Universal Background Checks for Guns - Mail Your Representative A Free Postcard - & A Poll (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

I know this gets into Political territory but saw this today from Tim Ferris and I think it makes sense:

TOMS founder Blake Mycoskie grew up hunting in Texas. He and I both own guns. He is pro Second Amendment, pro hunting, etc. At the same time, prompted by seemingly endless tragedies in the US, he wanted to try and curb needless gun-related danger and risks. How? By putting pressure on politicians to push forward with universal background checks, something ~90% of Americans — including conservatives — agree is a good idea. If you head to this page on TOMS and spend 10 seconds filling out a few fields, they will print and mail a postcard to Congress, demanding that they take action now. This campaign has received support from church pastors, country musicians, hip-hop artists (e.g., Snoop Dogg), and millions more from every walk of life. It’s not about banning guns (and I say this as a gun owner); it’s about reducing unnecessary risk and saving lives with low-hanging fruit.

Click here https://www.toms.com/takeaction  and spend 10 seconds to fill out and TOMS will mail a postcard to your Representative. 

Also thought I'd make this a poll. 

 

[AAABatteries]

Of course, it’s a no-brainer for me but I may be the furthest left of anybody on the board when it comes to guns so I’m not your average voter.

 

[E Street Brat]

What exactly is a "Universal Background Check"?

It sounds pretty generic.

 

[bigmarc27]

You make weird topics my man. 

Also I’ve never heard a decent argument against a background check other than “bad gubmint don’t know me!”

 

[Joe Bryant]

What exactly is a "Universal Background Check"?

It sounds pretty generic.

Good question. 

This article is a few years old but it seems like mostly it means putting all gun purchases on the same level of back ground checks. Including gun shows. https://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/us/universal-background-checks/index.html

 

[Joe Bryant]

You make weird topics my man. 




 

   How people feel about strengthening gun background checks is about as non-weird a topic I can think of. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

From Wikipedia.

Proposals for universal background checks would require almost all firearms transactions in the United States to be recorded and go through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), closing what is sometimes called the private sale loophole.

In a 2017 survey, a panel of 32 scholars of criminology, public health, and law rated universal background checks as the most effective policy to prevent gun deaths, ranking it #1 of 29 possible gun-related policies.[1] Universal background checks enjoy high levels of public support

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I’ve never heard a decent argument against a background check other than “bad gubmint don’t know me!”

Them there revenuers gonna find out about your backyard still. 

 

[bigmarc27]

   How people feel about strengthening gun background checks is about as non-weird a topic I can think of. 

Your recent topics have covered vegetarian diets, gun control, a picture that may or may not be either racist or making fun of poverty, how to apologize, and PETA. 

There’s a weird controlled randomness to it all. 

 

[E Street Brat]

I'm for checking that all would be gun buyers are in compliance with state and local laws.  

I'm against blanket plans like "Universal Background Checks" or "Commonsense gun reforms" that are up to debate as to what they cover or what a judge may decide later what they cover. 

 

[TheFanatic]

I know this seems like a no brainer, and I voted for it in the poll. The problem is a very small percentage of shootings in this country come from someone getting around the background check or the gun show loophole as it's called. The guns are either obtained legally and thus passing the background check, or stolen from someone who obtained the gun legally. I'm fine with universal background checks, but it won't have any impact on gun violence. Consider this. I once read a stat that something like .002% of possible fraud committed on the background check form are investigated. Which means someone who is mentally unstable and has been institutionalized can simply lie about that on the form, and will in all likelihood pass the background check. 

This is not meant to be a pun, but this is not the magic bullet that will resolve the gun problem we have in this country. 

 

[comfortably numb]

Mods, please move to the PSF

 

[gianmarco]

I know this seems like a no brainer, and I voted for it in the poll. The problem is a very small percentage of shootings in this country come from someone getting around the background check or the gun show loophole as it's called. The guns are either obtained legally and thus passing the background check, or stolen from someone who obtained the gun legally. I'm fine with universal background checks, but it won't have any impact on gun violence. Consider this. I once read a stat that something like .002% of possible fraud committed on the background check form are investigated. Which means someone who is mentally unstable and has been institutionalized can simply lie about that on the form, and will in all likelihood pass the background check. 

This is not meant to be a pun, but this is not the magic bullet that will resolve the gun problem we have in this country. 

At this point, we will never take one giant leap to fix the gun problem.

So I'm fine taking as many baby steps in that direction as it takes. This is one of those baby steps, IMO.

 

[TheFanatic]

At this point, we will never take one giant leap to fix the gun problem.

So I'm fine taking as many baby steps in that direction as it takes. This is one of those baby steps, IMO.

