Background Checks: Just Say No!

The federal and state firearms purchase background check systems are a clear infringement on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. Do we require a background check for voting? Free speech? Due process? We do not, for the same reason we shouldn’t allow background checks for firearms purchases: they’re unconstitutional.

What’s more, the process is nothing more or less than security theater. I could point to the stats revealing the paltry number of Americans caught trying to purchase a firearm illegally using the system. And compare those numbers to the inhibitory effect of the background check systems’ implementation (noting that 1 in 10 Americans are convicted felons). So what?

As set forth by our Founding Fathers, the right to keep and bear arms without government infringement is subject to neither the democratic process nor arguments about social utility. Just like freedom of speech, assembly, religion and due process.

Be that as it is, the vast majority of Americans would consider any suggestion that we should dismantle the FBI NICS process and its state equivalents like suggesting we should hand criminals, crazies and terrorists firearms. They would oppose this “gun control “liberalization” deeply and completely. So why bring it up? Because we’re fighting a losing battle against “universal background checks.”

You and I know “universal background checks” degrade and destroy our firearms freedom, They make all private firearms sales and transfers subject to government approval and registration (the ATF form 4473 is for life). Not to mention the financial and temporal burden added to each and every firearms sale and transfer.

Nothing new there? True. “Universal background checks” don’t redefine the dangers posed by the existing NICS and state background check systems. They simply extend these dangers and, by doing so, highlight them. For example . . .

Uncle Sam could add to the FBI’s prohibited persons list to include suspected terrorists, people taking antidepressants (some 40m Americans) or some other disqualifying caveat easily enough. They’re working on the former right now. By putting all firearms sales and transfers under the federal umbrella, “universal background checks” magnify — not create — the threat to our firearms freedom.

The argument that the Feds should “fix NICS” to make it more efficient before extending it — as is the current NRA and NSSF position — is devoid of logical consistency. If you accept the bogus premise that firearms purchase background checks are both constitutional and [even somewhat] effective, why not extend them?

The “fix NICS” argument is entirely transparent political appeasement, designed to “hold the line” against further infringement. We all know how that turns-out. If not, World War II. More to the point, some states (e.g., Washington and California under its upcoming regs) already make it a crime for an American citizen to loan or sell a gun to another American citizen without a background check.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the current NICS and state background checks processes have already put us on the slippery slope to firearms registration, gun confiscation and the death of our gun rights. We’re already slipping. As the Gun Owners of America rightly assert.

Public ignorance of the true effects of “universal background checks” is complete. As the anti-gun rights pols and prevaricators like to point out, more than 90 percent of Americans — including NRA members — support “universal background checks.” Nothing we can say against the idea will reach gun-averse or gun-ignorant voters. It’s too damn late.

Declaring our desire to roll back all gun control laws — from background checks to magazine capacity limits to the prohibition against modern machine guns — as the Gun Owners of America do — no doubt shocks the body politic. No question: it gives our enemies ammunition to declare us “gun nuts” and “extremists” and “proto-insurrectionists” and “terrorist sympathizers.” Again, so what?

You may say Second Amendment absolutism pours gas on the pyre of our gun rights. And you might be right. But I say if we cannot make the case to restore the original intent and meaning of the Second Amendment for all Americans, we’ve abandoned the principles underlying it.

Someone once said give me liberty or give me death. I hope and pray it doesn’t come to that (again). But before we consider the unfathomable horror of that position, we should at least be clear what we mean by liberty. No gun control laws or any type, kind or description. You with me?

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Anybody who claims that 2nd amendment “extremism” is “pouring gas on the pyre of our gun rights” is a quesling coward who doesn’t understand what the 2nd amendment exist for.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Quisling. The word you want is Quisling.

  2. avatar john thomas says:

    Yes.

    1. avatar john thomas says:

      That is, yes to your closing question, not the headline…

      Don’t do what Donnie Don’t does…

  3. avatar Mk10108 says:

    There is no slippery slope, CA proves government jumped into the abyss of gun control for the sole purpose of infringing on citizens right to keep and bear arm and lawfully protect themselves.

    Screw the NRA, GOA and every other gun rights organization in this country. Not another dime. F them.

  4. avatar 16V says:

    I have no idea who “Freddy Freedom” was in the vids, but he was maybe one notch up from a Fudd.

    Background checks? He’s ok with that, which is enough to discount the rest of his bluster.

