What are the cons of universal background checks?


PDA






montgomery381
January 31, 2013, 09:34 PM
The background checks seem to be the most likely to have support and a chance at being enacted. I like to look at things from the antis' perspective so that I can come up with a counter to their points. But I am having issues with this one.

As I see it there is a chance that this measure could have an impact on criminal getting guns. I don't think people would be as likely to buy a gun for a prohibited person if they knew that they would be charged with illegally selling a firearm, presumably a felony, that was used in crime. This would, at the very least, increase the price that criminals would have to pay for guns, that they weren't stealing. Of course, this would create a volatile black market for firearms.

The way the system works now law enforcement has to track a firearm from the manufacturer, to the distributor, to the retailer and review the retailer's records to determine the original purchaser. As it is now that is not a registry.

If the universal checks had to go through FFL's and FFL's had to maintain the records it would be hard to argue that universal checks would equal registration.

I do not like the idea of universal background checks but I do not want to be against them just because it is inconvenient. What are your thoughts on this?

If you enjoyed reading about "What are the cons of universal background checks?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JVaughn
January 31, 2013, 09:39 PM
Inconvenience is irrelevant. Background checks give rise to registration, which gives rise to confiscation. That is why we resist it.

rtz
January 31, 2013, 09:41 PM
Here's my issue with so called "background checks".

Think back to 1990 plus or minus 5 years. South Central LA. Certain Bloods/Crips with their full auto AK's, TEC-9's, UZIs, MAC10's. Any background checks? Exactly.

montgomery381
January 31, 2013, 09:45 PM
I totally agree with the fact that criminals will still be able to get guns but can it be argued that checks would not atleast make it more difficult?

This is what we are going to here.

wooly bugger
January 31, 2013, 09:45 PM
I don't see how it can lead to registration if the law specifically forbids asking anything about what purchase, if any, resulted from the check.

I think it would be much more palatable if it came with a change in the NICS system making it free and available to any seller, FFL or private. There would also have to be a provision that if no answer within a reasonable time (say 5 or 10 minutes,) it issues an automatic approval.

Question for FFLs: what information do you provide for a background check? since the system contains only ineligible persons, what's to prevent someone from presenting a valid ID but just give a random SSN? Or a convincing fake ID? The system has no way of confirming that the information given corresponds to a real person.

Ryanxia
January 31, 2013, 09:47 PM
There are a few threads on this already with pages of responses on why this is a problem. The NRA also has a response out on it. Don't be fooled by the seemingly innocent lingo and justifications of this Bill and others like it. It would be worse than an AR or magazine cap ban.

fanchisimo
January 31, 2013, 11:14 PM
If it has to pass, I hope it doesn't, I would hope they would stipulate some kind of cap on how much could be charged for the transfer fee. The fee I usually see is $25 to $30, which adds to the cost of the firearm.

locnload
January 31, 2013, 11:25 PM
The systems doing background checks are aleady overwhelmed by the recent buying frenzy. To make it mandatory for all gun transactions would bring it to its knees. Then there are the thousands of formerly productive, law abbiding citizens who will become felons through outright defiance or mistakes even if they are trying to comply. So, what another couple trillion dollars, another bloated Federal agency to satisfy the liberals dream. And why do we even entertain these stupid ideas? The Conneticut shooter stole the guns he used, as did the mall shooter in Oregon. The Aurora CO shooter, and the Arizona shooter (Gaby Giffords shooting) both passed a background check even though everyone seemed to know they were crazy and dangerous. The Fort Hood shooter had the FBI on his tail with proof that he was a jihadist, but the Feds couldn't find their butts with both hands on that one. How much more proof do we need that the Federal Government is incapable of weeding out the people who will do this sort of thing, and in fact really don't give a hoot. They just want to errode the "gun culture". :cuss:

gbran
January 31, 2013, 11:31 PM
If there is no registration, private party checks are hard to regulate or prove. Unless the LEO confronting has a data-base to check, how does he know if your gun is legal or not or was bought using a background check?

We already have a trail on guns sold thru FFL's. It ain't actually registration, but it is close.

