Opposition to universal background checks

[ivwshane]

I'm an NRA member and big 2nd amendment supporter, and even I'm OK with instant background checks when purchasing a new gun at gun show. The technology exists to do that now without creating a huge hassle.

That said, I'm not cool with background checks when receiving a weapon from a family member. If my mom or dad want to buy me a gun for my birthday, that should be none of the government's business.

I'd say a gift is different than a purchase but how would you address gun straw purchases?

 

[Fern]

-snip-

As soon as you query the database with the information about the purchaser, that can be theoretically captured and stored. I am not saying I personally worry about this, I'm saying others will. And there's no way to prove it can never happen.

I'm pretty sure we already have a law prohibiting a database.

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

However, I have seen a site that describes the current procedures we use to trace ownership guns recovered from a crime. (I've linked it before but have no time to hunt for it again.) IIRC, gun purchase paperwork cannot be put into any computerized database. But instead federal agents must manually search the paperwork for the info. We see on TV shows and in movies that police etc can trace the gun's ownership (really, only to the original purchaser, perhaps others if it goes through a FFL), but unlike these shows/movies it's not a matter of minutes or hours but rather days or weeks before they get the info.

I think this is the trace info referred to in the link above:

3. Traced Guns. Over 4 million detail records from all traces since inception.[8]This is a registration record which includes the personal information of the first retail purchaser, along with the identity of the selling dealer.

If there's something in there that supports your contention that the private sales loophole isn't a problem, I'm not seeing it.

Look again. All the private sales discussed by the BATF person refer to illegal private sales. Since the illegal dealers are already illegally selling guns to criminals what on earth would make anyone think passing another law would do anything? They're not going to comply. It's already illegal, the current law must be enforced.

You said: "I suppose you can it make it law that such a permit must be presented for private guns sales too. (Actually, it may be required here, IDK. I've never tried to buy or sell in a private transaction.) Compliance and enforcement would, I think, be virtually impossible."

What's not compelling is the claim that enforcement would be impossible. The problem we're trying to address is people who shouldn't own guns buying from those who own them legally. I'm assuming that law-abiding people would also abide by laws requiring them to perform a background check. Not all would, but most would. So why would compliance be impossible? Unless you think law-abiding gun owners would decide not to abide by this law?

I said enforcement and compliance. Sure to the extent law abiding citizens would voluntary comply, fine. My point is that I don't see any practical way to enforce it against those who don't want to comply. About all I can think of is 'sting operations' and that seems like a lot resources for a sale of a single gun.

Fixing the mental health system is complex, expensive and difficult. Universal background checks are none of the above. Low-hanging fruit.

But the main problem has been with individuals with mental health problems who should not have been allowed to purchase but were.

The VA Tech shooter is a good example. I've read he'd passed TWO background checks because Virginia didn't submit his mentally ill status to the database. There is currently no law requiring this info be forwarded from states. We don't need to fix the entire the mental HC system, we just need to fix the current background check system.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/us/universal-background-checks

Near the end of my prior post, I provided several sources and quotes from various resources to show that private sales and gun shows are in fact a problem. You just snipped them without comment.

Why?

It wasn't ignored, I posted the info from the BATF in response that refuted it.

I also question the validity of the approach of your info. The objective in background checks is to prevent criminals etc from buying a gun. So, to tighten up the background check system we should be looking at how those prohibited people get their guns and close those avenues. According to the BATF expert, these are straw purchases and illegal dealers (whether they be licensed or not). None of these will be affected by another reporting requirement.

Also, your statistics dealt with how guns used in a crime were obtained. This is a different thing. I can go buy a gun today. I'll pass the background check. But 3 years later I commit a crime, say I get into a fight with my wife and shoot her, now that gun will be said to have been used in a crime. But of what importance is that? None. It's useless info for discussing background checks because at the time of purchase that could not have been foreseen.

IMO, the focus should remain on how prohibited people acquire guns because that's what we're trying to fix.

Fern

 

[Fern]

You mean the incident that was deemed illegal?

http://www.infowars.com/new-orleans-mayor-admits-illegal-gun-confiscation/

So?

