Changed my mind on universal background checks

[Alaska444]

Any person who buys a firearm in America anywhere, anytime, for any reason, needs a thorough background check before they are allowed to own a firearm.
That is just common sense, pure and simple. How else do you keep firearms put of the hands of the mentally ill, the violent (domestic violence, etc.), and ex-felons.

How's that system working for you now? Sorry, it is not common sense since NICS does not prevent these mass murders. As others have noted, Sandy Hook, the weapon was stolen, Arizona, Aurora, Virginia Tech, the creeps PASSED the background checks.

Not much common sense to a system that simply does not work. In addition, as many have pointed out, UBC is a back door to registration. Anyone with common sense would understand the dangers of registration leading to confiscation. No, UBC is the battle, not AWB even though they act like it is simply a compromise solution.

 

[ACP]

Last 14 years, 1 million people rejected after background checks (1% of all checks):
578,000 felons
143,852 domestic violence/stalking convictions
81,000 drug addicts
12,000 illegal immigrants
10,180 mentally ill

"It's working" pretty d*** well, I'd say, and should be required for every transaction to weed out even MORE bad guys.

You cannot use the excuse of "it didn't prevent these mass murders" as your reason to oppose universal background checks. The above figures show it is working very well, and should be expanded wherever possible. Private sales, family transfers, gun shows (esp.), everywhere. Make me sleep sounder at night knowing there are 1 million fewer bad people with firearms in America, maybe right around the corner from my house...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You cannot use the excuse of "it didn't prevent these mass murders" as your reason to oppose universal background checks. The above figures show it is working very well, and should be expanded wherever possible. Private sales, family transfers, gun shows (esp.), everywhere. Make me sleep sounder at night knowing there are 1 million fewer bad people with firearms in America, maybe right around the corner from my house...

If it is working so well, why aren't there the associated 1 million prosecutions for committing a federal felony related to firearms? Either the federal government is knowingly letting prohibited people walk after they attempt to buy a firearm and lied on a 4473; or not all of those million claimed denials were crimes.

In 2009, there were 133,000 denials. Out of those 133k denials, there were only 1,256 investigations. Of those 1,256 investigations, 559 were determined to be not prohibited. Source: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/234173.pdf

Given those stats, how many of those million denials you reference are actual criminals - and if so, why are they walking free?

 

[Torian]

ACP, it's not the background checks that are the problem...rather the collection of information of the gun owner at the point of sale that can and will be used to create a de facto gun registry if allowed.

Simply put, our government and politicians have demonstrated they can't be trusted to protect our information or our rights as gun owners. They aren't interested in protecting us from criminals, they are interested in using whatever tools that are available to them to either disarm us, or intimidate us through the threat of criminal / civil charges, costs, and fines, to disarm ourselves. Whether it's gun / ammo taxes, forced gun registration, additional permits and background checks needed to buy ammo, liability insurance, magazine limitations, serialized ammo and magazines, the bureaucratic list of hoops to jump through is never ending etc...it's just one big scam to achieve their desired end state...all the while passing constitutional muster.

Mass gun registration historically has almost always been shown to be a precursor to gun confiscation, and has just turned a bunch of law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight because they don't want to register what were already lawfully owned firearms. I'm done agreeing to "common sense" legislation that does nothing but infringe on my rights as a gun owner. No more compromises.

 

[Zak Smith]

ACP,

Let's say you're my best friend, the bills under discussion would make it illegal for me to lend you a shotgun for a day's bird hunt.

If you're not against bills like CO HB-1229 you are now part of the problem.

 

[happygeek]

Last 14 years, 1 million people rejected after background checks (1% of all checks):
578,000 felons
143,852 domestic violence/stalking convictions
81,000 drug addicts
12,000 illegal immigrants
10,180 mentally ill

You're sleeping better knowing the government let 730,000 some dangerous people out of prison/mental wards so they could walk around free in society, maybe right around the corner from your house?

(That's assuming all those felons were guilty of a violent crime and not just "criminals" because they were involved in the drug trade, or were a felon in the sense that Bill Clinton and Martha Stewart are felons, or ...)

 

[Bovice]

Well, if we defined letting a family member temporarily possess your gun as a "transfer" and require a background check for it, it would have stopped this madman from obtaining the weapon. That's just common sense, according to politicians.

