How exactly was the universal background check blocked?

[BoilerUP]

If expanded background check proponents REALLY thought background checks for private sales would REALLY reduce already decreasing gun violence statistics....they'd have opened NICS to private citizens for *voluntary* checks on private intrastate transfers.

It'd have been very, very low cost to implement and thousands of private citizens would utilize it, if only for piece of mind.

Sure, voluntary checks are a "loophole" that folks can opt out of...but if the UBC proponents are to be believed, more background checks *should* be better than fewer, right???

 

[BaltimoreBoy]

...The market for illegal guns would still exist but it would be smaller.

...So many people are so paranoid about gun registries leading to confiscation

...Why don't I fear confiscation? The right to own firearms is protected in the constitution and supported by the public.

...Our system of government works, and the people that want to seize all guns are a tiny fraction of the public and politicians.

1. The "market" for illegal guns would be unchanged. If any significant number of guns were coming from the legitimate market the prices would rise. However, this happens not to be the case.

2. The right to be secure in our possessions and papers is also protected by the constitution and supported by the public. Google "Edward Snowden". Then check out the excesses committed in the name of the 'drug war'.

3. See point 2 above, then reflect on the fact that the government is maintaining military forces in 2/3 to 3/4 of the countries of the world and is wrecking our economy with undeclared wars - all at the behest of a tiny fraction of the public and politicians.

Sir, your trust is sadly misplaced. Don't believe me? Check with Tom Jefferson.

 

[jstein650]

JSH1: "The right to own firearms is protected in the constitution and supported by the public... and the people that want to seize all guns are a tiny fraction of the public and politicians."

Wow. Where to begin... Obamacare was not and is not supported by anything remotely close to a majority of the people. Nor is blanket amnesty, nor is gay marriage, yet all these things are or will become a reality. The majority of Brits and Aussies never supported the gun control they have now. Congress has many times violated the 10th amendment by legislating in areas that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the federal government. This administration has lost 60% of its cases in the supreme court so far - in other words, most of the cases involved were CLEARLY and DEMONSTRABLY unconstitutional. If there was just one more liberal on the court you can bet they would have won a lot more.
I'm afraid you are terribly naive thinking more 'reasonable' sounding laws are going to be in the interest of the lawful or otherwise.

 

[NoirFan]

I support universal background checks because it would force criminals to purchase guns on the black market.

In principle, I support mandatory background checks for individual sales for the same reasons you stated. I'd like to know that the safeguard of a background check can prevent a felon or violently insane individual from buying a gun in a parking lot. I heard all kinds of ridiculous justifications from gun sellers opposed to this simple safety measure: "I'm a good judge of character", or "I'll just go with my gut feeling" about this or that customer. The fact is that everyone thinks that they, personally, are a good judge of character but all you have to do is look around you to see that's not true. It takes colossal arrogance for a gun seller to think that they can weed out the criminals and psychos from their potential customers when even professional psychiatrists cannot always do it.

In practice, however, it would be unenforceable because of massive non-compliance, as seen on this very thread.

 

[316SS]

In principle, I support mandatory background checks for individual sales for the same reasons you stated. I'd like to know that the safeguard of a background check can prevent a felon or violently insane individual from buying a gun in a parking lot.

...

In practice, however, it would be unenforceable because of massive non-compliance

In principle, felons and the violently insane pay no attention to laws, even if a "universal" background check law made their actions double-illegal!

In practice, it would be ineffective because ... felons and the violently insane pay no attention to laws, etc.

 

[TRX]

> the concept of an actual simple and sensible background check,

15th Amendment:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Various localities felt it was necessary to exercise some simple and sensible controls over who got to exercise their 15th Amendment rights, resulting in activists screaming "Jim Crow laws." It took almost a hundred years for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to add "and we really mean it!"

Propose some "simple and sensible" restrictions to First Amendment rights, and people scream "censorship." But the Second... maybe we need a couple of "we really mean it" Acts to clarify the situation.

 

[jstein650]

"the concept of an actual simple and sensible background check" , that was mine. I should have said "what would seem like a simple..." to those that are prone to simply trust the powers that be that such things are inherently good and just if the concept happens to sound good to them. (specifically the UBC as the OP was in support of)

 

[JSH1]

In principle, felons and the violently insane pay no attention to laws, even if a "universal" background check law made their actions double-illegal!

In practice, it would be ineffective because ... felons and the violently insane pay no attention to laws, etc.

