House Democrats made no bones about their legislative priority in 2019: gun control. Specifically, criminalizing the private transfer of firearms between law-abiding citizens.<\/p>\n
\u201cI do believe, because in this Congress\u2026there is bipartisan legislation to have common sense background checks to prevent guns going into the wrong hands. It doesn\u2019t cover everything, but it will save many lives,\u201d said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) last week in an interview with CNN.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis will be a priority for us going into the next Congress,\u201d Pelosi added.<\/p>\n
\nResponding to the shooting that left 12 dead in her home state of California, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi says there is “bipartisan legislation to have common sense background checks” pic.twitter.com\/3w9xlPvHcE<\/a><\/p>\n
\u2014 CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) November 9, 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
With Dems occupying at least 227 seats in the House<\/a>, compared to the GOP\u2019s 198 (10 seats are still up for grabs), gun-control legislation will indubitably be reintroduced and debated next year.<\/p>\n
The real question is what becomes of the debate? Trump has suggested on at least one occasion that he\u2019d be open to strengthening\u00a0background checks.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhether we are Republican or Democrat, we must now focus on strengthening Background Checks!\u201d said Trump following the mass killing in Parkland, Florida back in Feb.<\/p>\n
\nWhether we are Republican or Democrat, we must now focus on strengthening Background Checks!<\/p>\n
\u2014 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 21, 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The president\u2019s \u201cofficial\u201d position on the topic was later clarified by White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders who told reporters, according to The Hill<\/a>, that Trump supports \u201cnot necessarily universal background checks, but certainly improving the background check system.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe wants to see what that legislation, the final piece of it looks like,\u201d she explained. \u201cUniversal means something different to a lot of people. He certainly wants to focus and improve on the background check system.\u201d<\/p>\n
Korwin: Here\u2019s Why You Need Oppose Universal Background Checks<\/a><\/h2>\n
What\u2019s worrisome, in addition to Trump’s initial remarks, is that public support for universal background checks is overwhelming<\/a>. Mostly because the devils in the details and the average Joe doesn\u2019t understand how the system works.<\/p>\n
Any firearm purchased from a gun shop or FFL is subject to a background check. However, sales or transfers from one private citizen to another, in some 28 states<\/a>, do not require a background check. This is the putative \u201cloophole\u201d that anti-gunners complain about. They contend that every transfer should require a background check, hence the term \u201cuniversal.\u201d<\/p>\n
While that sounds good in theory the truth is that there are real problems with implementing universal background checks. The first is efficacy. Since the vast majority of individuals responsible for the vast majority of what they call \u201cgun crime\u201d will not comply with the mandate because they\u2019re criminals, i.e. lawbreakers!, (drug dealers, violent felons, etc., people already prohibited from owning firearms in the first place) it\u2019s unreasonable to expect the law to have a profound impact.<\/p>\n
Moreover, at least one national survey of prison inmates investigating so-called \u201ccrime guns\u201d indicated that\u00a090 percent were<\/a> procured via illegal means. In other words, criminals didn\u2019t buy these weapons at a gun show or at the local hunting club or from your uncle Bob. Rather, criminals obtained their guns via straw purchasers, theft or the black market.<\/p>\n
Beyond efficacy or the lack thereof, there is the problem of taxation. Background checks aren\u2019t free. FFLs charge a \u201ctransfer fee\u201d every time they run a background check. What we have to assess is whether it is constitutional to force citizens to pay what is tantamount to a tax every time they let a friend, family member, neighbor, co-worker buy or even borrow a firearm.\u00a0 One can argue that the fee associated with the mandatory transfer chills one’s 2A rights.<\/p>\n
Pat McNamara Sees No Problem with Mandatory Waiting Periods, Universal Background Checks<\/a><\/h2>\n