officer-darrin-reed-courtesy-azcentral-com_

“A clerk [at the Hub pawn shop] who spoke to the trio said the hair on the back of his neck went up after talking with them, putting him and another clerk assisting him on high alert that something about them was amiss,” wmicentral.com reports. “The clerk said it was nothing he could put his finger on, but after years of dealing in gun sales to the public, the clerk said the three stood out as people the store should avoid doing business with.”

And so they didn’t. Did that stop a cop killer from shooting and killing a cop? It did not. “Shortly after the trio left The Hub, Officer Darrin Reed (above) responded to the drug call at the hotel where he was shot once in the head by Erickson. Reed later died at Summit Healthcare Regional Medical Center. It is unclear how Erickson was able to obtain a weapon.”

I’m thinking the answer to how Ericsson obtained his weapon is . . . “easily.” Whether that was by stealing one, finding a less suspicious gun store to facilitate a straw purchase or buying a firearm on the black market. In a nation where firearms outnumber citizens, where there’s there’s a will there’s a gun.

The story highlights the fact that most Americans like the idea of a federal background check for gun sales. So much so that nearly a dozen states require background checks for all firearms sales and transfers, including private transfers. Is there any scientific evidence tying increased background checks to reduced crime? No. No there isn’t.

I reckon all background checks are nothing more than security theater. Not to mention an infringement on Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

My belief that they should be eliminated makes me a “gun rights extremist.” You may say I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one. Regardless of the chances of it happening — somewhere between none and none — do you think all background checks for gun sales and transfers should be eliminated?

Recommended For You

84 Responses to Question of the Day: Should We Ditch Background Checks Entirely?

  1. Let’s say you needed “arms” to fulfill your expressed purpose of “throwing off of the old guard” of your government (a/k/a: your ahole neighbors that needed a job but instead used that job to usurp undue powers and lord over you tyrannically).
    How long would that fing NICS check call last and where would it get you?

  2. It’s not about gun rights, it’s about the God given right as a human being to have every survival tool needed to live as free as the Psychopath and Sociopath that could care less about the safety of your loved ones or your brethren. We are our brothers keeper.

  3. Keep criminals in jail or give them a much deserved dirt nap. Treating people like criminals until proven otherwise is pants on head retarded.

    • so someone that steals a car, one time, should get the death penalty or life imprisonment? nazi much? i guess draconian isn’t part of your vocabulary.

      • Serge isn’t high on my list of favorite people on TTAG, but I think you should re-read his post before further proving Godwin right…

  4. I don’t see how one can say, “I trust this person to be out in society unsupervised, but I don’t trust them with a gun.” A prohibited person should be somehow institutionalized or watched closely enough that their attempt to purchase a firearm would be intercepted with a reasonable degree of success. Everyone who doesn’t deserve that kind of treatment deserves their full 2A rights. End of story.

    • You’re close but not quite there. The only question one need ask before letting a person out of jail is “Do we trust this person with a gun”? If the answer is no then don’t let them out. They don’t belong among us, period. Now the simplest way to reduce recidivism is to make the 2nd offense (when using a gun) automatic death penalty (or life without possibility of parole if you are so inclined).

      • My version is that, if you commit a crime against which I can legally defend myself with lethal force, you go to prison for the rest of your life. No second chance, no early release, no parole, no pardon. Doesn’t matter if it’s your first offense or the most recent in a series of increasingly serious ones. Unless your conviction is overturned, your only way out is inside a body bag.

      • The problem with your 2 strikes or 3 strikes theory is that much of the time the prosecutors (especially leftist types dumped on us by the likes of the Obama administration will frequently “swallow the gun” or just file reduced charges. This is why so many of the Chicago gang members aren’t in jail. The only places that show any increase in murder rates are the Democrat controlled cities that are within Democrat controlled states.

      • My interpretation specifically leaves correctional/punitive policies out of it. One could be of the opinion that integration of criminals and mentally ill back into society should begin asap, or that there should be multi-stage correctional programs, but one can’t argue that the step of “Now we’re gonna let this guy out to roam so freely that we won’t be able to stop him as soon as he walks into a gun store or approaches a private individual to purchase a firearm” should happen before we are reasonably sure that such person is not significantly more likely to hurt someone or themselves than an average citizen.

