Background Checks

[jbett98]

How about mandatory background checks for anyone running for public office.

 

[BSG 75]

How do you argue against background checks when the DOJ has statistics about 2% being denied where half of that 2% are felons?

Don't flame me, I'm looking for arguments against these numbers.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bcft10st.pdf

2% are denied, and half of those - 1% - are felons. So 99% are not felons. A huge number of people are being run through the system to stop the tiny fraction that are felons.

In Oregon in 2013, 261,128 (>99%) of background checks were approved and 2,215 (<1%) were denied. For every denial, 117 unnecessary background checks on sane, law-abiding Oregonians were run and approved. The national numbers are similar. It is a hugely inefficient system. The overwhelming number of people buying guns are law-abiding, so any system that forces a background check on every sale is inherently inefficient and will always produce a huge number of unnecessary background checks.

If those hundreds of thousands of completely unnecessary background checks were free they would simply be a waste of time but not a waste of money. But background checks aren't free. A fee of $10 is assessed for each background check. 261,128 unnecessary background checks multiplied by $10 per background check means $2,611,280 was spent by sane, law-abiding Oregonians in 2013 for completely unnecessary background checks.

Instead of wasting $2.6 million per year on unnecessary background checks, imagine if that money was spent improving our mental health care system in Oregon. Imagine if $2.6 million per year was spent on suicide prevention (suicide is the #1 leading cause of death from "gun violence" in Oregon and the United States). Imagine if $2.6 million per year was spent keeping violent criminals in prison longer. Imagine if $2.6 million per year was spent putting more cops on the street. Imagine if $2.6 million per year was spent providing armed security at all elementary and secondary schools in Oregon. Any of those uses would do far more to prevent "gun violence" than expanding background checks, more than 99% of which are completely unnecessary.

The national numbers are even worse. Over 181 million background checks have been run since 1998, with a 98% approval rate. At $10 each that's over 1.7 billion dollars wasted on approved background checks since 1998.

The law requiring licensed dealers to perform background checks is wasteful and inefficient, but at least it is enforceable. There are a limited number of licensed firearm dealers in Oregon, they operate at known locations, and they are required by law to maintain detailed inventories so they can account for all firearms that they transfer. The law requiring licensed dealers to perform background checks is simple to enforce.

In contrast, a law requiring virtually all private firearm transfers in Oregon to undergo a background check would be virtually unenforceable and therefore ignored without consequences by those who are perfectly willing to sell firearms to prohibited persons, regardless of the law. The government cannot monitor every private home, place of business, and parking lot 24 hours a day to see if a background check is being performed when a firearm is being privately transferred. All such a law would do is increase "crime", by creating a new victimless "crime" that criminalizes behavior by otherwise completely law-abiding Oregonians, behavior that harms no one.

80% of criminals get guns from family members, friends, or "on the street" (stolen firearms). Family members are specifically exempted from SB 1551. It is naive and laughable to think that friends of criminals and guys selling stolen guns are going to run background checks. Because the law is unenforceable it will be ignored by the people you most want to stop. Only the law-abiding - the people you don't have to worry about to begin with - are going to sheepishly follow the law. Those that don't perform a background check will be "criminals" in the eyes of the government. Meanwhile, the real criminals will continue to get guns, just as they do in states like California that have "universal" background checks.

Most laws don't prevent people from doing things that they really want to do (for example speeding or using phones while driving, using drugs, hiring prostitutes). They do provide a rationale for punishing people if they are caught. But since a law requiring "universal" background checks is even less enforceable than laws against speeding, using drugs, or hiring prostitutes, the law will be ignored and nothing will be accomplished - except making "criminals" of the vast majority of people selling used guns who are law-abiding.

The whole fight over background checks avoids the most important question:

If some violent criminal is so dangerous that you don't want them to buy a used gun from a private individual without a background check, why isn't that violent criminal still in prison? Why are they running around free trying to buy guns, knives, or any other kind of weapon? If they were kept in prison until they were much less likely to commit a violent crime, no one would have to worry about them buying a gun without a background check, and the vast majority (>99%) of people selling and buying guns who are law-abiding would not have their harmless activities criminalized.

 

[GunnerB]

One only needs to look at California and the APPS. It is de facto registration. Does anyone really trust that they do not keep records? In light of all the domestic spying going on it's a no brainer. If anyone thinks otherwise I have ocean front property in Arizona for sale.

Shall not be infringed.

 

[The Heretic]

Here is an idea.

Instead of a mandatory background check, setup a website that a private firearm seller could do a *voluntary* and *free* background check on a prospective buyer - without the firearm info. Each check would have a certification # with it.