Blackbeard
January 31, 2013, 11:32 PM
It has constitutional problems since by definition private sales are not interstate commerce.

Now, if they made private access to the NICS system voluntary, that'd be fine and I suspect 99% of legitimate private sellers would use it. But that's not what they want -- they want de facto registration and an end to private sales.

nwilliams
January 31, 2013, 11:35 PM
The main cons I see is:

1. It's not going to stop criminals from buying or selling guns from other criminals.

2. If I want to buy or sell a gun with a friend or family memeber I have to go through an FFL and pay money.

3. It's a major inconvenience to FFL dealers who have to put their license in jeopardy by doing background checks and holding 4473's for twenty years for guns they didn't sell through their store.

4. It's a major waste of time to the people behind the scenes who work at gun shops and now have to line in and then line out guns that aren't being sold through the shop. Keep in mind that ANY firearm that is transferred through an FFL has to (by law) show where the gun came from and who it got transferred to, this applies to firearms being transferred or firearms that the shop sells. Any mistake in this logging in and logging out process could cost a dealer their license and their business. This is the reason why gun shops charge for transfers when you buy a gun online and then have it shipped to your dealer to be transferred to you. We do a lot of transfers at the gun shop I work at and it is a major PITA and most people who come to pick up their transfers have no clue what a major PITA it is!

5. It's a major waste of time to the clerks on the gun shop store floor who have spend time with people filling out paperwork and then calling in the background check, time that could be spent selling guns to actual customers who want to come in and buy guns from the store.

6. Finally it has to be understood that background checks do not stop a mentally ill person with no criminal record from buying a gun. A background check only let's the dealer know that that person is not allowed to own a gun due to a criminal record.

Pros:

The only pro to universal background checks is that it prevents people from unknowingly selling a gun to someone that isn't supposed to own a gun.

wally
January 31, 2013, 11:36 PM
What are the cons of voter ID?

hogshead
January 31, 2013, 11:38 PM
There are a few threads on this already with pages of responses on why this is a problem. The NRA also has a response out on it. Don't be fooled by the seemingly innocent lingo and justifications of this Bill and others like it. It would be worse than an AR or magazine cap ban.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This please. It makes my blood boil for someone on a gun forum to say oh ubc isnt so bad. Get informed. Open your eyes. They dont want reduce gun violence they want to take all of the guns away. Yes every single one.

Texan Scott
January 31, 2013, 11:50 PM
Here's my answer: because I, my family, and our friends are law abiding citizens.
If I want to buy, sell, trade, or otherwise exchange guns with them, we should not have to prove to anyone that we AREN'T criminals. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of American jurisprudence. I say it's none of the government's business. Shocked, you might say "Of course it's the government's business!", but I demand to know on what just basis. Because they're trying to MAKE IT SO? I say NO. I refuse. Frankly, the ones who dislike me having them are the last ones I'd trust with that information. I don't WANT them to know. I *DON'T* trust them.

Zoogster
January 31, 2013, 11:55 PM
There is a couple problems with them.


First is that it becomes registration, and registration emboldens politicians and antis of the future to implement new restrictions.
If every single legal transfer creates a paper trail they can figure out who has what whenever they choose.
They are emboldened to create more draconian licensing schemes to reduce ownership, punish existing owners that don't comply because they know who has guns and is not complying, and ultimately reduce ownership in various ways.

Registration has and does turn into confiscation. We have seen it in New York and California.
It is not just something that happens other places.
They also used this information to raid or confiscate from gun owners that become prohibited, as well as to treat lawful gun owners that have LEO contact with more suspicion if they show up to thier home or stop them in a vehicle stop. Someone with various weapons registered to them that are pulled up on the computer is treated as more dangerous in law enforcement contacts by various responders, even though the most likely people to shoot them have illegal guns not registered at all.
So by having many guns registered to you you get the joy of having a more nervous officer ready to blow you away on occasion that otherwise would have been calmer.
I have actually known guys treated like dangerous psychos because the cop pulled up a large quantity of registered guns on the computer when running thier info, and became fixated on the fact they were a gun nut and whether there was any weapons in the vehicle. Going from calm to paranoid and ready to draw and shoot.

