"Universal" Background Checks...For or Against?

[Smitty901]

Here we go again avoid the real subject . Do you really think this is about guns?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[AlDente67]

Here's how the police sponsored background checks work. They are done at the county sheriff's office and they only accept apps on certain days of the week btwn certain hours. Once approved you have a limited number of days to obtain the approval or you have to start over. The available hours are when most people are at work. How do I know this? - MO just got rid of this system for handguns a few years ago.

I would be tempted to accept a system where the buyer is the one responsible for obtaining a free permit by accessing the system via the net to show the seller. The system that checks against the database would have no write capability, subject to a 2x/yr audit. There would have to be clear mandates on what mental conditions get you put into the database and what/how many certified professionals it takes to be put on the list and all states are subject to compliance. However, IIRC, HotGuns pointed out a few months ago the current system is not supposed to save names more than 90 or so days, but the ATF showed up with a list over a year old.

Yeah, I think I'll have to vote no on this one.

That is how it works in NJ too. Make an appointment with the Detective on Tuesdays at 2pm, maybe 3pm. Fill out all the paperwork, get fingerprinted for the purchase card, then make an appointment with some outside company to fingerprint the other 9 fingers (for $60), then submit two non-family references, who will be surveyed by mail. Then answer a number of personal questions such as "Are you a felon?" and "Are you an alcoholic?" and so on and so forth. 2 months later you get the card - $5 for the card, plus $2 for each pistol purchase within 90 days (or they go away).

I can buy sweet and fuzzy long guns all day long, but if I wanted another deadly 9mm, I'd have to go through the process to get that $2 license again. I should have just paid for a few more pistol licenses at the same time, but prices around here are getting crazy. 45's are in the $1200 range now. I don't really want to drop several thousand bucks at once just to fit in some arbitrary deadline.

[DaRedneck]

My question, how can you possibly regulate private transfers and require universal background checks without first requiring registration?

Very good point. I would like to know the answer to this as well. Anyone?

[1MoreGoodGuy]

Very good point. I would like to know the answer to this as well. Anyone?

This is one of the things we've been discussing over in this thread...we are now on page 12 Who Disagrees with universal background checks?

[Rock and Glock]

A very qualified YES, for a few good reasons.

1. All my firearms I bought from a FFL, which means there already is a record of the transactions and that I was the purchaser. If I sell those guns to anyone else, and they turn up at a crime scene, and the cops check the serial numbers, where does that leave me? We all know that we are responsible for our guns and every bullet that comes out of them. What is the difference between me selling a gun to someone without a background check and may be a criminal, and just leaving it loaded and visible in my unlocked car for someone to take and commit a crime with? I don't call that being responsible for your gun. I had to pass a background check to buy and no way in Helsinki am I going to transfer a weapon to anyone who didn't go through the same check. Because if he's buying from me and not a FFL I'll bet you a donut it's because he can't pass the background check.

2. We armigers are quick to point out that it's crime and criminals who need to be controlled, not guns, and I agree. If all we end up with are certain individuals disqualified from owning firearms that would be a good thing, and it would take away the leverage that can be used to restrict firearms or restrict law-abiding people from having firearms. Politically, it becomes a much harder sell to say that you can't carry concealed in some place, or have a 30 round magazine after you've been cleared by the FBI. What are they going to say, that they know more about guns and criminals than the FBI? All that really matters to me is that at the end of the day, everybody who isn't a convicted felon gets to keep and bear arms, even if they had to undergo a background check, safety training or permitting earlier in the day. I think adopting a cooperative stance with government and law enforcement is the way to go.

Now these are the qualifications: if we were to have any kind of universal gun registration or background checks it would have to be written right in that very law exactly how those records can be used, and not used. For example if we were to have a registry matching serial numbers with purchasers those records must be sealed, and not accessible to anyone until a gun turns up at a crime. Then we can see who the last purchaser was. If we have universal background checks exactly what we are checking for has to be spelled out in the law. Felony conviction, dishonorable discharge, outstanding warrants, out on bail, just got out of the nuthouse, but that's it. No further investigation, not interested in anyone's politics or religion and such. And what's the loss? Would anybody here want any person with one of those problems in the lane next to you at the range?

Exactly how you would do a background check for a private sale is a good question. Doing it at the local PD is probably the best suggestion. They can run your ID in just a few minutes, check the serial number on the weapon and you're good to go. As a buyer I would feel a lot better doing it that way, because then I could be sure I wasn't getting stolen property or a weapon that was used in a crime that could end up making me a suspect. If I had to pay a few bucks too, no big deal, you pay more than that for a little box of ammo.

