Alan Korwin, visit his website GunLaws.com.
The lamestream media told you:
Do you support background checks? It’s the biggest gun question of the day. Mass media insists virtually everyone does. How could any rational person not support background checks?
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
1. After two decades of background checks, inner city gangs are all thoroughly armed. The checks have failed. Plus, we have 6,000 gangland rubouts every year, maybe you’ve noticed. And there are no 6,000 murder trials for the 6,000 murderers. Is that what everyone supports?
2. The Muslim jihad is pretty much unaffected by the background checks. The jihad mass murder in the Florida gay nightclub, the “workplace violence” (Obama’s term for the jihad), no effect from the background checks. Is that what everyone supports?
3. The psychotic children who want to mass murder their classmates, they aren’t even addressed by background checks, and we all want to fix that problem. Why are we even talking about background checks when murderous classmates are what we want to fix? Isn’t the mass media missing something there? Shouldn’t someone ask them about that?
4. The background check collects the names of 10 to 12 million innocent Americans who purchase firearms every year, who didn’t do anything. What does that have to do with stopping mass murderers, or any crime? Is that a good use of scarce resources? Does that have a sinister ulterior motive like its critics claim — a list of gun owners kept by big government? Can we audit that system? (Nope, Big Brother tells us, “Just trust us, we’re honest”.)
5. And of course the biggest problem. Murderers, rapists, parolees, escapees, fugitives, kidnappers, arsonists, thieves, even illegal aliens and DACA students who walk into gun stores, cash in hand, seeking to buy guns — which is at least five years in the federal slammer. They fill out forms with their names and addresses, and with the FBI on the phone, while they’re standing there, get turned down. What happens next? They get sent away, with their money. Still eager to buy guns.
Is that what everyone supports?
Is that what the mass media makes clear when they conduct their polls?
The background check plan is a scam.
The only thing the background check does effectively is collect the names of innocent Americans who buy constitutionally protected products, that create a balance of power between the public and the government.
Look here:
https://www.gunlaws.com/BIDSvNICS.htm
I know I’m late to supper on this one, but I never have, nor will i ever be a fan of UBC. We have laws on the books going back decades! How bout this….go through all said gun laws on the books, the ones that are old….really, really old, trash em, revamp the rest of em to the 21st. century and then do something novel….like enforce them.
Simple i know, and there are a ,ot of other fa tor to take into consideration. We do not need more laws banning this make or that magazine/ clip how about making the one we have now work?
I’m opposed to dealer background checks as they currently exist per sey. The so-called blind background check system should be put in place. The dealer places a call, receives a one time encryption code to enter the background check system. Once in, the dealer then scans the list of prohibited persons on the list. When he is satisfied the purchaser is not on the list, he disconnects from the background check system and completes the sale. Paper records would still be kept if it became necessary to trace the weapon, but this system would keep the government from easily creating a list of gun owners or what they purchased. The ATF was specifically forgidden to create such a list by Congress several decades ago, but I’m satisfied they have one. How else can they magically produce the information on where mass shooters obtained their weapons so swiftly?
“Universal Background Checks”
So, how would that actually work? There are only two ways:
1) Private sellers would be responsible for calling-in the check to NICS and keeping Form 4473 on file for 20 years for each gun they sold(just like dealers). They would also be subject to on-site inspections of those records by BATF whenever a gun was recovered from a crime scene and needed to be traced(just like dealers). In short, you would have all the responsibilities of an FFL dealer, and subject to the same penalties for non-compliance, with none of the benefits.
2) Both the seller & buyer would have to travel to a FFL dealer to do the transaction. This would be treated as a “transfer” by the dealer, similar to the process when a private party sells to an out-of-state buyer. Some dealers charge hefty fees these days for transfers. The transaction records would be kept on-file by the dealer, just like the dealer did the sale.
Either method might stop a few sales to prohibited people, but the reality would be that the bad guy would simply skip the scenario and get their gun either from the “street,” or steal one themselves. Meanwhile, the vast majority of legal gun owners would be penalized every time they wanted to buy/sell/trade a firearm privately. And…… you better believe that there would be many folks that would unwittingly violate some regulation(in the first case) that would bring felony charges and wholesale confiscation of any guns they own.
The anti-gun crowd Never gives specifics about their “gun safety” proposals. Just pass the bill to find out what’s in it?
I don’t think so!
This article completely missed the boat. Far more important objections include.
1. Gun control advocates have shown an obsession with gun control expansion over a period of decades. Universal Background checks are nothing but a building block in this scheme. First, channel all gun sales through a background check, second, create a registration database from the information, third and most important, expand incrementally and continuously on the lists of prohibited persons until everybody with a parking ticket is prohibited. Examples of how this is already under way are Senator Ben Nelson of FL’s federal registration bill and the constant and ongoing bills to add people on various government lists including the “no fly” list and so called “terrorist watch list” to the prohibited persons categories with no due process of law.