I would be willing to bet that many private sellers would only be too happy to run such a check when they sell a firearm just to protect themselves from future liability or criticism. They could save a hard copy of the check and keep it in their records (which could be disposed of when they die or whenever they wish).

 

[Netspirit]

Here is an idea.

Instead of a mandatory background check, setup a website that a private firearm seller could do a *voluntary* and *free* background check on a prospective buyer - without the firearm info. Each check would have a certification # with it.

I would be willing to bet that many private sellers would only be too happy to run such a check when they sell a firearm just to protect themselves from future liability or criticism. They could save a hard copy of the check and keep it in their records (which could be disposed of when they die or whenever they wish).

I proposed this a year ago.

Voluntary background checks is the way to go. It should not be free though - if you want to check someone's background, pay for it yourself, don't shift this expense to other taxpayers.

 

[Provincial]

I proposed this a year ago.

Voluntary background checks is the way to go. It should not be free though - if you want to check someone's background, pay for it yourself, don't shift this expense to other taxpayers.

I also proposed this sort of check last year. I strongly disagree that the cost of the check should fall on the seller and/or buyer. I believe that first, free (as in taxpayer-paid) checks are far more likely to be completed, and second, no one should have to incur a fee to exercise a constitutional right. It is the public that gets the benefit from the background check (if the anti-2A crowd is to be believed), so it is proper that the public bear the cost.

 

[orygun]

Shall not be infringed

Exactly what I was thinkin...

 

[Fast Eddie]

Here is an idea.

Instead of a mandatory background check, setup a website that a private firearm seller could do a *voluntary* and *free* background check on a prospective buyer - without the firearm info. Each check would have a certification # with it.

I would be willing to bet that many private sellers would only be too happy to run such a check when they sell a firearm just to protect themselves from future liability or criticism. They could save a hard copy of the check and keep it in their records (which could be disposed of when they die or whenever they wish).

You already can,

Just don't sell to anyone who doesn't have a current CPL. In "shall issue" states, it's an easy way to verify you are selling to someone who can legally own a gun, I know Oregon is a mess right now, but in general, they are not that difficult to obtain.

 

[RB87]

Remember, the Oregon State Police testified before the legislature a couple of years ago that jobs and the economy would be impacted if the Oregon went with the "free" national NICS background check system instead of the OSP. That 2.6million really effects the economy doncha know. Some gov employees would lose their job.

 

[The Heretic]

You already can,

Just don't sell to anyone who doesn't have a current CPL. In "shall issue" states, it's an easy way to verify you are selling to someone who can legally own a gun, I know Oregon is a mess right now, but in general, they are not that difficult to obtain.

Not everyone feels the need to carry concealed. I don't have a current permit - I let mine expire over a decade ago.

I am thinking of getting it again though.

 

[8ball]

What is done with those denials? Currently it is against the law to lie on the form. If you fill out the form truthfully the FFL must turn you down without even running a background check if you are a prohibited person. In that sense it is not illegal for a prohibited person to attempt to acquire a firearm. If the prohibited person lies on the form that is when the NICS check is supposed to catch it with a possible penalty of up to 10 years under 18 U.S. Code § 924. Of the 2% that are denials, with half being felons, how many are investigated and prosecuted? How can anyone say that the current law is ineffective and we need more laws when the current law is not even used?

Exactly. If the background check is declined, the government doesn't even bother to investigate in 90% of the cases. So it's really not about stopping felons and crazies from trying to get guns, because the real bad guys will likely go on to procure them from an illegal source if they are serious on harm.

It's about registration, and making it harder to exercise your rights. The gun control movements ultimate goal, as expressed many times in their policy documents, is confiscation of privately owned firearms and extinguishing the Second Amendment. If they thought they could organize a constitutional convention to remove the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights, they would start today. Everything else is just a step along the way. Shrinking the population of gun owners, and registering their guns, is a strategic first step to everything else.

 

[Stomper]

I will not comply.

 

[CLT65]

A lot of gun owners are not against background checks, they are against the Gov't registration the anit's are tacking on to it.

You nailed it there. Background checks are not what they are really after anyhow, it's really about registration.

Personally I would love to be able to keep weapons out of the hands of bad guys, but you have to look at the logical effectiveness of these proposed laws in their actual ability to do that. I assume the discussion here is in regards to Universal background checks (every transaction) as opposed to the current system (dealers and gun shows only)?

Requiring background checks on non-public transactions would be unenforceable and as such ineffectual. Requiring them at gun shows and other public transaction such as newspaper and (instate) internet ads would be somewhat enforceable, but among friends and acquaintances would only be voluntary no matter what the law is. Law abiding people would follow the law and criminals by their very nature would not. The only real result of "Universal Background Checks" is de-facto gun registration.

