Universal Background checks

This past week's spree murderer Passed a background check and bought a firearm following the regulations, federal and state.

Despite the apparent (bold faced) emphasis on "well-regulated" - the meaning of which could be interpreted as "well-equipped" in a historical context- the SC in Heller also declared the militia wordage as a meaningless prefatory statement. They thus gutted the original intent of the Amendment, this being ensuring the populace at large maintains stocks of weapons sufficient to give a potentially tyranical government pause before enacting onerous restrictions on the people.
The Second Amendment, as written, had nothing to do with hunting game or home defense- these were assumed rights and responsibilities of free landowners in no need of codifying.
It has everything to do with putting a healthy trepidation into the hearts of those that presume to rule.

I can't imagine how this one might go off the rails.

No gun control other than for convicted felons would be freedom exemplified IMO.

The original meaning of "well-regulated" militia has more to do the militia having arms, ammo, equipment and training that complies with military regulations.

Requiring militia members to show up for muster with regulation equipment, Brown Bess musket in military caliber, or else be prepared to pay a fee to use one of the militia company's loaner muskets reserved for those who could not afford a military musket, was never construed as restricting ownership and lawful use of civilian shotguns or rifles.

Civilian firearms training was encouraged to have a body of the people already familiar with the use of arms to call upon as volunteers in case of need.

(Many of the Overmountain Boys in the Revolution actually preferred to use their Pennsylvania Rifles.)

The head of the article is Universal Background Checks.

The Bloomberg Everytown UBC where passed is usually a $55 to $65 dollar sin tax on firearms transfers between individuals that creates a Form 4473 firearms transaction form. I call it a sin tax, because Virginia State Police at gun shows charge $5 to do a private transaction BG check. Last I checked, my home state fee for a private firearms transaction BG check was $39, whereas a state and federal BG check at licensed gun dealer is $10.

I call UBC a sin tax because the goal goes beyond assuring the seller that the buyer is not a prohibited person. (a) It creates a 4473 record of the transaction. (b) The fees seem to be set high enough to discourage private transactions with a background check.

I have bought guns for $50 to $80 from dealers with $10 BG checks for rebuild projects. That is tolerable.

I have in the past bought guns from private sellers for parts ($8 for a shotgun missing parts, $12 for a Model 60 .22 rifle without a stock and magazine tube). Paying $39 today for a private BG check would be a deal killer.

(edited switched to laptop after phone went wonky)

Background checks should be free (paid for by all of us from taxes). They are for the benefit of the population at large. In the past, a reputable dealer or a private seller would not sell a gun or ammunition to a person he knew was crazy, unstable, irrational, a chronic drunk or a wanted suspect. There are too many people now to know everybody in town.

The danger with checks is the same as with any part of any government: If the official is not honest, there can be no freedom or safety.

This is a false equivalency. It’s almost as if you are assuming that we currently have no gun control whatsoever and Universal Background Checks are just adding “some gun control”. In reality we already have thousands of gun control laws on the books.

The title of this thread combined with your survey and opening post lead me to believe that you would also equate “some laws are constitutional” as “UBC’s/waiting periods/red flag laws are constitutional” which is not at all what you’re actually asking in your survey.

Your survey choices are also poorly designed. You have “some gun laws are constitutional” and “all gun laws are unconstitutional”. Binary choices (yes/no) are a poor choice of survey question when addressing a topic as nuanced as firearms policy. And it seems you want us to make a choice, but then in your opening post you tell us how you want us to vote!

lovehappiness22 said:

The supreme court has stated that gun control
is constitutional and guns can be regulated.

Click to expand...

Its generally considered bad form to lead your survey population to the answer you want them to make.

As mentioned above, you should learn the common meaning of the phrase “well regulated” at the time the constitution was written. Regardless of your stance on using the original meaning, you wouldn’t read Shakespeare without understanding iambic pentameter and phrasing, and you wouldn’t read Chaucer without understanding 12th century English diction. Your argument seems to hinge around the phrase “well regulated”, so why wouldn’t you at least want to understand how that phrase was used at the time it was written?

Anyway, this whole thing seems more like you want to create a “gotcha!” survey result of “gun owners who support additional gun control” as opposed to actually having a nuanced discussion. Believe it or not, there are actually some people here who are not absolutists, but I’m pretty sure most of them will see this thread for what it is.



I’ll also add, if you want to know why a lot of people here are not in favor of the specific types of gun control you listed, you should probably just ask (or search). People here are usually pretty good about having an informative and civil discussion, but you have to come at it with a question, a desire to have your beliefs challenged, and to actually learn. Starting with “well-regulated - it’s in the constitution!” and “the supreme court says gun control is constitutional” is not a recipe for intellectual discussion.

Most of this can of worms did not really get momentum until 1968 and it has gone downhill ever since.

nick22 said:

No gun control other than for convicted felons would be freedom exemplified IMO.

