Expanded background checks
- Thread starter RobG
- Start date
spook12
New member
Agreed,
I'm no lover of background checks, but the current system is indefensible. They should be eliminated or made on every purchase.The only people that are affected by our current system are law abiding citizens(and 70,000 dumb a$$es that are too stupid to know they don't have the right to arm).
spook12
New member
Why would any sane person defend a system that requires them to prove that they have the full rights of citizenship while providing an obvious ''loophole'' for those who no longer have those rights?
sweetnectar
New member
Background check expansion my eye...
rhomas
Banned
Rob, if you go to the Senate roll call vote site, you will see that one of the specified bills that was voted down was the one that would have regulated transfers and sales to relatives, including loaner guns ( I believe it was the last one voted on).
It's also my understanding, and at least it's the law in SC, GA, and Florida, that it's illegal for anyone other than the actual purchaser to complete the form 4473, and even if an individual is a CWP holder, they still have to complete and sign the form (this is part of the record keeping requirements that FFLs have to keep for a minimum of twenty years and provide at any time a BATFE agent wants to see their documentation), even though the actual background check doesn't have to be run. As a matter of fact, on the form 4473 it's even illegal to abbreviate any items, such as using your state's initials, instead of actually spelling out the state, and if your name has a junior or senior, after it, you can't put Jr. or Sr. on the form. The new version also requires you to indicate that the non-resident section doesn't apply to you ( this was added recently, you used to indicate citizenship by checking one box, now it is required in two separate questions). The new form also requires that you fill out your complete address, again with no abbreviations such as dr. for drive or rd. for road, and you must state both city and county, as well as state of residence and city and state of birth. There are also two separate sections on the back of the form that you must sign and date, previously there was only one.
It's also my understanding, and at least it's the law in SC, GA, and Florida, that it's illegal for anyone other than the actual purchaser to complete the form 4473, and even if an individual is a CWP holder, they still have to complete and sign the form (this is part of the record keeping requirements that FFLs have to keep for a minimum of twenty years and provide at any time a BATFE agent wants to see their documentation), even though the actual background check doesn't have to be run. As a matter of fact, on the form 4473 it's even illegal to abbreviate any items, such as using your state's initials, instead of actually spelling out the state, and if your name has a junior or senior, after it, you can't put Jr. or Sr. on the form. The new version also requires you to indicate that the non-resident section doesn't apply to you ( this was added recently, you used to indicate citizenship by checking one box, now it is required in two separate questions). The new form also requires that you fill out your complete address, again with no abbreviations such as dr. for drive or rd. for road, and you must state both city and county, as well as state of residence and city and state of birth. There are also two separate sections on the back of the form that you must sign and date, previously there was only one.
A-con
New member
The proposed “Expanded background check”, along with the current background check law has less to do with background checks and more to do with developing a “data base” or de-facto registration.
The evidence of this is two fold. #1, the fact that they (the Gov.) do not prosecute many of the violators, showing they are more interested in gathering the information then enforcing the law.
#2 The people who wrote the new law refused to even consider removing the registration component from the background check system.
If “they” really want to close the “gun show & private sale loophole”, all they need to do is modify the form 4473 to remove any mention of the firearms “make, model and serial number” then make the background check mandatory for all transfers. Period.
There are other changes that would make the law/system of background checks better, more efficient and user friendly, but the main thing is this Government “database”.
I have no problem with a mandatory, universal back ground check, it’s the de-facto registration that I oppose.
The evidence of this is two fold. #1, the fact that they (the Gov.) do not prosecute many of the violators, showing they are more interested in gathering the information then enforcing the law.
#2 The people who wrote the new law refused to even consider removing the registration component from the background check system.
If “they” really want to close the “gun show & private sale loophole”, all they need to do is modify the form 4473 to remove any mention of the firearms “make, model and serial number” then make the background check mandatory for all transfers. Period.
There are other changes that would make the law/system of background checks better, more efficient and user friendly, but the main thing is this Government “database”.
