy.
It is one thing to stop a felon from buying a gun. It is quite another to stop a law-abiding citizen from buying a gun just because his name is similar to that of a felon.
That massive error rate occurs because government background checks focus only on two pieces of information: names and birth dates, ignoring Social Security numbers and addresses. The government looks for phonetically similar names (e.g., “Smith” and “Smythe” are assumed to be the same) and even ignores different middle names.
These mistakes affect certain racial groups more than others. Hispanics are more likely to share names with other Hispanics; the same is true of blacks. Because 30 percent of black males have criminal records that prevent them from buying guns, law-abiding African-American men more often have their names confused with those of prohibited people.
We can fix the problem if the government does what it requires for private companies. When businesses perform criminal background checks on employees, they have to use all of the information that is already available to the government: name, Social Security number, address, and birth date.
Background checks on private transfers have another problem: They make gun buyers and sellers pay for the costs of conducting them. In Washington, D.C. and New York City, the total cost is at least $125. In Washington state and Oregon, it is about $60 and $55, respectively.
These costs present a genuine obstacle to poor people living in high-crime, urban areas. The most likely, law-abiding victims of violent crimes are usually least able to afford these costs. It isn’t like gang members are going to pay these fees.
Democrats claim that requiring free voter IDs imposes too much on poor minorities who want to vote. But they see no irony in requiring IDs (not free ones) and much more on those who purchase guns. If supporters of background checks are serious, they will cover their costs for at least low-income people.
Thompson’s bill is being pushed as a way to stop mass public shootings, but there isn’t one such attack this century that would have been stopped.
In my book, The War on Guns, I find states with these background checks experienced an increase of 15 percent in per capita rates of mass public shooting fatalities. They also saw a 38 percent increase in the injury rate. Nor is there evidence that expanded background checks reduce rates of any type of violent crime, including mass public shootings, suicide, the murder of police officers and domestic violence against women.
Michael Bloomberg’s group Everytown— the source of glowing praise for these laws — never actually examines how crime rates change before and after the law is adopted.
Proponents often falsely claim that 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans support these laws. But ballot initiatives in November 2016 in Maine and Nevada were the same as the bill now before Congress, with Maine’s defeated by four percentage points while Nevada’s barely won by 0.8 percent. The tough sledding wasn’t for lack of money. Bloomberg massively outspent opponents on both initiatives — spending $35.30 per vote in Nevada, over six times his opposition.
This legislation will turn a lot of well-intentioned Americans into criminals. The fees and regulations will make it more difficult for the law-abiding poor to obtain guns for self-protection.
Should be federal background checks on
members of the House and Senate...and made public!
The goal is outlawing private sales as a backdoor way of creating a gun registry.
I take 1/5th of the anti-depressant dosage of Amitriptyline for tinnitus. That shoots my chances in NY, and I am a 20 year + sworn peace officer and 27 year firefighter.
Not really. It's a fool's errand; why waste time on it?
Democrats do not want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, only out of the hands of honest citizens. If only criminals have guns, honest citizens would need to depend on the government to protect them from these criminals instead of being able to do it themselves. Democrats want us dependent on government for everything.
Enough said !
Another 'pansy-boy' from California !
who the Hell even thinks up these ridiculous (and patently unconstitutional) proposals? they surely do NOT belong in Congress, or anywhere near it for that matter!
The president must sign the bill into law. See to it he is properly informed about the bill.
Nevada had plenty of voter fraud. Especially Clark County.
I'd give her a ride to the nearest gun store and "lend" her the money for a weapon and ammo.
Constitutional carry has advantages.
Does it help with tinnitus? What is the lower dosage?
Don't pass NOTHING that ANY dimocrap brings to the floor..!
This is not about fighting crime because criminals do not obey laws and are regarded by liberals as sympathetic figures capable of rehabilitation.
This is class warfare; the class being gun owners & gun rights supporters who are regarded as opponents of the Democratic Party in particular and of liberalism in general.
This is about disarming and punishing political opponents.
There exists backlash potential; from massive noncompliance with new laws to altering public perception of every LEO in America as members of the New Gestapo.
There is as yet no national gun registry; government does not know who has what & where unless FOPA ‘86 is violated, BATFE seizes dealers’ 4473s, and the jackboots start knocking on doors at which CWII is imminent.
It will pass the House, unfortunately; let’s hope it dies in the Senate without PDJT having to veto it.
In The Peoples Republic of New York, your friend would go to prison for even touching the evil gun.
Unless he/she/they/we/zir/whatever is a registered Demon-rat and cash funnel to El Koo-mo’s criminal enterprise.
They leave out the key issue here. Without universal gun registration there is no way to enforce universal background checks. And yes these gun control politicians know that.
Not really, It helps me get to sleep a little faster some nights. I take two 10 mg tabs before bedtime. They have no psychological effect.
Democrats are incredibly sinister; one stated that a disarmed citizenry left helpless to assaults & home invasions would experience a `consciousness raising’ that will motivate them to “address the root causes of crime”, thus transforming them into liberals.
BTW, a disarmed citizenry where self defense is a crime is what exists in Britain right now. That nation is gradually succumbing to an Islam-driven collective madness.
Democrats actually have no interest in insuring that the public is protected at all. They want the guns to go away to allow them unfettered and unchallenged ability to impose their socialist/communist will on the people. That is their end game.
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.