Universal Background Checks for all new purchases?

[bushrat]

It is my opinion that there is absolutely no chance of Congress passing an AWB or magazine capacity limit in the near future.

However, I do believe there is a chance that Congress could pass a fed law requiring universal background check (UBC) for all new purchases. Right now the sticking point is over whether registration would be a part of that, and it appears that any UBC law won't even make it to the floor if that is a part of it.

So...here's the question. If there is no registration aspect, and if there are exemptions such as passing guns down to family, do you support UBC for all new purchases?

I do support it. Yes, it would require a beefing up of NICS, and states need to do a better job getting info to NICS. I am having a hard time understanding opposition among the 2a community to it though.

 

[stid2677]

This is strictly my opinion only, but I do not support universal background checks. Because I don't feel they would serve any real purpose. Crooks that want to buy a gun for no good will still buy on the underground market and it would just add more cost to legal owners doing FTF sales. I can't think of one of the resent mass shootings that this would have prevented. More government and more wasted money. One only has to look at Chicago, murder capital of the USA as an example of why this will have no real effect other than to document more legal owners. Laws only work for those that wish to follow them.

If I, in my wildest dreams thought it would help, I would be for it. Just more feel good BS IMHO.

Steve

 

[ruffle]

Definitions of acceptable behavior and/or deviance change over time, as do the perceptions and priorities of those who assess such things. These perceptions are then, sometimes, potentiallly entered into a data base.

I can think of a not-too-long-ago case where a pilot's son had passed away. The pilot was feeling melancholy over the loss, and made a statement as he flew over a specific location that reminded him of his son.

His short-term 'circumstantial/situational depression' was reported, initially misinterpretted, and he nearly had his certificate pulled.

Likewise, there is a great degree of arbitrariness as to what now constitutes felonious behavior, and perceptions re. the degree of risk a specific behavior poses to the community at large. ATFE has written a memo to FFL holders stating that the mere possession of a medical cannabis card, issued by any State (or ??) is grounds for refusal in a firearms transaction, as evidence of drug addiction.. Arbitrary? Over-reaction? Politically motivated excluding of persons from basic rights?

Rules and their importance change with rulers.

I recall lots of partisan republicans feeling quite alright with GW's USA PATRIOT ACT, who then later became somewhat anxious (or even hysterical) when GW's successor took office.

Sweeping authority to deprive accesss to tools that are used to defend or feed one's family are very serious topics.

Having worked for most of a decade as a mental health clinician, knowing the variance in perceptions among clinicians, the amount of subjective reasoning, etc., I would be VERY hesitant to loosen any current safe-guards re. who is deemed mentally fit and who is not, as well as methods of reporting to a data base.

I believe the current requirement is that the person needs to have been ADJUDICATED mentally ill (a threat to themselves or others, etc.).

Freedom, by its very definition, will always carry great risks. The unpredictability of humanity will always lead to heinous moments of one frequency or another. Stripping access to necessaary tools is a dangerous avenue to steer toward, and should always be scrutinized heavily..

 

[iofthetaiga]

So...here's the question. If there is no registration aspect, and if there are exemptions such as passing guns down to family, do you support UBC for all new purchases?

...and it would just add more cost to legal owners doing FTF sales.

Personally, if I had the ability to somehow do a background check before selling a gun privately FTF, I would take advantage of it.

 

[Russp17]

Personally, if I had the ability to somehow do a background check before selling a gun privately FTF, I would take advantage of it.

So would I, it protects the seller from selling to someone who may be a criminal or not mentally fit to own a gun. Even if this is not a crime I would feel slightly guilty if I sold a weapon to someone who used it in a crime. Even if univerisal background checks saved 1 murder in the united states a year it would be worth it to that family for the small price as a gun owner we would need to pay.

 

[ruffle]

Alaska's courtview is available to the public at large; any keyboard and PC can be used to access the data base. I have the link on another computer here, as I used to employ it when my children were visiting another's home for the first time, or, especially if they were spending the night there... ;^>)

Though not up to the moment, it typically lags no more than 6 months behind real time, and sometimes less.

Now, research how many violent crimes committed with firearms are the result of a spur-of-the-moment outrage or immediate circumstance/situation, committed by persons with no obvious prior (problematic/criminal) LEO contacts or mental health scrutiny.

Life has uncontrolable features to it, and the more free a society is, the more of those we're likely to encounter. I'll take freedom.

(*Though there have been persons I refused to do business of any sort with (firearms or otherwise) based on their demeanor, or my knowledge of some aspect of their life.)

 

[cod]

I do not support universal gun checks. It WILL NOT stop criminals from getting guns. It can/does put 'infringement' (def: limiting of) ownership of a firearm from already law abiding owners. The cat is long out of the bag. The firearms are out there and they always will be now.
It would, however, stop some law abiding who were trying to buy legally because of cost and ineffiecient/bungling beauracracy.

 

[Michael Strahan]

Mark, I think this would be a great topic for a poll. I'm on a mobile device that might not let me set one up, but I think I'll try. Any objections to merging this thread with that one?

Mike

 

[ADfields]

It is my opinion that there is absolutely no chance of Congress passing an AWB or magazine capacity limit in the near future.

However, I do believe there is a chance that Congress could pass a fed law requiring universal background check (UBC) for all new purchases. Right now the sticking point is over whether registration would be a part of that, and it appears that any UBC law won't even make it to the floor if that is a part of it.

