Opposition to universal background checks

[Charles Kozierok]

Are there any reasonable arguments against plugging the loopholes that allow people to buy guns without background checks? I haven't heard a compelling one so far, but maybe I've missed them.

 

[fskimospy]

The argument is that a universal background check system would create a national database of gun owners so that the government could come confiscate them all when Obama wins his 9th term in office or something.

It's not a reasonable argument, but that's the argument.

 

[EagleKeeper]

There are already databases out there that LEO can check if a person should not be granted license.

The concept is are you trying to exclude people from having a weapon or try justify allowing them.

 

[DrPizza]

There isn't a compelling argument. Eskimospy did point out a concern that may be a bit far fetched, but something which likely does scare some gun owners (especially when fearmongering types start fanning the flames.) To take care of that - no record kept of the gun purchase? For example, I've had background checks done of me. My fingerprints were supposed to be checked against a database & not added to the database. To the best of my knowledge, that's true. Then again, I suppose a lot of people believe in all sorts of conspiracies, so they wouldn't believe the fingerprints are destroyed. But, with millions of people being fingerprinted in this manner, at leave I've never heard of a criminal case being solved by matching fingerprints to a database of those whose fingerprints were supposed to be destroyed.

 

[TraumaRN]

There isn't a compelling argument. Eskimospy did point out a concern that may be a bit far fetched, but something which likely does scare some gun owners (especially when fearmongering types start fanning the flames.) To take care of that - no record kept of the gun purchase? For example, I've had background checks done of me. My fingerprints were supposed to be checked against a database & not added to the database. To the best of my knowledge, that's true. Then again, I suppose a lot of people believe in all sorts of conspiracies, so they wouldn't believe the fingerprints are destroyed. But, with millions of people being fingerprinted in this manner, at leave I've never heard of a criminal case being solved by matching fingerprints to a database of those whose fingerprints were supposed to be destroyed.

I agree 100% with this and I'll add a couple little nuggets. People fear having some national database tracking you? To me this begs the question, why not outlaw social security, driver's licenses, or professional licenses(like MD, RN, etc) Those things, especially social security are a national database of well... nearly everyone, especially if you start cross checking them.

Moreover, unfortunately the government knows more about most people than they would feel comfortable with. For example almost 10 years ago after the PATRIOT act was passed, my own mother who is a CEO for a financial institution, was trained by the FBI on what to look for in potentially suspicious/criminal monetary practices. Well to make a long story short the FBI guys ran a background check on me and my mother just to kinda show us what the system can do. Mind you this was 10 years ago and it returned something like 6-7 pages of info for each of us. All our previous addresses, previous jobs, hell even where we went to school. Not only that but the way the search was programmed it pulled data on all our neighbors like 4 houses down in every direction. Crazy stuff...but it contains no info regarding firearms.

And because of that, I STILL support universal background checks because there is no national database, and frankly it is something I support. If you are a law abiding citizen you have nothing to worry about, it's just one extra piece of paperwork and if you have a clean record you'll get your weapon regardless. Moreover if having this system in place can keep weapons out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them(previous felony background, documented mental illness) it will probably save lives.

 

[soccerballtux]

There isn't a compelling argument. Eskimospy did point out a concern that may be a bit far fetched, but something which likely does scare some gun owners (especially when fearmongering types start fanning the flames.) To take care of that - no record kept of the gun purchase? For example, I've had background checks done of me. My fingerprints were supposed to be checked against a database & not added to the database. To the best of my knowledge, that's true. Then again, I suppose a lot of people believe in all sorts of conspiracies, so they wouldn't believe the fingerprints are destroyed. But, with millions of people being fingerprinted in this manner, at leave I've never heard of a criminal case being solved by matching fingerprints to a database of those whose fingerprints were supposed to be destroyed.

that works, but I'm sure an oversight somewhere would save the record.
There's no escaping government control, hence people never want it in the first place.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There are already databases out there that LEO can check if a person should not be granted license.

The concept is are you trying to exclude people from having a weapon or try justify allowing them.

Having trouble understanding what you mean here. What use are databases if people can buy guns privately and they are never checked?

 

[Mursilis]

Are there any reasonable arguments against plugging the loopholes that allow people to buy guns without background checks? I haven't heard a compelling one so far, but maybe I've missed them.

I'm aware of only one loophole - private party sales. What others are there? At least in my state (VA), there's no "gun show" loophole. Licensed dealers are still required to perform background checks on buyers if they're doing business at a gun show. The one time I purchased a firearm from a licensed dealer at a gun show, a background check was performed on me prior to purchase.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm aware of only one loophole - private party sales. What others are there? At least in my state (VA), there's no "gun show" loophole. Licensed dealers are still required to perform background checks on buyers if they're doing business at a gun show. The one time I purchased a firearm from a licensed dealer at a gun show, a background check was performed on me prior to purchase.

The discussion is about the one loophole you are aware of.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The laws vary widely, as do the policies of show organizers (many of whom are feeling pressure over this issue). But I believe that in most states there are no restrictions on private sales at gun shows, only dealer sales.

