What if the background check was removed permanently?

[Targa]

I am not on board with removing it but I am certainly on board with revamping it. It’s one thing to get a background check for a gun but outlandish in my opinion to have to get another background if you buy a firearm a week later for example.
Something along the lines of your background investigation being valid until you do something to have it revoked.

 

[DT Guy]

BATFE has required the records of closed FFL since 1969, and stored them as well, in "as is" condition.
No one planned far enough in advance what to do with paper records in storage for more than a decade.
In addition, FFL have closed due to fires and floods--those records were turned in as well.
For "records preservation" BATFE started scanning in the pallets of Bound Books in their possession. Now, the instructions say to fill in information "legibly"--a term that is hard to exactly define.
So, some portion of those records will be "squiggle" of "hen scratch" bought "smudge"--it's not magic.
They only have 4473, and no other records.


No, no "database investigation." It's a listing that could be stuck in Excell as it's a simple 2d listing (at around 8-11 million records, it would strain Excell). From memory, it's a DB III file using a COBOL based SQL query. All portions of those records are Public Information.
The only reason to restrict access to that information is federal bureaucrat staff job protection (and to prevent public outcry over the quality and completeness of the records).


Which are up to fifty years old , now, and only record the first sale.


If actual criminal history were reviewed, then, perhaps, there might be some merit. It's only just a check against a list. But, you cannot look up criminal history in under 4-5 days.

All of which argues that their digitized records aren't as useful as they could have been if collected better-NOT that they don't have them.

Does anyone believe the Federal government doesn't have a plan (if they aren't already) to OCR those documents?

Again-I never argued they were complete or convenient. Your argument is against a point I never made.

They HAVE digitized records of sales; if there were no background checks that needed to be documented, most of the reason for a 4473 itself would disappear.

Larry

 

[JumboJVT]

I'm in the conflicted camp, for the same pragmatic reasons as Old Dog but without the personal LE experience. Just a couple observations to add..

Putting any deep philosophical discussion of from where "Rights" emanate aside, from a practical application standpoint, a Right is any action that the government or any other entity or individual is precluded from preventing you from engaging in...as a matter of Law. Any activity that is not specifically enumerated as a Right does not enjoy that protection. Health Care is not a right, nor are any other entitlements rights.

USSC has repeatedly found that certain reasonable limitations on Rights are acceptable for the betterment of Society. Think yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. Therefore, the question is what is the justification for the limitation and are they reasonable to achieve the goal. The "you can't do that because the Constitution says so" argument is just so much waste of perfectly good air.

And since so many wish to justify their views by quoting the simple text of the Constitution and ignore the context in which it was written and the intervening 250 years of USSC decisions, I have this to offer: the 2A says nothing about acquiring guns not already in the people's possession. Yes, yes, exactly my point: the simple text doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[buck460XVR]

Something along the lines of your background investigation being valid until you do something to have it revoked.

....and yet that would still have to be checked at the time of sale. Would still take about the same amount of time. Could still lead to false denials because of incorrect/inadequate information. Would be similar to a BC, because it would confirm you are not prohibited.

 

[jdc1244]

The ‘problem’ with the background check process is there’s no way to document the program’s success.

There’s no record of a prohibited person not bothering at all to buy a gun from an FFL because he knows he can’t pass the background check – and in that context the process works.

Yes, a prohibited person can obtain a firearm via a private face-to-face sale – but he must go through the hassle of setting up the sale; he won’t be getting a new gun or the gun he wants or at the price he wants – likely paying more.

A background check process clearly makes it more difficult for a prohibited person to obtain a gun, which is desirable.

And the background check process was never presented as a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence.

Last, some of the hostility toward a background check process is a result of the current nonsense where the check can take several hours to clear, which wasn’t the case prior to the current nonsense.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, routinely does surveys of nationally representative samples of state and federal prison inmates who carried or used a gun in the commission of the crime for which they were imprisoned.

Last one I downloaded, 91% acquired their gun from non-retail sources. The first such survey I saw back in the 1980s, 79% acquired their gun from non- retail sources. The result of 40 some years has been a decline in the use of retail sources (gun dealers, pawnshops, flea markets, gun shows) from 21% to 9% of presumably felonious gun users.

So as far as preventing hard-core criminals from having or using guns, I might wonder if the resources used for the BG check system might be better utilized elsewhere in the criminal justice system.

On the other hand, I knew an abusive person prone to start drunken fights who was under a state gun rights prohibition who told me she would have to go before a judge to get her gun rights restored. She could not pass the state BG check required at a gun dealer. I thought it was best she not have a gun. An off-the-books gun would be easy to acquire, but the state restriction was enough to deter her from trying while sober.

 

[herrwalther]

It would be nice to purchase a firearm without getting a NICS delay. Otherwise it wouldn't effect me. I get delayed for nearly every check. To the point that after I fill out the 4473 I say "let me know when I can pick it up next week."

 

[jdc1244]

Do you really think a criminal will get a back round check?

Of course not – which is the point.

A prohibited person will be compelled to negotiate additional hurdles and burdens to obtain a firearm.

And the notion that criminals can easily obtain guns from their fellow criminals in the ‘criminal community’ is a myth.

 

[Shanvanvocht]

if there were no background checks that needed to be documented, most of the reason for a 4473 itself would disappear.

The 4473 has nothing to do with the NICS check and predates it by 30 years

 

[jdc1244]

It does violate our rights. It's an infringement. Citizens have allowed the Federal government to overstep and violate the Constitution.

Actually not.

