Question..... Do you think someone should be able to buy or accept possession of a gun, any gun, whether its through a store, a show, or otherwise without a very thorough background check?
1) Any purchase at a gun store already goes through a background check.
2) Have you ever been to a gun show? I have. Have you ever bought a gun at a gun show? I have. Do you know who sells guns at gun shows? Federally licensed dealers. And you know what those dealers are required to do when they sell a gun, even at a gun show? Call up NICS to do a background check. The "gun show loophole" doesn't exist. Criminals don't get their guns at gun shows.
3) Would background checks have stopped any of the recent mass shootings? No.
- Columbine -- one of the kids got his girlfriend, who could legally purchase a firearm, to buy the guns in a straw purchase. Straw purchases are already a federal offense.
- Virginia Tech -- the shooter bought the gun at an FFL and passed a background check.
- Aurora, CO -- the shooter bought the gun at an FFL and passed a background check.
4) Would background checks stop criminals from getting guns? No. They get guns in several ways -- stealing them, getting a friend to do an illegal straw purchase, buy illegally from a gun runner, or borrow a gun from another criminal. They are already breaking laws; passing another law to make it even more illegal isn't going to stop them.
5) Would there be unintended consequences that would make criminals out of law-abiding citizens? You bet there would be. What are some normal, everyday, reasonable actions that would now be criminal acts? I'll give several real life examples that recently happened to me.
I took a friend to the range. His shots were mainly low and left. I suspected there was no problem with his gun and that he was simply having trouble with the Glock trigger. So he gave me his gun and I put six rounds through it into the center of the target. Under the proposed law, that would have been a felony as he didn't get a background check on me before handing me his gun.
About a year ago I was at an IDPA match. I always bring a spare gun, because things do break. My buddy Gene arrived at the match and realized that he'd left his 686 speedloaders at home. So I lent him my spare S&W Model 19 and speedloaders. Under the proposed law, that would have been a felony as he didn't get a background check on me before handing me his gun.
I used to teach NRA Basic Pistol classes. I provided the guns. As soon as I handed a gun to a student, that would be a felony, because I didn't get a background check performed on them.
Some years back, a young fellow that I knew was heading off to college. He couldn't take his gun with him. He gave me his gun for safe keeping. I put it in my safe and kept it for him for a few years. That would have been a felony because he didn't do a background check on me.
6) Here in MA, we have a "consumer protection" regulation that limits what handguns a dealer can sell. Under that regulation, dealers can not sell new Glocks because they are "unsafe." Yes, most police officers in MA carry Glocks, but the MA Attorney General considers them to be unsafe. MA gun owners can possess a Glock of any age, and can sell them in private sales, but they can't buy a new one from a dealer. What happens on a fairly regular basis is that someone who owns a newer Glock moves into MA. They decide that they want to sell the gun, and they can do so in a private sale to another MA resident. Under the proposed legislation, that sale would require a background check, and would require that the transfer go through a dealer. But since the dealer can't transfer the newer Glock, the sale can't be made.
7) Another provision of the proposed legislation was that anytime a gun was lost that it be reported within 24 hours. So, if you are on a back country hunt in Alaska and your boat flips, you report the gun when you get back to town 3 days later, guess what? You're now a felon.
These sorts of laws do nothing to catch real criminals. They only ensnare law-abiding citizens who unknowingly run afoul of them. You want a perfect example? Here is one:
Nathan Haddad, a decorated combat veteran, was arrested earlier this month in New York for possessing unloaded 30-round magazines. Mr. Haddad, who has been recognized by the Army for his selfless acts of generosity to fellow soldiers, was charged with five felony counts of possession of “high-capacity” magazines.
Read more:
MILLER: N.Y. vet arrested for 30-round magazines (Part 1) - Washington Times
Don't you feel safer now that that decorated veteran is being prosecuted for merely possessing unloaded magazines with no criminal intent?
We already have a background check system. Prohibited persons regularly try to purchase firearms and are stopped by the existing background check system. Their actions in trying to do so are illegal. Although more than 50,000 are stopped each year, less than 100 are prosecuted. And yet somehow, instead of actually enforcing the existing laws, you and others assert that we need more laws that will make the existing complex laws even more baffling, and even less evenly enforced.
Evaluation and Inspection Report
Enough. Seriously. Enough. NY State has byzantine gun laws, yet they have a high crime rate. Vermont has almost no gun laws and yet they have a very low crime rate. In 1998, MA gun laws were significantly tightened. Since then, the murder rate has gone up significantly.
Gun crimes simply aren't affected by gun laws. More laws don't lower gun violence. Putting more law-abiding gun owners in jail won't stop gang bangers from murdering each other, nor will it stop lunatics from shooting up schools.
