This seems where the real fight will be - everything else is probably DOA and mostly political. So for gun advocates who are opposed to this, what is the argument against expanding the background checks?
Good thread. Banning of any types of guns is not going to happen in US in my lifetime. Really curious to see why anyone would be against background checks though. If you are a law abiding citizen and get a gun, wouldn't you want there to be strict control on guns so not any idiot can go get one?
Thanks - I'm hoping y'all's views are widespread, and hopefully it at least creates an opportunity for legitimate discussion there, as opposed to partisan bickering just killing it before it even gets off the ground.
Major, this explains it pretty well and after some deep thoughts about it I agree with this article, this is my stance as well. I say NO to universal background checks and this is why: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/universal-background-checks-–-absolutely-not.aspx Universal Background Checks – Absolutely Not Imagine a grandfather who wants to give a family shotgun to his 12-year-old grandson having to do a background check on his grandson before giving him the shotgun. Or a friend having to do a background check on his lifetime best buddy before lending him a hunting rifle. Or, if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do a background check on your own mom before you could give her one of your guns for protection. That's what "universal background checks" do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners. Universal background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals. All background checks must be conducted through a federally licensed dealer. Universal background checks have nothing to do with gun shows – they are about you. It is ALREADY a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms and ammunition without having federal firearm dealers license. It is ALREADY a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check – that's all dealers, everywhere, including at retail stores, gun shows, flea markets or anywhere else. Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or an alcohol or drug abuser is a 10-year federal felony. That's now, today, with no changes to the law. It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm. Even so, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn't pass the background check. Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted. Why, when criminals are caught in act of lying on the form to illegally purchase a firearm, are they not prosecuted? On Thursday, January 10, 2013, in the White House meeting of President Obama's Gun Agenda Task Force, Vice President Joe Biden answered that question, telling NRA's Director of Federal Affairs, James Baker, that the Obama administration didn't have time to prosecute people for lying on the federal background check form. In an article in The Daily Caller (1/18/2013) Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately." If the Obama Administration currently doesn't have the time or manpower to prosecute those who lie on background check forms, then why do they want more background checks, more paperwork and more forms? It's backdoor gun registration. Universal background check system legislation that we have previously seen, allows the government to keep a computerized government registry of gun owners. In addition to the absurdity of having to do background checks on people you know are not criminals, would you like to pay up to $100 or more just to give your grandson a shotgun, or lend a hunting rifle to your best friend, or give your mom a gun for protection? Transfer fees alone could run from $50 up. Firearms dealers, like other businesses, charge as much as they can get away with. Background check fees for a federally mandated program can be any amount they decide. The Obama administration's gun ban agenda and universal background check proposal are unconstitutional regulatory schemes to gut the Second Amendment. These proposals, which mandate the government collection of data on lawful gun buyers and sellers, amount to universal gun registration and gun owner licensing. This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who obtain guns on the black market to carry out unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state laws. Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal conduct, they are creating more criminals--they are targeting you. That's why NRA members and the nation's 100 million firearms owners will stand in solidarity and fight against these misguided and diabolical proposals that have nothing whatsoever to do with curbing criminal violence but everything to do with stripping us of our guaranteed civil rights and our freedom.
Instead, criminals will kill to get guns... In reality, if a criminal could not even pass a background check that any ordinary guys can, he'd better change his career...
Same people who complain that Prohibition on Weed/Drugs doesn't work think the Prohibition on guns will . . . . . .. . because ???? If we do this. . . I would like an IMMEDIATE counterbalance I would like COPS that shoot unarmed people to be brought on criminal charges With less guns around. . .they should have less reason to be afraid . .. right? Rocket River
I have no problem with it, and I'm not in the gun advocate camp at all. But, the argument Sactown posted doesn't seem very valid to me. We shouldn't do it because it is an administrative burden? I would think the argument should be that it gives the government the mechanism to abridge the gun rights of its political enemies. So, if Obama had a coup and made himself Supreme Commander forever, he could disarm the People's Liberation Army for a Free 'Murica by putting them on the Terror Watch List, at which point all their gun licenses would be revoked, and we'd have all their addresses on file to boot so we can round them up in the night. (Or, to take a less extreme example, you could say anyone who has given money to PETA throws a red flag on the background check, and then you can put a lot of political intimidation on a political opinion you want to suppress.) You can't exactly protect the republic and democracy when you have to ask potential tyrants for permission. I'm still for it. But, I'd rather counter that argument than an argument that it'd make borrowing a gun for an afternoon too expensive and onerous.
This quote right here is where the entire article become an epic fail. Giving out guns, no matter who you are giving them to, is not "innocent conduct" in the sense that it has no possibility of negative repercussions. I have no problem whatsoever in making it more difficult for folks to start giving away guns to their friends and family. Lest we forget, Adam Lanza got his guns (forcibly, to be sure) from a family member. Following the logic of this article, Nancy Lanza should have been able to arm her son to the teeth. Nope, not buying it.
I felt the same way. I have less trouble with someone lending a rifle to a buddy for weekend skeet shooting or whatever. But, even if the law requires a background check there (which is to be seen), no one would comply anyway and enforcement really wouldn't care. But, to give your grandson a shotgun for him to keep? Yeah, I want a background check done.
Was that article written in a high school sophomore essay contest or something? Good god, the stupidity that drips from it literally just made me dumber. I can't imagine anyone with a modicum of intelligence could actually agree with it. By the way, love that it claims a) omg this will make innocent people criminals and it will be so bad and b) there will be no enforcement. Ummm...
Why should a man be allowed to give a 12 year old boy a shotgun? It is ridiculous that this is even legal. A 12-year old boy is not allowed to drive, not allowed to drink alcohol, but can own and fire a shotgun? Americans are insane. And if you're going to insist on it being legal, YES, run that background check on the boy. Yes, in case his lifetime best buddy is also a headcase known for going into fits of rage and beating up his wife into a pulp. RUN THAT BACKGROUND CHECK. ABSOLUTELY. In case your mother is a sociopath with a criminal past. No, they help make sure "traditional innocent conduct" is exactly that and not criminal activity. That's why we have laws to begin with.
How about something like this. Its my idea and I pulled it out of my arse. Every gun that changes possession has to go through some broker(gun dealer) that does the paperwork and background check for a small nominal fee(maybe 5 bucks). You can't be a licensed gun dealer unless you are willing to provide this service.
Teenagers can get fake IDs. This won't solve anything except to let the tyrannical government know where the law-abiding guns are kept so they can easily confiscate them. It's what Hitler and Stalin and Castro did. Criminals will still have guns but I need to keep mine unregistered so I can fight the government when they try to take it.