I don't disagree that felons don't pay attention to laws. However, law-abiding citizens do and the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens. If a law requiring universal background checks passed most people here would comply regardless of all the bluff and bluster saying that they wouldn't. Why? The same reason they aren't making sawed-off shotguns or converting their AR's to full auto, they have too much going in life to risk a felony conviction for weapons violations. So what you are left with is criminals selling to criminals instead of unknowing law-abiding citizens selling to criminals. You are kidding yourselves if you don't think a portion of those private sales set up on Craig's list or one of the online gun classifieds sites aren't going to criminals.

I'm also happy that the watered-down compromise bill requiring checks but not records didn't pass. Such a bill would inconvenience law-abiding gun owners but do nothing to reduce gun violence or help law enforcement. One could simply claim they did the check and no one could prove otherwise. For background checks to be effective the records must be retained just like they are for sales through dealers.

I also don't see why background checks for private sales are such a hot topic. We have background checks with records for sales done through dealers. Why is doing the exact same thing for individual sales such a huge problem for some people?

 

[silicosys4]

You are kidding yourselves if you don't think a portion of those private sales set up on Craig's list or one of the online gun classifieds sites aren't going to criminals.

So let me get this straight. If I'm a criminal who cannot legally posess a gun and can go back to jail for even trying to buy one....
I'm going to hop on craigslist and try and buy one from a stranger in a situation that I cannot control? That's not how it works.
And lets say ARMSLIST, since Craigslist doesn't allow listings for firearms (but I'm sure it made you feel good to assume it does, and when you thought about all those illegal gun transactions stopping in the blink of an eye because someone passed a law, it gave you a warm glow about how responsible you are for agreeing with this "common sense" rhetoric)


BTW, you are pretty wrong about where criminals get their guns. Most criminals get their guns from friends, from family, or steal them. YOU are kidding YOURSELF if you think the tiny fraction of gun sales that occur through armslist, craigslist, whatever... are justification for restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Great argument, saying that law abiding citizens have too much to lose to break laws, so we should have more laws when the original ones aren't being enforced. Lets just keep turning honest citizens into criminals one ridiculous law at a time.

 

[cfullgraf]

I also don't see why background checks for private sales are such a hot topic. We have background checks with records for sales done through dealers. Why is doing the exact same thing for individual sales such a huge problem for some people?

Background checks for all legitimate gun sales makes a record for all legitimate gun sales. This opens the door to a gun data base which opens the door to confiscation.

It is kind of like the traveling salesman getting his foot in the door so that he can make his sale.

The government does not enforce the gun laws they have, including prosecuting those surrounding the existing background checks. All the background checks do is inconvenience law abiding citizens and do nothing to curbing crime.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The UBC bill was based on the National Survey on Private Ownership and use of Firearms (NSPOF) a survey of average law abiding gun owners, which included questions of where and how they acquired their guns (60% retail dealers; 40% private acquisitions including 19% gifts, 5% inheritances, 13% private sales of used guns, 3% private swaps and trades).

If they really wanted to block criminals, they would have used the Bureau of Justice State and Federal Inmate Surveys. 18% of felons owned guns, over 80% did not own guns. Of the subset of (formerly) gun owning felons, some of their sources included 0.7% gun shows, 20.8% drug dealer/street sales, 9.9% theft/burgary, 8.4% fence/black market. Now, who really believes that a UBC would force a crack or meth dealer selling guns on the side (usually taking stolen guns in trade for drugs and selling them) is going to run a background check to make sure he doesn't sell to a person prohibited by the 1968 Gun Control Act from possessing or buying a gun?

 

[mljdeckard]

It was not intended to pass. It was intended to pass in the senate, fail in the house, and be used as leverage to get control of the house in 2014. That was why the president was sputtering mad when it failed in the senate as well. (Now the immigration bill will be used in its place, as it has passed in the senate and will fail in the house.)

 

[mljdeckard]

And yes, while UBCs by themselves seem harmless, remember it is a critical first step in registration and confiscation. Those actions are impossible without universal background checks. If you don't accept universal background checks, your grandchildren can't be forced to accept the NEXT steps in the process.

 

[316SS]

You are kidding yourselves if you don't think a portion of those private sales set up on Craig's list or one of the online gun classifieds sites aren't going to criminals.

The evidence presented earlier in the thread indicates that private sales from "legal" sellers (i.e. those selling legally possessed guns, not knowing that the buyer is a felon) are not the predominant source of guns for criminals.