        As electronic/robotic surveillance turns from science fiction to reality, in reasonably close future I expect lots of ex-cons, mentally ill, etc to be let out and allowed to roam the streets while still being watched 24/7. Plus, don’t forget supervised release, house arrest, voluntary labor camps, and all other such things that will become more and more commonplace as our society wakes up to the fact that classic jails are very bad rehab and rather expensive punishment.

        In any case, it’s all security theater, indeed. Harassing citizens for the sake of appearing to do work is bureaucrats’ finest, oldest skill.

    • Lots of people function well enough in society, providing they’re not in contact with elements they’re susceptible to.

      It’s why parolees are barred from drinking, staying out late, and associating with other felons. It’s why pedophiles are barred from working with or living near minore. It’s why swindlers are banned from financial occupations for life.

      There is a middle way between lock people away in a dungeon and release them into society with full liberties restored like nothing ever happened.

      • True dat… you always need to also consider the cost to society of incarceration, probably minimum of $30K per year, violent offenders usually much higher. Money better spent on guns, ammo, taxpayer subsidized firearms and self defense training. Fear of armed citizens is the cheapest and most effective deterrent to crime and recidivism there is. Can I get an amen? LOL

        • I believe the armed citizen is the best solution to crime in our communities, creates automatic second thoughts before committing to an act, not knowing who is carrying is a powerful motivator to do the right thing.

      • What, so felons should be barred for life from owning guns? I hear what you’re saying, but that’s literally the entire point of the parole period (which lasts for years). And after that? What, so, once a danger to society, always a danger to society?

  5. Background checks are security theater and do nothing to prevent crime. But, background checks do serve a useful purpose — they calm the sheep and make them easier to shear.

    Let’s face it — we need the stupid people to remain tractable, peaceful and unaware of how badly they’re being screwed. Whether you’re on the right or left, you don’t want the dimwits to actually think, or try to think. At least, I don’t.

    • Ralph makes a good point people….I would rather clear out other problem issues by chewing away on the NFA ’34 and then National Reciprocity than rattle the sheep who think that the background check means anything.

    • I think that the PotG are beginning to coalesce on a consensus: the NICS check doesn’t work; NICS checks can’t be reformed in order that they would be cost-effective.

      Let’s remember – especially now with Trump about to take office – that we are in a POLITICAL battle for the heart and mind – the sentiments – of the American voter. It is THIS battle that we need to win; dispensing with NICS is relatively minor by comparison.

      Our instinct is to take on NICS by a frontal assault: declare that we want to abolish NICS. That will put us in a head-to-head battle with the Antis who will claim that we PotG WANT any criminal or crazy to walk out of a gun shop without even a pause for a few minutes to see if he has a record. One really quick way to bring the uninformed voter to come to a conclusion without too much thought. Is that our DESIRED outcome?

      Rather than BEGIN with a conclusion, let’s begin with a series of QUESTIONs: What does NICS buy us in the way of public safety? How much does it cost? How well does it work? What does law-enforcement do with the evidence of Prohibited-Persons trying to buy guns? What are the system’s weaknesses? Can these be cured? At what cost? Is there any alternative to the PRE-sale background check (e.g., a POST-arrest inquiry into whether there is a felon-in-possession charge)?

      What we ought to be looking for are the FACTS; just the FACTS! Engage our audience in a conversation about these facts; if the Antis bother to show up and engage in any analysis of the facts we can see what they have to say. IF the facts exist then a fair and open-minded analysis of these facts will point to a rational conclusion. Let the chips fall where they may.

      Suppose we learned something surprising. By way of illustration, suppose the FFLs weighed in telling us: ‘We want NICS just as it is. Clearly, it doesn’t do public safety any good. But it’s great security theater. If a gun we sold turns up being used in a crime it’s clear that the Nanny-State Government told us that it was OK for us to make the sale.’ Would such a discovery tell a story to the uninformed public? Would the taxpayer be eager to pay – from the public treasury – funds to support cover for gun shops?