2. If all sales are subject to the background check, all sales can be halted simply by taking NICS offline. This could be in response to a Katrina type event in only one region or could be nationwide in response to civil unrest or nearly any precipitating event. The sole recourse would be to go to court which could be a time consuming process.
3. It won’t stop with guns, ammunition will soon be added so that even those with guns already are potentially vulnerable to the NICS offline scenario addressed in number 2.
Let first get this straight, Lib\’s have the right to their own opinion, nobody speaks for me but Me, I am a Gun owner. I own a lot of them and I believe in Gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment, I gave my youth and My life for that freedom 1967 – 1992 USAF, Civil Service USN 1993 – 1996. to have any gun i chose to buy. Obama don\’t speak for Me and a lot of other Libs, we will not give up our freedom of gun ownership. There are only 20% of Lib that believe in taking guns or gun control, not ALL of us, the 80%. Don\’t give us the title of not wanting to own guns, some one have gave you the wrong belief system. Don\’t use my freedom as a political spring Board for votes, Freedom has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans but Americans, do not label me, i am not a label, I am an American with a whole lot of guns and will always have a whole lot of guns
You’re arguing against every poll known to man. Democrats overwhelmingly support draconian gun controls. Your 20% is a completely made up number. Democrats are the party of gun control hence the reason the party is run by the likes of Chuck Schumer and Nance Pelosi and, almost, by Hillary Clinton. Are any of these people against gun control or even moderates on gun control? No, they are rabid anti-gun fantatics because that’s what he majority of Democrats support.
@Steve—– Exactly right!
The US needs background checks every time a car or a bottle of booze is bought and before a couple can have a child or post online.Sounds silly? Where in the Constitution are these things called a right? No where is where. When you have to ask permission it ceases to be a right
One possibility I did not see mentioned is this: once a “National Registry” occurs, our “benevolent” government does not have to confiscate-all they have to do is say “well, maintaining this registry costs money, and it’s not fair to have non-gun owners pay for it, so we are going to start a “tax” on every registered gun. First year, $5 per gun; next year $10, etc., etc., until it costs $100 or more per gun per year. Won’t happen you say? I worked in a profession for 42 years that saw licensing fees for various parts of my business go from zero per year to well over $500 per year for each various license/permit that I had to have from various governmental agencies to conduct my everyday business. Wake up folks.
Korwin’s argument make little sense. Based on his logic you can argue that we do not need smoke detectors because they do not stop fires and never will. There is a rationale set of solutions out there but it’s going to take cool heads and smart people to put in place. I would love to see the NRA take the lead on this because I think it’s foolish to think we can continue as we have.
Your comparing smoke detectors to universal background checks , your so wrong . Background checks only stop the sale . It doesn’t arrest anyone , but a smoke alarm alerts you of possible fire giving you a chance to leave and get help . the other doesn’t save life’s it stalls or slows them, if this person wants to kill .He/She will find a way to do it…
One works the other doesn’t .
The article totally missed the mark. There is a lot more danger of Universal Background checks being used the way all other gun control is: As a building block to pile more gun control on top of. UBCs and a national registry go hand in hand like Jack and Jill not to mention the fact that if all sales are subject to NICS check then all sales can be halted by taking NICS offline. That said, the idea that a country that has failed utterly and completely to control illegal drugs with total prohibition is going to be able to stop certain subgroups of people from getting guns with an expanded background check system is pretty absurd. The background checks without national registration will do nothing to stop straw buyers nor will it do anything to stop those who traffic in stolen guns.
There was a time not too long ago when you could purchase a firearm over the counter from a dealer with nothing more than showing a driver’s license. You could also mail order an obsolete rifle from the back of a magazine.
During those years, you never heard of school shootings(with very rare exception) or any other “mass shooting.”
Stop blaming the gun and start blaming the person.
These HUTA Progressives don’t mention the tens of thousands of violent Illegal criminals that Obama ordered released from custody onto our streets.
“Oh, but if we pass more draconian gun restrictions on law-abiding Americans, the bad people will never get a gun.”
Right.
The absolutely biggest misconception, if not outright lie, about universal background checks is the mental fitness component. Everyone believes that mental illness is something that is well understood. The truth is that we know very little about this let alone measure and track it. People may have a single event on one extreme while on the other there are people that suffer from currently un-retractable mental-illnesses that may or may not put others at risk. The biggest problem is since they cannot explain mental illness in terms of dysfunction but only describe it in terms of symptomology, they cannot define cures. So once you have a mental illness you will lose your rights forever. This is like the 1700s before medicine understood the nature of a cold. The reasoning then was once you have a cold, you’ll most likely be prone to have another episode, another cold. Really??? Have a mental illness does not preclude you from getting better and recovering. The sellers of universal background checks whitewash over this aspect and pray that you will accept this charade. The mental health industry is many, many decades, if not more, from being able to understand the nature of mental illness and project its trajectory in individuals. In the absence of any definitions of mental illness, leftist and totalitarians will supply their own agenda self-servicing definitions which will undoubtedly include the confiscation of your rights.
