Universal Background Checks for gun purchases

Of all the 'gun debate' issues, this one seems to have the most people either confused, or less informed. So lets discuss.

First off, let me state my position, then I'll tell you why I'm flexible on my opinion. I believe in the Constitution of these United States, by the people, for the people and all that. Reads plain as day to me, the Supreme Court and now the vast majority of 'the people'; you have the the Right to Keep (own) and Bear (carry) arms, the Bill of Rights merely reminds the government of this fact and says back off. The only people that would benefit from a 'disarmed America' would be our enemies - both foreign and domestic. Every one of us (mil/leo/etc.) swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and we take that very seriously.



Secondly, no one I know wants criminals or crazy people to have guns. We abhor violence and do not own guns seeking violence, but to be prepared to stop it if an emergency arises. So for this reason, I do want some checks and balances to make it difficult for crooks/crazies to get guns; I'm generally for background checks. Especially for those that would like to lawfully carry a firearm in public. I'm also for training, and issuing some kind of license or ID for those that lawfully carry in public. I know all the arguments, and this is where I stand today. If more of us returned to this 'middle ground', in states that still have draconian anti-gun laws (like Maryland) we would all be a lot better off. Ultimately though, states that have gone what many of us refer to as 'Constitutional' carry; are doing pretty well, so maybe down the road, that is a better solution. Then, any person in possession of a firearm is legal, it's just what they are doing with that firearm and if they are a 'denied person' then they are wrong. Very easy to sort out, and does away with a lot of paperwork.



Back to 'Universal Background Checks.' Here in Maryland that is already the law, with very few exceptions. Anyone reading this that has never purchased a firearm in Maryland, I welcome you to go into a gun shop and just ask. You will be told that you will have to pass a (reasonable in my opinion) background check to purchase ANY firearm. Same holds true at gun-shows. Even if you want to buy a handgun from a private citizen (handguns are overwhelmingly used in the majority of crimes), you still have to pass a background check. You can do this through a gun shop, or through the Maryland State Police at any of their barracks. Its all very official, and it works. Criminals don't bother to do any of this, they just buy them from other criminals and never go through any background check. So all these laws only affect those that want to obey the law.

There is no evidence that 'background checks' actually curb crime, so why are so many people making such a big deal about background checks, when the criminals already don't care, and don't subject themselves to checks? Because the anti-gun elites only want to keep making new laws and make it increasingly more complicated, expensive and onerous for law-abiding citizens - until someday they can outright ban guns in America. That's it.



I know a lot of people that own several firearms; many of them are designated collectors, police officers, military, business people, and just everyday hard working folks that want to legally buy a gun and be left the hell alone. It is absolutely absurd that these people, the law-abiding people, have to pay and go through the 'background check' mill time after time. Many of these people have handgun licenses (the Maryland Handgun Qualification License (HQL)), or permits to carry from other states. Even a uniformed police officer who might walk into a gun shop to buy a personal firearm has to go through yet ANOTHER background check. Let me say that another way, he has a loaded firearm on his person at the moment that he has to pass ANOTHER background check to buy a gun. It is utterly absurd how far things have gone, and the law makers only have one solution, more asinine laws that only hurt the good people.

-

So the next time someone says they are in favor of universal background checks, ask them what that means; and then ask them if they think criminals are buying guns legally.

If you are new to this topic, I invite you to read these good articles before repeating the catch phrases the media has been feeding us for decades now:

https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/08/4-reasons-universal-background-checks-ar

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-a...hecks-for-all-guns-purchases-and-or-transfers

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/10/27/foxs-roginsky-police-chiefs-vast-majority-of-pe/206452

excellent video.

Maryland's Handgun Laws are designed to keep handguns out of the hands of low income citizens. I spend more money a month on AMMO than the HQL process would cost me. I do NOT have and will NOT get one.
When the NAACP/ACLU gets behind keeping guns out of the hands of low income citizens, (like showing an ID to VOTE is designed to keep low income citizens from voting) things will change in Maryland.

Well, background checks would not really do anything, because many of the people who went on shooting sprees, passed background checks. Also the fact that the government has actually attempted to prosecute very few people trying to buy guns that failed the background check. I honestly don't really want the government to know exactly what I have and how much. IF I did snap one day, what's the difference in whether I used the AR15 I bought at a gunshop and went thru a background check, or the shotgun I got from uncle Joe as a gift?