      Remember, the non-gun-buying voter does NOT care ONE WIT whether we are delayed 13 minutes or 3 days buying a gun. He doesn’t mind infringing on a gun-buyer’s rights; even if he agreed that the delay was an infringement at all. Why should we try to win this voter’s sympathy for OUR plight? We would be much better off getting the voter to think about whether s/he should be supporting the idea of his/her tax dollars being spent on NICS.

      • OK, I’ll play….

        “What does NICS buy us in the way of public safety? ”

        Nothing. It has been very clearly demonstrated that the NICS does not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms and it has been just a clearly demonstrated that it is only ‘good’ at the point of sale. There is nothing in the system to prevent, or even deter, someone who passed a NICS check ten years ago from doing harm to others today.

        “How much does it cost? ”

        A valid question. And one easily compared to the Poll Taxes of the past. Why should a Right enumerated in the Bill of Rights have ANY cost associated with it? But…. if you are going to have a system it is going to cost something which means someone somewhere has to pay because TANSTAAFL. Since this is currently a government run system it should only cost what is actually costs. I don’t know if that is the case but this might be worth researching.

        “How well does it work? ”

        If you look at the media of late the answer would very obviously be it doesn’t. And the how well question must be preceded by the Why question. If the goal is to reduce, and ultimately prevent, criminal access to firearms then the system doesn’t work at all. Criminals are getting firearms and there is no part of the NICS system that will change that even slightly.

        “What does law-enforcement do with the evidence of Prohibited-Persons trying to buy guns? ”

        This is something that has been researched. I think it was even discussed here on TTAG…. some million plus checks in one year, a couple thousand denials with no qualification of the data as to the kind of denial meaning how many errors were corrected that later led to a completion of the sale. Some hundred plus instances turned over to the ATF and other authorities. Less than fifty criminal charges filed and something like a dozen convictions. Each step the percentage compared to the total number of checks became so close to zero as to make most calculators have to switch to scientific notation to express the number of zeros between the one and the decimal place.

        “What are the system’s weaknesses? ”

        The first and biggest weakness is the inability to get the criminals to comply with the system. Gun stores and table-top FFL’s are not the only places to get firearms. Expanding the NICS to ALL sales still does not apply to the criminals who are buying firearms from other criminals.

        “Can these be cured?”

        Not really. The WHY of the system is flawed so any HOW proposed is working from a flawed starting point. And since the system does not apply at any level to the criminals. or any criminal activity really, there isn’t much point in discussing cures to a system that is inherently flawed. The entire system is designed to make criminals out of people that have committed no crime, kinda pointless trying to cure a system just so it can make more criminals out of people who have done nothing wrong.

        ” At what cost?”

        Since every proposal so far is not actually an improvement to the system any cost will be too much. If it costs more money, it just becomes more of a Poll Tax and is still Unconstitutional. It it costs more time, a right delayed is a right denied. Any cost without a commensurate benefit is too much.

        ” Is there any alternative to the PRE-sale background check (e.g., a POST-arrest inquiry into whether there is a felon-in-possession charge)?”

        What is the benefit of any of these proposed systems? Why does who owned the gun prior to any crime committed matter? The person who committed the crime is the one that committed the crime, not the person who owned or sold the firearm previously. I know the comparison gets brought up often, usually by me, do we hold the seller of the car responsible for the damage done by the driver? Do we hold the cashier from the store who sold the knife responsible for the recent actions of the criminal at OSU? The answer in both cases is no so why would anyone suggest the previous owner of the firearm is in anyway relevant to whatever crime is being investigated?

        Keep the NICS for now because it is security theater. Use it as a tool to keep the hoplophobes focused on something that is actually not in any way relevant. Once we have rolled back some/most/all of the other gun control crap then we can take away the NICS system because we can point to the sky still being in the sky and the lack of high-noon style shootouts for parking spaces as perfectly sane and reasonable examples of why NICS is just for show and the show needs to end.

  6. We have the Second Amendment to prevent the government from deciding who can and cannot own firearms (see: British Bill of Rights, 1689).

    Now we have the NICS, operated by the government, to determine who can and cannot own firearms.

    It is an obvious and blatant infringement that should have been declared unconstitutional decades ago.