And I have no problem with that. I just don't want anyone to get their hopes up and say, "well now that we have the universal background checks, this gun violence thing is solved." The gun violence thing is so deep and broad that until we improve the economics of our lowest income people as well as have some major help for the mentally unstable, it's just never going to stop and those two things will likely never be resolved, sadly. 

 

[Galileo]

At this point, we will never take one giant leap to fix the gun problem.

So I'm fine taking as many baby steps in that direction as it takes. This is one of those baby steps, IMO.

I am fine with the idea, but don't really see it as a step (not even a baby step) towards anything.  Sure. it makes sense...put it in place...it will make some people feel better, but as TheFanatic pointed out, it will have no impact on the issue of gun violence.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Of course, it’s a no-brainer for me but I may be the furthest left of anybody on the board when it comes to guns so I’m not your average voter.

It's a no brainer for me also 

And i don't even like to look to the left

 

[jamny]

Definitely Yes

 

[skol asylum]

Filled out the form. Background checks are a no brainer and should be just the start of gun control measures. With great power comes great responsibility, or at least it should. Americans have shown they can't be trusted with self regulation when it comes to guns which has led to so much tragedy. It's  unconscionable what groups like the NRA do to block each and every incremental gun safety measure all in the name of profit for gun manufacturers. Terrible.

 

[Johnny Rock]

Filled out the form. Background checks are a no brainer and should be just the start of gun control measures. With great power comes great responsibility, or at least it should. Americans have shown they can't be trusted with self regulation when it comes to guns which has led to so much tragedy. It's  unconscionable what groups like the NRA do to block each and every incremental gun safety measure all in the name of profit for gun manufacturers. Terrible.

They weren’t against blocking bumpstock sales. 

 

[simsarge]

I am fine with the idea, but don't really see it as a step (not even a baby step) towards anything.  Sure. it makes sense...put it in place...it will make some people feel better, but as TheFanatic pointed out, it will have no impact on the issue of gun violence.

No way it'll have "no impact". It won't solve the problem, but it IS a start. For all the himming and hawwing that goes on about what will or won't work and what should or should not get done it seems like the problem would have been as a minimum closer to being taken care of than not. And if we don't start somewhere we definitely will never fix the problem. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Your recent topics have covered vegetarian diets, gun control, a picture that may or may not be either racist or making fun of poverty, how to apologize, and PETA. 

There’s a weird controlled randomness to it all. 

 Not sure what to tell you. All those things interest me. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I know this seems like a no brainer, and I voted for it in the poll. The problem is a very small percentage of shootings in this country come from someone getting around the background check or the gun show loophole as it's called. The guns are either obtained legally and thus passing the background check, or stolen from someone who obtained the gun legally. I'm fine with universal background checks, but it won't have any impact on gun violence. Consider this. I once read a stat that something like .002% of possible fraud committed on the background check form are investigated. Which means someone who is mentally unstable and has been institutionalized can simply lie about that on the form, and will in all likelihood pass the background check. 

This is not meant to be a pun, but this is not the magic bullet that will resolve the gun problem we have in this country. 

I know that's the comment sentiment and it makes sense to me.

What do you think about the quote I posted above though from Wikipedia.

In a 2017 survey, a panel of 32 scholars of criminology, public health, and law rated universal background checks as the most effective policy to prevent gun deaths, ranking it #1 of 29 possible gun-related policies.[1] Universal background checks enjoy high levels of public support

 

[Cjw_55106]

No way it'll have "no impact". It won't solve the problem, but it IS a start. For all the himming and hawwing that goes on about what will or won't work and what should or should not get done it seems like the problem would have been as a minimum closer to being taken care of than not. And if we don't start somewhere we definitely will never fix the problem. 

I have no issue with checks. That said, the bolded is likely what gun rights people are concerned with.  What happens 2 to 3 years down the line when the checks have little impact? 

 

[Joe Bryant]

There is no magic bullet that will resolve the gun problem. We shouldn't expect any solution to be. The question we should ask is does it make the problem less of a problem, and I think universal background checks absolutely does if we implement it properly. If there's something we can do to make our gun problem better, we should do it even if it doesn't completely eliminate it. 

This is how I see it. 

LIke anything, it's about cost and benefit. 

The cost seems reasonable. The benefit seems super high. 

I'm no expert but I listen when experts talk. It caught my attention when the wikipedia article said a 2017 panel of scholars on the subject ranked it the #1 most effective thing we could do. Plus tons of public approval. Seems like a slam dunk. 

 

[Cjw_55106]

Let's keep the discussion of background checks to background checks. If you have a good reason to oppose them, tell us. If your only good reason to oppose them is that something else might happen down the road, you don't have a good reason to oppose them. 

If you’re gonna tell me how to respond, you should at least read my first sentence. Thank you. 