  5. avatar IYearn4nARnCali says:

    Living in CA, I am tired of having to justify OUR collective 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm, in common usage, in the manner in which I choose, in the form I choose, and without the state knowing a dam thing about it, for as it is not the business of the state to know what I say, to whom I speak, whom I love, the manner in which I love them, where I worship, or any other particular of my life, it is completely unconstitutional to have to adhere to laws that restrict the free exercise of my rights.

    Now in order to keep my Ar15, I have to register it as being, “extra shooty” or else I am a god dam criminal, AND I have to break open the receiver just to access the magazine, shit, Governor Brown just made my rifle a dam shotgun!

    Enough is enough, what is the next infringement? Do I have to take off the barrel and access a tiny switch in order to reload it? Do I have to paint my rifle hot orange? Do I have to stand on one foot and hold my rifle above my head for 20 minutes before being legally allowed to reload?!

    In the words of The Duke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuBHak_S7bE

  6. avatar John Smith says:

    Background checks as a general principal is probably the ONLY thing I agree with although the current implementation is crap.
    Also a correction, background checks are in fact done to vote. They are done regularly without your knowledge or consent. Felons are not allowed to vote in most states and the voters registration is updated regularly with this information. Different name, different list but it is still the exact same thing.
    If your against background checks then you are for felons, mental ill, psychopath’s and other undesirables having guns. You simply can not restrict the undesirables from buying guns without some form of background check.I hate to use the words common sense, but in this case it is the POTG that are lacking commons sense.
    Simply put I believe that unless you have been convicted of a violent felony or declared mentally unfit by a competent doctor you should be able to buy and carry what ever you what, however you want and where ever you want without restriction. Anyone with a descent sense of morality should want to be reasonably sure that they are not selling or giving a gun to a mass murdering psychopath and the only feasible way to accomplish that is with some form of background check. I personally want a proper background check system not because I like having to go through the hassle but because when I sell someone a gun “I” want to know I am selling it to a responsible individual.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Background checks are an unconstitutional infringement of my rights. I don’t care about keeping “undesirables” from guns. It’s not my problem.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      To shoot your “I believe in the Second Amendment, but…” argument down in flames, what in the hell makes you think that NICS background checks have any significant effect AT ALL on keeping criminals or the violently mentally ill from obtaining firearms or any other means of murder or mayhem? They can get them and they will. Where there is a will, there is a way.

      Second incoming! There is no single part of the Second Amendment that allows for any discrimination against “the people” keeping and bearing arms. None. There is a SPECIFIC part of the Second Amendment that prohibits the government from attempting to prevent “the people” from keeping and bearing arms. That was the whole point!

      In the event of the necessity to revolt against a tyrannical government (look around you), what percentage of “the people” participating in such a revolt are NOT criminals and mentally deranged in the mind of the tyrannical government? Should a people in revolt have to abide by the weapons the government they are revolting against allow them to bear? Preposterous.

      “If you concede that the very government the Second Amendment was intended to protect us from has the authority to create, maintain and enforce lists of persons who, in the opinion of that same government, may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, how will YOU keep your name off of their lists?” – Cliff H

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “If your against background checks then you are for felons, mental ill, psychopath’s and other undesirables having guns”

      If you opened your eyes, you would discover that you and I are among the undesirables. Should read “felons, mentally ill, psychopaths, you, and I having guns.”

    4. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “I personally want a proper background check system not because I like having to go through the hassle but because when I sell someone a gun “I” want to know I am selling it to a responsible individual.”

      I agree with pwrserge, it’s not my problem. If YOU want that then YOU pay for a private background check. There are many private companies that do this for a fee. If you feel that way then it is your responsibility to expend the energy and spend the money to do it through private commerce. This is just another case of someone wanting government to take on what is rightfully their own responsibility. Why should government violate the Constitution and put countless generations at risk of tyranny because you have a feeling? Talk about entitlement mentality! You want it, you pay for it through a private company.

    5. avatar ACP_arms says:

      Voting IS NOT a constitutionally protected right.

    6. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “…You simply can not restrict the undesirables from buying guns ”

      That was the end of the sentence, you didn’t need to go any further and the rest of it is just wishful thinking.

      Can ‘undesirables’ get a gun? Yes.

      Is a background check going to stop them? Maybe. But with somewhere between 300 and 400 million firearms in this country alone its not like there aren’t other options outside of the NICS and LGS.

      And don’t fall into the trap of ‘ terrorists can get guns!’ If they are known terrorist why are they not already locked up?

      If an undesirable gets a gun don’t you want one too? I mean how else do you plan on defending yourself from them?