What part of "stolen weapons" don't you understand? Stealing is not a transfer of ownership. Read more carefully next time.

 

[Deanimator]

Anyone with common sense would understand the dangers of registration leading to confiscation.

I think what you meant to say was "Anyone who's HONEST, with common sense would understand the dangers of registration leading to confiscation."

A DISHONEST person would know the documented linkage between registration, bans and confiscation, and advocate laws which would inevitably lead to those things, while attempting to obfuscate those documented causal connections.

The fundamental truth is that this "conversation" is not, never has been and never will be an HONEST one. The anti-gun side has NEVER felt itself bound by the truth.

• Josh Sugerman himself has admitted that he INTENTIONALLY obfuscated the difference between semi-automatic and automatic firearms.
• Before the original AWB, a local TV station here accompanied a story on semi-automatic firearms with video of Cleveland police firing MACHINE GUNS on a police range.
• Before the original AWB, CNN showed the "difference" between "assault weapons" and "regular" firearms by showing video PURPORTING to show "assault weapons" and "regular" firearms being fired at cinder blocks. The video showed the "assault weapons" pulverizing the cinder blocks, while the "regular" firearms didn't even SCRATCH the blocks... not surprising given that the "regular" firearms weren't actually shot AT the cinder blocks and NONE of the bullets fired from them even HIT them.

I've dealt with both anti-gunners and Holocaust deniers online, and there isn't one IOTA of difference in their tactics. They both rely almost exclusively on:

• Lies
• Half-truths
• The ignorance of a carefully picked audience
• Endless repetition
• Infantile malice and the desire to crush that which is different

I can't make anti-gunners stop lying.

They can't make me believe.

 

[Deanimator]

ACP, it's not the background checks that are the problem...rather the collection of information of the gun owner at the point of sale that can and will be used to create a de facto gun registry if allowed.

More to the point, I ABSOLUTELY guarantee you that it won't be "de facto" for long. They KNOW, BEYOND ANY DOUBT, that NONE of these proposals is enforceable without REGISTRATION.

The transition from "de facto" to "de jure" won't be a long one.

 

[Solo]

What part of "stolen weapons" don't you understand? Stealing is not a transfer of ownership. Read more carefully next time.

Your sarcasm meter may be broken.

 

[Billy Shears]

Do you judge every Nigerian "404" email individually on its "merits"?

This was from Dudley Brown, founder and executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, and executive director of the National Association for Gun Rights. This is a highly visible group, not some anonymous Nigerian email scammer.

Do you seriously entertain the possibility that a Nigerian prince (or Chun Du Hwan's widow) wants to share millions of dollars with somebody, and of 6,000,000,000 people in the world, they chose YOU?

Red Herring. What has this got to do with this issue?

I can't think of a gun control proposal I've heard characterized as "reasonable" that wasn't of a kind with virtually every lame internet scam I've gotten by email for the past twenty years.

Except these aren't that sort of gun proposal. The bills under consideration do not make possession of any formerly legal firearms illegal, do not set up universal background checks, maintain a records database or registry list, or actually focus on the guns themselves at all, they focus on criminal behavior -- knowingly selling a firearm to a person prohibited to have one, or carrying a firearm on a campus with the intent to commit a felony.

Serious gun owners have written off the other side's "compromises" for the simple reason that they are UNIFORMLY FRAUDULENT.

See above.

I have no more reason to give up even the MINUTEST part of my 2nd Amendment right on the word of an anti-gunner than I have to send "Prince" Abdullah my banking information and PIN so that I can receive "millions".

When you support, or are at least willing to discuss legislation that does not, in any way, infringe your second amendment rights, but rather penalizes criminal behavior that you would never engage in, and does not restrict what you can own in any way, you're NOT giving up even the minutest part of your 2nd Amendment right. If gun owners can't see the difference there, we are in danger of becoming our own (second) worst enemies. I have no problem whatever penalizing criminal behavior instead of guns and lawful gun owners. For the life of me I can't see why anyone would.