    • All gun laws which seek to restrict the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional. No other enumerated right is restricted in any way by any law.

      • “No other enumerated right is restricted in any way by any law.”

        That’s very broad statement. It’s also false.

        But other restrictions involve due process of law, which generally means a judicial process, initiated by the government, required before the infringement occurs, rather than an administrative process initiated by the citizen before a he can exercise his rights.

    • Don’t forget the effing FOID card in Illinois Curtis. Or the 72hour wait. Or 24…or no silencers,SBR,machine guns …I don’t really know about getting rid of everything but Illinois needs improvement.

  7. Well, what can be said is that out of 23 million NICS checks (2015), about 58 were prosecuted. It certainly seems to me that those numbers do not provide sufficient proof, under strict scrutiny, to be the least burdensome to achieve any compelling governmental interest.

  8. I’ve said before: A BGC should be optional, and if the buyer passes than the seller has statutory immunity if the buyer ends up doing something dumb. No BGC, then if the buyer does something dumb it can be up to a jury to decide if the seller was negligent.

    Selling a gun without a BGC should by itself NOT be a crime.

    I know i know…holding someone (the seller) accountable for the actions of a third party (the buyer) is a bunch of BS, but i recognize the world we live in..

    • You spent way too much time in NJ. You need more time to detox from the liberal Kool-Aid. Maybe I should be held accountable if the car I sell is used in a bank heist.

  9. Screw background checks, we need a “No buy” list instead, with local recourse if you get put on it for the usual stupid reasons.

    • WTFO? Are you advocating for restricting the natural, civil, and Constitutionally protected rights of your fellow citizens? No citizen should be denied their enumerated rights, period, ever. There is no justification for releasing someone after paying their debt to society and then restricting their rights in any way. None. And what you are suggesting is downright Orwellian.

      • I personally know several people who do not belong in prison AND absolutely cannot be allowed to purchase a gun. They shouldn’t have knives or clubs, either, but they are not likely to accidentally kill a next door neighbor while clubbing a hallucination.

      • Actually under the militia system of the time, citizens could be denied the exercise of their right to keep and bear arms, by their local militia officers. But those officers were people they knew and who knew them, personally, not bureaucrats they’d never met. And they only judged someone “incompetent to arms” if that was the consensus of the community, i.e. of the militia, who were the friends and neighbors of the citizen.

        From one perspective, it was a sort of jury-of-the-whole, of everyone who knew the citizen in question. And from that perspective, it is thus a judgment that cannot be made by any but that jury-of-the-whole, and thus cannot be assigned either to the federal government nor even to the state, indeed not to anyone but the properly elected officers of the local militia.

        • At that time a Jury of your Peers was a jury composed of people who knew you. Now, if you know the defendant you will be stricken from serving on his or her jury.

          I’m all for a prohibited no-buy, no-own list of people convicted of VIOLENT felonies — including using a gun in the commission of ANY crime. (Even if you are convicted of something like shoplifting while carrying a gun you would be on the prohibited list.) Otherwise, your right to bear arms shall not be infringed period.

          The 1934 NFA, the 1968 GCA, and all other restrictions whether by law or Executive Order should be rescinded and nullified, and States should not be allowed to tax the sale of Firearms or Ammunition, including parts or components.

          In addition, teaching gun safety and responsibility needs to be taught in every grade of school without the injection of political bias. (Is Civics even taught anymore?) I would also be very happy for my tax dollars going to pay for Marksmanship classes in High School, and would happily donate money for ammo.

    • So gun blog has a minimum limit and liberals demand a maximum limit. There’s got to be something Freudian about that, I just can’t quite put my finger on it.

  10. Related, LTC is a financial infringement on the 2A as well. Why do I have to be licensed to carry?

    Everyone over 18 should be able to carry (as outlined in the Constitution) if they choose and that should be the definition of “militia” — the average law abiding citizens.

    It would be nice if we can get the stats on all felons / criminals caught by the background check system….

      • Actually it doesn’t — George Mason did, though:

        “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

        That’s one of the problems — antis want to make the militia mean the National Guard and nothing more, and the Constitution doesn’t say. But Mason’s was the predominant view at the time, so we know what everyone understood the Constitution to mean.

