The background check requirement only applies to Federal Firearms License holders. Private sellers are not required to screen their buyers in any way.
Usually the question of background checks comes up in reference to gun shows. So common is this association that "The Gun Show Loophole" has become synonymous with requiring background checks on all gun sales. This is obviously not the case for the simple reason that not all private gun sales take place at gun shows.
So, legislation requiring background checks at all sales that take place at gun shows is only a partial solution to a very wide-spread problem. I would imagine proponents of this type of legislation expect to expand it eventually to include all private sales, otherwise it wouldn't accomplish what it's supposed to.
The opposition is fierce, primarily by the NRA and by the more extreme gun-rights advocates. Some surveys have shown that they are in the minority, but they are extremely vocal and well financed. Most people feel they're winning.
My question is why, why such powerful and costly opposition? I've identified two reasons which should cover those making up this unreasonable group.
1. Some people actually believe the bizarre suggestion that gun control steps like these would lead to a tyrannical government which will eventually ban all gun ownership and confiscate the ones already owned. Part of this fantasy is that civilian gun ownership is what keeps the government in check. They actually say "the 2nd Amendment preserves the 1st Amendment," and other such nonsense. This is a type of grandiosity mixed with paranoia. To these folks there's no discussing the obvious benefits of proper gun control; they cannot see beyond the glorious struggle for "rights" and "freedom" they fancy themselves involved in.
2. Some people recognize the foolishness of the first group, but they'll never admit it because they both want the same thing. These folks realize very well that making it more difficult for criminals and mentally ill people to get guns is a moral imperative, one which would save many lives, but they don't care. A self-centered, me-first philosophy drives them to resist anything that would result in increased inconvenience and expense. The claims that the inconvenience and increased expense would be minimal, doesn't phase them. They are as stubborn as the first group and are happy to support them in their mutual cause.
To sum up, you've got paranoid lunatics and self-centered people who together make up the background-check resistance. Becuase of their successful opposition, at least so far, I blame them for the baleful results.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Agreed. As to the first group, no amount of dispelling the "insurrectionist interpretation" of the 2A by valid Constitutional historians has changed their minds.
ReplyDeleteAs for the second group, it can only be hard-headedness. Here in Oregon, getting a background check literally only takes filling out a form and waiting for 5 ininutes for the phone instant background check system. But that's too much for those types!
Requiring background checks on all sales, including private sales, will force illegal buyers underground, drastically raising the cost of guns for them and forcing them to find an accomplice for the gun sale, which isn't so easy to do for most people.
"I would imagine proponents of this type of legislation expect to expand it eventually to include all private sales, otherwise it wouldn't accomplish what it's supposed to.
ReplyDeleteYou've answered part of this yourself already. Expansion to all sales between private parties including family members is certainly one goal. That alone is worth resisting.
The other would be the next step when such checks continue to fail (which they would). And that next step would be to have all sales between private parties include the registration and tracking of each sale from person to person. Why give on the first when the second goal would come soon after?
In CA every sale (new and used) is mandated to go through a FFL already. Take living in San Francisco as an example. City regulations and extra requirements have driven all gun stores out. Were I to sell any firearm I would have to take time off from work, drive to another city (closest FFL is 45 minutes away), meet the person, then wait for a convenient time for the FFL to do the paperwork. That could be hours.
And since registration cannot be used in CA court to tie ownership of any firearm found used in crime, you're left with all but the most honest willing to go through the hassle.
Indeed, many do not comply as it is burdensome, a hassle, and costs money ($35 in CA). I would say to you that your side needs to put forth an incentive to promote behavior you desire.
Perhaps a tax deduction to go through the hassle. Perhaps opening up the NCIS so that conscientious sellers have an easy way to check each buyer . But without any incentive, mandating background checks is perceived as punitive. As such the idea is not well received.
Anonymous, gun checks on private sales helps keep guns out of the hands of those who are criminals, who might be drug addicts, who may have dangerous mental illness issues, or who may be illegal aliens -- all of the same categories that the NCIS is designed to prevent from getting guns.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that I have known more than a few individuals who were in utter denial about family members with one or more of those issues, and who would quite willingly sell or give them a weapon when they shouldn't have one.
More than that, this could help track how legal guns get into illegal hands, and that is something over which we can agree is desirable.
"-- all of the same categories that the NCIS is designed to prevent from getting guns.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, while background checks may offer some small deterrent, I mostly consider them PR and perception over anything substantial. Were I a felon, it wold be just as easy for me to have my spouse or buddy buy one for me.
But if we are to have them, there is no reason not to open it up to the general seller. If I could simply call NCIS, enter in their SS# and get instance approval (or denial) you'd have one solution. VPC and BC are against this because its just not enough hassle involved (guess).
But if we are to have them and have them work properly, then states must report information to keep the system updated, it must be easy without hassle, and inexpensive.
Would you agree punitive mandates (regardless of issue) are less effective than incentives? (rhetorical)
We have incentives for lots of behavior wrapped in the tax code already. Why not add a tax write off for going through the process or even buying a safe (storage)?
Headway can be made, but I see it unlikely if its punitive in nature.
Baldr: “Here in Oregon, getting a background check literally only takes filling out a form and waiting for 5 ininutes for the phone instant background check system. But that's too much for those types!”
ReplyDeleteWell, that is only if you have access to the check. Otherwise you have to find a dealer meet the other party there, have them do the transaction, and pay them for their time. You’ll see there are many pro-rights people who are for checks so long as they don’t have to go through dealer (the right to sell your own private property).
