What if the background check was removed permanently?

[Insignificant bill]

"Shall not be infringed" means what it says. I'm not holding my breath waiting on the USSC to agree.

Until then, we work with what we got.
While the Brady Law purportedly stops the sale of a firearm from a licensed dealer to a prohibited person, in reality we all know that criminals by definition don't follow the law. Its easy to find a straw buyer, steal or buy from the street without ever being subject to a background check. So, the background check is essentially only going to prevent the really stupid criminals from trying to buy a gun from an FFL.

The GAO released this report several years ago, its worth a read:https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf Right there on the front page is this gem:


Stopped laughing yet? It gets better......

So......eight of twelve just pled guilty....before going to trial.


Yup, more than eight million NICS transactions and it yielded a dozen actual prosecutions by the feds.
Now, I'm sure some of those denials may have led to the state filing charges and the feds dropped theirs, but how disheartening it must be for an ATF Agent to investigate and know that the USAO is only going to prosecute one percent.


In the meantime, in a little more than half the states, a firearm permit (License to carry, concealed weapon, carry permit whatever) serves as an exemption to the FBI NICS check......lets expand that list of states with a qualifying permit

"Shall not be infringed" means what it says. I'm not holding my breath waiting on the USSC to agree.

Until then, we work with what we got.
While the Brady Law purportedly stops the sale of a firearm from a licensed dealer to a prohibited person, in reality we all know that criminals by definition don't follow the law. Its easy to find a straw buyer, steal or buy from the street without ever being subject to a background check. So, the background check is essentially only going to prevent the really stupid criminals from trying to buy a gun from an FFL.

The GAO released this report several years ago, its worth a read:https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf Right there on the front page is this gem:


Stopped laughing yet? It gets better......

So......eight of twelve just pled guilty....before going to trial.


Yup, more than eight million NICS transactions and it yielded a dozen actual prosecutions by the feds.
Now, I'm sure some of those denials may have led to the state filing charges and the feds dropped theirs, but how disheartening it must be for an ATF Agent to investigate and know that the USAO is only going to prosecute one percent.


In the meantime, in a little more than half the states, a firearm permit (License to carry, concealed weapon, carry permit whatever) serves as an exemption to the FBI NICS check......lets expand that list of states with a qualifying permit.

And what % were wrongly denied?
Now the government is trying to sneak in some more useless gun control in the latest bill they passed

 

[Insignificant bill]

If the world was perfect, I would be fine without them, but every so often, the background checks actually keeps some loonie from getting a gun. It's rare, and even rarer for someone to actually be prosecuted, but I don't agree with getting totally rid of them. Last time I went shooting at a local range, I saw more than a couple of people who shouldn't have a gun for medical, psych, or just plain safety of handling reasons. It wasn't confidence inspiring at all. One guy appeared to have Parkinson's at a level he couldn't hit much of anything he tried to actually hit. It's like the show I see of truly sad people with major issues being allowed to renew their driver's license at the BMV. Some of them are so far gone they have to bend over backwards just to get them to use the eye test machine. Watching them drive away after they "pass" the test is pretty scary.

That needs to be up to the people that know them. Back ground checks actually violate our rights. Your safety is on you

 

[LaneP]

I admit I'm conflicted. I hate any and all forms of gun control, but at the same time I would hate to be elbow to elbow in a LGS with a recently released MS-13 gang banger who did time for a violent felony snatching up the 1911 I had my eyes on just because he got to the gun counter a few steps before me. I don't have a good answer to the question.

 

[denton]

I think we ought to have background checks available, but in a very different form.

With blockchain technology, it's possible to build a secure and confidential inquiry system. Do that, and make the prohibited person list public through it. Only the buyer and seller have access to the information, except with a warrant.

Seller gets authorization to proceed, and with that, protection from any liability arising from the sale.

With that system, I wouldn't mind making the background check mandatory for all sales, but the government doesn't have access to it unless they can get a judge to agree that they have a good reason.

Edited to add: I see no good reason for restricting the sale and possession of suppressors. If OSHA regulated firearms, suppressors would be mandatory.

 

[Remington1911]

There are some interesting points of view here, I understand all of them but don't agree with all of them.

 

[Poper]

Yup, more than eight million NICS transactions and it yielded a dozen actual prosecutions by the feds.

I guess this is the definition of our tax dollars at work.

 

[Remington1911]

I guess this is the definition of our tax dollars at work.

Does that number include refused applications?

It is simple, in the US if you want a gun it is not hard to get one. Legal or illegal, and likely if you live in a state where face to face transfers are legal, you are less likely to have issues then if you do the illegal route.