Background check systems have been proposed where records were not kept (so no registration), but the gun-control folks dismiss them out of hand. This makes it abundantly clear that what they really want is registration. Gun control is not about guns so much as it is about control. They don't care so much if people have guns so long as they have the control.

Personally if I have a gun to sell (rare to never anymore), I will sell it only to family or friends, or consignment with a licensed dealer. To each their own but that's where I'm at.

 

[The Heretic]

Background check systems have been proposed where records were not kept (so no registration), but the gun-control folks dismiss them out of hand. This makes it abundantly clear that what they really want is registration. Gun control is not about guns so much as it is about control. They don't care so much if people have guns so long as they have the control.

I disagree.

Most gun control advocates (not the general populace, but the orgs, lobbyists, etc.) very much care if people have guns.

They just realize that they won't ever get banishment of general gun ownership in one fell swoop. They understand that in order to have an enforceable ban, they will need to know who owns guns, and what guns they own.

The only way to do this is by registration.

They also realize that straight-forward registration in the majority of states in the USA is a non-starter. Just not going to happen.

So they back-door the registration by requiring background checks that also just happen to include the very information they need in order to put in place a de-facto registration system. Eventually almost every gun owner will be in that system with at least one firearm that they own. From there it is a simple matter of slowly introducing more and more restrictive ownership laws, as California, Colorado and Connecticut have done.

 

[GunnyG]

How do you argue against background checks when the DOJ has statistics about 2% being denied where half of that 2% are felons?

Don't flame me, I'm looking for arguments against these numbers.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bcft10st.pdf

I got this from the Brady Campaign site (know your enemies, right?)

About Gun Violence | Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Show me the convictions for that percentage of people who were denied on a background check, given 10 years and a $250k fine, all of which is explicitly stated on the top of the 4473.

Without that enforcement, the gov't is leaving those same felons out to steal or buy through the same market where they can buy untaxed MJ and heroin, etc from now.

When only criminal proceedings would've been needed to keep prohibited persons from accessing a firearm, the judiciary isn't very good about holding their part of the bargain: In 2010, a meager 62 referrals and 13 convictions resulted from the 76,142 NICS denials that the FBI referred to ATF for action. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...7a8c1d4-65b4-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_blog.html

Whether we are talking about the court's pattern of "catch and release" being practiced, when adult felons felons in possession of firearms, have been given convictions with several suspended sentences in succession before actually getting any jail time, or not even taking action when it would be appropriate, the LE community and the courts are creating the dangerous situation.


<broken link removed>

What good is adding new law, when the CURRENT ONES aren't being enforced? Of the 1,015,699 people denied by a background check since November 30, 1998, there are just but a few convictions each year to show for it. Why?

If you are satisfied that "we stopped them, that's enough..." answer from our judiciary, nothing stopped 99.9% of those same prohibited people from going on and committing crimes.

 

[CLT65]

I disagree.

Most gun control advocates (not the general populace, but the orgs, lobbyists, etc.) very much care if people have guns.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, but should have explained my statement better.

They don't care if some people have guns, so long as they (government) has control. Some people own guns in every country in the world, even in the most authoritarian dictatorships. If you have enough money, enough connections, the right politics, etc. you can own whatever you want, with permission from the powers-that-be. This is what I meant with my statement that big government gun control enthusiasts are fine with people having guns so long as they have control. They want to control who has the guns.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

You already can,

Just don't sell to anyone who doesn't have a current CPL. In "shall issue" states, it's an easy way to verify you are selling to someone who can legally own a gun, I know Oregon is a mess right now, but in general, they are not that difficult to obtain.

Not going to happen. I will not pay for them to give me a permit (which is by definition an exception to do something that otherwise would be illegal) to exercise rights that both the US and State constitution clearly guarantee against infringement by the government.

Background checks are feel good laws that are never (statistically you can't count the few convictions as they are a fraction of a percent) enforced. They do not prevent any gun crimes as there is nothing to stop someone that failed the check from buying one through illegal means. Now here is the good part. We expect prior felons to respect the law (which we know is not enforceable) after they have already demonstrated that they don't respect the law. Absurd idea there. To the original post these figures are garbage because there is no way to know how many of that 2% just went and bought or obtained one elsewhere.