I have no problem with a mandatory, universal back ground check, it’s the de-facto registration that I oppose.
A-con- I am of a similar thought to you. I have no problem with a data base of people who shouldn't own guns and that data base being used to check a person buying a gun, any gun for that matter and all sales should go through this data base. I don't like registering firearms...no need for it in my opinion. Not because I am scared of the government trying to take my guns away...but because there is no need for registering firearms. Like cell-phones and cars, most people in the US own a firearm as well. Statistically speaking, you could assume that 8 of every 10 people own a firearm...registering firearm owners would take more time and money than what the data would be worth. Also if the government wanted to limit firearms...it would be much easier to stop the production of gun powder and brass than it would be to stop the making of a firearm. If you want to worry about the taking of freedoms...the Patriot act (that few people worry about or even think about), took much more away from you than what the current gun legislation ever had the ability to. The current gun legislation has no bite or ability of keeping people safe from a crazy person with a firearm. However, closing a couple loop holes isn't a bad idea either.
Schmalts- The idea behind background checks has never been to prosecute...it is to stop the sale of a firearm. If it was to prosecute, there would have to be an entire new agency of the court system just to handle the case load each year.
Schmalts- The idea behind background checks has never been to prosecute...it is to stop the sale of a firearm. If it was to prosecute, there would have to be an entire new agency of the court system just to handle the case load each year.
Matt, radar guns are not made to prosecute either.
My last post on this... background checks are fine with me but i am against any added laws until they use the current laws to punish the criminals instead of the law abiding. No different than this gang of 8 bill on immigration
My last post on this... background checks are fine with me but i am against any added laws until they use the current laws to punish the criminals instead of the law abiding. No different than this gang of 8 bill on immigration
Schmalts- You must live in an area with a poorly equipped police force. Of the many police cars I have driven by and looked at...none are missing a radar gun! Again, radar guns are meant to stop people committing a crime...background checks are to stop an illegal purchase. It would be more like putting a governor on all engines that wouldn't allow a vehicle to go above the speed limit but for only those individuals that have an egregious speeding problem...a felony type.
exponentialpi
Active member
I guess I read between the lines on Karl's post, as I have been reading his financial work for over 4 years. The main point is law abiding citizens follow the rules, but when someone who is denied a firearm is hell bent on injury or murder, they will find a way to obtain the weapons. Laws have never stopped anyone with that mentality before and they won't in the future.
RobG
Well-known member
Agreed there. I guess I figured the law was more designed to prevent gun sellers from knowingly selling to criminals, etc. As it is now, with no background check they can blame ignorance (and as a bonus they sell more guns). With required background checks the law could bust them for selling to people who would fail the check. Generally it is more efficient to go after the dealers than the users...
I believe Schmaltz's data, but there must be more to the story about those 70,000 +/- people getting turned down. This site (which I spent 10 seconds to find, but it appears to be biased against background checks) claims most of the refusals come from people who did something minor in the past. I don't know why the court would waste time prosecuting those people, nor I don't know why a dangerous criminal would be stupid enough to submit to a background check knowing they would fail. If this law is working properly you would expect almost no convictions because nobody would be dumb enough to violate something so concrete.
All that said, and nothing personal against Schmaltz or anyone else, I do find it extremely disingenuous for the gun lobby to do everything in their power to make sure gun laws can't be enforced (including opposing tools like these background checks and their attacks on ATF) and then claiming the problem is that we aren't enforcing the current laws.
RobG
Well-known member
Surely if you are up on economics you believe that making an item more expensive (money, inconvenience, threat of jail, etc) that people will buy less of that item. I don't know that the slope of that curve is, but Giuliani claims his gun laws reduced crime in New York. There was also a study a short while back that found that states with tougher gun laws had fewer gun crimes (yes I know correlation doesn't equal causation). There may be other contrary studies, but I've seen where the gun lobby has fought the funding of studies aimed at better understanding the problem.