Thats the kind of crap registration gets you even when its not being used for confiscation.




The people primarily pushing for these gun laws are not people that are doing it because they actually believe in safer firearm ownership. The pushers of the legislation are people that don't want guns owned, but will settle for what they can get. If they can get certain things restricted, or create more hoops or licenses to jump through, add on fees or costs, or weaken the gun culture, or create government oversight or databases that can be further used down the road, etc they are for it.
They are not motivated because they really think that one thing is helpful, but because they want to control and restrict gun ownership out of existence, and in the meantime settle for reducing it and ownership of what they see as more effective firearms on thier way to that goal.



Finally what we have in places that have such background checks is mandatory transfers through FFLs. This includes a fee that adds cost to every purchase and sale. It also really adds up when someone wants to transfer many firearms to say a family member.
Got a gun collection you want to give to your son, or your grandfather wants to leave to you?
Well if it includes numerous firearms at $35 or $50 or whatever the standard fee per firearm goes for in the state it can add up. Should you really have to pay hundreds of dollars to give a collection to a family member? With universal background checks you do.

PRM
February 1, 2013, 12:01 AM
Some things are none of the government's business!!! If I want to transfer a gun to one of my kids, or if I want to swap pistols with a shooting buddy. It's my private property and the government has no business telling me what I can or can't do with it.

There are already laws against selling or transferring a gun to a person who cannot legally own it. What is one more intrusion into the law abiding citizen's life by the government going to accomplish???

There is nothing a background check will do to keep a criminal from getting a gun if they want one. Criminals don't obey the law to begin with.

Arkansas Paul
February 1, 2013, 12:04 AM
I don't see how it can lead to registration if the law specifically forbids asking anything about what purchase, if any, resulted from the check.

They're taking baby steps friend. They know they can't try and take too much at one time, so they're starting small. First it would be like you said, then in a few years they would change it to where it did list the make, model and serial number. Then a few years from that, it would be registration. I shudder to think where it would go from there.

Mojo-jo-jo
February 1, 2013, 12:11 AM
The only way to enforce "universal background checks" is registration. Otherwise, how do they know whether or not a background check was performed when a private party sale was transacted? That is the problem. Criminals buying stolen guns from other criminals will not be participating in the "universal background check."

Byrd666
February 1, 2013, 12:13 AM
Inconvenience is irrelevant. Background checks give rise to registration, which gives rise to confiscation. That is why we resist it.

EXACTLY RIGHT! Read your history. Why do you think the JFPO are so Rigidly against any kind of Federal registration. Link below.

http://jpfo.org/

Romeo 33 Delta
February 1, 2013, 12:17 AM
Other than requiring a background check for the purchaser of a firearm, is there another item of personal property that, when sold to another individual requires a background check? If not, why single out firearms when clearly many other items are as deadly or even more deadly and they are excluded?

hogshead
February 1, 2013, 12:18 AM
What are the cons of universal background checks?

One of the worst ones is having 10 threads on the same topic explaining the same thing to people who should know better.

beatledog7
February 1, 2013, 12:23 AM
100% check is not about controlling guns--it's purely about controlling lawful gun owners, a trend we must always oppose.

Twiki357
February 1, 2013, 12:48 AM
If a mandatory background check requirement is passed, it's a lot more than just inconvenient, it would be expensive. The checks for sales between individuals would have to be done by an FFL - For a FEE, just like legal interstate sales are now. Then how long will it take for some thieving politician to realize that it's a golden opportunity for the collection of sales tax on private transactions (California already has.) And then there's straight [no cash] trades that would cost BOTH parties for each other's NICS.

Then someone will come up with a record keeping requirement. Who did you sell your gun to? When did you sell it? Was a background check done on the buyer? What FFL did the check?.... These records would have to be maintained by every person who sells a gun to a non-FFL.