So the "U"BC is either 1) a poor solution to the problem of criminals obtaining guns, because they target a minor source of guns for criminals, or 2) a necessary first step in the process of registering and confiscating privately owned firearm. Or both. NO, THANKS.

 

[jstein650]

I have to add this thought. And I doubt very much that the OP, or those that buy into the flawed logic that a few more laws will deter the lawless, will be able to wrap their minds around this, but here goes...
The is absolutely no doubt that the a good many if not most of the restrictions placed on gun owners and gun ownership are never really meant to curb crime. They are written, played up in the public forum as absolutely necessary to stop the 'murder of our children', or some such feel good nonsense, implemented, and then when there is no effect on crime, well, then we need STRONGER restrictions since the last set of laws didn't fix it! This has been the pattern for decades. Every Feinstein, Schumer, Obama, and most every lib out there will always admit, "well, this is a good first step" when they candidly talk about their motives.
The 2nd amendment itself has been challenged numerous times on the grounds that it doesn't mean what it says. Don't think for a minute that there isn't a very strong faction of people in high places in DC and the UN that are resolutely opposed the the very idea of private ownership of firearms.
Edit: If you want an example of what I'm talking about, take the 'Assault Weapon Ban' of 1994 passed under Clinton. After 10 full years, the ONLY tangible effect was a slight INCREASE in gun related crimes. Now, a good 1/2 of the folks in congress were there when that bill was passed, then expired. And I'm quite sure that every single one of them know of the results that followed, yet after the Newtown shooting, the same libs were calling for its reinstatement. Explain that one my friend.

 

[JSH1]

So let me get this straight. If I'm a criminal who cannot legally posess a gun and can go back to jail for even trying to buy one....
I'm going to hop on craigslist and try and buy one from a stranger in a situation that I cannot control? That's not how it works.
And lets say ARMSLIST, since Craigslist doesn't allow listings for firearms (but I'm sure it made you feel good to assume it does, and when you thought about all those illegal gun transactions stopping in the blink of an eye because someone passed a law, it gave you a warm glow about how responsible you are for agreeing with this "common sense" rhetoric)

Craigslist does not have section for firearms but that doesn't mean they are not advertised or sold on Craigslist. I challenge you to go to your local craigslist page and search for "shotgun" I just did it and got 65 hits. Craigslist is a buy / sell / or trade site and lots of people are advertising that they are willing to trade an item for a firearm or a firearm for an item.

Need a shotgun: "i gott a camo 12 gage shotgun mossburg 835 i want to trade TODAY for a iphone 4 with a otter box will meet text..."

Here is the link: http://bham.craigslist.org/bar/3829247787.html

How about a pistol: "i have a lorcin .25 pocket pistol in great shape shoots very strait not stolen no problems with it you can run the number let me know what you have text me anytime will send pictures"

Again the link: http://bham.craigslist.org/bar/3875262608.html

 

[BoilerUP]

...and to think, Craigslist's terms of service and policies explicitly forbidding firearm postings didn't stop those people.

Not unlike laws that don't stop criminals, eh?

 

[jstein650]

^^BoilerUP, Touch'e.

 

[A-FIXER]

I support universal background checks because it would force criminals to purchase guns on the black market. As it stands now, they don't need to, they can simply purchase guns from individuals. If background checks were required for all sales, criminals would have to purchase from other criminals as the vast majority of gun owners would follow the law as they are not criminals. The market for illegal guns would still exist but it would be smaller. So yes, I support background checks for all guns, even gifts between family members.

You know there is another site with your silly thoughts and it has come to light he's a Troll.

''Your understanding and weak liberal perception does not match reality" is this a attempt to undermine your own freedom and what you would be willing to give just for a tiny thought it would allow you to be safe or go through life with little or no challanges that would go against your views/thoughts and your willingness to be Controlled by those who would be elected it seems any attempt to educate you on not just this issue but others on your other various post you are proving yourself as a imposter and deflector of Truth it could be lack of education on issues or maybe its just nativity on your trust of people of elected position and your trust in corrupt goverment.... I am unsure to which of these areas you place your camp but I see you as a uniformed or sincerely passive person who would give all for not standing for what is Right and True... and is time proven only corrupted by those elected to erode rights of a once free people.

And I stand by awaiting the results of this post but again I am just doing like you expressing my views which will never mirror yours.

A-FIXER

 

[caribou]

Criminals selling guns to criminals.....yep, that's how it works, just like drugs, Prostitutes and stolen cars.

I don't see how UBC may "force" criminals to buy guns on a black market, like drugs, because they already do.