Bela, you are free to use an FFL now. You can also have signed or signed and notarized Sales/Purchase Agreements. You can also ONLY sale to someone that has a CHL or CWP or CHP whatever they are in your state and thus have assurance they are not felons or whatever. You are free to do as you wish. In fact, when I sold two pistols in was a condition they have CHL's.

Having said that, since you are free to do it however you wish, why do you want to impose that standard on me? Me or anyone else? Dealers already have that obligation, so we're taking about a finite number here.

You can do it anyway you want, please don't attempt to require me to do it to meet some legal requirement that has nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with control.

[ccw9mm]

My question, how can you possibly regulate private transfers and require universal background checks without first requiring registration?

Very good point. I would like to know the answer to this as well. Anyone?

You'd have to ask the people who believe in gun control working.

I surely don't believe it, anymore than I still believe in the Tooth Fairy.

I don't think many of us believe any of these steps will actually ensure such checks occur in all instances. It's simply too easy to just ignore the demand to do it. A gun could transfer 20 times and none would be the wiser, it all being under the radar. Criminals already do. And otherwise upstanding folks will be deemed criminals if they do similarly.

Which is the whole point, so far as I can tell: putting folks on shaky ground, so via desire to avoid penalties and harm they'll comply and get in line. ie, It is about control, in this sense; not about controlling access to firearms.

[itschuck]

Im checked twice a year due to my carry permit.. along with that in Kentucky I just show my permit and they dont have to call in for a check. So it doesnt affect me.

[HotGuns]

It's a scam.

I am amazed at the number of gun owners that frequent this forum that think like sheep.

Is it any wonder really? Its not like anyone learns how to think in school anymore.

Teachers don't teach,Parents don't parent, Preachers don't preach and people spend more time playing with the "I" phones than they do anything else. Whats it going to be like 20 years from now, when gun ownership has been systematically, intermittently,piece by piece eliminated?

It begins with "I dont care. It doesent affect me".

Its time to wake up.
If it is possible.

[IAm_Not_Lost]

I will just say this. No I am not 'for' any new regulations. But I would also never sell (and never have) a gun to another private citizen without going through a dealer so that the transaction has me covered in case that individual doesn't use the gun properly. Just me.

[HotGuns]

But I would also never sell (and never have) a gun to another private citizen without going through a dealer so that the transaction has me covered in case that individual doesn't use the gun properly.

That is a myth. The only way that you could be prosectued is to KNOWINGLY sell a firearm to someone that is prohibited.
Notice the word KNOWINGLY its key word in the ATF handbook.

If you did that,then you deserve to be prosecuted.
It would be very difficult to prove in court otherwise.

Another reason that it is a myth is that some people think that a dealer will do a NICS check for a private citizen. There is no mechanism set up for that. Unless you transfer the gun to him, let him put it in his book as an aquistion and then log it out as a disposition to you. A lot of time and effort for what?

Because you have bought into a myth?

Nah...I'm not buying it.

[Ghost1958]

I was hoping that someone besides would bring up that unless you knowing sell a firearm to facilitate a crime and that can be proven you have no liability for what that gun is used for any more than if you sell a car and a year later the person you sold it too kills someone with it while drunk driving.

[zacii]

The premise of background checks is to make sure that convicted criminals can't buy guns. The Colorado shooter wasn't a convicted criminal, so any more checks wouldn't have stopped him.

So, the criminals have figured out that they can get one of their buddies, the straw man, to make purchases for them. Then the sagacious politicos get together and say that '40% of all gun purchases happen without background checks'. First off, there aren't any records of such purchases so that percentage is pulled out of thin air. Secondly, of the magic 40% number, how many of the guns were used lawfully and how many unlawfully? It can't be determined because the statistic is false.

Now, let's say that we get universal background checks. Everybody has to participate, right? Yep, even the criminal's straw man buddy will. Instead of him going to the local gun shop, he'll now make the private party purchases, too. Problem solved.

The crime boss just sits back and laughs. He's already got this base covered.

We are the losers. This ain't about safety, it ain't about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, it's straight up 100% about the disarmament of the American people. Everything that happened in Europe, Asia and Africa in the last century apparently didn't teach Americans a damn thing.

[CigarStix]

The gangbanger illegally selling a stolen gun out of the trunk of his stolen car to another criminal gangbanger will not bother to run a background check using his nifty backgroundcheck app on his stolen iPhone before he grabs the stolen cash from his illegal customer. So NO, I do not support something that only infringes on me, the law-abiding citizen, and does nothing to impact actual criminal behavior.

Well, when you put it like that! I didn't really see any problem with it, but now I see why most here are so against it. The criminals will still get there guns and the good guys will be tied up in paperwork.