Universal Background Checks: If you are opposed, why?

[wing2000]

Since 1993, the Brady law has required background checks on gun sales to private citizens. However, background checks can only be performed by licensed gun dealers and its estimated that forty percent of gun sales are done without a background check. If we are to keep guns out of the hands of unstable individuals, isn't it time we demand 100 percent screening?

 

[RedDead1981]

I can't imagine a good reason why they would be opposed.

 

[Crusader05]

So the issue is private sales. Say I own a gun that I purchased years ago from a store and now I want to sell it to my buddy. Under (my understanding of the) current law as a private citizen I can just sell it to him without a NICS (national instant criminal background check) check. As it stands now I need to be an FFL (federally licensed firearms dealer) in order to call or access the system.

Personally, I see no issue in expanding NICS to private sales so long as we expand the capacity of NICS to ensure private citizens can call and get checks done in an expeditious fashion. In the last few weeks NICS was flooded with calls due to elevated gun sales and some folks were waiting upwards on an hour on hold for NICS.

I am also all for NICS improvements such as ensuring states are providing more complete data on felony convictions and mental health data. In fact the NRA has backed many NICS improvement bills in recent years to expand capacity.

National Instant Criminal Background Check System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MachZer0]

So once the background checks are completed and the gun sales are complete, what stops the new gun owner from becoming "unstable" in the future?

 

[Crusader05]

So once the background checks are completed and the gun sales are complete, what stops the new gun owner from becoming "unstable" in the future?

Well I'm no expert on this but I believe most major mental illness is present by the time someone is a teenager. If/when a court rules someone is mentally unstable their data should be entered into NICS and subsequent gun sales should be disallowed.

 

[Crusader05]

NRA President David Keene on CNN addressing this issue Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

"We have, for years, urged that those who've been adjudicated as potentially violently mentally ill ought to be included on the national database of those who are not allowed to buy firearms."

 

[wing2000]

So the issue is private sales. Say I own a gun that I purchased years ago from a store and now I want to sell it to my buddy. Under (my understanding of the) current law as a private citizen I can just sell it to him without a NICS (national instant criminal background check) check. As it stands now I need to be an FFL (federally licensed firearms dealer) in order to call or access the system.

Personally, I see no issue in expanding NICS to private sales so long as we expand the capacity of NICS to ensure private citizens can call and get checks done in an expeditious fashion. In the last few weeks NICS was flooded with calls due to elevated gun sales and some folks were waiting upwards on an hour on hold for NICS.

I am also all for NICS improvements such as ensuring states are providing more complete data on felony convictions and mental health data. In fact the NRA has backed many NICS improvement bills in recent years to expand capacity.

National Instant Criminal Background Check System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good point. Any NICS improvements need to include efficient and preferably automated solutions for background checks.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

I can't imagine why anyone would oppose it either. Private sales would be tough to monitor though.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Do background checks actually help prevent gun shootings? I have trouble seeing how an administrative background check is an effective predictor of future behavior.

I think it only really gives some people the illusion that they are a little safer.

 

[Crusader05]

Do background checks actually help prevent gun shootings? I have trouble seeing how an administrative background check is an effective predictor of future behavior.

If you develop a way to predict the future please let us know! Clearly we don't want to allow people with felony conviction or violent mental disorders to own firearms. We need to have a just cause to deny someone their constitutional right.

 

[RedDead1981]

So once the background checks are completed and the gun sales are complete, what stops the new gun owner from becoming "unstable" in the future?

Serious mental illnesses typically manifest in late teens to early 20s. People don't just become schizophrenic at 47.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Background checks aren't any more perfect than any other licensing process. But it's a start, and it would keep nutjobs and felons from legally getting guns.

 

[RedDead1981]

Background checks aren't any more perfect than any other licensing process. But it's a start, and it would keep nutjobs and felons from legally getting guns.

Exactly. It's not going to be perfect, but better than nothing at all. I think we can all agree that there are certain people who have no business being anywhere near a firearm.

 

[Yekcidmij]

But it's a start, and it would keep nutjobs and felons from legally getting guns.

How would it keep nutjobs from getting guns legally? How does an administrative background check identify nutjobs, specifically the ones that are going to go on murderous rampages? And how does this help anything if they can manage to get one illegally?

When someone says something to the effect of "it's a start", it translates to me as "I know of no way to actually get from A to B."

 

[MachZer0]

Well I'm no expert on this but I believe most major mental illness is present by the time someone is a teenager. If/when a court rules someone is mentally unstable their data should be entered into NICS and subsequent gun sales should be disallowed.

Prevalence and Age-of-Onset of Mental Disorders

"Unlike most disabling physical diseases, mental illness begins very early in life. Half of all lifetime cases begin by age 14; three quarters have begun by age 24. Thus, mental disorders are really the chronic diseases of the young. For example, anxiety disorders often begin in late childhood, mood disorders in late adolescence, and substance abuse in the early 20's. Unlike heart disease or most cancers, young people with mental disorders suffer disability when they are in the prime of life, when they would normally be the most productive."

So more than 25% of the people with a potential for mental illnesses could pass a background check regarding mental stability, buy a gun, and subsequently become unstable.

 

[Blackguard_]

I think we can all agree that there are certain people who have no business being anywhere near a firearm.

Then why aren't those people locked in a (padded) cell?

If you can't be trusted with a gun, you can't be trusted with much of anything.

 

[Blackguard_]

Do background checks actually help prevent gun shootings? I have trouble seeing how an administrative background check is an effective predictor of future behavior.

No. Most gun crime is by people who couldn't legally have a gun in the first place.

I think it only really gives some people the illusion that they are a little safer.

Yep, it's also "guilty until proven innocent".

 

[AvilaSurfer]

How would it keep nutjobs from getting guns legally? How does an administrative background check identify nutjobs, specifically the ones that are going to go on murderous rampages? And how does this help anything if they can manage to get one illegally?

When someone says something to the effect of "it's a start", it translates to me as "I know of no way to actually get from A to B."

Oy vey - so let's sit back and do nothing.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

In order to know if someone has sold a firearm illegally, wouldn't you have to register all guns and all gun owners?

The burden of proof is always on the government to show that someone has broken a law. If the government has no way of knowing who has what gun, then they have no way to prove that someone transferred it illegally, unless they know who has them all.

Of course one need only look to relatively recent history in California to see where registration is likely to lead...

 

[Blackguard_]

In order to know if someone has sold a firearm illegally, wouldn't you have to register all guns and all gun owners?

Not necessarily, as they could go by receipts showing you transferred the gun legally. Granted, whatever system they use to do the background checks(4473's, NICS) will be used to build a de facto registry.

You do have a receipts for all your guns showing you bought them before the private sale ban went into effect, don't you?