So yes, the gun show loophole is part of the private sale loophole. There may be only that one loophole, but it's so big that others aren't even really needed.

 

[Mursilis]

The laws vary widely, as do the policies of show organizers (many of whom are feeling pressure over this issue). But I believe that in most states there are no restrictions on private sales at gun shows, only dealer sales.

So yes, the gun show loophole is part of the private sale loophole. There may be only that one loophole, but it's so big that others aren't even really needed.

So if the private sale loophole is what we're discussing, the only reasonable argument I can think of is this: Aren't there privacy concerns in allowing private parties to perform background checks on other private parties? What's to stop me from calling up the state police hotline and saying "Joe Smith wants to buy my old pistol. Does he have any criminal convictions, outstanding warrants, or prior mental health issues?" even if Joe Smith isn't actually buying anything from me. Of course, the counter would be that much of that information is already public record anyway (except maybe for mental health issues), so there's no real privacy issue here.

 

[fskimospy]

So if the private sale loophole is what we're discussing, the only reasonable argument I can think of is this: Aren't there privacy concerns in allowing private parties to perform background checks on other private parties? What's to stop me from calling up the state police hotline and saying "Joe Smith wants to buy my old pistol. Does he have any criminal convictions, outstanding warrants, or prior mental health issues?" even if Joe Smith isn't actually buying anything from me. Of course, the counter would be that much of that information is already public record anyway (except maybe for mental health issues), so there's no real privacy issue here.

I don't think the seller actually does the background check themselves.

 

[chucky2]

This is what we need:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34825924&postcount=45

No one should have a b1tch with that system, it satisfies everyones concerns.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't think the seller actually does the background check themselves.

Here is how it works:

To buy one, I would need to fill out a 4473 -- a six-page form from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

I'd have to write my name and address. My Social Security Number is optional. And there's half a page of "yes or no" questions.

"Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?"

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

Arthur has to write down the type of gun -- the make and model and the serial number. Then, he calls the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, in Clarksburg, W.V., and he gives them only the most basic information: name, address, driver's license number.

"They give me a 'yay' or 'nay,' and out the door you go," he says. "It's quick and easy. And we take credit cards."

 

[chucky2]

What happens if they have a quality fake ID?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Here in Washington state we had a chance to close the loophole this year, but the legislators bungled by sponsoring an 8-page bill that they didn't bother to read, written by the Brady institute, that included random, warrantless home entry to "check on your guns."

Their incompetence provided evidence that the paranoia of gun owners was justified.

But I agree that a bill written by someone less extremist, that avoids the home invasion and has the records destroyed after the check, ought to be acceptable to everyone.

 

[werepossum]

There were roughly 8,500 gun murders in the USA in 2011. There were roughly 10,200 DUI deaths in the USA in 2011. Common sense would dictate that before the federal government inserts itself between two individuals transferring a gun, it should be working on a national database for automobiles. It's also much easier to buy and conceal a stolen gun than to buy and conceal a stolen automobile.

Of course, we all know that people who intend to use guns to commit crimes are scrupulously law-abiding when it comes to buying guns and that just because the federal government is unable and/or unwilling to stop the influx of illegal humans and drugs doesn't mean the government cannot shut down gun trafficking, otherwise I'd raise those issues too.

 

[ivwshane]

There were roughly 8,500 gun murders in the USA in 2011. There were roughly 10,200 DUI deaths in the USA in 2011. Common sense would dictate that before the federal government inserts itself between two individuals transferring a gun, it should be working on a national database for automobiles. It's also much easier to buy and conceal a stolen gun than to buy and conceal a stolen automobile.

Of course, we all know that people who intend to use guns to commit crimes are scrupulously law-abiding when it comes to buying guns and that just because the federal government is unable and/or unwilling to stop the influx of illegal humans and drugs doesn't mean the government cannot shut down gun trafficking, otherwise I'd raise those issues too.

So it's an either or proposition with you? That's not a very good argument.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There were roughly 8,500 gun murders in the USA in 2011. There were roughly 10,200 DUI deaths in the USA in 2011. Common sense would dictate that before the federal government inserts itself between two individuals transferring a gun, it should be working on a national database for automobiles. It's also much easier to buy and conceal a stolen gun than to buy and conceal a stolen automobile.

This is a textbook example of a red herring.

Person A: "Is there any reason why we can't do X, which will solve Y problem?"
Person B: "Well, what about Z? That's a problem too! Let's talk about that instead!"

It's a pretty bad red herring, too. I'm pretty sure that when you sell a car in any state, even privately, you still have to go register the vehicle afterwards.

Demonstrate to me the virtues of a national automobile registry, and I'm all for it. That has nothing to do with universal background checks on guns.

 

[highland145]

The argument is that a universal background check system would create a national database of gun owners so that the government could come confiscate them all when Obama wins his 9th term in office or something.

It's not a reasonable argument, but that's the argument.

Ignoring the underlined because if that happens, we won't be a viable country anymore.....

