What are the cons of universal background checks?

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...

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.

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.

montgomery381 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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).

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.

montgomery381 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

rbernie said:

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).

Click to expand...

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?

wooly bugger said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

SoCalNoMore said:

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?

Click to expand...

This possibility could already occur at a gun store, right? Surely there is an appeal mechanism already in place?

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.

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.

Hoppes Love Potion said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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

timmy4 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

montgomery381 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

What are the cons of universal background checks?

Criminals won't participate. :banghead:

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.

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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?