So, I guess my point is, why create another law, if the previous ones do nothing, and the new one won't either.

My core argument against is solely this; We give them an inch, they will take a mile.

We give into this BS, and then when they realize their feel good, common sense universal background checks have failed to reduce gun violence, they will push a more restrictive gun law. This is their appetizer law. It will be bans on semi autos, handguns, limiting and logging ammo purchases, etc. The government doesn't crack down on the laws they have now. The only laws they will create will be ones ONLY law abiding citizens, who wouldn't commit violence would follow anyways. And would universal background checks really warrant respect from citizens? I doubt it. If mandated, I still would sell, trade with friends and relatives. ANY regulation bears on infringement, and as stated Gun Control is ONLY about control. The government does NOT genuinely care about safety, only the perception of it.

In North Carolina you must go to your local Sheriff pay 5 bucks for each gun purchase form and back ground check. This normally takes less then 30 minutes. You can purchase 10 or 20 if you want to. They are good for 5 years. This form allows you to go into any shop or show and purchase with out further delay. If you are buying from a private seller then you must give the person you're buying from the form.

Minuteman,

I share a lot of your views on background checks, but as usual the government did a poor job of implementation. And law-abiding gun owners take the blame.

You mention we need to be more in the middle on things. But I can't agree with any new kind of gun laws. All the anti-gun groups want is more regulation and restrictions.

For example, I would be for universal background checks if we got something. Like most of the NFA was done away with and better nation wide conceal carry.

And I'm not willing to really give more ground until they do. Both sides have to give to take. But they give nothing but more laws and regulations.

JOESTEELER said:

In North Carolina you must go to your local Sheriff pay 5 bucks for each gun purchase form and back ground check. This normally takes less then 30 minutes. You can purchase 10 or 20 if you want to. They are good for 5 years. This form allows you to go into any shop or show and purchase with out further delay. If you are buying from a private seller then you must give the person you're buying from the form.

Click to expand...

That law was designed to keep handguns out of the hands of black citizens. It is a theowback to Jim Crow laws. If a white citizen went he got a permit, a black citizen, not so much.

I don't believe this is still the case, but that is the history of that permit.

Edit to add: NC also changed thier laws recently so you do not need the permit if you are a CCW holder.

That seems reasonable to me. Much the way we have been checked and fingerprinted for our HQLs. Why can't the HQL act as a check to allow FTF handgun purchases between private citizens.

gunone said:

Minuteman,

I share a lot of your views on background checks, but as usual the government did a poor job of implementation. And law-abiding gun owners take the blame.

You mention we need to be more in the middle on things. But I can't agree with any new kind of gun laws. All the anti-gun groups want is more regulation and restrictions.

For example, I would be for universal background checks if we got something. Like most of the NFA was done away with and better nation wide conceal carry.

And I'm not willing to really give more ground until they do. Both sides have to give to take. But they give nothing but more laws and regulations.

Click to expand...

This^.

In principle, I'm all for "universal background checks". But I know it won't stop there. IF the other side would be willing to compromise and give up something to get something (nationwide reciprocity for CC would be my vote, since that would force MD and other states to become shall issue--after all, how could people from out of state be allowed to carry in MD if Marylanders themselves could not?), then I'd meet them in the middle.

hogarth said:

This^.

In principle, I'm all for "universal background checks". But I know it won't stop there. IF the other side would be willing to compromise and give up something to get something (nationwide reciprocity for CC would be my vote, since that would force MD and other states to become shall issue--after all, how could people from out of state be allowed to carry in MD if Marylanders themselves could not?), then I'd meet them in the middle.

Click to expand...

I would like to see them stop trying to ban "assault" long guns(thier name for them, not mine). They are rarely used in crimes and are just a shiny object for the anti gun crowd.

It would also be nice if SBRs and supressors were taken out of the perview of the NFA.

Minuteman,

What other rights are we required to request government permission and receive government approval to exercise?