I view the 4473 as a good idea, but like most things by .gov, done very badly. Someone said having to fill out that form violates your rights, interesting point of view. Just how. I tend to fall along the lines that a felon should not have the right to vote, is his rights being violated by this standard just like they are by not being allowed to buy a gun. Is the paperwork you need to jump through to get a suppressor/SBR/"machinegun" does that also violate your rights. You see in my book no. I see it as a basic check that you are not a crazy, is it perfect, hell no. Is it better then nothing yup. I think that if you want to buy an Abrams you should have that ability, want an F-16 sure, do I think that every citizen should be allowed to, nope, I know some that should not be driving a car.

I do not see "background" checks as a violation.

 

[Seamaster31]

s, no one can get it figured out and he returns for the gun in three days, four times.

In ten years this has not been fixed.
He is not a terrorist, should he be denied a firearm?
If he was a terrorist, he bought four firearms anyway…

So, how about all those Form 1 denials? All those were legal buyers. Even had $200 tax paid up front. I guess we’re just not allowed to have them anymore?
Did anyone here get to vote on that?

Folks that have this problem should request a FBI records check (https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/identity-history-summary-checks) to see what the problem is. An individual who had a problem passing the background checks for CBP programs, and for firearms purchases, came to our firm and was advised to first do this. It turned out that he had forgotten a long ago (forty years) issue when he was a youth that was reflected on their records. His indiscretion was able to eventually be expunged, although it did take some time and there were legal fees. If the information on the data base is incorrect the FBI allows it to be corrected, but it is up to the citizen to start that. process.

 

[WrongHanded]

The people who really should not have guns do not appear to be the people who get their guns through legal channels.

This is absolutely true. But ... that's because background checks prevent them from doing so. So if we didn't have a BGC system, any criminal could walk into a store with a roll of money, and walk out with an AR pistol, a dozen 30 round mags, and a pile of ammo. Is it easy to come by that stuff on the black market? I honestly don't know, but I'm guessing not, unless you are a well connected criminal. Even then, the price may be significantly higher.

There's certainly some nuance to the issue. Which is why I'm conflicted about it.

 

[.38 Special]

This is absolutely true. But ... that's because background checks prevent them from doing so. So if we didn't have a BGC system, any criminal could walk into a store with a roll of money, and walk out with an AR pistol, a dozen 30 round mags, and a pile of ammo. Is it easy to come by that stuff on the black market? I honestly don't know, but I'm guessing not, unless you are a well connected criminal. Even then, the price may be significantly higher.

There's certainly some nuance to the issue. Which is why I'm conflicted about it.

I hear you.

I guess my position is that pretty much anyone who wants a gun in this country can get one, so background checks are really just another hoop for the law abiding.

Of course, it's a purely theoretical discussion, so I'm not investing a whole lot of mental energy...

 

[theotherwaldo]

If background checks actually led to penalties for those that fraudulently attempt to obtain a weapon then I would be all for them.
Sadly, the Fifth Amendment apparently prevents self-incrimination in this case, so there no penalties for trying to lie and obtain a gun illegally.
This removes most of the reason for allowing the government to perform background checks... .

 

[Poper]

deleted

 

[AlexanderA]

What percentage of mass murderers actually pass background checks? (Answer: nearly all of them.) This alone should tell you that the system is useless.

The key factor is what happens after the background check, not what happened before.

 

[Jimbo80]

I see it as a basic check that you are not a crazy, is it perfect, hell no.

NICS checks don't cover crazy. You can be crazy as a bed bug and still pass a background check.

[QUOTE="Demi-human]
My Dad gets denied every time, his name, Blaine(scary, right?), is close to a terrorist’s name on a watch list. [/QUOTE]

Your Dad needs to get a UPIN#. I have not had a Non Approval since getting one.

 

[Jdague12]

Background checks are necessary, but there’s no reason our drivers licenses can’t be linked with DOJ and just scan it and have an instant result. We shouldn’t have to fill out multiple forms for every firearm we buy, especially if I buy a pistol and shotgun and/or rifle on the same visit. Too many “questionable” people would have access to firearms without some sort of checks and balance system. For every right, there is always SOMETHING you have to give up. I’m ok with a quick background check as long as it keeps firearms from landing in the wrong hands easily.
And just remember….no government system is flawless.

 

[Darth-Vang]

NICS checks don't cover crazy. You can be crazy as a bed bug and still pass a background check.

[QUOTE="Demi-human]
My Dad gets denied every time, his name, Blaine(scary, right?), is close to a terrorist’s name on a watch list.

Your Dad needs to get a UPIN#. I have not had a Non Approval since getting one.[/QUOTE] “Crazy as bedbug and still pass”

 

[George Dickel]

Apparently it isn't all that difficult for a felon to obtain a firearm. The New York City police caught a lot of felons with firearms when they were doing stop and frisk operations. Remember Bernie Getz, he had an illegally obtained firearm and he wasn't a felon at the time. I've lost count of all the news reports of convicted felons committing crimes with a firearm. Heroin, cocaine, meth, amphetamines and every other illegal drug aren't available legally, yet you can buy them in nearly every podunk, one-horse town in the country. It is a self imposed delusional belief that back ground checks stop a determined ineligible person from obtaining a firearm.