Yep, you hit the nail on the head: A central reason for wanting UBCs is to make expansion of the prohibited person categories more effective and there are easily 50 million + “mentally ill” people with PTSD, Anxiety, ADHD and about 300 more diagnosis 99% of whom are no more dangerous than anybody else to prohibit.
As a long time gun owner, I fail to see how this article answers the question of why we shouldn’t have background checks. Sure, they don’t prevent all crime or prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands in all situations, but they do prevent many, many instances of people with criminal records from purchasing firearms.
Not sure why having a process in place to not sell firearms to convicted felons is a bad thing.
And of the valid denials that happen with NICS checks, how many prosecutions occur? So close to 0% as to be laughable.
And what about the invalid delays and denials – what right has the government to prevent a person from engaging in lawful commerce?
John – Are you a fervent believer in background checks and waiting periods for purchasers of any conveyance? They kill more than 45,000 a year.
When you find yourself prohibited due to being on some secret and arbitrary government list with no due process of law you may understand. You may also understand that we already prohibit a lot more people than “felons”, many of whom are no danger to anybody and legislation is introduced in every congress to prohibit a whole lot more. You are one false allegation from one disgruntled lover or family member away from being prohibited right now.
National registration is required before CONFISCATION. Check history. Germany, Russia, China, and many others. UNTOLD MILLIONS WERE MURDERED (can’t happen here ?) We are not even in the top 100 countries on gun deaths per 100,000. And all the 100 have gun laws with registration and confiscation worse even than Chicago, With the 2nd we are citizens. Without the 2nd we are subjects.The 1st battle for independence was fought over CONFISCATION !
Step 1: REGISTRATION
Step 2: CONFISCATION
Step 3: YOU ARE NOW A SUBJECT ! Without the 2nd how do we KEEP the rest of our rights ? Our forefathers knew this.
Bingo!
UBCs…for all sales…would work about as well as it would to try and track illegal drug sales.
The law-abiding will go for it…or at least some (see NY SAFE act)…but the REAL criminals are still going to bypass it altogether or do as they do now and have friends and family buy guns for them.
And then there is gun theft…from stores and individuals…virtually impossible to stop.
This is a horrible article and logic. It was supposed to address “universal” background checks, not simply background checks. Here is the REAL reason you should not support “universal” background checks.
Universal background checks is a scam, it’s meant to fail initially. It was enacted in Colorado in 2013 and has done nothing other than waste resources of the public at large. The politicians KNOW it can’t work to enforce any laws because there is no way to prove someone purchased a firearm illegally. If I sold my friend a nice Sig p229 manufactured in 1997 tomorrow, what is stopping me from giving him a receipt dated 5 years ago when it was legal to complete a private sale? Answer: nothing, other than the fact I tend to follow the law because I’m not a criminal. So what if a criminal and his buddy do the same thing?? Law enforcement would have to catch them in the act of selling a firearm to charge them with a crime. To my knowledge, this has not happened in Colorado since the law was enacted. So the Liberals are just waiting a bit longer until they can catch someone who commits a crime with a weapon obtained through this method and someone confesses. This will cause them to create a new law citing the fact that the old “universal background check” law does nothing (which we already know) since private sales tend to remain private. The NEW law is going to be “Universal Registration” because the only way to prove you didn’t get a proper background check on a weapon in your possession is to know who has all the firearms. The public at large already believes there is a list because of every TV show that pretends that it already exists and can link and gun to any owner by a shell casing or serial number (we all know that is complete BS). I get questions from friends asking where to register their newly purchased or inherited firearms nearly every year. When I tell them registration is only for TV and a couple states, they look at me in disbelief and I tell the they are welcome to cal the Sheriff or State Police and they will get the same answer.
So the REAL answer here is not that background checks don’t work, they do stop criminals from purchasing guns from law abiding FFL dealers both in their store and at gun shows. UNIVERSAL background checks meant to impact private sales between individuals are the scam and only serve to provide fuel for the full registration scheme.
I agree 100% . if Obama had one more chance they would use the list to confiscate your (legal) weapons.
Obama didn’t even try to push gun control when he could have been successful at it because he wasn’t willing to risk his second term on something he knew was a miserable failure for reducing crime. Remind a liberal of that fact every chance you get.