Then all it would take is someone like feinstein to slip an amendment onto some unrelated bill for all the NICS records to be computerized and accessible to the ATF and you have instant registration. Can you imagine what her bill would include if ATF had a record of all those nasty black rifles that were already registered?

texasgun
February 1, 2013, 01:04 AM
just curious... how many of the "universal background" check opponents here are in favor of voter I.D.s laws?

just saying... the overwhelming majority of gun purchases are made by law abiding citizens... but same holds true for voters.

yet - we still aim to make it MORE difficult for the bad guys to get a gun or to vote. nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

and regarding the private party sales: gimme a break... a dude selling 30 handguns and 10 ARs at a gun show to strangers handing him cash is not exactly a "private party" sale or for e.g. me selling my cousin a gun....

greenmtnguy
February 1, 2013, 01:06 AM
I agree with the many good points that nwilliams' post brings up. And, given that the government has demonstrated no capacity for actively prosecuting violations of existing law, and the fact that the system is prone to fragility, breakdowns, and long waits as it is - unless serious $$$ was also being infused to expand the system's capacity it would be a disaster. And, that is not even touching on the potential retention of data for registration issue.

leadcounsel
February 1, 2013, 01:09 AM
Best case: Ineffective. Waste of time. Waste of money. Inconveniencing innocent people simply exercising their rights. Dems DON'T want to inconvenience illegals who want to vote by producing an ID... nor do they want to prove a person's credentials to run for President, but suddenly we need to jump through hoops to own a gun.

Ripe for worst case scenario: Databases, registration, arbitrary denial (think "no fly list"), expanded categories (think felon, misdemeanor DV, restraining order, mental health issues, etc.... rumors that ANY assault charge, drug charge, etc. may be a prohibiting qualifyer...). Ultimately you're on lists when it comes to confiscation.

Lots of dangerous things can be sold FTF without hoops.... why are guns so special?

Cars, knives, gas, chainsaws, hatchets, bows, arrows, rope, lighters, glass bottles, cloth, etc. A creative person can do a lot of damage with the things I've just listed...

buttrap
February 1, 2013, 04:26 AM
I am all for the idea. Free data base that costs nothing at all to use and just run a DL on your puter thats just lists people that are barred to own a gun before you sell or buy one. They will never do that as that has no "control" for them and it would help a lot.

Hokkmike
February 1, 2013, 09:45 AM
The news said (Fox) that 44% of criminals in Chicago involved in a gun crime were set free. Low bail, probation, warning, plea bargain, no charge etc. The prosecutors are either too overburdened or lax in doing their job. The cops are likely underpaid, swamped, harassed, and fed up with the system. The cry for UBC's is a desperate plea for help. We all know of course, that the law is irrelevant and ignored to the gang bangers who use these guns......

We must have a SURGE plan against this element of our society. Let us saturate these areas of the city with cops, witness, and undercover snitches. Then, the legal system MUST do its job using existing laws.

somerandomguy
February 1, 2013, 09:56 AM
The background checks seem to be the most likely to have support and a chance at being enacted. I like to look at things from the antis' perspective so that I can come up with a counter to their points. But I am having issues with this one.

As I see it there is a chance that this measure could have an impact on criminal getting guns. I don't think people would be as likely to buy a gun for a prohibited person if they knew that they would be charged with illegally selling a firearm, presumably a felony, that was used in crime. This would, at the very least, increase the price that criminals would have to pay for guns, that they weren't stealing. Of course, this would create a volatile black market for firearms.

The way the system works now law enforcement has to track a firearm from the manufacturer, to the distributor, to the retailer and review the retailer's records to determine the original purchaser. As it is now that is not a registry.

If the universal checks had to go through FFL's and FFL's had to maintain the records it would be hard to argue that universal checks would equal registration.

I do not like the idea of universal background checks but I do not want to be against them just because it is inconvenient. What are your thoughts on this?
Sherriffs are NOT psychiatrists, they don't understand the difference between someone with mental issues that is dangerous, and someone with mental issues that is NOT dangerous. One of the cons of a universal background check is that more non-violent people will be rejected from their CCW simply because some Sheriff takes a glimpse at their medical file without understanding the full story.

rbernie
February 1, 2013, 10:01 AM
I do not like the idea of universal background checks but I do not want to be against them just because it is inconvenient. What are your thoughts on this? Background checks have proven statistically ineffective in implementing their stated goal, which is to prevent dangerous folk from getting their hands on firearms and Doing Bad Things with them. A simple NICS denial looks like a win, until you factor in the fact that a denial cannot be shown to have any bearing on the actual rate of crimes commited with a firearm.