 

[Jdague12]

It stops them from getting one from a person/business trying to abide by the laws. And there are the “good” people that fall to the other side that have no business getting one.
Again, it’s not a perfect system, but it does work for what it’s intended. Bad people are always going to be able to obtain guns illegally if they want them. Unfortunately, we honest people have to jump through the legal hoops.
I’d like to see official data on how many people are legitimately stopped every year. Just interested

 

[DT Guy]

That's not what happened at all. And we have covered it a great length. Please stop repeating incorrect information.

I missed the discussion here-
One report-
Second report-

Note the second report is from 'the Trace', hardly a gun rights propaganda organization, and THEY admit the ATF has digitized 285 MILLION sales records.

As far as BG checks, I love the responses saying something like 'I don't think they really do anything, but I think we should keep doing them.'

I'm losing hope any section of Americans actually understands liberty at this point....

Larry

 

[CapnMac]

No background check is just stupid idea. Sorry, but its just that

If our "background check" was, in fact, a background investigation, then, perhaps. A good BI really wants about 5 days (a deep one about 5 weeks)--not exactly "instant."
Unlike Czechia, our NICS Check is just a comparison of the buyer's name & address versus a list of Prohibited People. That listing of PP is, allegedly, generated in good faith based on information of felony convictions, domestic violence convictions, and certain other disabling conditions. Sadly, 14 of the 50 States have not completely given their complete criminal information to the NICS list. Seven of the fifty States have never given disabling mental health information to the list. The list was never designed with any thought, nor ability, for auditing. It's known to have misspellings and duplicate entries galore (and to include the deceased). It was created when 8-bit SQL databases were the standard. The database inquiry form used is just an SQL macro that the person at the other end of the phone line enters the information given. The "logic" in the macro is hat determines the Proceed/Delay/Decline result.
It's basically a blacklist. A poorly organized, un-auditable, blacklist.

If the alleged purpose of the background check is to determine whether or not the buyer is a prohibited person, then WHY is the make, model, caliber, and S/N of the gun being transferred also recorded?

IMO, background checks should be about the person only, not the gun.

Ah, it's because there are two things happening at once.
GCA 68 required the 4472, which records all the sales transaction info.
NICS 83 only needs the personal identification info, and not the "what" is being purchased (barring the Point of Contact States, where the info goes to the State Board of Investigation first).

Health check?

Idahou lives in Czechia, and you are required to get a "Health Check" as part of their national firearms licensing laws.

 

[Seedy Character]

1. Until 1968, you could order a gun from Seats catalogues and have it sent to your house. 1968 created the 4473.
2. 1998 the NCIS system puts background checks in to affect

How many criminals have been caught from a 4473?
How many sales has the background checks stopped? Criminals do not BUY guns from DEALERS.

Registration is NOT legal. Is there a record of these background checks? We don't know?
There have been reports of BATF creating lists from 4473, any illegal act.

Infringing on HONEST CITIZENS does nothing to stop criminals.

 

[CapnMac]

and THEY admit the ATF has digitized 285 MILLION sales records.

Which are only "first purchase" records, and many are hugely out of date.
People buy and sell firearms all the time.
A given firearm will pass through many hands.
So, as has been repeatedly pointed out, it's not a very good "registry." Further, that "digitized" is not the same as "computerized." There are entire books that have been digitized. Finding a specific word in one of those is not a whiz-bang sure thing.
So, somebody asks BATFE "I have [serial number] what can you tell me about it?" What good will it be to have them tell you "It's a .38 Colt Cobra, bought by Elmer Fudd, 123 Last St, Vernon, Texas, on 21 February 1972, at ABC Gunz, in Idalou, Texas."

 

[aaaaa]

Idahou lives in Czechia, and you are required to get a "Health Check" as part of their national firearms licensing laws.

Yeah, I just don't get the rationale for the health check, is it a mental health check?

 

[dogtown tom]

Sadly, the Fifth Amendment apparently prevents self-incrimination in this case, so there no penalties for trying to lie and obtain a gun illegally.
This removes most of the reason for allowing the government to perform background checks... .

Huh?
Lying on the Form 4473 has nothing to do with the Fifth Amendment. No one is forced to buy a gun from a licensed deaeler, it entirely voluntary.
As far as penalties? Where have you been?
It's discussed often on this forum, as its the most recent USSC case involving the Form 4473:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States

 

[dogtown tom]

And what % were wrongly denied?

"Wrongly denied" is a misnomer.
FBI NICS background checks are a name and identifying characteristic based background check. When someone is denied, their name or identifying information closely matches that of a prohibited person. Thats exactly how its supposed to work.

There is an appeal process. So if the buyer feels his denial wasn't valid, he can find the reason within five days from the FBI.