Here in Maryland, I think it is absolutely absurd that we have to pay for a background check and fingerprints so that we can go through another background check to purchase a handgun! I already own handguns. I have been through numerous background checks for security clearance, entry to secure facilities and firearms purchases, etc. I consider the fee charged by the state to be nothing short of extortion to exercise a constitutional right. The mentality that we should endure this is a major step toward believing that the right to own firearms is just a privilege. A free man does not bow before the king.

I don't like any kind of background check, period, but that's just me.

TheBert said:

Minuteman,

What other rights are we required to request government permission and receive government approval to exercise?

Click to expand...

You may want to re-read his post. I believe he was laying out a number of cogent and well argued points against universal background checks.

gunone said:

Minuteman,

I share a lot of your views on background checks, but as usual the government did a poor job of implementation. And law-abiding gun owners take the blame.

You mention we need to be more in the middle on things. But I can't agree with any new kind of gun laws. All the anti-gun groups want is more regulation and restrictions.

For example, I would be for universal background checks if we got something. Like most of the NFA was done away with and better nation wide conceal carry.

And I'm not willing to really give more ground until they do. Both sides have to give to take. But they give nothing but more laws and regulations.

Click to expand...

I was trying to speak to the majority of the people that I hear from on a regular basis; trying to reach out to those that just 'go along' with the chant for 'universal background checks' without really understanding it. I tried to start my comments by saying I'm generally for checks and balances if they keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But then I tried to articulate that that's not happening, and it only harms us (the People); and the ultimate purpose for this is to ultimately try to take all guns from the People.

I'm not for new laws at all, I do think there is some middle ground if the antis are willing to listen and for the time being, I'm ok with permits, training and background checks, especially for those that want to carry in public and be left alone. Its ridiculous that we have to have a background check (pay fee *tax) over and over. Its already illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited person; we don't need more laws regarding this that criminals will continue to ignore.

TheBert said:

Minuteman,

What other rights are we required to request government permission and receive government approval to exercise?

Click to expand...

Excellent point, and I agree. This is where we find ourselves today. I did mention that the few states that are now Constitutional carry are doing quite well, and maybe in the future this is an even better solution. But today we have checks, and it seems to appease the masses that believe it makes a big difference.

To those who advocate for background checks of any kind:

So you want background checks, do you?

Then answer this simple question: how will it prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns? It's not sufficient to merely make it slightly more inconvenient. Markets, black or not, have a way of optimizing around such inconveniences.

Do you think it'll keep criminals from stealing firearms from those who own them legally? Do you think it'll keep them from buying them and selling them on the black market? Do you think it'll keep them from importing them illegally? From manufacturing them illegally when the chips are down?

Really?

How?

Because if you don't think it'll actually prevent that, then you're advocating for hoops to jump through that serve no real purpose. Which is to say, you're advocating for "feel good" measures just like the anti-self-defense people do.

So: tell us how this will logically work to provably and fully prevent those who prey on the innocent from getting firearms. You have to do at least that much in order to make a case for any restriction.

zoostation said:

You may want to re-read his post. I believe he was laying out a number of cogent and well argued points against universal background checks.

Click to expand...

Minuteman said:

I'm generally for background checks. Especially for those that would like to lawfully carry a firearm in public. I'm also for training, and issuing some kind of license or ID for those that lawfully carry in public.

Click to expand...

Agian, why should I have to ask permission from the government and receive permission from the government to exercise a right?

more "we have to do something" feel good legislation that will do nothing to prevent gun crimes.

How many shootings are we aware of that were committed by criminals using guns not purchased legally from an FFL

answer=0

so what would this do besides provide the govt with lists for future confiscation?

thanks but no thanks. Suggest something that would really reduce gun violence and I'm all ears, not necessarily accepting it but willing to listen

Not only am I against all background checks, I think felons who are released should be able to buy a gun. If you are free enough to walk the streets, you are free enough to own a gun.

I imagine that the antis' reasoning goes something like this:

- well, yes, criminals get their guns by illegal means

- those guns were "legal"at some point and they became illegal through theft, loss or a legal owner illegally transferring them

- therefore, making it more difficult and ultimately impossible for people to legally acquire guns means that criminals will no longer be able to get guns illegally.

- oh yeah, and why does anyone need a gun anyway?

Just my guess.