With enough $$ in hand, anyone in America can have anything they want.

 

[Bruno2]

or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

This part looks as though it will sew up anything else implemented in the future as well.

That's Gottleib and Guru for you. Imposing their version of firearm restrictions upon us.

 

[Bruno2]

To all of the UBC fanboys: Do you really think that making a false identification is beyond our technology of today? Also people at retail stores can barely tell the difference. So why would you think a person whom sells 1 or 2 guns a yr could become an expert in false ID's?

It just wont work and I don't want to have to mess with anymore gov interference in my life. People tat are perfectly legal to buy guns do so and use them for evil purposes now. We cant tell what people are going to do in the future. Should we just restrict everyone to keep these things from happening?

 

[Bruno2]

The market for illegal guns would still exist but it would be smaller.

Right, and this new healthcare law is going to make health insurance cheaper too.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

My home area had local option, home rule prohibition of alcohol until 1968, when sale of hot beer was allowed.

By the time I was seventeen, I could name seven bootlegging joints, which sold beer and booze, plus pot, pills, pistols and porn and served as meeting places for gambling and prostitution.

There was a cab company working with one of the bootleggers and you could call and have "passenger" Johnny Walker or Jack Daniels delivered to your doorstep (of course you had to pay the cab fare).

I am cynical about restrictions on legal markets in goods preventing criminal abuse of those goods, whether guns, alcohol, you name it.

As far as more restrictions on legal sales causing a black market in guns, hey we have a black market in guns.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics asked a sample of state inmates where they got their guns:
13.9% Retail Sources:
8.3% Retail store
3.8% Pawnshop
1.0% Flea market
0.7% Gun show
39.6% Friends or family:
12.8% Purchase or trade
18.5% Rent or borrow
8.3% Other
39.2% Street/illegal source:
9.9% Theft or burglary
20.8% Drug dealer/street
8.4% Fence/black market

The "retail sources" often involve friend, family or lover with clean record making the purchase. On friends and family supplying their guns to criminals, the NIJ "Armed and Considered Dangerous" survey of felons noted "friends" supplying guns to felons were often fellow criminals, as would be many family of felons. Now, would friends or family of a known criminal run a background check on their criminal family member or friend, and refuse the sale, trade, rent or loan if the check came back "prohibited person"?

Also in the "Armed and Considered Dangerous" survey 40% of armed felons stole guns, but only about 12% stole for their personal use: many stole for resale. Sources stolen from included:
37% stole from stores,
15% from police,
16% from truck shipments,
8% from manufacturers.
Leaves about 21% from individuals (cars, homes, etc).

 

[JSH1]

You know there is another site with your silly thoughts and it has come to light he's a Troll.

Why thank you for your kind words A-FIXER. What other site do I know you from, I do have a variety of interests. I suspect that you find it inconceivable that someone would own guns and enjoy shooting sports and be in favor of background checks.

The "retail sources" often involve friend, family or lover with clean record making the purchase. On friends and family supplying their guns to criminals, the NIJ "Armed and Considered Dangerous" survey of felons noted "friends" supplying guns to felons were often fellow criminals, as would be many family of felons. Now, would friends or family of a known criminal run a background check on their criminal family member or friend, and refuse the sale, trade, rent or loan if the check came back "prohibited person"?

If all legal sales required a background check then yes, friends and family would do do the check or they wouldn't make the sale. That or they are a straw purchaser and a record of all legal sales would lead right to them. I find it funny that you post statistics that says only 40% of criminals get their guns from illegal sources as proof the better regulation of the legal gun market won't effect criminals.

If you want an example of what I'm talking about, take the 'Assault Weapon Ban' of 1994 passed under Clinton. After 10 full years, the ONLY tangible effect was a slight INCREASE in gun related crimes. Now, a good 1/2 of the folks in congress were there when that bill was passed, then expired. And I'm quite sure that every single one of them know of the results that followed, yet after the Newtown shooting, the same libs were calling for its reinstatement. Explain that one my friend.

That is called politics. I also agree that the 1994 assault rifle ban was ineffective. To restrict guns based on cosmetic features that can be easily changed is ineffective. To grandfather existing weapons is ineffective. To target a class of weapons that are used in a tiny fraction of crimes is ineffective. If you read my comments earlier in the thread you will see that I did not support the recent attempt to reinstate the ban. If fact wasting time on trying to reinstate the ban killed any chance of universal background checks passing. Of course this thread is discussing background checks not assault rifle bans.