This article does nothing to convince me not to support background checks. Background checks do nothing to prevent sane, law abiding citizens from owning guns. If they prevent a few nutbags from getting a gun and shooting someone I don’t see a problem with having them in place. Granted, I don’t like the idea of the government database on owners, but that is a small price to pay. And no, I am not an anti gunner, I have a CPL and use it for my Sig X carry and also own a Glock 20, a Saiga12, a Colt M4 and Colt LE901-16s. Big brother paranoia quotes do nothing to further our 2nd amendment rights, that kind of talk only makes gun owners sound crazy.
The biggest reason to not support it is it puts a charge to the seller/buyer. You have to go through A FFL. The FFL is not going to do anything that takes away from their business without making money on it. In our area some will charge anywhere from 20 to 100 for the transactions. This is based on what is charged for interstate transfers.
Those charging on the high end basically are saying we will not do it.
You are basically inserting a charge where none should exist. If the check could be performed by the indivuals involved without external charges than It maybe acceptable to more but as long as you insert a $$$$$$ middleman it will never have support
How about the opinions of other posters?
I’m sorry but none of the points illustrated have any bearing on background checks. They are specious, vacuous, argumentative and worthy of someone like David Hogg in their dis-ingenuousness. The fact that it is possible for someone to obtain a firearm without submitting to a background check is not an argument. If you want to be helpful, try to suggest ways that will actually reduce the number of firearms in the hands of those who shouldn’t have them while not infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens. Increase penalties for those who do not properly secure their firearms or take steps to prevent those firearms from falling out of their control. But don’t be so naive as to suggest that a tool that is used to prevent the sale of firearms to ineligible persons is a mistake simply because it doesn’t, by itself, stop gun crime. That is just stupid and provides fuel to anti-gun policies.
Face it folk, government will not rest until you are completely disarmed . It will take shedding off blood .
I believe that all 5 theses are specious and spurious.
Switch to the dark side “ libiturds” are exempted from any thing gun related. It’s like a free get out of jail card. To bad they are playing Monopoly with our lives
Why isn’t the “Department of Justice” investigating and prosecuting those trying to buy a gun but are on the ban list?
Poorly explained subject … The entire issue of universal backgound checks is (as always) one of misinformation by the media, including the not-too-leftwing-lamestream media, by asserting that non-existent ‘gun show loopholes’ are a problem that need to be corrected by giving the government the legal authority to pre-approve all private firearms sales.
There is nothing wrong with the system and laws pertaining to gun purchases and ownership as they are now. What is wrong is that law enforcement people do not enforce the laws, nor actively go after the known criminals. What they do instead is, look for ways to go after the easy fish, as i were, the people who are law-abiding and who mind their own business. We MUST fight back and fight hard against anti-gun people and politicians who support general anti-gun legislation. The second amendment is fine as the founding fathers have written it. People these days want to destroy the second amendment for their own nasty and selfish purposes. We MUST not let that happen.
Universal background checks can only be enforced with a national gun registry. Law enforcement cannot prove a case without having a database of information that lists by serial number and by name of ownership, to prove, for example, that I bought that firearm from my neighbor without going through an FFL dealer.
The current national firearm database in West Virginia has a list of firearms bought and sold in the U.S., but they are disallowed from maintaining the name of the final purchaser. They only have the name of the dealer who sold it. Law enforcement has to subpoena purchaser from the dealer, meaning proving just cause in front of a judge.
So, today it will be universal background checks, tomorrow it will be a need for a national registry. And once we have a national registry, we also have a centralized power to conduct confiscation.
And, as pointed out in the article, background checks do not prevent bad people from getting guns.
Talk to anyone behind the gun counter, there is no warrant needed when they want that paperwork. The NICS Tracing Center calls and the dealer has to fax or e-mail a copy of the form to them.
Universal background checks is not a panacea for gun violence, even if it is strengthened with universal national gun registration, but they are steps in the right direction to help reduce the plague of gun violence in our country and to help us catch up with the rest of the developed world.
Blue Dog.
Can you please explain how a national registry and or a Universal background check will help “reduce the plague of gun violence” please? This is a serious question. No one ever seems to be able to give a clear concise answer to that question that actually addresses any real actual problems we have.
Of course blue dog can’t give a different answer. Here’s just another stuck-on-stupid libtard gun grabber troll.
Please define the term ‘gun violence’. Please explain how, despite the explosive growth of firearms in the homes of Americans, the homicide rate continues it’s decades long decline. The USA doesn’t even rank in the top 10 for homicides world wide. To catch up with the rest of the developed world we need more deaths. Is that what you want? Try learning some facts.
These are two different things entirely. Background checks do work and your ignorance of how they work and their relationship to the hypothetical gun registry is simply amazing!
But they need to arrest and prosecute those that are denied.
Same with straw sellers and buyers.
And no probation. Real jail time.
But would end up looking racist…as it would put more brown and black young men in jail. So not very PC.
The laws are already on the books.