LopeHunter
Well-known member
More laws lead to fewer gun crimes, eh? How is that working in Chicago and D.C. these days? Oops. Compare to Dallas with hardly any gun laws since is part of Texas. Oops again. Seems a tiny flaw in the hypothesis that more laws make criminals put away their guns. Is there really a study needed to reveal criminals are driven to separate your property and life from you in the easiest way a criminal can find? Add in some turf wars over patches of land to sell drugs where bad people harm other bad people and you do not need a study. You need a gun.
rhomas
Banned
Rob, states like Connecticut, Illinois, California, and New York, along with DC? Check your statistics again. Also, remember that Professor Lott began his research to prove that restrictive gun laws reduced crime: his results were the opposite of his thesis, and changed his opinion of gun laws........and he was a compatriot of Obama's!!!!!!!
I guess that when you asked for someone to give a legitimate reason for opposition to stricter background checks, you didn't really want to hear those reasons. I thought I had enumerated them for you in a reasonable and rational manner. Obviously, your mind isn't open to a valid discussion against such background checks, and it's even more obvious that you have a problem with pro-gun organizations.........which is your right; but why not cease and desist from trying to convince those of us with strong pro-gun beliefs and justified reasons for opposing the increased background checks that our opinions are wrong, simply because we aren't in agreement with you!
I guess that when you asked for someone to give a legitimate reason for opposition to stricter background checks, you didn't really want to hear those reasons. I thought I had enumerated them for you in a reasonable and rational manner. Obviously, your mind isn't open to a valid discussion against such background checks, and it's even more obvious that you have a problem with pro-gun organizations.........which is your right; but why not cease and desist from trying to convince those of us with strong pro-gun beliefs and justified reasons for opposing the increased background checks that our opinions are wrong, simply because we aren't in agreement with you!
RobG
Well-known member
Lope, I don't know what the real relationship is, but that, if you make something harder to do, people will do less of it is basic human behavior. Disagreeing is like saying guys don't like boobs. It's science. I do know you can't just cherry pick a few cities when it is convenient. Yes, both sides do it. I don't know why the gun folks expect anyone to put meaning in it.
I lived in Dallas for a few miserable years after college. It is a very wealthy city. Just south of Dallas was Oak Cliff, which isn't a wealthy city. Dallas had a lot of gun violence. Oak Park was far worse. Same gun laws, same location.
To claim background checks won't make ANY difference is absurd, but I'll agree that it could be possible that it won't make enough difference to warrant the cost of enforcement and a black market (like the war on drugs). If that is the case we need to stop pussyfooting around and just make it legal for any person to buy a gun because for all practical purposes you can't catch an illegal gun owner until he commits another crime because the fourth amendment (thankfully still) prevents the gov. from searching us without just cause.
So what do you think? Should we have meaningful background checks or just stop pussyfooting around and let felons own guns? I guess that is how I see the paths we can take on this issue.
rhomas
Banned
If we actually abide by the Constitution, then there would be no background checks, and no restrictive gun laws, period. There also may be less violent crime and fewer criminals committing those crimes with guns. Who's to say we wouldn't be better off?
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
What makes you think felons will not own guns as the result of more background checks?
It is already against the law for a felon to own a gun. There is a black market for guns. Why wouldn't a felon just buy one off the black market? If a human will break one law (like laws against felons owning guns) why wouldn't they break more laws (like laws against purchasing guns on a black market)?
RobG
Well-known member
I doubt if we'd be safer, but we'd be freer. Part of the liberty-safety continuum Franklin spoke of
. I haven't found that these checks to give up that much liberty and there is something about allowing a dangerous criminal to simply buy a gun that rubs me the wrong way. It seems like we better have a pretty good reason for only going part way on background checks and I'm not seeing one. Here is the leftist spin on manchin-toomey: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ys-manchin-toomey-would-have-criminalized-so/ Does that sound accurate?
If I didn't spend so much time procrastinating on this site I'd have time to look into this further.
RobG
Well-known member
I'm gunna put you in the "stop pussyfooting around" camp and also the camp of "people who didn't comprehend my full post."
Last edited:
