Obviously not anti-gun, but am for private sale backround checks. Talk me out of it.

[Phillyfan]

The main problems are:

1. It's not just bc's - it's actually putting data into a big computer database. Some argue that's a good thing, to help police. I haven't been able to find any information to back that up though. e.g How many times it's accesed per year, percentage of times that these acceses are while an officer is on a call, a potentially dangerous call, or are used successfully in other police work is unknown as far as I know. But there is another great use for them - if they ever want to come collect them.

Also, it's not just a list. They can pretty much connect the data into a social network and figure out who are the main hubs of activity, keeping a tight eye on who is selling what to whom, from where to where, and when. That can be analyzed in lots of creative ways.

2. Language in Bc bills arent about changes in *ownership*. The WA bill says it's illegal to hand the rifle to someone else without a background check unless you are at a shooting spot designated by the local government (who is not defined). This seems a bit excessive. Additionally it says that if inherit a firearm and fail to realize it and register it within (i think) 90 days then we will be violating the law for a gun you didn't even know you had. You could lose your firearms rights for some violations!

3. The goal is to save lives but there doesn't seem to be any strong evidence that they do. They certainly have nothing to do with stopping suicides, many suicides are by people who easily pass a background check (not to mention the fact that there numerous other methods available for offing oneself). Given the number of unregistered guns in this country it seems unlikely that the bill would effect criminals much - they don't need to get a gun at a dealer or through the gun boards. They will have their own gun shows if it gets bad - even prohibition does not stop the willful as we learned in the early 20th century. The antis might tell you how fewer women were killed and fewer cops were killed after background checks were passed in California (at least that's what they said in the Seattle televised debates). As far as I know, no data was supplied so this cannot be verified. But you can easily check that homicide rates went down by 50% (and are still dropping) since 1990 all over the country. So even if the drop in those numbers were true, concluding that the supposed drop was caused by background checks alone would seem more than a little bit dubious to the scientifically minded. Also, they don't stop crazy mass shooters like the guy in Santa Barbara. He passed the Bc, killed four people with a knife, before going on bi little shooting spree. In fact it seems like none of CA's impressive array of firearms laws seemed to really hinder him in his intended form of mayhem.

4. BC's are not free. They cost a lot of money to implement the computer systems and run the phones etc. NY state budget debates indicate that they have allocated about $7m so far ($3.6m/year) for technical implementation of the SAFE act. Not sure what the WA budget numbers are for 594. You pay $x for a NICS check now, could they crank that up at some point? At 16.8M checks per year nationwide, at a reasonable $25 per check, we the buyers spend about $500M for the privilege per year.

5. There is an better way to do this which is to publish a government web page that allows us to determine if someone is on the bad list, but do it *anonymously*. This can be done using math/cryptography. So then you would download the list, the buyer would punch in his Id number and, without talking to the Feds, you just verified that they are not on the list. This could be for almost free since there is no FFL and no person on the phone. No records are kept. It's just a tool you could use to privately determine if the person in front of you was not allowed. It would bother people a lot less since they wouldn't be being tracked. You could still get a bill of sale of you were interested in being to prove that you sold it.

6. Lat but not least it pretty inconvenient.

So if you are okay with an expensive and inconvenient system that doesn't seem to do much to stop gun violence and is an inferior technical solution that stores everything in a big tracking database (which by the way is often public data accessible to anyone - a newspaper in NY posted a map of gun owners houses on the Internet!) and a bill that contains some very dubious language and odd restrictions, then be my guest and vote for it.

Love number 5

 

[boogerhook]

I think there are "free men" out there, however, that should never be allowed to own a firearm.
(at least directly from me).

Therein lies the trouble. People who are too dangerous to own guns should not be free. There are plenty of other "tools" to harm people.... pressure cookers, airplanes, cars, knives, poison, you name it. And if we are honest, mass shootings are not our main problem - granted they get the most media attention - but they really are minor in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Spray-n-pray]

If it were simply a background check, it wouldn't be such a big deal. The problem is, there is a serial number of the firearm attached to the check. Background checks don't lead to registration. They ARE registration.

 

[Martini_Up]

The tyranny is powerful in it's brainwashing. Holdfast, Patriots.

 

[boogerhook]

Ex-military, member of the NRA, and a gun club, and I see no reason for not having background checks for private sales. I have sold around 15 guns in the past (one last week, in fact), and was always sure to see the license to make sure they were a resident to comply with the law, but was always a little worried about whether or not the people I was selling to were legally allowed to own the gun. Even turned down a few buyers because it just didn't feel right (if you know what I mean).

My worst nightmare would be selling a firearm to a felon who went on to use that gun to harm innocent people. I realize that can happen either way, but why not have the extra sense of security of knowing that the individual can legally own a firearm? $30 for a background check seems like a bargain for the piece of mind.

I know this will be a very unpopular opinion, so lets skip the "libtard", "you are anti-gun", "anti-2nd", BS attacks and just give me real, honest, thought out reasons why you are against it.

Attacks against me for thinking this way will only show that you don't have the intellect to defend your opinion, so, please, show me the other side of the coin. I am not above admitting I was wrong and changing my mind.

I purchased all my firearms going through a NICS check, and all my pistol purchases have been recorded by the State and the local PD. Have no problem with that. The WA UBC initiative 594 has a whole bunch of side effects I do not care for, which criminalizes many of the things we do for fun, e.g. lend our gun to a fellow gun owner so he can try it out while plinking on public lands. The notion that all temporary transfers need to be "BG checked" is idiotic, and it almost seems to have been created to take the fun out social gun activities. To me it seems the authors of these new initiatives want to isolate shooters not unlike smokers who have been forced to stand outside buildings to smoke a cigarette in a dark corner - if you get my drift.

If it was only about private sale BG checks they could have made it cheaper too, just by allowing Internet access to the NICS system. No need to trouble an FFL and make you pay 30$ for each transaction. I recently considered trading a 200$ pistol for another 200$ pistol. It requires two transactions, 2x30$ in fees. So now we have 60$ in overhead cost to trade a 200$ pistol with another guy who already has a pistol. It obviously would not keep a pistol out of the hands of a bad guy, if he was one.

In the overall scheme of things I do not believe that these BG checks do anything. I don't care if the government knows what I have, I don't mind being checked, but I still have little illusion it prevents any crime.

 

[Dornai]

My issue doesn't lie in mandated background checks, my issue lies within the language of the bill itself. That when using an FFL to transfer a firearm in a private sale, the firearm is first transferred from the seller to the FFL, then from the FFL to the buyer. Meaning I, at 19 years old, can no longer attain handguns from private sales even though I am legally allowed to possess them. Not to mention the only reason people sold to me on here prior to the bill was because I had a valid Military I.D. - proof I'm legally allowed to own firearms.

However, Meener brings up some great points.

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

The basis on which America was founded was freedom, liberty, and the ability to defend those rights via arms.

A man much wiser than all of us once said:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

-Ben Franklin

Do not be fooled by what the proponents of this bill are saying. These background checks will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Just as illegalizing marijuana does nothing to keep it out of the hands of criminals who want it, guns are a fact of our society. America was founded on rifles in the hand of the citizens. This is simply a way to make the antis feel good, and is a backdoor registration. The governor already said she wants to punish individuals who have their gun stolen and then used in a crime. What logic does that make? If a criminal steels your car and robs a convenience store should you be liable for that as well?

Give them an inch and they will take a mile. If you are a believer in that Americans should be able to own guns and have liberties, then forced background checks should not be an idea you are ok with.

I do believe there should be a website that allows you to instantly check if someone is a criminal barred from owning a gun that can be checked at the sellers will. This would have the same effect as the aforementioned and poo on the second amendment.

 

[wired]

I am totally against registration, and, in theory, background checks are not supposed to be used as such, but I definitely get your point. As far as making it our responsibility to not sell to mental patients or felons, how do you do that without a background check?

How do you tell that WITH a background check. The mentally ill bit is a red herring. Most states, ours included, do not report mentally ill patients to the database because of privacy laws. Criminals are going to buy and sell their guns the old fashioned away i.e. illegally once mayor Bloombergs initiative passes in Oregon . Don't be a patsy and walk right into the anti gun lobby's agenda. Registration ( 4473's ) is the first step towards disarmament.

 

[etrain16]

Let's look at this from another perspective and see if it helps shed some light. I, like you, have no interest in putting a gun in the hands of a felon/criminal or other prohibited person. I use what I consider due diligence in making my selling decisions. For pistol sales, I won't sell if they don't have a current CHL, that's a line I drew for myself a while ago - primarily based on the fact that CHL holders have already passed a background check and are unlikely to become prohibited persons (not impossible, but highly unlikely). I might be willing to do just and ODL for a shotgun or rifle - primarily because most gun crimes involve handguns, not rifles.

So let's consider this - you likely own a car, probably more than one if you're part of the average American family. One day you decide to sell that car to a guy, maybe off Craigslist, whatever. You agree to a price, write up a simple bill of sale and sign off the back of the title as you hand it over. Two weeks later, you learn that the guy took that car, and, while under the influence of alcohol, runs a red light, hitting another car and killing two kids. On top of it, he has no insurance to help the family that suffered the loss.

And consider this - when you hear of a DUI case where someone is seriously injured or killed, do you ever hear discussions like this: "How the hell did this guy get a car? Why didn't they prevent him from owning one in the first place?" Yet the moment a crime is committed with a gun, the very first question that comes up in every single news story is "Why the hell did he have a gun?". Interesting double standard, isn't it? As if to suggest that only criminals would own guns, while any commoner is okay to own a car, no questions asked.

Now, bear with me, as I know this is not a perfect 1:1 analogy, but consider this - you did not run any kind of background check on your purchaser, in fact, it's highly unlikely you asked to see any proof that he had no prior history of DUI or that he had current auto insurance. But, the guy seems nice enough, looks clean, decently groomed so you, as would most people, hand him the keys just because he has cash in hand. You've just equipped him with a potential deadly weapon, and you likely didn't give it a second thought. Considering that DUI accidents are more frequent in this country than are shootings, it would seem we should be pushing for background checks on drivers before they can buy a car, including private sales. But we don't do that. I would argue you could make the same case for a guy that just bought a bunch of tools, knives or even an old baseball bat from you at a yard sale. All are potential weapons in the wrong hands.

Guns, on the other hand have a negative stigma to certain people. While they are tools, just like the other items I mentioned, they are, perhaps, more associated with their misuse than their other, non-criminal uses, even though the non-criminal uses far outweigh the criminal ones. For some people, simply seeing a gun is enough to cause them to panic. So, we treat these tools differently than many of the others in our everyday lives. We expect more control over them. We stigmatize the gun and the owners as if they have something wrong with them just for owning them. Then, when rational gun owners decide they want them to change hands, people get crazy and want to get the government's hands all over them. Why? Can anyone honestly claim that guns are taking more lives than other methods? I know the CDC stats show that's definitely not the case. Yet guns are targeted as some sort of evil that must be controlled.

So, my argument is this, why should I be required to do a background check on this particular tool and not be similarly required to do the same for a car sale, a tool sale, a knife sale, or heck, even a bottle of bleach? The answer is that most people would consider such a requirement to be ridiculous. Who would expect a background check to buy a hammer? That's just crazy. But change that hammer to a gun, and suddenly everyone is all up in arms (no pun intended) about the possibility that selling that particular tool should only be conducted under Uncle Sam's strict guidance (with proper fees paid to said Uncle, of course).

I respect your desire to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. But I really don't understand the need to involve the government, as a requirement, in that process, considering we don't do that for so many other potentially deadly things. Yes, guns are misused by criminals. So are cars, knives, boats, planes, hammers, bats, poisons, even doggone laser pointers. If we are to be rational in our thought processes, we should look at the stigma behind guns and perhaps work to remove that rather than consider to help grow the really irrational fear many people have of them. Go ahead and conduct a private BGC if you like, preferably without some kind of a registration/transfer for the government's eyes, but I really can't get behind making a mandatory BGC/registration that is really nothing more than an unfair tax levied against owners of certain kinds of tools as well as a registration scheme that could be used by the same government for future scheme that could be nefarious toward law-abiding gun owners. Honestly, why do they need that information from us?

 

[Mark W.]

Here's the thing. In Oregon you can already do a BGC on any buyer with nothing more then a simple phone call.

The law proposed will in act firearms registration as it is the only way their scheme can work.

ONLY law abiding people will be effected by the new law. SO what's the point of it? BAD guys won't be standing at the counter of some FFL to pay $25.00 for a BGC to then go OH WOW I completely forgot I was a total dirtbag and can't own a gun. They will just do what they do now and steal them or buy them on the black-market etc.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

One of the best ways to convince you against a UBC Law Phillyfan is to have you listen to them argue for it.
This is just some highlights. Many more gun grabbing fanatics in Salem than this. These guys make no sense to me. Registration is the obvious next step for them.

 

[Unka-Boo]

One thing that always seems to get overlooked is that ANYONE can call the OSP right now and have a check run.
Voluntary is one thing, being FORCED is another. This bill has nothing to do with safety.