Congress enacts laws at the behest of the people, reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

And until such time as the Supreme Court rules that the background check process is repugnant to the Second Amendment, there is no infringement, the Constitution has not been violated.

Unless, of course, this is a reference to the aspirational/political second amendment, having nothing to do with the Constitution or its case law.

 

[Darth-Vang]

I get the feeling that all the background check does is like; a home owner coming home from work, sees roaches crawling about on the walls and floors, proceeds to crush the roaches that he sees, but all he really did was “make” more sneakier, craftier smarter roaches…ah evolution…

 

[crstrode]

Only about half of the votes are in support of such a thing.

Disgusting.

 

[JeeperCreeper]

Put me in the dangerous freedom category. Even though removing background checks isn't even that dangerous.

I would argue that a background check system was always a backdoor excuse for a registry. And registries are bad.


Side note: I would argue that the demographics on THR are much older than other gun forums like ARFCOM. As a "youngin", I have gotten into a few spirited debates about how the new young "gun culture 2.0" that grew up on again movies and video games are much more freedom minded than the "boomer fudd" generations. I know I'm generalizing, and I don't mean to be negative.... Just tongue in cheek. But I bet of this poll was on a younger forum, there would almost be all "no's". I notice a lot more pro-authority amongst the previous generations.

 

[Ironicaintit]

IMO, a background check flies against the principal of having the 2nd amendment at all.

ask the government for permission to arm yourself?
I don't think George Washington would have been okay with that

 

[jdc1244]

I would argue that a background check system was always a backdoor excuse for a registry.

That argument would fail as a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[JeeperCreeper]

That argument would fail as a slippery slope fallacy.

I could argue that calling something a logical fallacy is in itself, a logical fallacy.

And just because you can spin something into a fallacy (if you try hard enough, almost anything can be classified), doesn't mean that trends and events do not exist.

It might be a logical fallacy, but taking a road trip down recent events and looking at statements, proposals, history of other countries, bills, platforms, stances of anti-gun politicians, organizations, governments....

It can be argued that background checks lead to registration.

But I guess recent events with the ATF with 4473, history of illegal state registration like the PA handgun checks, pushes for registry and revamping the NICS system every election cycle, etc etc etc... do not exist.

Those things are my imagination as it is just a fallacy.

 

[DT Guy]

Yes, the 4473 predates the background check law, but the vast majority of a 4473 is (essentially) an 'honor-system' background check; surely you recall completing one and what it asks?

If we aren't keeping records of sales (we're not supposed to be) and there were no background checks, what would be the rationale for a 4473?

As far as the unsupported assertion that criminals getting guns from criminal associates is a 'myth', I can offer a number of first-hand examples of exactly that. Where do YOU think criminals get their guns?

Larry

 

[Insignificant bill]

Well. I remember when there were no background checks seems like gun crime still exists.

 

[tomrkba]

How many of you here would honestly if, let’s just say that the background check was no longer required starting tomorrow. How many of you would truly be okay with that? Trying to see people’s response.

Yes, I would be supportive of the government following the Constitution.

 

[Big_Al]

Of course not – which is the point.

A prohibited person will be compelled to negotiate additional hurdles and burdens to obtain a firearm.

And the notion that criminals can easily obtain guns from their fellow criminals in the ‘criminal community’ is a myth.

We get news stories fairly often about criminal felons that are arrested with drugs and handguns, they get out on bail and are rearrested a couple days later with guns & drugs. It seems like they aren't very hard to obtain illegally.

 

[Sniper66]

Of course I'm OK with no background checks. That would be a blessing. Doing away with a lot of other nuisance regulations would also be a blessing. Has the background check system changed the murder rate? Are there people around who would misuse firearms if we have no background checks? Are there people who would misuse firearms if we had much stronger anti-gun laws? The reality is background checks do nothing to stop gun violence or other type of violence. Bad people do bad things and they don't care what is legal or illegal.

 

[aaaaa]

That's sound good but recall our Founding documents allowed slavery, denied women the right to vote and restricted the voting rights of even white men.

Not sure the Constitution say anything about slavery, but if it had to have explicitly banned slavery, they never would have got enough states on board and we would never have become the U.S. of A. It had to be dealt with later. As for women not being able to vote you have to look at the times, the historical context. Up until the 20th Century women rarely have rights anywhere in the world. As for not all white men being able to vote, I think they may have restricted voting to property owners. Not a bad idea considering that many of those who sponge off the government and continually vote for those who will give them other people's money are renters.

And until such time as the Supreme Court rules that the background check process is repugnant to the Second Amendment, there is no infringement, the Constitution has not been violated.

If the background check is unconstitutional, then it is an infringement from the moment it was passed into law. It does not need wait for the Supreme Court to declare it so. Really, no law should be passed without first being vetted by the Supreme Court as being constitutional. If it isn't, the bill should die right there. Well, there goes a whole lot of legislation from the last 100+ years! Good riddance.

And since so many wish to justify their views by quoting the simple text of the Constitution and ignore the context in which it was written and the intervening 250 years of USSC decisions, I have this to offer: the 2A says nothing about acquiring guns not already in the people's possession.

Inherent in the right to bear arms is the ability to obtain arms to bear. 250 years of USSC decisions is worthless because many of those decisions were wrong. The courts should not be concerned with prior court decisions, just the Constitution itself and the context in which it was written, which included the militia (not the National Guard or the Reserves) which was every able bodied man when the need should arise would bring their own weapons to the party.

 

[rust collector]

Here we are again postulating on what the law should be and how the courts should have held, and that accomplishes nothing. When folks try to "win", discussions become contentious and tiresome. This has run its course.