In exchange for that, background checks prevent at least ten thousand folk EACH YEAR from buying a gun when they should, by law, be allowed to do so. If I needed a gun for lawful self-defense and was denied the right to buy one until I successfully appealed the denial, I might be a mite ticked off (and especially so if I knew how ineffective the actual check has been in preventing violent crime).

timmy4
February 1, 2013, 10:31 AM
Here is the gist of the argument in favor: right now a convicted felon can purchase a gun from an honest seller by misrepresenting himself that he is not a convicted felon. In this scenario, although the law is being broken, only the buyer is knowingly breaking the law.

Once the background checks become universal, then in order to have an illegal sale, both buyer AND seller will have to break the law. Since I believe that most gun-owners are honest, law-abiding citizens, this will surely cut down significantly on the amount of illegal sales. I don't see how anyone can argue that it would be ineffective.

SoCalNoMore
February 1, 2013, 10:37 AM
I totally agree with the fact that criminals will still be able to get guns but can it be argued that checks would not atleast make it more difficult?

This is what we are going to here.
Emphatically no. In 1994 Los Angeles County- Cities near Hacienda Heights; home invasion robberies went from an average of 1 a months to 5-7 a week. Asian gangs were simply walking in to homes and at gun point taking what they wanted. Still to this day, a used SW 45 sells for about $50 on the street.

A background check does nothing to stem gun violence, especially "mass" shootings like we have seen in the last few years.

As was said before by a post above, background checks will lead to registration that leads to confiscation. If you don't believe it, just listen to the far left liberals that are on camera stating "we need all guns off the street", "we can do this in one generation, now is our chance".

Even if a legal buyer of firearms was selling guns to his crook friends, do you think that chain of custody will help find the killer?

Another scenario- I buy a home protection firearm, 5 years later it is stolen. I report it stolen to the local PD. 10 years after that it is used in a homicide (assuming the gun is recovered) then its traced to me. That trace is done, leads to nothing.

Most of the gun violence (gangs etc. like Chicago) we hear about and don't hear about is done with stolen guns that are never recovered.

A background check would not have prevented any mass shootings. What would have prevented some if any, was a better system to flag people with mental illness. The challenge is, there is not real way to prevent a person from snapping and killing people. The gun grabbers for what ever reason think that a reduction in guns on the street will save lives. It won't. Deep in their minds they think we need to abolish the 2A to save lives.

Not to mention, not ever state participates in the system and not all agencies share data. Another thought- its not too hard to get a fake ID and buy a gun from anyone.

IMO- we have a societal problem where people are not as civilized as we used to be.

timmy4
February 1, 2013, 10:38 AM
Background checks have proven statistically ineffective in implementing their stated goal, which is to prevent dangerous folk from getting their hands on firearms and Doing Bad Things with them. A simple NICS denial looks like a win, until you factor in the fact that a denial cannot be shown to have any bearing on the actual rate of crimes commited with a firearm.

In exchange for that, background checks prevent at least ten thousand folk EACH YEAR from buying a gun when they should, by law, be allowed to do so. If I needed a gun for lawful self-defense and was denied the right to buy one until I successfully appealed the denial, I might be a mite ticked off (and especially so if I knew how ineffective the actual check has been in preventing violent crime).
Can you back up either of these claims? How can anyone claim that universal background checks are ineffective, when we've never had them? (Especially when in other countries that DO have them, such as Israel, they are considered highly effective.)

And how can it be that 10,000 law-abiding people a year are prevented from buying firearms as a result of the current system in place? How can that possibly be?

SoCalNoMore
February 1, 2013, 10:40 AM
I don't see how it can lead to registration if the law specifically forbids asking anything about what purchase, if any, resulted from the check.

I think it would be much more palatable if it came with a change in the NICS system making it free and available to any seller, FFL or private. There would also have to be a provision that if no answer within a reasonable time (say 5 or 10 minutes,) it issues an automatic approval.