  11. Background Checks have consistently failed to prevent crime because the underlying theory is completely flawed. Those committing large scale shootings against the Public at large are shown time and again to have acquired the firearm(s) used legally, or by theft from a source that legally acquired them. Meanwhile the Black Market in firearms supplies prohibited persons with as many firearms as they can pay for.
    Close any and all supposed “loopholes” and those using firearms for crime and terror will still obtain firearms through the Black Market. In the end, only those who intend no harm to anyone else are affected by Background Checks and many who do intend harm, but have not been previously identified as “dangerous”, pass the Background Checks easily, THEN go commit crime and/or acts of terror and mayhem.
    YES!!! all Background Checks for gun sales and transfers should be eliminated!!

  12. Before anyone jumps on me read the entire post.

    I say we keep background checks with a reform to how it’s done, hell make it more through just not giving what type of gun to the FBI. Give normal people the OPTION of doing the check in a person to person transfer. I say we use this reform to “compromise” things off the books, SBR/SBS, ok to fly with ccw if permit good in both states, etc. I think after the check the 4473 should be shredded after 1 week. These would be easier to accomplish if the sheeple thought we were being more restricted and then after we do these things and see criminals still complete crimes we stand up and say- see liberals your checks don’t work, let’s nix them altogether.

    • For what intended purpose? The only ones affected by background checks are the law abiding. Why shall we continue to be burdened when there is NO lawful or righteous purpose for such checks?

      • It’s using the liberal tactics of chipping away, starting with the low hanging fruit. I’m also saying get rid of checks but let’s reverse some of these stupid laws as we go.

  13. What our founding father could not imagine is the low cost of high quality armaments in both rifle & handguns available to citizens, low cost of lighting & heating our homes, only 1.4% of the population farms, the sexual revolution a success, medical treatment on modern battlefields and flying machines with guns. Their mouths dropped knowing this nation can place a bomb in a window from 30,000 feet. They would giggle with delight, knowing a whole navy could be wiped out in 10 minutes.

    While anti gunners are getting wet in anticipation I’m leaning towards a no citing the lethality of modern weapons…they would be wrong. I say YES ending background checks and flood the nation with weapons of every sort. NO BACKGROUND CHECKS ever. Pissed off by your neighbors dog, get a gun and shoot it…stand by, your about to get whacked by the dogs’ owner. We reached a stage where there is no fear and criminals do a cost analysis to find both the ROI and penalties are worth the risk. Snowflakes enraged the republic elected Trump, get a gun and start blasting Republicans, then stand by we’re coming and we’ll bring hell with us, meaning snowflake no longer worries about anything. The culling will take a few months, but soon all will be well because people will finally understand bad criminal behavior gets you killed.

    Now Jihadist don’t care, but their leadership will have to calculate the number of “volunteers” required to achieve their goals and the moment we find mosque supporting murder we bulldoze them under the ground, likewise with Southern Baptist, they can be a tricky lot.

    Good fences and armaments make good neighbors. Guns for everyone. Yes I know this thought doesn’t represent ALL gun owners on this blog, but heck its my opinion.

  14. Eliminated? No — the ability to do a check on someone I want to sell one of my “arsenal” to is wonderful.

    But it should be taken away from government. Let the various groups supporting the Second Amendment put together a foundation the purpose of which is to do those background checks. Give them the authority to requisition criminal records and mental health involuntary commitments from government. But the government only gets any of the information held by the foundation if they can name the specific person they want to check on and the specific item — i.e. a proper warrant.

    • Raymond, you are introducing a useful line of inquiry: i.e., that we PotG publicly take a position of “self-regulation”. We have been self-educating one-another for generations; for purpose of constituting a “well regulated militia” and a full larder; and keeping our family members and hunting/marksmanship companions safe. It’s good PR.
      IF-and-TO-the-EXTENT we do a good job of “self-regulation” we leave a good excuse for our legislators to leave-us-alone. As long as we demure we open ourselves to criticism that “ONLY government” will “do something”.
      I hasten to add that I do NOT think that NICS works; NOR do I believe that it COULD be made-to-work. I’m just about convinced that it’s nothing more than security theater. Even so, if the voters want security theater and will settle for security theater then we have to ask ourselves: Who do we want to be director of the play? We ourselves? Or, the voters’ governments?