 

[bolus]

One thing that always seems to get overlooked is that ANYONE can call the OSP right now and have a check run.
Voluntary is one thing, being FORCED is another. This bill has nothing to do with safety.

Or go to a FFL and do the background check. A cut Above pawn says they do background checks for private sales now. People some in and want to make sure, they do the check for $25 and the private sale happens.

If you are worried about who you are selling to, do this

 

[Mikej]

Geezus, that Dembrow is my senator......

Good discussion here. Is someone going to link this discussion to some of the representatives? It really shows how responsible fire arms owners think and behave.

 

[LaserMan]

I would not have a problem with a bill that required us to run the buyer. No serial numbers involved.

This is the only scenario that I would agree to and actually use. There is no (good) reason to have any information about what is being purchased, only about who is actually doing the purchasing.

 

[fuhr52]

Why maker BC's a law? We do this so some progressive liberal special interest can pat themselves on the back and say I did something, doesn't matter the effect. Name one law that has stopped any crime from ever happening again? You can do BC's anytime you want, I don't know of any law that would prevent BC's for any gun sale private or not. We need to enforce the current laws not add more laws that might be enforced when convenient.

 

[bolus]

Ex-military, member of the NRA, and a gun club, and I see no reason for not having background checks for private sales. I have sold around 15 guns in the past (one last week, in fact), and was always sure to see the license to make sure they were a resident to comply with the law, but was always a little worried about whether or not the people I was selling to were legally allowed to own the gun. Even turned down a few buyers because it just didn't feel right (if you know what I mean).

My worst nightmare would be selling a firearm to a felon who went on to use that gun to harm innocent people. I realize that can happen either way, but why not have the extra sense of security of knowing that the individual can legally own a firearm? $30 for a background check seems like a bargain for the piece of mind.

First, The current bill removes all benefits from my C&R license. They authors of the bill knew about the collector license (they told me directly) and still left out a provision for it. Why should I jump through all the steps to get a collector license only to have the bill ruin it? They purposefully are punishing me.

Second, You should also consider the bigger picture. The people writing the bill want much much more restriction. Look at their prior bills that they tried to pass. Are you ready to have a police officer search your house to make sure your firearms are secured without a warrant? This was a bill by the same authors last year. magazine limits, bullet buttons, registration, etc

Making sure you are not selling to a dangerous person is a very good theory. But in practice the few crimes it may prevent are not worth the hassle to good people. as I mentioned above, you can do a private sale backgorund check now.

Lets say a friend wanted to borrow a 22 rifle so he can take his kid shooting. Do you think you should have to pay for a background check twice for that (to give him the rifle and then get it back). Is stuff like that worth everyone getting a background check?

Finally, as a physician, it is amazingly frustrating to me to see bills like this as their solution to the mental health crisis. Mental health care, especially for medicaid and medicare patients, is horrible right now. I could tell your stories for hours on how bad my patients have it. Having to tell suicidal patients that they have no coverage to see anyone other than a crappy clinic that is overworked because their medicaid insurance will cover no other place is inhumane. Most firearm related suicides are in people over 65 in Oregon. How many of those could pass a background check?

So in summary, dont trust the people pushing this. They get the foot in the door, they will kick it down.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Geezus, that Dembrow is my senator......

Good discussion here. Is someone going to link this discussion to some of the representatives? It really shows how responsible fire arms owners think and behave.

He looks so drowsy and bored in all his vids doesn't he? All this talk of body cams for Cops. I think we really need them for our Legislators to keep them on the up and up.

 

[BlindedByScience]

I can see that, but what about sales to people you don't know? Not all of us have the scruples to run a check on someone we question. Cash is king. Some of us will sell to anyone with the money to buy.

Problem is that if such a law is passed, cash will still be king and there will always be someone willing to sell to anyone with the money to buy.

As has been said, If the check is to check out the buyer, why is the firearm information even included?

So, you have a law that does nothing, really, to keep handguns out of the hands of bad guys, and also creates a registration scheme on any firearm that transfers. That's enough for me.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Phillyfan,
Don' know if you've decided to write your Senator or House member yet opposing these Bills but thanks for the thread! It's allowing a last minute discussion/clearing house for any fence sitters in our little Forum to get informed opinions on why these Bills stink. These Laws if passed might not matter to you or your children today or next year but one day sooner than you think it will matter.