Question for FFLs: what information do you provide for a background check? since the system contains only ineligible persons, what's to prevent someone from presenting a valid ID but just give a random SSN? Or a convincing fake ID? The system has no way of confirming that the information given corresponds to a real person.
Exactly, the system is only as good as the data that is in it. Again, it only hinders law abiding buyers. Lets say an innocent guy is flagged. How does he appeal and at what cost?

timmy4
February 1, 2013, 10:43 AM
Exactly, the system is only as good as the data that is in it. Again, it only hinders law abiding buyers. Lets say an innocent guy is flagged. How does he appeal and at what cost?
This possibility could already occur at a gun store, right? Surely there is an appeal mechanism already in place?

timmy4
February 1, 2013, 10:45 AM
As far as it being free to the seller and buyer, this seems to be a continuing concern. But I hold that the responsibility for paying for background checks should be solely the responsibility of the parties to the transaction.

Hoppes Love Potion
February 1, 2013, 11:00 AM
If UBC is required, then what happens to all guns that were transferred previously through private parties? There's no way to prove they were acquired legally. You will be presumed guilty and cannot prove yourself innocent.

timmy4
February 1, 2013, 11:03 AM
If UBC is required, then what happens to all guns that were transferred previously through private parties? There's no way to prove they were acquired legally. You will be presumed guilty and cannot prove yourself innocent.
This is why I am also for a national registration and database for all guns in this country. There will be no way for universal background checks to truly be effective without this. And it will prevent anyone from being falsely accused, if that is your concern.

cjett
February 1, 2013, 11:14 AM
They need to stop drugging our kids up because they are a little hyper active in school and the teachers are to lazy to deal with them. None of this took place when I was in school in the 50's & 60's that I recall.

Bianchi?
February 1, 2013, 11:16 AM
Registration leads to confiscation. Universal background checks will require registration in order to be enforceable. Therefore, UBC's will require registration which will lead to confiscation.

hogshead
February 1, 2013, 11:19 AM
Timmy 4 why dont you move a glorious country where guns are banned and stop trying to infringe on our second amendment rights. I will help you pack. Or you could join the Brady Bunch. I think you would fit right in.TROLL

montgomery381
February 1, 2013, 11:19 AM
As I said in my opening, I don't want UBC. Everybody made good points but Hoppes Love Potion ( great name by the way) and timmy4 really confirmed my feelings on the matter in a nice concise manner. UBC would be completely ineffective without registration and I am 100% against any type of registration. I think this was on of those things that I needed to hear other people confirm it. Thanks for the posts. And I apologize if I may have induced any painful face palms.

SoCalNoMore
February 1, 2013, 11:25 AM
Can you back up either of these claims? How can anyone claim that universal background checks are ineffective, when we've never had them? (Especially when in other countries that DO have them, such as Israel, they are considered highly effective.)

And how can it be that 10,000 law-abiding people a year are prevented from buying firearms as a result of the current system in place? How can that possibly be?
First of all, out of the 10k people only (If my memory serves me correctly) 14 people were actually prosecuted for being a felon attempting to purchase a firearm.

Second- just look at California to see that strict checks do nothing to stem gun violence.

SoCalNoMore
February 1, 2013, 11:30 AM
As I said in my opening, I don't want UBC. Everybody made good points but Hoppes Love Potion ( great name by the way) and timmy4 really confirmed backed up my feelings on the matter in a nice concise manner. UBC would be completely ineffective without registration and I am 100% against any type of registration. I think this was on of those things that I needed to hear other people confirm it. Thanks for the posts. And I apologize if I may have induced any painful face palms.
Again, UBC and complete registration and chain of custody will not do anything to reduce violent crimes committed with firearms. When a gun is stolen, it is out of the chain.

Information is too easily falsified, honest people will be flagged for no reason because of a mistake or stolen identity. How much money and time do you want to spend because a cyber criminal stole your identity and sold it to a crook how buys a gun and kills someone?

radiotom
February 1, 2013, 11:45 AM
What are the cons of universal background checks?

Criminals won't participate. :banghead:

sawdeanz
February 1, 2013, 11:52 AM
I just read an article in the Tampa Bay Times about background checks for ammunition purchases, and at the end they quote Senator Blumenthal as saying the law's burden "is minimal to the government, and the gun shops, and the individual."