So...here's the question. If there is no registration aspect, and if there are exemptions such as passing guns down to family, do you support UBC for all new purchases?

I do support it. Yes, it would require a beefing up of NICS, and states need to do a better job getting info to NICS. I am having a hard time understanding opposition among the 2a community to it though.

Okay, no I don’t support “universal background checks” the way they are going about it. I do however support opening NICS so that anyone can call for a check before they sell a gun. As part of that there should be a simple bill of sale form printable from the web with a spot for the NICS info that the seller can fill out and hold. I’m wishy washy on making the call and/or the form mandatory but in no case should the form be sent to or be available to the government except under court order for use in a criminal case just like a 4473. They can find out easy enough who has guns but we shouldn’t be making it any easier or letting them make any databases.

 

[ADfields]

So would I, it protects the seller from selling to someone who may be a criminal or not mentally fit to own a gun. Even if this is not a crime I would feel slightly guilty if I sold a weapon to someone who used it in a crime. Even if univerisal background checks saved 1 murder in the united states a year it would be worth it to that family for the small price as a gun owner we would need to pay.

So if it prevents someone from getting a gun that could have saved a life does that “life needlessly lost” count in your equation? My hypothetical is every bit as likely as yours so is the expectable price of saving one life the loss of another to you and who gets to do the accounting to get the final tally of death?

 

[Russp17]

So if it prevents someone from getting a gun that could have saved a life does that “life needlessly lost” count in your equation? My hypothetical is every bit as likely as yours so is the expectable price of saving one life the loss of another to you and who gets to do the accounting to get the final tally of death?

Fair enough-but explain to me how does a background check limit gun ownership to a law abiding citizen?

 

[AlaskaHippie]

I find it interesting that the days immediately following Sandy Hook saw many gun owners wondering if tougher laws that DID NOT include a ban weren't in order. A scant 2 or so months later, and it is back to status quo.


Shameful.

 

[AlaskanTides]

I don't support universal background checks ..... Mostly because I don't believe they would ever be effective without registration..

However, If this was a system that was set up simply more or less for an individual to do a quick check on another before a sell.. I would be much more likely to support it. But then we must ask, what would the purpose be of our current FFL laws ? When new laws are enacted sometimes others become obsolete.

This being said......I want to be able to pass on my firearms to my children without interference from our government....

As it stands no.....I don't support universal background checks.

 

[iofthetaiga]

I don't support universal background checks .....[...]However, If this was a system that was set up simply more or less for an individual to do a quick check on another before a sell.. I would be much more likely to support it.

When we say "universal background checks", what do we mean? My understanding is that "universal" in this context means "all" as in "all firearms sales require a background check", as opposed to the current system wherein only sales through a FFL require a background check.

 

[ADfields]

Fair enough-but explain to me how does a background check limit gun ownership to a law abiding citizen?

NICS is jammed full of errors, those mistakes prevent a lot of law abiding folks from getting guns. I see it all the time, whatever your name is there are thousands of others with that name to confuse the system . . . Jim Smith in Florida has a felony so next thing you know Jim Smith in Alaska pops on NICS. Ask Snyd how it can keep guns away from those allowed to have them!
　
What is even worse is the huge numbers of prohibited people sail right through NICS because the system is the standers model of government efficiency and their records were never reported. The system is more likely to stop the lawful than stop the prohibited. Then of the 80,000 people we know for a fact committed a felony by lying on the 4473 last year take a wild guess how many were prosecuted for it? 44, just 44 . . .

 

[AlaskanTides]

When we say "universal background checks", what do we mean? My understanding is that "universal" in this context means "all" as in "all firearms sales require a background check", as opposed to the current system wherein only sales through a FFL require a background check.

Ummm yeah I know. And no I don't support that.

That's what I mean when I say I don't support this in its current form

 

[hodgeman]

I could support it if the system were designed and implemented correctly to be as unobtrusive as possible.

I have little hope of that- so no, I can't say I would support it as it generally just serves to burden the law abiding and would be prone to future abuse.

As someone pointed out- the current system has found a bunch of folks not legally able to obtain a weapon attempting to obtain one. Other than denying their purchase, only a few had any further legal action taken against them. I believe that adding additional laws is practically pointless when the laws we currently have aren't even being enforced.

I believe law enforcement has a number of tools to catch and prosecute felons in possession of weapons that are rarely used.

 

[AniWahaya]

LOL, heck NO! All a "universal" background check would accomplish is providing a bunch more busy work for the desk jockeys and cost a ton of money that nobody has. Seriously people...? We just released a bunch of illegals in AZ due to funding cuts that took god only knows how much $ to detain in the first place. Oh wait! That's where the registration fees would come in, to pay for it all and give a bonus to some bureaucratic wackjob trying to make a name for him/herself at the expense of the American People. Great idea - NOT!

 

[Marcus]

Yes, I would and do support background checks on all new purchases of firearms of any sort.

 

[AlaskanTides]

I guess in my point of view there needs to be give and take. If the ATFE wants to make the resources available to me to do a background check on another individual before I sell him a firearm that's one thing..

And I can see the benefit of the greater idea because this would close the straw purchaser loophole. You being held liable as an individual.... if your caught selling to a felon or person who is otherwise un eligible to own a gun.

However I am against keeping records of serial numbers...or any other database.or being forced to use an FFL to sell a gun from my personal collection. This would cause un needed hardships for folks in remote areas all over this great state.

That being said if we are all liable as citizens for our gun sales......what need do we have of the current system where a FFL is required?