Of what significance is it if it was only later found to be illegal? Didn't stop it from happening in the first place.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

So?

Of what significance is it if it was only later found to be illegal? Didn't stop it from happening in the first place.

fern

Umm no laws stop people from committing an illegal act if they want to (that's the argument against AWB's that I'm sure you agree with). The fact is we have laws against unreasonable search and seizure and not passing a law because people may abuse it by breaking other laws is not a serious argument.

You don't say we shouldn't have traffic laws because people will just break the speed limit to get a way when they rob a bank.

 

[Fern]

Umm no laws stop people from committing an illegal act if they want to (that's the argument against AWB's that I'm sure you agree with). The fact is we have laws against unreasonable search and seizure and not passing a law because people may abuse it by breaking other laws is not a serious argument.

You don't say we shouldn't have traffic laws because people will just break the speed limit to get a way when they rob a bank.

Whoa, whoa, you're conflating things.

You asked under what circumstances would/could the govt confiscate weapons, I gave you an example of martial law that actually happened.

The right against unreasonable search and seizures can be suspended under martial law:

Martial law is an extreme and rare measure used to control society during war or periods of civil unrest or chaos. According to the Supreme Court, the term martial law carries no precise meaning (Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 66 S. Ct. 606, 90 L. Ed. 688 [1946]). However, most declarations of martial law have some common features. Generally, the institution of martial law contemplates some use of military force. To a varying extent, depending on the martial law order, government military personnel have the authority to make and enforce civil and criminal laws. Certain civil liberties may be suspended, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of association, and freedom of movement. And the writ of Habeas Corpus may be suspended (this writ allows persons who are unlawfully imprisoned to gain freedom through a court proceeding).

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/martial+law

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Whoa, whoa, you're conflating things.

You asked under what circumstances would/could the govt confiscate weapons, I gave you an example of martial law that actually happened.

The right against unreasonable search and seizures can be suspended under martial law:



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/martial+law

Fern

Yes and I also asked if it could happen without an active gun ownership list. You just proved my point:

The government can already take your guns under certain circumstances and when they take guns that don't follow those circumstances it is illegal and has been ruled as such.

No current or proposed gun law would change that. "Government will take our guns" is an invalid argument against gun control.

 

[Fern]

Yes and I also asked if it could happen without an active gun ownership list. You just proved my point:

The government can already take your guns under certain circumstances and when they take guns that don't follow those circumstances it is illegal and has been ruled as such.

No current or proposed gun law would change that. "Government will take our guns" is an invalid argument against gun control.

Seriously?

You don't see a difference between the govt showing up at your house with a list of all the guns you own versus them having idea who owns what?

I do.

Law abiding registered gun owners would be targeted.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Seriously?

You don't see a difference between the govt showing up at your house with a list of all the guns you own versus them having idea who owns what?

I do.

Law abiding registered gun owners would be targeted.

Fern

And why would they be showing up in the first place?

 

[Fern]

And why would they be showing up in the first place?

I've already provided the example of martial law.

If you're going to respond that under martial law the 4th can be suspended then you're not getting my point. As a gun owner we'd rather them not know who owned what versus showing up at our door with a list of our registered guns demanding them. As I said, we'll be specifically targeted.

They may be able to disregard the 4th under martial law, but they can't stop me from hiding my guns. If they have a list, denying you have guns or trying to hide one or a few of them is useless.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

I've already provided the example of martial law.

If you're going to respond that under martial law the 4th can be suspended then you're not getting my point. As a gun owner we'd rather them not know who owned what versus showing up at our door with a list of our registered guns demanding them. As I said, we'll be specifically targeted.

They may be able to disregard the 4th under martial law, but they can't stop me from hiding my guns. If they have a list, denying you have guns or trying to hide one or a few of them is useless.

Fern

Fair enough. I'm sure a provision could be added to protect a law abiding gun owner in that particular situation. Since you can only come up with one instance it shouldn't be hard to address it.

I still don't understand why government would be actively trying to take your guns away, even under martial law but just because I can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one. When was the last time (or when has the US declared martail law) martail law used? And in that context and in others why would the government go after gun owners?