I support a background check for any transfer outside the family. Ideally it would be a system where the transferor just has to log into a website and gets a yes/no but I recognize that could have privacy implications for just looking up people at random. Criminal convictions are a matter of public record so that's a moot point but things like adjudication of mental illness are not. I'm not a programmer so I don't have a good answer to that. Perhaps having just a bare yes or no is vague enough to protect privacy.
Yes, I think background checks would do something. That article cites to a 5% figure that should have been denied but weren't. More efficient checks would weed those people out. Also, if a seller at a gunshow could just look and see if a buyer is prohibited they'd probably cancel the sale. They'd be stupid not to, with the criminal penalties being what they are. We'll never know how many of those sales would have been stopped because there was never a background check done. The data doesnt exist. I know of a couple people who had recent domestic violence issues who went around trying to get a gun. Checks prevented it and likely saved some lives. I think that's worth making a seller check to see if a potential buyer is prohibited. It won't stop EVERY illegal transfer bit stopping some is pretty good, especially when it's an angry ex who wants to do something bad and needs to be stopped for a while.
The common refrains after some mass shooting are "we need enforcement of existing laws" and/or "it's a mental health problem, not a gun problem." Background checks won't weed out most mentally unfit people, but they are an enforcement mechanism. Personally I think you take all the make/model/serial number stuff out and just have name and SSN. That should be all a background check requires for a yes/no. I bet that would streamline the process. Me, I also think it should be enough if a person presents a permit to purchase or carry. That's a background check that's already been done and it lets the transferor do their due diligence. I don't think the background checks should be as in depth as they are now but I support expanding the types of transfers that require them. I have really good friends who have serious felonies. I'd never have guessed if I didn't know. On that basis I'd like to see checks between friends, too.
All told, I'd like to see expanded background checks and loosening of restrictions on ownership to go with them. If you don't meet the criteria to be prohibited then there's no reason to make getting a suppressor or other NFA items so onerous.
That's my take. Feel free to disagree.
benstt, with all due respect, I also see no need for any political argument, however I'd like to make a couple noteworthy observations. In your very first post in this thread you said
"I fully support background checks .......", but then when I asked you just how fully you support them you said this ....
"I support a background check for any transfer outside the family." That statement would lead to the follow up question of 'does that include just your family, or everyone's family? If you're implying only within your own family, doesn't that smack of typical politicians tripe of 'Rules are for thee and not for me'? On the other hand, if you're including everyone's families, then that leaves no one to be BG checked. I mean why would it not be necessary to do a BG check on those in your family, but it would be necessary to do one on mine?
My second question to you was to the effect of 'do you really think these BG checks have ever actually kept a firearm out of the hands of any criminal, crazy, or druggie that
truly wanted one?' Your answer was
"Yes, I think background checks would do something." Obviously they 'do something' ..... they infringe on a responsible, law-abiding citizen's exercise of his 2nd amendment right. But in all logical sense, these BG checks will not and cannot keep guns out of the hands of those who
truly wanted one.' In the best vein, they can stop the bad guys from getting their hands on that particular gun during that particular sale where that particular BG check is involved.
But, if they truly want one, you and I both know they will get one. Maybe from an unscrupulous seller, maybe steal one, maybe even from the next try to purchase and beating the BG check by one or more means, etc, etc. Remember that was the promise of the politicians who forced this boondoggle down the throats of the vast majority of gun owners. IE: that it would "keep guns out of the hands of the 'bad guys'.". Those of us who are responsible and law-abiding know that to be pure, unadulterated BS.
You then went on to say
"Personally I think you take all the make/model/serial number stuff out and just have name and SSN. That should be all a background check requires for a yes/no." I would at first glance agree with you on this relative to making the BG check simpler assuming I agreed with the BG check to begin with, except that it has been ruled in the courts that the SS# cannot be a forced identification method. Then this ...
"Me, I also think it should be enough if a person presents a permit to purchase or carry." benstt, if we're
required a 'permit to purchase' then it's no longer a right, but a permitted privilege, IE: someone is permitting us to purchase. Since the 2nd states 'The right of the people to
keep and bear ....' so NO, I can't agree with that. And as the law is here where I am, even with a valid CCW permit, (which should be equivalent to your referrence to a purchase permit since all the BG check has already been done) I still must submit to a BG check. And actually the reasoning is sound ..... that I could have been squeaky clean when I applied for my CCW permit, but gotten into some really bad trouble with the law since that time ..... however even that does not validate the required BG check.
One last thing I would offer is this. When you say
"2A can be limited. SCOTUS has so held for decades." is an over simplification of what the courts have said and an over reach of gov't that infringes on the amendment. True, there can be limits on how and where a gun can be 'kept' and/or 'borne' (keep and bear), maybe even on the type of guns that are legal to keep and bear, but anything that hinders a law-abiding American citizen from exercising that basic right of 'keeping' and 'bearing' is an infringement. Society in general all agreed way back in about 1934 with the law banning routine, citizenry owned SMG's (acknowledging the exceptions for stringent BG checks and tax stamps) back in the gangster days, and most even agree with limiting criminals, crazies, and druggies from possessing guns of any type. But shouldn't that be the answer? It's the gangsters, criminals, crazies, and druggies who have forfeited their right to 'keep' and 'bear'. It's already in violation of law for those kinds to be associated with guns in any way. That's what people are referring to when they talk about 'enforcing current laws'. But instead of enforcing those laws and
severely punishing those in that category, it's the responsible, law-abiding that are infringed upon. The BG check does not and cannot prevent them from getting a gun in their hands no matter how stringent it is. It only punishes the responsible, law-abiding American citizen.
Now nothing I've offered here is intended as argument or even necessarily as a disagreement. It is to simply reinforce my earlier assertion that many folk's answers to these and similar questions in many, many debates and discussions with both anti-gun folks and non-gun folks (there is a demonstrable difference) demonstrates their sincere desire to find a better way, but at the same time shows the lack of an in depth understanding of what they're truly willing to fully support.
I would welcome your insight to my reply and my assertions.
Edit: to correct punctuation