What pisses is me off is that these guys fail to acknowledge the facts. If a shop has to hire additional workers on their dime to deal with extra regulations (whether it be background checks on ammo or all guns) then that is the definition of a burden. If you are ok with placing that burden in the name of saving children, thats fine and totally legitimate, but at least acknowledge it. These guys have obviously never been to a gun shop on a busy day, where customers have to wait an hour for their purchase to go through.

Sistema1927
February 1, 2013, 11:54 AM
1. They don't stop crime.
2. They are an infringement of a right.
3. They add cost to lawful purchases.
4. They detract law enforcement resources from fighting crime.
5. They deter those who need a weapon NOW for self-defense.
6. They lead to registration /confiscation.

HOWARD J
February 1, 2013, 12:21 PM
In MI they run a background check on you for a handgun, rifle & shotgun
even at the gun show---I don't know about slingshots.
I sure they do on crossbows

rbernie
February 1, 2013, 12:46 PM
This is why I am also for a national registration and database for all guns in this country. There will be no way for universal background checks to truly be effective without this. And it will prevent anyone from being falsely accused, if that is your concern.But they still won't be effective even under a national registration scheme. Look to countries like AUS and UK that still have a thriving black market for guns, even in the face of national registration.

Laws only stop those who would obey the law. How hard is that for some folk to grasp?

Old Fuff
February 1, 2013, 01:07 PM
The present proposals in Washington concerning a Universal Background Check without exception simply require that all private sales would have to be made through an FFL.

Objections to this have been previously stated, but I would point out that today, with no further legislation, anyone making a private sale to another individual who wants that person's background checked has the option of going to an FFL and having the transaction made through them. Or they may leave their firearm(s) with a FFL dealer, placed on consignment.

So real object of the various proposals is to force private sellers to do this.

If this goes through a lot of present office holders may find they touch a hot stove.

I have another thought for Timmy4.

At the present time handguns are registered in relatively few states, and rifles and shotguns in even less. Those made before 1968 are mostly untraceable. The total number is probably in the many millions. If a Universal Registration Law was passed, how could these firearms be brought under the umbrella if owners refused to cooperate?

Could the responsible legislators survive the next election? :uhoh:

gunsandreligion
February 1, 2013, 01:40 PM
We dont have the time to punish those who lie on background checks.- Joe Biden

awgrizzly
February 1, 2013, 03:16 PM
The intent is not to save lives and cut down on violence, it's a vendetta against free will and individual liberty. These are the antithesis of Progressivism. Their gun control laws don't make sense. But the continue again and again, passing whatever they can, to nibble at and erode away that which they can. We must oppose every single attempt of the left to enslave us.

BHP FAN
February 1, 2013, 03:23 PM
What are the cons of universal background checks?

Criminals won't participate.

criminals won't participate. Tom is a genius! why does no one else get this?

mrvco
February 1, 2013, 03:33 PM
criminals won't participate. Tom is a genius! why does no one else get this?
Obviously we need a poll of "currently active" and "may be active soon" criminals and whether they are "Highly Likely, Likely, Indifferent, Unlikely or Highly Unlikely" to participate in UBC's.

ApacheCoTodd
February 1, 2013, 05:13 PM
-Record keeping (data base for confiscation) Fed and lesser law enforcement agencies have already shown a blazing disregard for standards with other records.

-Squigly standards as to who "passes". Just wait till it's integrated with the "Obama Care" open access health records where medications and past treatments (mental, stress and others) are cross referenced.

-Talk to anyone with a standard hold or denial wrongly attributed to their name or SSN (see "no fly list"!

splattergun
February 1, 2013, 06:47 PM
no, it will not make it more difficult for criminals to get guns. They do not get background checks, they buy black market or steal guns. It ONLY makes it more cumbersome (infringes) for the law abiding citizen to participate in an inalienable (check your dictionary) human right.

rtz
February 1, 2013, 06:57 PM
Exactly.

k_dawg
February 1, 2013, 08:31 PM
A major problem is that it is all a front to erode rights. Notice, they want us to conceed this, and not negotiate.