For the bolded....that's the issue, imo, because the government isn't a trustworthy body as far as gun owners are concerned. Right now, the insta-checks that we have disappear in less than 48 hours, good. Personally, I would consider paying $10 to a local FFL before I sold or bought to a 3rd party for a CYA. (Ignoring the poll tax/2nd A rights arguments)

My bro-in-law, in the FBI, thinks there a great idea but he's on the inside. Meaning that if he get's pulled for talking on his cell, he just flashes his badge. His idiot cousin gets into trouble, he can help smooth things out with the local PD. I'll have to ask him ,"What if you're on the outside and the govt want's to check your basement?" I've been in his basement ......where's the salivate emote?

Examples of "registrations gone wrong" (disclaimer: I'm having a hard time verifying these. Lots of google mis-information. Maybe some non-USA posters can help.)

New Zealand 1970's confiscated all revolvers.
Australia 1996 semi auto hunting rifles confiscated
Chicago 1990 long guns
UK, failure to re-register pistols=confiscation
Canada 1990's used to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder.

 

[ivwshane]

Ignoring the underlined because if that happens, we won't be a viable country anymore.....

For the bolded....that's the issue, imo, because the government isn't a trustworthy body as far as gun owners are concerned. Right now, the insta-checks that we have disappear in less than 48 hours, good. Personally, I would consider paying $10 to a local FFL before I sold or bought to a 3rd party for a CYA. (Ignoring the poll tax/2nd A rights arguments)

My bro-in-law, in the FBI, thinks there a great idea but he's on the inside. Meaning that if he get's pulled for talking on his cell, he just flashes his badge. His idiot cousin gets into trouble, he can help smooth things out with the local PD. I'll have to ask him ,"What if you're on the outside and the govt want's to check your basement?" I've been in his basement ......where's the salivate emote?

Examples of "registrations gone wrong" (disclaimer: I'm having a hard time verifying these. Lots of google mis-information. Maybe some non-USA posters can help.)

New Zealand 1970's confiscated all revolvers.
Australia 1996 semi auto hunting rifles confiscated
Chicago 1990 long guns
UK, failure to re-register pistols=confiscation
Canada 1990's used to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder.

None of those countries had 2nd amendment type laws in place.

The only way guns will be confiscated at any significant level is if the law is changed, all other instances of that happening are one offs.

 

[highland145]

None of those countries had 2nd amendment type laws in place.

The only way guns will be confiscated at any significant level is if the law is changed, all other instances of that happening are one offs.

We're not arguing the 2nd as much as having a list at all and then misusing it from it's original intention/explanation. But look at Chicago/DC..they have the 2nd but I'd like to see you buy a gun.

If the constitution is changed, then there will be a list for the government to confiscate from, the reason for the 2nd to start with.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The point about confiscation is a reasonable concern.. to a point.

I agree that what has happened in other countries doesn't necesarily apply to this one. At the same time, it's not like civil liberties are moving in the right direction around here.

Also, what sense does it make to have some guns subject to background checks and not others? If we need them for dealers, why don't we need them for private sales, and if we can't accept the risk with private sales, why can we with dealers?

 

[Fern]

Are there any reasonable arguments against plugging the loopholes that allow people to buy guns without background checks? I haven't heard a compelling one so far, but maybe I've missed them.

You can have background checks without a database of who owns what gun(s). Those are two different things with each having a different purpose. I oppose the database, but support background checks.

The only "loopholes'" I can think of ATM are gun shows and private sales.

We've "plugged" the gun show loophole here. Before any gun can be sold/purchased at a gun show the purchaser must provide a permit issued by the Sheriff's Dept. The Sheriff's Dept does the background check.

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.

IMO, all this current discussion of background checks and limiting hi-cap mags misses the point - it has again fallen by the wayside - that most of our problems rest with those who have mental health issues. For whatever reason, HIPPA or fear liability etc., until that problem is fixed background checks will not help.

I've posted articles here by the individual who is considered our foremost authority on the subject of guns acquired and used in crimes. He identifies the sources for illegal guns obtained by criminals and background checks will NOT help with any of them. IIRC, the primary sources of these guns are straw purchases, illegal gun dealers and gift/borrowed/stolen from family members. Background checks are are of no help here.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

You can have background checks without a database of who owns what gun(s). Those are two different things with each having a different purpose. I oppose the database, but support background checks.

The only "loopholes'" I can think of ATM are gun shows and private sales.

We've "plugged" the gun show loophole here. Before any gun can be sold/purchased at a gun show the purchaser must provide a permit issued by the Sheriff's Dept. The Sheriff's Dept does the background check.

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.

IMO, all this current discussion of background checks and limiting hi-cap mags misses the point - it has again fallen by the wayside - that most of our problems rest with those who have mental health issues. For whatever reason, HIPPA or fear liability etc., until that problem is fixed background checks will not help.

I've posted articles here by the individual who is considered our foremost authority on the subject of guns acquired and used in crimes. He identifies the sources for illegal guns obtained by criminals and background checks will NOT help with any of them. IIRC, the primary sources of these guns are straw purchases, illegal gun dealers and gift/borrowed/stolen from family members. Background checks are are of no help here.

Fern

Well there is absolutely no reason why mental health can't be tackled separately, it's not just a gun issue. So until that happens why not try something that can be passed?