 

[timschochet]

I voted definitely yes, but that being said, I do have some questions which I raised in the political forum:

1. Obviously convicted felons should be prevented from purchasing a firearm. That part is easy.  But who else? Should mentally ill be prevented? And if so, how do we define that?

2. In order to have a national database that is immediate, it's going to cost a ton of money. (I've heard anywhere from hundreds of millions to billions, but I have no idea.) Who pays for this? Should we tax the purchase itself, or is this something every taxpayer should pay for?

3. Suppose I own a gun and want to give it as a gift to my daughter. Do I need to go through the process of having my daughter undergo a background check?

4. Is there anyway to accomplish this goal without a government registration of firearms?

Again, the above questions have been raised by opponents, but I think they're worthy of discussion.

 

[Cjw_55106]

I voted definitely yes, but that being said, I do have some questions which I raised in the political forum:

1. Obviously convicted felons should be prevented from purchasing a firearm. That part is easy.  But who else? Should mentally ill be prevented? And if so, how do we define that? You can’t.....unless you change HIPPA laws.

2. In order to have a national database that is immediate, it's going to cost a ton of money. (I've heard anywhere from hundreds of millions to billions, but I have no idea.) Who pays for this? Should we tax the purchase itself, or is this something every taxpayer should pay for? Every license costs money, I don’t why a gun license would be any different. 

3. Suppose I own a gun and want to give it as a gift to my daughter. Do I need to go through the process of having my daughter undergo a background check? Of course

4. Is there anyway to accomplish this goal without a government registration of firearms? I suppose it could be an independent company, but really, what’s the difference? If you have a database, someone will obviously need to administer it. 

Again, the above questions have been raised by opponents, but I think they're worthy of discussion.

 

[simsarge]

I voted definitely yes, but that being said, I do have some questions which I raised in the political forum:

1. Obviously convicted felons should be prevented from purchasing a firearm. That part is easy.  But who else? Should mentally ill be prevented? And if so, how do we define that?

2. In order to have a national database that is immediate, it's going to cost a ton of money. (I've heard anywhere from hundreds of millions to billions, but I have no idea.) Who pays for this? Should we tax the purchase itself, or is this something every taxpayer should pay for?

3. Suppose I own a gun and want to give it as a gift to my daughter. Do I need to go through the process of having my daughter undergo a background check?

4. Is there anyway to accomplish this goal without a government registration of firearms?

Again, the above questions have been raised by opponents, but I think they're worthy of discussion.

1. Medical professional diagnosis. If you've been diagnosed as being mentally impaired at that determined level then you're disqualified.

2. The NCIS already exists. Law enforcement already has access to it and can vet firearms applicants using it

3. If she's a minor. No If she's an adult yes. If she's going to own the gun, she needs to be able to pass a background check

4. You don't need to register every gun. Just handguns and their owners

 

[Joe Bryant]

I was simply pointing out that the thing you said the gun folks would say was terrible reasoning. Sorry? I didn't mean to upset you. 

I didn't get the sense at all he was upset. 

 

[skol asylum]

They weren’t against blocking bumpstock sales. 

Until recently it looks like they have been outright opposed to a ban. Even now they are not exactly enthusiastically endorsing it.

 

[[icon]]

As long as the FBI is still required to destroy all approved background checks to ensure no national gun registry exists, I am all for it with the exception of immediate family transfers. 

 

[-OZ-]

1. Medical professional diagnosis. If you've been diagnosed as being mentally impaired at that determined level then you're disqualified.

That's a problem imo. We're making strides to get past a stigma of depression and other problems, but are we going to let someone who has expressed depression to buy a gun? Does it depend on the severity? Are we opening the medical record to the gun dealer? I'm no expert on HIPPA but that seems like a potential problem. Even if it doesn't violate HIPPA, are we really comfortable with mental health records being open? What if I want to buy a gun for my brother in law and he didn't want me to know he has seen a psychiatrist?

 

[Ron Swanson]

As long as the FBI is still required to destroy all approved background checks to ensure no national gun registry exists, I am all for it with the exception of immediate family transfers. 

This. I'm fine with background checks as long as it doesn't result in a registry.  But I don't see how P2P background check transfers can be enforced with no registry. And there should continue to be an exemption for CHL holders.

 

[General Malaise]

Why is a registry a problem? 

 

[[icon]]

Serious question here, and this might take us on a tangent: What's the problem with a registry?

Aside from Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926?

 

[General Malaise]

Aside from Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926?

A, b, or c?  Why don't you post the point you're trying to make yourself and not force readers who haven't memorized federal laws like you have Google them?  Thought this message board was here to help fellow posters out with questions, not answer them with confusing questions. 

 

[General Malaise]

Aside from Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926?