    7. avatar Scoutino says:

      You simply can not restrict the undesirables from buying guns. Full stop. Fixed it for you.
      Oh, now I see that Chip in Florida said it first… and better.

  7. avatar Jojo says:

    Hell yes.

    If you’re free, you should be able to buy a gun. Or twenty.

  8. avatar Alex waits says:

    In.
    The chair is against the wall, John has a long mustache.

  9. avatar Nanashi says:

    We need an NFA repeal bill introduced just so

    1: The media is forced to admit “machine guns” are already illegal.
    2: The “I’m for the second amendment but…” idiots can be clearly branded as such and get their buts kicked out in a primary.

    Call your congressman and your senators and demand its introduction!

    1. avatar 16V says:

      Nanashi, “Machine guns” are 100% not “illegal”.

      They are obnoxiously regulated, and thanks to Reagan, you can’t buy one manufactured post-’86. But they are still completely legal.

  10. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    I agree with the article, and I don’t own any firearms! We are all heading in a bad direction. One of my relatives is right…This is a prelude to “One-World Global Governance/EU-NWO/ Globalism!” The US Constitutional-Bill of Rights is standing in its way! The only thing next to come out of California is possible draconian enforcement of “stringent gun control laws/anti-2nd amendment infringements”. Which could result in a blood-bath by means of use of deadly force against US citizens /gun owners engaged in civil disobedience…We already see the Liberal /Globalist- News media, frothing at the mouth for riots, and bloodshed on TV with racial issues …This would be no different. We have to set things right in out country before it’s to late. Is there no “Paul Revere’s, George Washington’s, Ben Franklins, Sam Adams, etc…Left in America? !

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      The only good that I can see in the California situation is that so long as no (unconstitutional) federal laws are violated the State will have to go it alone on enforcement. The will not be able to rely on assistance from FBI, DHS, BATFE, or any other alphabet agency. This is entirely between Californians and their idiot politicians and local law enforcement agencies.

      I fear for my POTG brothers, but I suspect it will be political Armageddon the first time Gov Brown calls out the California National Guard attempting to enforce these blatantly unconstitutional laws.

      1. avatar MSgtB says:

        Cliff H:
        California will definitely find reasons to call in BAFTE, Homeland Security, FBI, and anyone else to assist. If met with stiff resistance they’ll try to enlist the assistance of the California National Guard. (Hopefully there will be resistance to gun grabbing by any “right-wing” or Oathkeeper Guard members. Though too many went along with the gun confiscation in New Orleans after Katrina.)

        California is ruled by Liberal Elitists who firmly believe they know what is best for you. Their delusions and Statist attitudes will not allow resistance by conservatives or libertarians. We might be able to get them to be easy on us if we were LGBTQ gun owners or some such, but being “right-wing anti-government domestic terrorists” will get them to pull in any and all agencies they can to enforce their dictates upon the people.

        In their delusions they are the political version of the Borg. Resistance is Futile. You will be assimilated into multicultural dependence on Big Brother government. Your Constitution based cultural distinctiveness will be eradicated. You will become one of the sheeple!

  11. avatar Helms Deep says:

    BREAKING — Just posted at : www GUNFEED com , Senator Schumer wants ” Emergency Powers ” to ban guns !

    VOTE tonight 6 pm in us house on at least 2 bills. — Call NOW !! 202-225-3121 – SAY NO !!
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437458/second-amendment-emergency-powers-doctrine-democrats-phony

  12. avatar Dan says:

    First, the government very rarely undoes a law. Prohibition being the outlier. And with the Democrats lust for gun control the likelihood of getting rid of background checks is not gonna happen. What we need to do is get the model and serial numbers off the 4473 and just run the name. Why does the gun need to be associated with a background check? It didn’t do anything wrong. Oh wait that is the registration part that doesn’t (or isnt supposed to) happen. Let’s fight that battle.

  13. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Amen, RF!

    The individual right to keep and bear arms is crucial to throwing off the yoke of tyranny. As such, it is far too important to allow even the slightest of government encroachment. Likewise, private property owners that insist everyone be disarmed ought to be looked at as if he asked to rape your grandmother. I have found that the best indicator as to whether someone actually understands individual liberty is their stance on the individual natural right to keep and bear arms. If they flub that one, you can usually find many other areas that they simply do not understand or respect individual liberty. However, when the individual expresses a stand similar to what has been written here; they rarely exhibit other statist tendencies. When they understand the importance of shall not be infringed, they almost always understand the broader picture of a truly free society.