Now as far as the "If it can save one life" argument. This argument is also garbage. Statistics prove exactly the opposite. These laws actually cost lives and endanger people. They simply empower the criminal element while disarming the law abiding. Funny how in Chicago they did away with a decades law ban on concealed carry there and now the gun crime rate is the lowest in 30 years. Less than a year has passed and allowing concealed carry has already started saving lives. This can be demonstrated elsewhere as well. NYC, DC, California, etc. all have very strict gun control laws and exceed the national crime rates by a large margin. Now look at where WA and OR fall when you look at the national rates of gun crime. These states should be coming here and asking us what we are doing right because our gun crime rates are well below the national average.

BTW, If we can't trust someone with a gun on the street then we should not be letting them walk the street. Going back to what I posted above. There is nothing to stop them from getting one illegally and they have already demonstrated a lack of respect for the law. These are the only people a background check would stop if it was enforced and therefore we are letting known dangerous criminals out among us.

Also how can we say that anyone no longer has a right to defend themselves when we say they are again fit to be part of society.

 

[tiggers97]

I think it may actually be less than that. You are right in that only about half are actual felons who are disallowed from owning a gun. The other half are usually improperly filling out the forms (typos are not a crime).

What's actually telling is the number of those felon/denials that actually get arrested. I found in Oregon, 2010, it was 0.05% of all background checks (90 denials leading to arrest about of ~168,300 background checks performed) that actually resulted in arrest. You could also work that as (90/~1200=) less than 8% of felon/denials are actually deemed serious enough for the law to intervene. (note: I'm basing the 1200 on the 2393 denials in 2010, dividend by half to match what seems to be the case for 2013, if the gun-control advocates are to be believed).

Add some information about criminals who get arrested using a gun in a crime (you may see this as "80% of criminals get their guns from private sellers without a background check): ~39% buy off black-market (i.e. mostly stolen guns), ~39% from family or friends (exempt in most recent background check bills, or straw-purchasing); that ads up to the 80% quote above.

About 1 in 10 stole their gun specifically for their own use (closer to ~8%), and the remainder someone got them from licensed gun dealers (lied on forms, incomplete background database, crooked FFL dealer, etc). In almost every case, what the criminal was doing was already against the law, or the individual was likely to already be prohibited from possessing a firearm (about 70-85% of killers had some type of prior criminal history)

Here's a couple other threads with a little more that might help, although it is Oregon focused.
1. Oregon background check numbers during heraring
2. 80% quote by the other side.

Oregon catalyst also had a few good points as well.
1. Records retention of Oregon background check data
2. Oregon doesn't need expanded background checks
3. Oregon media peddling partisan poll on background checks.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

I think it may actually be less than that. You are right in that only about half are actual felons who are disallowed from owning a gun. The other half are usually improperly filling out the forms (typos are not a crime).

What's actually telling is the number of those felon/denials that actually get arrested. I found in Oregon, 2010, it was 0.05% of all background checks (90 denials leading to arrest about of ~168,300 background checks performed) that actually resulted in arrest. You could also work that as (90/~1200=) less than 8% of felon/denials are actually deemed serious enough for the law to intervene. (note: I'm basing the 1200 on the 2393 denials in 2010, dividend by half to match what seems to be the case for 2013, if the gun-control advocates are to be believed).

Add some information about criminals who get arrested using a gun in a crime (you may see this as "80% of criminals get their guns from private sellers without a background check): ~39% buy off black-market (i.e. mostly stolen guns), ~39% from family or friends (exempt in most recent background check bills, or straw-purchasing); that ads up to the 80% quote above.

About 1 in 10 stole their gun specifically for their own use (closer to ~8%), and the remainder someone got them from licensed gun dealers (lied on forms, incomplete background database, crooked FFL dealer, etc). In almost every case, what the criminal was doing was already against the law, or the individual was likely to already be prohibited from possessing a firearm (about 70-85% of killers had some type of prior criminal history)

Here's a couple other threads with a little more that might help, although it is Oregon focused.
1. Oregon background check numbers during heraring
2. 80% quote by the other side.

Oregon catalyst also had a few good points as well.
1. Records retention of Oregon background check data
2. Oregon doesn't need expanded background checks
3. Oregon media peddling partisan poll on background checks.

I'm going to look at each of those carefully. I'm betting we can find some good tidbits for the gun rights coalition we just started.

 

[The Heretic]

There is also the fact that not every criminal has a criminal record - so some may and probably do pass a background check readily. Such people can buy firearms and then turn around and sell them illegally to felons with a record - as pointed out numerous times, criminals are criminals by definition because they do not obey/respect the law (at times - as they see fit - usually when they feel they won't get caught).

This would probably not be the usual case as selling to a known illegal could result in the firearm being traced back to you - however, it is not unheard of that a firearm used in a crime has a serial number removed (which could be restored, but then most criminals are stupid and think they won't get caught).