Just to follow up on some of the other responses to this post. This ignores the glaring loophole to those laws that was outlined in the first part of the op-ed that people who aren't licensed dealers can sell firearms or give firearms without a background check. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole#Controversies [rquoter]however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).][/rquoter] I am for universal background checks but agree it would be difficult to enforce because of people gifting guns. That is why I would also like to see universal registration of all firearms also. Anytime a gun is sold or given the new ownership would have to be registered so that even if a background check wasn't performed there would be a record though of who had the gun and when. Also anytime a gun was stolen the owner has to alert the registry that the gun is no longer in their possession. This would help problem law abiding gun owners as any there would be a record regarding any crimes that might be committed with guns that they had owned but no longer possessed. Regarding the inevitable gun owner argument against registration I am going to point out that we do the same thing for cars and the 2nd Amendment doesn't forbid regulation.
How about a license or endorsement on your drivers license to buy a gun. The license or endorsement must be active to buy a gun but you don't have to disclose which guns are transferring hands.
Look, when a Grandfather is giving his grandson a gun that has been in the family for generations has to do a background check on his own grandson then we have a problem.
The only people this universal background check will affect is law abiding citizens because they have to go through this hassle and extra cost when giving or selling a gun to a family member or friend. Criminals will buy them anyways and WILL NOT go through the background check process regardless.
Why? Are grandsons immune from being nuts? Or do we think crazy people should be allowed to have guns, but only if they come from within the family?
How about this proposal. In order to buy a gun you have to be a member of the NRA and in order to be a member of the NRA you must complete a background check. I think that may make some of the gun nuts happy because they don't want it in the hands of the govt but would probably be OK with the NRA doing it. In a private party sale, just make a copy of the buyers non expired NRA card and there is your record. One issue with this is that someone could get an NRA card and then become a felon afterwards so you'd have to run yearly checks for renewal, something like that.
The govt doesn't determine if the grandson is nuts or not. That is the law abiding grandfather's decision. The grandfather would have to be insane to give the gun to an insane grandson, and due to the fact that the grandfather passed his background check when he got the gun then we have to conclude that he is sane.
It doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" deal. Im not sure why everything has to be pushed to an extreme in political debates. If you are a dealer/seller, then it should ALWAYS required a check. If you sell more than [whatever number here] in a specified time period, then they should be required to do a back ground check. (to prevent people from being dealers under the table). If you are not willing to take the responsibility of the action of the person to whom youre selling it to, then a back ground check should be ran. Requiring background checks to pass down a shotgun thats been in the family for a 100 years is a little ridiculous. The idea is to cut down on the negligent acts, not pin the responsibility of anothers actions on someone else.
Fail, fail, fail, fail, fail, so much fail, fail with a side of fail, fail with a fail on top, all the fail.
What if the gun is being passed down to a drug dealer? Or someone with a violent criminal history? After all, every criminal is someone's son and someone's grandson.
Then the person who hands the gun down gets prosecuted if a crime is committed with that firearm. Its called personal responsibity.
You have to pass certain background checks for certain jobs. Why not background checks for gun ownership? Seems REASONABLE.
That is getting down into the rare exceptions. Dad isn't passing down the common glock to his thug son. We are talking about guns with sentimental value. The root of the issue is figuring out how to enforce it. Before a private seller can be forced to go through an FFL to sell to another private seller, the gun has to be registered to that owner. Otherwise, there is no proof of original ownership. For that to happen, legislation will need to be passed to require every owner to register their guns. That just isn't going to happen anytime soon. Why waste time trying to pass legislation that isn't going to happen and end up with little to nothing at all. It would be better to give the private owner a choice of going through an FFL for a private seller, with the seller understanding he could be liable for criminal negligence. By him paying an FFL to do the background check, he absolves himself of any responsibility and officially releases that gun from his custody. Its more meaningful, more practical, gives gun owners flexibility, an it doesn't make gun owners feel like they are being marked and tracked by the government.
A question I have regarding background checks for gun ownership is how often they are done. For example, assume the 12 year old from the article applies for and passes the background check. Is he then 'in the system' and never needs another background check or does he need one every single time he acquires a gun? To further that, I would assume an Alzheimer's sufferer would not pass a background check. That being the case, should individuals who legally obtained a gun and passed a background check be required to undergo periodic background checks to ensure they still meet the requirements?
The problem with your proposal is that it leaves some pretty big loopholes. For instance how is a private seller going to be liable for criminal negligence if they don't have to register the gun or the sale? Your argument is that people should go through the extra expense of paying an FFL to absolve them of responsibility when there is no enforcement mechanism that would make the original seller responsible for the disposition of their gun.