 

[316SS]

Last 14 years, 1 million people rejected after background checks (1% of all checks):
578,000 felons
143,852 domestic violence/stalking convictions
81,000 drug addicts
12,000 illegal immigrants
10,180 mentally ill

You assume that failing a background check prevented these people from getting a gun. Can you cite data to support that assertion? 44 cases were prosecuted out of 72,600 BGC denials in 2010. I would say there is little risk of a felon trying to buy at the LGS. But if I was determined to commit a crime with a gun, and I failed a background check, would I give up? If only criminals had such low motivation we'd all be a lot safer.

 

[Deanimator]

knowingly selling a firearm to a person prohibited to have one, or carrying a firearm on a campus with the intent to commit a felony.

Aren't those things ALREADY crimes?

 

[Deanimator]

You assume that failing a background check prevented these people from getting a gun.

Yeah, but look at how effective background checks are at preventing "prohibited persons" (EVERYBODY) from buying methamphetamine...

 

[Billy Shears]

knowingly selling a firearm to a person prohibited to have one, or carrying a firearm on a campus with the intent to commit a felony.

Aren't those things ALREADY crimes?

In the case of the first, yes. And in fact I misstated the text of SB1378 slightly. This bill simply increases the penalties for an existing law, and changes it from a class 6 felony (the lowest class) into a class 4 one, thus stiffening the penalties. In any case, I fail to see what there is about this that a reasonable person could object to. Again, it doesn't penalize lawful gun owners in any way or limit what they can own; it penalizes bad actors for their criminal behavior. That's not something we should be objecting to, let alone sending out emails titled "Betrayed!" and acting as if the legislature is ripping the 2nd amendment out of the constitution for proposing such bills.

As for the second, no, that law is not already on the books. Use of a firearm in commission of a felony is, and is somewhat similar, but this law, if passed, would simply be one more charge police could lay on someone after they have used a firearm to commit a crime on a campus. It can only come into play at all if there is a warrant being obtained for the felony the gun was used to commit. Again, what's the problem here? It doesn't make carrying a gun on a campus a crime, or penalize you for defending yourself; it's merely invoked as an additional charge if you commit a felony, or it can be proven you attempted to commit one.

It's in our interest to find measures like this that we can support. Like it or not, we have to share this country with a great number of other voters, most of whom are not gun people. After a mass shooting, especially one with elementary school children as the victims, there is an enormous groundswell of support for "doing something" and whether we like or not, something is bound to get done. We need to make sure that what does get done does not infringe on our rights, or consist of feel-good symbolic gestures that won't do a damn thing to address the problem, but will punish law-abiding gun owners. If we fold our arms and refuse to support anything, even bills like this, which do what we always say we want the government to do -- punish the criminal instead of lawful gun owners -- we end up not looking like the adults in the room, and not persuading the rest of the citizens who don't care all that much about guns and 2nd amendment rights.

 

[kentucky_Dave]

This IS registration's precursor.
The batf is already copying 4473's illegally.
Trust lying scumbag politicians who are currently calling for confiscation?
The direction is clear.
Bought and paid for politicians want the US citizens disarmed...eventually.. even if only incrementally fulfilled.

 

[lax]

It's not compromise when we get nothing in return for the surrender of our rights. What is the benefit to us law-abiding citizens that makes this a compromise?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

After a mass shooting, especially one with elementary school children as the victims, there is an enormous groundswell of support for "doing something" and whether we like or not, something is bound to get done.

After Columbine, there was the same "something mist be done" nonsense being pushed to "close the gunshow loophole" (eliminate private sales). We fought hard and did not accept a compromise - which is probably the only reason we aren't being sold the "something must be done, let's throw assault rifles under the bus now.

The idea that our only choice is to compromise and we have no say in the matter is nonsense. If you write your legislator and say "no support for any gun control" they will understand that. If you write your legislator and say "no support for gun control except maybe background checks if you have to" they are going to understand they can get your vote and the gun control vote by voting for background checks.

The only thing that has changed since 1999 is we have 40 NRA A-rated Senators and 220 NRA A-rated Representatives and a ten year string if success at the federal level. So where is the defeatist "Some kind of gun control is going to pass" BS coming from?

And why are UBCs the default option when they would not have stopped ANY of the last 4 recent massacres (3 of which went through a background check). Why are we not improving NICS per the 2007 law so that people like Cho are in the NICS database? Why is that not the "something must be done" option? Especially since that option might have actually had an effect?