      • This depends on what you mean by “works”. Does it keep criminals from buying guns? Not at all; at most it inconveniences a few, so if that’s the measure, of course it doesn’t work. Does it allow me to have higher confidence that the stranger I met at the park who wants to buy my rifle is someone I ought to sell to? Absolutely — if private citizens were allowed to use it, so by that measure it certainly works.

        But then there’s the more basic measure: does it enhance liberty? The clear first answer is “not so long as it is the hands of the government”. But in private hands, by letting me me confident I’m selling my rifle to someone I think should have it, then yes, it enhances liberty.

        So for the sake of liberty, it’s a good thing to have — just not in the hands of the government.

        • John Lott recently published his research on BGCs and it is telling. Over 96 percent of the denials are errors. That’s more than 22,000 people a year who are WRONGFULLY denied the ability to buy a gun or get a CCW license because of errors in the NICS. The number of people actually prosecuted for the felony of buying a gun while a “prohibited person,” is in double digits, and the number actually convicted is in single digits annually.
          So the BGC not only doesn’t do what it is supposed to do, it is actually detrimental to many, many citizens. Can you even IMAGINE the medical community accepting a diagnostic test with a greater than 96 percent false positive rate?! Just imagine the lawsuits – and medical care is NOT a constitutionally protected right!
          Also, keep in mind that BGCs are a fairly new idea, they came in with the ’68 (that’s 1968) law. We are talking about very recent history folks, that was during Viet Nam and the Hippy days. Before that anyone could legally buy a gun, including felons. Was our “gun crime” rate, or for that matter our overall violent crime rate a lot higher then? No. So the whole idea of BGCs is fatally flawed in its concept and its implementation both. It is unnecessary, ineffective, and was known to be so at the outset. It was, and is, one of those “small cuts” designed by the anti-gun crowd, specifically to erode further our 2nd Amendment protected rights.

    • Care to elaborate? You’ll find some pretty well-reasoned justifications (based both on principle and pragmatism) around here for the removal of such a system. Engage us. You think it should remain? Alright, explain why. Convince us, don’t just insult us.

  15. its hard to say. i do think we need some basic firearms laws, and so do you when it comes to atom bombs and the liking. but yes at certain points, its just for show.

    do i think they should ALL go away? no, but i am not an extremist so i don’t fit in very well here.

    • Can you afford a nuclear weapon? If you could afford a nuclear weapon, would you be deterred by it being illegal? Well, then, I say you should be able to own one, if you can afford it.

      • Under the meaning of the phrase “keep and bear arms” at the time the Constitution was written and ratified, nuclear weapons do not qualify. The phrase referred to the ordinary arms of the common soldier, as far as individuals are concerned.

        Crew-served and other “heavy” arms are covered as the phrase applies to groups, whether local militias, estates with multiple inhabitants, or businesses with property such as might require more than the ordinary weapons of the common soldier for their defense. Thus a large family on their own land might legitimately have a cannon, and so also a merchant with a warehouse or large premises or a ship.

        Nuclear weapons are of a type not even envisioned by the Framers, and indeed may be the only weapon type which so qualifies, as they knew of submarines, bombs dropped from the air (balloons, at the time), fuel incendiaries, etc. By extension from the category of heavy weapons, we can extrapolate that someone might conceivably have a large and/or valuable enough property that it might be threatened by such masses of miscreants that only a nuke could handle them, in which case possession of a nuclear device or two should qualify. OTOH, a local militia could be more easily conceived of as having such a property under their duty to protect, and so could legitimately possess a nuke.

        We must not err on the side of claiming more than the phrase “to keep and bear arms” means, just as we must not allow anyone to impose restrictions that comprise less than the phrase means.

  16. Yes … eliminate background checks.

    At best background checks eliminate one particular distribution channel. Criminals have developed and use alternate distribution channels. The end result: criminals still acquire firearms at will.

    If criminals acquire firearms at will whether or not we have background checks, it is better to eliminate background checks and use the money/manpower that we currently waste on background checks for actually apprehending and prosecuting violent criminals.