For example: *IF* they pass universal background checks, it should be mandated to apply to ALL citizens who live ANYWHERE. And it should apply to ANY firearm legal by Federal law, including NFA. It needs to be mandated to be FREE to any citizen; and be completed under all cases in 48 hours.

Such as New York City, Washington DC and Chicago.

At least that will be restoring rights to tens of millions of Americans in exchange.

UhKlem
February 2, 2013, 12:00 AM
Background checks are a prior restraint on a couple of unalienable rights: the right to engage in contracts, the right to self defense, and are intrinsically anti-property rights (if you have to get permission to dispose of your property, it isn't really yours). Keeping criminals from getting guns is just a bogeyman. Background checks have way more false positives than any track record of keeping criminals from guns. Full scale prohibition doesn't work, and neither will this slippery slope. When it fails, more concessions to liberty will be demanded. Once one agrees to this prior restraint, more 'reasonable' terms of encroachment will be offered. We know how this story ends, England already went down this road. If background checks worked, how come every police department of any size has an internal affairs department? You can't predict free will, and laws don't constrain criminals. There is nothing reasonable about a model based on guilty until you prove yourself innocent. The gun haters behind this non-sense just can't wait to be in a position to move the standard for the burden of proof. Every con hinges on the gullibility of the mark.

bldsmith
February 2, 2013, 02:40 AM
Did not read all the posts but here is why I feel it wont work. It does not work now and they do not want it to work. Here is what I found doing a very fast search,

"Nevertheless, NICS performs millions of checks every year, and usually in under two minutes. In 2010, the agency reviewed more than 6 million 4473 forms. Just 72,142 were denied the right to buy a gun.

Among those denials, 47 percent were rejected because of a felony indictment or conviction. Yet, just 44 were prosecuted, and 13 convicted of lying on their 4473 form, according to a report prepared for the DOJ by the Regional Justice Information Service in 2012. That represents just .0002 percent of all denials, and an even smaller percentage of the total number of background checks."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/gun-debate-lawmakers-eye-troubled-background-check-system/#ixzz2Jj10rfau


Until they enforce the laws they have on the books why institute new ones? Not to mention it flies in the face of the constitution.

CapnMac
February 2, 2013, 03:55 AM
If UBC are such a good idea, and are no infringement upon The People, then

No one will mind a UBC before posting online; or buying a newspaper, or writing an OpEd, or making a political contribution.

No one will mind a UBC for joining a church (or changing one)

No one will object to a UBC before being secure in the person or property or before being asked to self-incriminate.

No one will mind a UBC before voting . . .

And so on.

The power to approve is the power to deny.

Pretty sure the founding fathers were pretty clear in their intent that such powers were to be invested in individual citizens, not unaccountable voices on the ned of e phone line.

12131
February 2, 2013, 04:39 AM
It has constitutional problems since by definition private sales are not interstate commerce.

Now, if they made private access to the NICS system voluntary, that'd be fine and I suspect 99% of legitimate private sellers would use it. But that's not what they want -- they want de facto registration and an end to private sales.
I agree with this.

meanmrmustard
February 2, 2013, 07:06 AM
I totally agree with the fact that criminals will still be able to get guns but can it be argued that checks would not atleast make it more difficult?

This is what we are going to here.
No. Just no.

There have been numerous closed threads on this.

For the most part, we are in unison: checks don't do jack if criminals don't adhere to them. They won't, we will, and the only people it hinders is the law abiding citizen who does stuff legally.

Just no.

Adam the Gnome
February 2, 2013, 07:18 AM
Why do we need prisons? Oh yeah, criminals don't follow laws.
How many pounds of illegal narcotics come to America everyday? Those guys probably dabble in arms as well. All any of this does is hurt HONEST Americans and it seems no one can grasp that concept.

GBExpat
February 2, 2013, 07:40 AM
Blackbeard pretty much nailed it, I think, when he said:Now, if they made private access to the NICS system voluntary, that'd be fine and I suspect 99% of legitimate private sellers would use it. But that's not what they want -- they want de facto registration and an end to private sales.

If you enjoyed reading about "What are the cons of universal background checks?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!