Click to expand...

But how does the guy behind the counter know if the guy in front of it is a convicted felon, without running a background check?

The OP's tenor in all his posts are similar.

I'm fine if someone comes to THR with an agenda, providing it is not divisive in nature.

WrongHanded said:

But how does the guy behind the counter know if the guy in front of it is a convicted felon, without running a background check?

Click to expand...

Maybe Felons should be considered OK having served their time. Does one's Natural Rights ever truly end until one's last breath. This is a question, not a position re; Felons

amp-rat said:

Maybe Felons should be considered OK having served their time. Does one's Natural Rights ever truly end until one's last breath. This is a question, not a position re; Felons

Click to expand...

I'll tell you this, if I were overlord of the world, we'd be dealing with criminals very differently. The way we do it now clearly isn't working. Serving time isn't the same thing as being rehabilitated.

The terms in popular use always lead all of us astray

"Universal Background Check" is a hugely loaded term.

Virtually everyone calling for one of those has no idea what that actually means.
As a politically-present practical matter, all that means is a "NICS check." Which is nothing more than comparing a name to a blacklist of names.
Which is its own can of worms, as the presumption is that said list is accurate, up to date, and complete (0 for 3).

An actual Background Investigation check takes from 10 to 20 business days (DoD checks are 6-8 weeks) per each.
Those BI are complicated as all the data has to be sifted to try and verify whether the various data points are legitimate. And a BI is very much limited to the accuracy of bureaucrat-held/entered data, too. (Address verification is a PITA.)

So, since NICS is less that perfect, those insisting on control, could very well insist on actual BI instead. That would slow approvals down further than NFA Form 1 rates.

Mind, the whole legal notion of Prohibited Persons is only 50 years old, originating in GCA 68. Which remains an irksome law--it's premise is that all gun owners are criminals unless we swear or affirm (on the 4473) to the contrary.

I have to heartily agree with @Spats McGee about the survey questions--there are "gun laws" that are legal, whether they are, in fact, Constitutional is a separate debate. The Unites States tottered along for right about 170 years without 4473 or the like. The last 50 years has not much demonstrated any improvement on that previous record (if guaranteeing employment of countless civil servants).

Just raise the age for gun possession to 25, and most of the "gun violence" would disappear. Just sayin'.

Simplistic troll post. To Alex, only allow 65 year olds in the Infantry, fighter pilots and on navy ships. War ceases.

Anyway, close this one - from the bowels of the Deity, I implore you.

"Those who have been committed to mental institutions, use controlled substances, have been convicted of felonies or the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or who are fugitives from justice are already prohibited from possessing firearms," but how would anyone know that, without checking? Do people in those categories carry identifying signs, or do they have a brand on their foreheads?

Actually, some do. In some states they have medical marijuana cards. If the FFL knows that or asks (and some do to avoid risk), they won't sell to you. The person gets all huffy. 4473 says:

“The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside,” the form states."

Thus the card sinks you. You must have lied to get the permit in some states also. Whether a state runs marijuana cards vs. permits - don't know. Another reason for legalization, BTW.

I know folks who won't sell to a private citizen unless that person has a CCW permit/CHL/LTC. That provides an instance check for private to private sales.

MM raises all kinds of issues at the State level. It needs to be fixed at the federal level, and firewalled by HIPPA. It's quite possible to be addicted to prescription painkillers under a Dr's supervision and yet there's no prohibition like with a MM card. Meanwhile I wouldn't sell to someone who was an active user, nor with out a CCL id and DL. My state requires all private sales to now go thru Dept Public Safety and there's a slip of paper to retain as well, for both parties.

Every new rule and regulation creates the sincere possibility of becoming a paper criminal due to not dotting a "i" or crossing a "t".

amp-rat said:

MM raises all kinds of issues at the State level. It needs to be fixed at the federal level, and firewalled by HIPPA. It's quite possible to be addicted to prescription painkillers under a Dr's supervision and yet there's no prohibition like with a MM card. Meanwhile I wouldn't sell to someone who was an active user, nor with out a CCL id and DL. My state requires all private sales to now go thru Dept Public Safety and there's a slip of paper to retain as well, for both parties.

Every new rule and regulation creates the sincere possibility of becoming a paper criminal due to not dotting a "i" or crossing a "t".

Click to expand...

The HIPPA firewall is also why he was able to purchase the weapon used in the killing spree. His mental status is protected and therefor will not show up on a background check. Especially as a juvenile when treated. It relies solely on his answer to the appropriate question which he was apparently untruthful to but no info existed to catch it. The governments built in fail!

nick22 said:

No gun control other than for convicted felons would be freedom exemplified IMO.

Click to expand...

When a person has paid her/his debt to society all the rights and privileges of a citizen should be allowed.

A few years ago Florida pushed an amendment to automatically reinstate voting rights to felons released from prison. I say if you can vote you can own a firearm.