1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What are the cons of universal background checks?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by montgomery381, Jan 31, 2013.

  1. montgomery381

    montgomery381 Well-Known Member

    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?
  2. JVaughn

    JVaughn Well-Known Member

    Inconvenience is irrelevant. Background checks give rise to registration, which gives rise to confiscation. That is why we resist it.
  3. rtz

    rtz Well-Known Member

    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.
  4. montgomery381

    montgomery381 Well-Known Member

    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.
  5. wooly bugger

    wooly bugger Well-Known Member

    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.
  6. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Well-Known Member

    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.
  7. fanchisimo

    fanchisimo Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. locnload

    locnload Well-Known Member

    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:
  9. gbran

    gbran Well-Known Member

    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.
  10. Blackbeard

    Blackbeard Well-Known Member

    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.
  11. nwilliams

    nwilliams Well-Known Member

    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.


    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.
  12. wally

    wally Well-Known Member

    What are the cons of voter ID?
  13. hogshead

    hogshead Well-Known Member

    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.
  14. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Well-Known Member

    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.
  15. Zoogster

    Zoogster Well-Known Member

    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.
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2013
  16. PRM

    PRM Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Well-Known Member

    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.
  18. Mojo-jo-jo

    Mojo-jo-jo Well-Known Member

    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."
  19. Byrd666

    Byrd666 Well-Known Member

    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.

  20. Romeo 33 Delta

    Romeo 33 Delta Well-Known Member

    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?
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2013

Share This Page