  14. avatar iowaclass says:

    “Do we require a background check for voting? Free speech? Due process?”

    Yes,
    yes,
    and
    yes.

    Our voter registration and our party affiliation is public information, subject to eligibility challenges.

    Broadcasting is subject to extensive FCC licensing.

    As for due process, any court proceeding requires thorough vetting of the bona fides of the lawyers, the corporations, and indigent pro se litigants. And all ordinary litigants have to establish their identities and entitlement to relief before receiving a decision in their favor. And now, after a recent Supreme Court decision, having an outstanding arrest warrant effectively negates your protection from a warrantless, suspicionless search.

    So yes, our constitutional rights are very often subject to “background checks” or the functional equivalent.

    1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “Our voter registration and our party affiliation is public information, subject to eligibility challenges.”

      And? This in any way limits your ability to vote how?

      “Broadcasting is subject to extensive FCC licensing.”

      But speaking in public is not subject to any FCC licensing. Nor is posting on the internet. Or printing and distributing your own newsletter/newspaper.

      “As for due process, any court proceeding requires thorough vetting of the bona fides of the lawyers, the corporations, and indigent pro se litigants. And all ordinary litigants have to establish their identities and entitlement to relief before receiving a decision in their favor. And now, after a recent Supreme Court decision, having an outstanding arrest warrant effectively negates your protection from a warrantless, suspicionless search.”

      Not really. I mean not really relevant to the discussion. Lawyers passing the Bar Exams don’t affect in any way yours or my 4th or 5th Amendment Rights. And proving you are who you say you are before you can receive a court settlement is Contract Law, not any kind of limit on your rights to a speedy trial with a jury of your peers.

      “So yes, our constitutional rights are very often subject to “background checks” or the functional equivalent.”

      No, not really. Not in the way that firearms are regulated at least.

  15. avatar jjimmyjonga says:

    10% of all americans are felons? that is amazing – i do not believe i am friendly with any felons, but i do recall meeting a few guys over the years who i knew were felons. i guess it really depends upon where one lives, and with whom one cavorts.

  16. avatar pod says:

    Even simpler, we have a background check system where people caught falsifying information are not prosecuted. Look at all these hack journalists trying to buy ARs lately, and they get dinged because they beat the shit out of their wives in the past or something…but they aren’t prosecuted for lying on the 4473.

  17. avatar samuraichatter says:

    It ain’t just felons who are technically on the “prohibited persons” list:

    1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

    While felonies have been at times defined as a crime punishable by one year or more, there are a ton of penal code violations around America that are on the books as misdemeanors but carry a punishment of a year or more.

    And it is possible to legally buy some firearms online. I am not lying and I will not state how as someone may try to close those “loopholes” but they do exist.

    And not all terrorists are cowards. Lobbying bullets at Spetsnaz and Force Recon may be many things but cowardly is not one of them.

  18. avatar strych9 says:

    This is an argument that’s been beat to death over the years.

    There’s the way things should be and then there’s the way things are. In the case of background checks it’s not going to change. It’s just not.

    If the FBI can have it’s head put out a statement basically laying out the case against HRC, and announcing that the investigation has confirmed that she was indeed engaged in the alleged fuckery and then proceed to inform us all that charges are “not appropriate” well… it’s over. Screw background checks. That’s a minute point about a personal right when the entire system is completely and totally corrupt to the core.

    Worrying about background checks at this point is like worrying about a dirty spark plug when your whole car is on fucking fire.

    1. avatar pod says:

      Agreed. For the moment we have to just assume NICS will be with us for awhile. If it’s any comfort, at least that’s about the worst of it for most American gun owners. Gun owners in other countries wish they only had to deal with NICS.

      Let’s worry about the looming threats, and then when we can fend those off, we can worry about the threat of NICS.

  19. avatar jimmy james says:

    “No gun control laws or any type, kind or description. You with me?” No, I don’t think so. Because we the people and our government let lunatics, psychopaths, terrorists, etc. roam around the US of A at will instead of being locked up or worse. Instead we have watch lists and no fly lists when we should have just got locked up, just got deported or just got executed lists. The terrorists are laughing at us. The rest are just laughing.

  20. avatar C.Z. says:

    I don’t agree with everything in this article or in the comments, but it is absolutely necessary that everyone that is concerned with 2nd amendment rights equate them with voting and free speech and practicing the religion of our choice. It’s not the 2nd because its a 2nd class right!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email