 

[Billy Shears]

After Columbine, there was the same "something mist be done" nonsense being pushed to "close the gunshow loophole" (eliminate private sales). We fought hard and did not accept a compromise - which is probably the only reason we aren't being sold the "something must be done, let's throw assault rifles under the bus now.

Closing "the gunshow loophole" wouldn't have been compromise. That would have been a surrender, seeing as there is no gun show loophole. Any dealer selling has to conduct the same background checks there as he would in his shop. Private sellers don't have to, of course, but that's true whether they're at gun shows or not.

As I said, I don't support UBCs because I see no practical way to enforce it. But laws improving mental health reporting to NICS, or imposing further penalties for criminal activity carried out with a firearm are something I don't see a problem with.

The idea that our only choice is to compromise and we have no say in the matter is nonsense. If you write your legislator and say "no support for any gun control" they will understand that. If you write your legislator and say "no support for gun control except maybe background checks if you have to" they are going to understand they can get your vote and the gun control vote by voting for background checks.

It's not nonsense. We are in a war of public opinion, and like it or not, we are not the whole electorate. If we look to the rest of the electorate like we are simply unreasonable zealots who simply refuse to do anything, we are going to lose support and the antis will find it easier to get the laws they want passed.

By all means make it clear to your legislature that you will not let him get away with any restrictions of your rights. But don't also oppose legislation that doesn't restrict your rights in any way, such as the aforementioned harsher penalties for use of firearms in commission of crimes. We have take back the culture, so to speak, and undo decades of liberal attempts to marginalize gun owners and make them appear out of touch with mainstream society. Looking like intransigent know-nothings will not accomplish this. Find the measures we can support, and become good at articulating our case to the rest of the public, however, and we can make they antis look like the intransigent ideologues who don't care about the facts, but just want to push their agenda.

The only thing that has changed since 1999 is we have 40 NRA A-rated Senators and 220 NRA A-rated Representatives and a ten year string if success at the federal level. So where is the defeatist "Some kind of gun control is going to pass" BS coming from?

Excuse me, but were you paying attention as NY state just passed the most restrictive gun laws in the country? Have you noticed California, New Jersey, Michigan, Colorado (whose house just today passed a bill limiting magazine capacity) all poised to follow suit? Haven't you noticed the spate of new gun-control bills in state legislatures all over the country and in congress? These are the people who don't believe in letting a crisis go to waste, and they mean to exploit the issue while emotions are still running high. And when the latest polls are showing a majority of Americans supporting UBCs and hi-cap magazine bans, a lot of those A rated senators and congressmen are very, very likely to make the calculation that they can get away with voting yes for some of these bills. That's precisely what one of my senators, Mark Warner -- who is one of those A rated senators, BTW -- did, and he has stated he will vote YES on Feinstein's new ASW bill. Don't rely too much on those politicians. They will disappoint you.

And why are UBCs the default option when they would not have stopped ANY of the last 4 recent massacres (3 of which went through a background check). Why are we not improving NICS per the 2007 law so that people like Cho are in the NICS database? Why is that not the "something must be done" option? Especially since that option might have actually had an effect?

See my previous comments. I don't support UBC, and I do support improving the reporting to NICS. That's one of those things I have been saying we should support, and by doing so, we signal we are trying to do something, rather than just stopping anyone else from passing anything -- it's just we want to make sure what we do will not only be effective, but won't punish law-abiding people for the crimes of maniacs.

 

[Vector]

ACP, it's not the background checks that are the problem...rather the collection of information of the gun owner at the point of sale that can and will be used to create a de facto gun registry if allowed.

Simply put, our government and politicians have demonstrated they can't be trusted to protect our information or our rights as gun owners.

Correct.

ACP, I am not sure about your state, as it might be like mine. But where I'm from the background check does not keep purchase info on the person who passes the background check. So if I want to buy a gun, run the background check, then decide not to buy, it is the same as if I did purchase a gun. No info (to the best of my knowledge) is being sent/kept to say I bought XYZ gun, just that I passed.

Now places like CA do just the opposite as they have proved to be a state which sends out letters to gun owners talking about responsible gun ownership. How do you think they have that information?

