Against Universal Background Checks
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 2 months ago
It might have been part of his overall plan. Mr. Obama has succeeded in spinning things up to the point that if he trots out anything less that full blown gun confiscation, people will say, “Oh thank God. We can live with what he’s proposing.”
But be careful what you wish for. The proposal that stands the best chance of passing happens to be the most insidious.
Hours before President Barack Obama’s official swearing-in to a second term, top Democrats predicted a victory for the broadest component of the White House’s push to change the nation’s gun laws.
During an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, N.Y., called legislation to institute universal background checks for gun buyers “the sweet spot.”
“In terms of actually making us safer and having a good chance of passing, this is it,” Schumer said on Sunday.
“I think you’re going to see [the very likelihood] in the next week or two a proposal that has broad support for universal background checks,” he added.
We’ve dealt with this issue before, how the phrase “gun show loophole” is a disingenuous invention of the gun control lobby, and how it would turn grandpa into a felon if he gifts his grandson with a .22 rifle under the Christmas tree.
Take careful note that there will be no more sales of firearms between hunting buddies, and no more exchange of guns between friends in church or at work, without paying a transfer fee to a federal firearms license.
It has been observed that a universal background check may be unenforceable.
There are 300 million guns currently in circulation and the federal government doesn’t have any data on who owns what. There’s no national registry for guns. All the federal trace data shows is who originally bought the gun from a licensed dealer.
“So let’s say a universal background check law passes and a gun I bought back in 2008 shows up on a Chicago crime scene a month from now,” says Ludwig. “The police show up at my door and ask who I sold it to. I say I sold it before the [universal background check] passed and at that time I wasn’t required to ask any questions.” There would be no way for police to know if he had complied with the law or not.
Relying on the notion that the federal government cannot ascertain whether you’re a felon because they lack the data is a horrible way to proceed. Besides, as gun serial numbers are tracked by manufacturers, time goes by, and guns gradually go out of circulation, all it takes is a few executive orders to nationalize an electronic database of information from form 4473’s, and presto, there you have a national gun registry.
I firmly and unapologetically believe that all federal laws and regulations concerning firearms are unconstitutional. But even if you don’t, and if you don’t fight the universal background check, remember the times.
Mr. Obama may very well get his desire for anti-gun legacy, and it may come as a Trojan horse, promising safety and security, but bringing onerous federal control that affects generations to come.
On January 20, 2013 at 11:38 pm, amr said:
Blogger Bob Owens wrote recently that one can only complete a background check if one has a federal license to sell firearms. If true, the law makes it impossible to do now what the government is complaining about.
On January 20, 2013 at 11:49 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Yes, and others have pointed out that the feds could make the background check available to private citizens. Perhaps so. But I oppose even the requirement itself. If a citizen chooses to go through such a check, or if, as in my state, I require that I observe a concealed handgun permit before selling, then so be it. But for the feds to require me to go through theis system is wrong, overbearing, and too controlling. Furthermore, it allows the feds to information to which they have no right.
On January 21, 2013 at 12:14 pm, Mike Pelcher said:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/some-bishops-want-your-guns
The above link is to an article which criticizes certain Religious leaders for calling for gun control. Within it are references to the teachings of the Catholic Catechism which are wholly consistent with The Captain’s previous writings. Thought you might find it interesting. Good day!
On January 21, 2013 at 3:46 pm, scott s. said:
My state requires all purchases to have prior “permit to acquire” obtained from the county PD. So in theory there isn’t a need to transfer through an FFL, but I suppose the dealer lobby would like to get any law set up to make going through a dealer mandatory. They would probably also set it up such that the seller would have to do a 4473 to get the gun back from the dealer if the transfer couldn’t go through for any reason, like it’s done on consignments or pawn shop guns.
But our “permit to acquire” only works because there is mandatory registration. That provides incentive for seller not to evade the system. I guess these days there’s a 2-3 hour wait at HPD for a permit/registration (takes 3 trips, one to request permit, one to get permit, one to register). Long-gun permit thankfully is good for a year, as many guns as you want.
On January 21, 2013 at 7:54 pm, Bat Chain Puller said:
UBC is like stone soup. It is useless and stupid without a lot of other laws to close all the loopholes it creates. Under current laws, in most states, there are no law enforcement records kept of background checks nor of the firearm transferred nor of the seller or buyer.
On January 21, 2013 at 8:49 pm, FiftycalTX said:
All this takes the wrong approach. The Gun Control Act of 1968 required people that desired to sell firearms obtain a FEDERAL license to do so. No such license is required to buy guns. And as a citizen of the State of Texas, I am not SUBJECT to federal laws on selling firearms. Laws subjecting me to FEDERAL scrutiny are going to be much more complex than just passing a “law” that sez I have to submit to a “universal background check”.
On January 21, 2013 at 9:28 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Bat chain and Fiftycal, do not … do not … underestimate the enemy. This would be a fatal mistake.
On January 22, 2013 at 12:51 pm, Bat Chain Puller said:
@Herschel Smith I wasn’t clear, UBC just opens the floodgates to fix the UBC loopholes, since it won’t work without registration and databases of lawful gun owners. House of Representatives needs to swat the camel’s nose.
On January 22, 2013 at 12:55 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Gotcha. Right on!