Anonomyous: “Indeed, many do not comply as it is burdensome, a hassle, and costs money ($35 in CA).”
Woah, where did you find someone who would do it for free? ~$35 is what the state charges- on top of that the FFL can charge whatever they want. The FFL has to keep record and the liability that comes with each sale, so you have to pay for that as well as their time. I have been quoted anywhere from $75 to $225.
"I would imagine proponents of this type of legislation expect to expand it eventually to include all private sales, otherwise it wouldn't accomplish what it's supposed to."
ReplyDeleteThey don't have to expect it to expand. All of the current proposed legislation designed to combat the fictitious "gunshow loophole" already include all private transfers.
"Woah, where did you find someone who would do it for free?
ReplyDeleteFor my Dad in AZ, it takes 10 minutes, a simple phone call and $5/firearm.
In CA, the fee is mandated at no more than $35. $25 for the state, $10 for the FFL. Remember, this is only the upfront fee. Often that means time off from work, traveling (possibly over 45 minutes each way), waiting for the FFL to do the paperwork at their convenience, etc. I bill clients at $300/hour. Its an expensive endeavor and what I consider a huge waste of time when a simple phone call could suffice. Hence why many people don't bother.
Besides, the burden for exercising any fundamental right should fall on the state. The fact that fees, licensing, and other such nonsense still exists is only because its not important enough yet to attack in federal court.
Its the type of thing that makes background checks, licensing
All that inconvenience and expense, driving 45 minutes and spending $35 bucks. Of course you'd want to continue letting people buy guns the way the do now.
ReplyDeleteYou guys should be ashamed of yourselves even writing such drivel.
Family members, as Dog Gone rightly pointed out, are not immune to the problems that affect the gun-buying public at large.
When the country comes to its senses and gets fed up with the strangle hold the NRA and a small percentage of gun-rights fanatics have over it, you'll see background checks on all transfers, licensing of all gun owners and registration of every gun. You'll see a new understand ing of the 2nd Amendment. And you'll see the long-desired drop in gun violence.
Mike, you ought to be ashamed for not promoting the simplest easiest way for everyone to do a background check- which will therefore result in the most background checks being performed. It is obvious that background checks are not your priority.
ReplyDelete“In CA, the fee is mandated at no more than $35. $25 for the state, $10 for the FFL.”
ReplyDeleteCome to think of it, the prices maybe different for face to face transactions with both parties present. I have never done that. The FFL has asked me if it is face to face, or from another FFL (and if it is a long gun or handgun)- I say it is from an FFL and they quote me $75-$225. I also have to pay for first class shipping to get it there since I am not allowed to touch it. Also there is still a 10 day waiting period, so that is one trip for the seller and two trips for the buyer.
"You guys should be ashamed of yourselves even writing such drivel."
ReplyDeleteIf you won't adopt moderate proposals that may actually work, are convenient, and inexpensive for those who view guns as no more dangerous as any other power tool, you end up with laws that are ignored with massive non compliance.
"Mike, you ought to be ashamed for not promoting the simplest easiest way for everyone to do a background check-"
Don't be surprised. Mike is an extremist himself. His views are not shared by the majority of Americans. Its why he and other like him constantly use the NRA as the scapegoat.
"When the country comes to its senses and gets fed up with the strangle hold the NRA and.....
It really is unfortunate that you are so disconnected from reality and mainstream America. The NRA is the moderate gun group, not the extreme.
BTW - By all accounts the country is increasingly on the side of gun rights. Regardless of party control even Congress has passed pro-gun legislation over the last decade. Even in the last session it was only 6 votes from national CCW reciprocity. Heck, we have a former paid Joyce Foundation employee sitting as President and he avoids the issue altogether.
.... you'll see background checks on all transfers, licensing of all gun owners and registration of every gun.
Extremist views like this are yet another reason to resist even moderate proposals. And the courts are unlikely to get go along with most of the above once the scrutiny issue is resolved in the next couple of years.
And you'll see the long-desired drop in gun violence.
Gun violence has been dropping for several decades. And continues to drop while gun ownership rises.
Even sad panda Helmke now gives press releases to an empty room. You're becoming more irrelevant every day.
I oppose universal background checks, because they would require universal registration and random house searches (how else would you know if someone sold a gun with a background check or not?).
ReplyDeleteAnd registration is also the first step towards confiscation. Which I also oppose.
Anonymous, who only reads pro-gun sites, said, "By all accounts the country is increasingly on the side of gun rights." Ha.
ReplyDeleteAztecRed is right. Background checks on private sales would require licensing and registration for them to be a benefit. That's exactly where we need to go.
Ha.
ReplyDeleteI'll continue to state it. Your extremist views are not accepted by most Americans. Feel free to look at Gallop among others which consistently show support for gun control dropping over the last couple of decades.
Background checks on private sales would require licensing and registration for them to be a benefit.
Pipe dream. Given that the level of scrutiny will be decided within the next 2 years and that its all but certain to be 'strict' or 'intermediate' scrutiny, you do realize that the burden of cost would be on the state (not the person).
And that's even IF the country excepted your extremist view for licensing and registering all firearms acceptable.
Who's the extremist, man? You want people to be able to buy guns with no screening whatever. Unless you have background checks on EVERY transfer, you are allowing criminals and mentally ill people to buy guns as if they were "legally" entitled to do so.
ReplyDeleteThat's extreme.