18 USC 926A – Interstate transportation of firearms

Current as of: 2015 | Check for updates | Other versions

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearmshall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console



what's that have to do with a registry??? 

 

[[icon]]

A, b, or c?  Why don't you post the point you're trying to make yourself and not force readers who haven't memorized federal laws like you have Google them?  Thought this message board was here to help fellow posters out with questions, not answer them with confusing questions. 

FOPA 

“No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.”

There is no “interpretation” involved, a  gun registry is expressly prohibited by federal law largely because it is intrusive to the privacy of citizens exercising their constitutionally protected right. 

 

[General Malaise]

Maybe b has the answer:

18 USC 926B – Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

Current as of: 2015 | Check for updates | Other versions

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

Huh. No registry info there.

 

[Ilov80s]

FOPA 

“No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.”

There is no “interpretation” involved, a  gun registry is expressly prohibited by federal law largely because it is intrusive to the privacy of citizens exercising their constitutionally protected right. 

If that’s the case then I support an amendment.

 

[General Malaise]

18 USC 926C – Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers

Current as of: 2015 | Check for updates | Other versions

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

Where is this registry info found in Federal Law USC 18 926?

 

[General Malaise]

FOPA 

“No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.”

There is no “interpretation” involved, a  gun registry is expressly prohibited by federal law largely because it is intrusive to the privacy of citizens exercising their constitutionally protected right. 

Also from Wiki, right under this:

Nevertheless, the ATF's National Tracing Center (NTC) contains hundreds of millions of firearm tracing and registration records, and consists of several databases:

I'm so confused.

 

[General Malaise]

FOPA 

“No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.”

There is no “interpretation” involved, a  gun registry is expressly prohibited by federal law largely because it is intrusive to the privacy of citizens exercising their constitutionally protected right. 

So if I buy a gun, there is no kept record that I purchased or own this particular gun?  That seems really stupid.  I have to register my car, my pets, my kids but not my guns?  I'm so lost. 

 

[Short Corner]

If you’re gonna tell me how to respond, you should at least read my first sentence. Thank you. 

Maybe you should have stopped there.

 

[[icon]]

So if I buy a gun, there is no kept record that I purchased or own this particular gun?  That seems really stupid.  I have to register my car, my pets, my kids but not my guns?  I'm so lost. 

This analogy persists despite being very flawed. 

You do not have register a car to own one. You must register it to drive it on public roadways. Much like how you don’t need to pass a licensing test to drive it.. just to drive it on public roadways. 

Also ownership of a car and the right to drive one is not a right expressly outlined in the bill of rights. 

Love ya buddy and not trying to attack, just clarify a frustrating analogy

 

[[icon]]

Also from Wiki, right under this:

Nevertheless, the ATF's National Tracing Center (NTC) contains hundreds of millions of firearm tracing and registration records, and consists of several databases:

I'm so confused.

From their website: 

“Firearms tracing is the systematic tracking of the movement of a firearms recovered by law enforcement officials from its first sale by the manufacturer or importer through the distribution chain (wholesaler/retailer) to the first retail purchaser”

The ATF maintains the records from manufacture/distribution to retail.

With a warrant they can request the retailer to provide the sale records to the original purchaser. Those records are required to be kept for 7 years by the retailer. There is no central repository to prevent abuse... but if there is just cause the record can be obtained. As it should be. 

After the original sale, there is no registration/tracing of ownership. That is what is illegal... which I personally support. 

NICS Background checks merely confirm the individual is clear to own a firearm. If approved the application record (which contains a good bit of personal info) is destroyed, and the transaction can commence legally. I am all for making these background checks universal for all transactions outside immediate family. 

 

[Punxsutawney Phil]

If all of our favorite musicians including Snoop Dogg support it then it's gotta be a no brainier.  In fact, if you don't support it odds are you don't have any common sense at all.  I propose taking this one step further and keeping a database (highly secured of course) of the people who don't support it and label them all as morons without common sense.

 

[Punxsutawney Phil]

If all of our favorite musicians including Snoop Dogg support it then it's gotta be a no brainier.  In fact, if you don't support it odds are you don't have any common sense at all.  I propose taking this one step further and keeping a database (highly secured of course) of the people who don't support it and label them all as morons without common sense.

 

[Punxsutawney Phil]

If all of our favorite musicians including Snoop Dogg support it then it's gotta be a no brainier.  In fact, if you don't support it odds are you don't have any common sense at all.  I propose taking this one step further and keeping a database (highly secured of course) of the people who don't support it and label them all as morons without common sense.

 

[Punxsutawney Phil]

glitch in the FFA.  My post didn't show up and then it showed up 3x and now I can't delete.  Where do I put in a request for a HARD DELETE?