No information is taken about the weapon/s a person buys in my state, but in CA they are using the database to not only identify gun owners, but also using it to confiscate guns from owners it deems to no longer be worthy of their 2nd Amendment rights. This includes the mere accusation of certain crimes, or even misdemeanors.
So while I am all for keeping guns out of the hands of recidivist violent felons, I do not want a national/federal background check to be used as a means of taking away my 2nd Amendment rights.

Remember it is happening already, and some day in the not to distant future the government might come up with all sorts of minor crimes that restrict people from their Constitutional rights.

Federal Background Checks = Registration
Registration = Identification
Identification = Confiscation


`

 

[NHCraigT]

This may have already been stated in this thread.

I only read the first post and realized that the OP was getting suckered into the "hidden agenda scheme" of the:

"common sense" - "universal background checks BS".


Universal Background checks create a DATA BASE of ALL gun purchases (and thus Gun Purchas"ers:").

Its the back-door method of tracking firearms and also - creating an official REGISTRY OF GUN OWNERS.

 

[bogon48]

I'm not in favor of national checks or firearms registration, but we can do better. Maybe if states are asked to do a better job of punishing straw purchasers and filtering out crazies and criminals, a national check will fall by the wayside.

The state of VA has had quick background checks for years. Only machine guns are registered with the state police. The clearing process takes about 5-10 minutes from the time you decide to buy. But our background check system should be expanded to better include violent juvenile offenses and dangerous psychological diagnoses, like those that slipped through the cracks for the VA Tech massacre.

Background checks work in a lot of cases because criminals take the path of least resistance. They're not going to steal guns and risk incarceration if they don't have to. I've been in gun stores and pawn shops, and watched people get rejected.

For example, in a pawn shop in Lynchburg, VA, a guy attempted to buy a pistol and was rejected. The lady working up the sale told him there was a criminal offense on his record. Then he admitted to having been released from prison. So then the idiot asked her what he had to do to get a gun. She gave no suggestions. But the obvious answer is to go to a gun show.

As for selling guns, I use a local gun shop precisely because I don't want a crime on my conscience. They add an extra 10% to my asking price and handle everything related to the FFL transfers. I get my money, they get theirs.

 

[bushmaster1313]

People here seem to forget that it's in gun owners' own self-interest to try to prevent unsuitable individuals -- those likely to commit crimes -- from getting guns. Remember, it's massacres such as that in Sandy Hook that lead to draconian gun laws. If we can prevent a massacre, we protect our gun rights. The difficult part is setting up a system that weeds out the unsuitable individuals but doesn't trample on the rights of the responsible and law-abiding. That's the area in which we need to have a constructive dialogue.

I agree

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It's not nonsense. We are in a war of public opinion, and like it or not, we are not the whole electorate. If we look to the rest of the electorate like we are simply unreasonable zealots who simply refuse to do anything, we are going to lose support and the antis will find it easier to get the laws they want passed.

We are the whole electorate in one sense - come 2014 we will outnumber the people who are voting for a candidate because of his pro gun control stance by 10 times or more. 99% of the people who "favor" gun control have no serious interest or passion in the subject. Those who oppose gun control are going to care very much. To the extent politicians have forgotten that, it is our job to remind them.

That strategy has been 100% more effective than worrying about whether the American Idol crowd thinks we are reasonable in the 30 seconds they might spend studying the matter.

 

[chipcom]

I've changed my mind on universal background checks and now think we should push for them without registration and the requirement that all background check information be destroyed after 24 hours except that a background check was run for the individual selling/gifting/transferring a gun or guns with no information kept on the buyer or recipient or the gun or guns transferred. One background check for any number of guns no requirement to specify gun or guns transferred.

Then a person could legally decide to gift/sell one gun and effectively all their guns would legally be off paper, no way to know if they all were sold or gifted in one transaction or not.

Got any guns? Hmmmm, did I sell or gift them all from that one recorded transfer I made in the government database to that now anonymous person who passed the background check? I hope I remember, let me think. I know we would all answer honestly and support such a system.

Sorry, but no...we've been compromising and retreating since the JFK was killed, no more.

The fact that there has been so much dishonesty on the part of the gun control advocates doesn't exactly facilitate the trust required for compromise either.