  17. THE FIX
    Fix the legal system. We only need 3 punishments.
    1) A fine (based on your net worth)
    2) 10 lashes (one size fits all)
    3) origin donor (paying your debt to society)

    Quick and simple

  18. I say let’s use Trump’s strategy regarding new gun legislation: For every new pro-liberty law that we pass, let’s also eliminate two bad anti-liberty ones.

  19. show me one single time a background check found a perpetrator of identity theft anywhere. I will NOT! be holding my breath.

    • When I was in submitting my paperwork for CCH, the deputy said they recently had a Florida transplant apply for a pistol purchase permit. Apparently he was either unaware of the existence of the internet or he really didn’t know he had an outstanding warrant in Florida.
      But this case is actually pretty rare.
      I have read that upwards of 90% of denials are false due to similar names or bad data in the system.
      I know a guy who had his permit in AZ but was denied a permit in NC because somebody with the same name had been arrested in Texas 30 years before. Wasn’t him. But it was still denied.
      With my wife, they at least called to verify she was not someone with a similar name in Raleigh who was prohibited.

  20. I stopped a straw purchase a few weeks ago, and I didn’t even work at the store. Only the truly foolish criminals would go into an LGS and fill out form. But, the mastermind of the hood will get some dumb large white girl to hit up LGS after LGS buying up HiPoints where they turn a $179 store bought gun into a $400 gun on the street. Background checks are nothing more than security theater.

  21. From November 30, 1998, to December 31, 2012, the NICS Section has denied a total of 987,578 transactions. Denials issued by the NICS Section in 2012 totaled 88,479. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2012-operations-report

    Everytown states “Convicted felons account for the majority of denied gun sales, failing checks on average approximately 45,000 times per year. After convicted felons, domestic violence offenders and fugitives from justice try and fail to pass background checks most frequently, an average of approximately 30,000 times per year.”

    But even Everytown says there is little attempt to prosecute denials. “Pennsylvania State Police create a state investigation file for every denied transaction and send the denial information to the state police unit closest to the buyer’s location. In some cases, they notify local police, who can investigate the case as well. In 2014, this coordinated effort initiated 4,154 investigations, which resulted in 782 arrests and 367 convictions. Since the inception of the instant background check system in 1998, they have enabled Pennsylvania police to arrest 1,818 fugitives who attempted to purchase firearms and were denied.”

    Kelly Ayotte said in 2013 “Of approximately 80,000 in 2012 that were denied (a gun) because of a background check … only 44 people were prosecuted for that” which is a prosecution rate of 0.55%. This creates a deterrent effect which is so close to zero that it makes no difference.

    Face it: arrest rates and conviction rates which are a small fraction of the number of denials just show nobody actually cares about actually arresting criminals and violators nowadays. If we’re not actually going to use the background checks to arrest and prosecute criminals, then they aren’t doing any good. They’re only obstructing law-abiding citizens.

    • Why do people keep calling for violation of people’s constitutional rights, specifically the right to not self-incriminate?

      If the government requires you to supply information that says you’re guilty of violating a law, they cannot, absolutely cannot under the Constitution use that information against you in a court of law. That’s at least as basic a right as that to keep and bear arms! Indeed, it’s fuzzy whether they can use that information as a basis for investigation.

      That latter is the part we should all emphatically in agreement with, because it would extend to excluding government from deciding to investigate a citizen merely because of ownership of a gun. So either we support the total prohibition of using an admission of being a prohibited person with respect to owning firearms, or we give room for government to declare us worthy of suspicion merely because we have arms.

  22. Until felonies are by statue defined only as crimes in which violence was committed, yes we should do away with background checks.

    Right now, legislators have the ability to disarm and disenfranchise Americans by criminalizing non-violent behavior.

    As it currently stands, I would be happy with restoring all civil rights 5 years after completion of a sentence since legislators have so much leeway in defining what is and is not a felony.

  23. I’m ok with background checks. I know that bad guys can still acquire firearms, but why make it easy? The background check is painless, and since I am not a criminal, I have nothing to worry about. But I think only people who have VIOLENT felonies should be barred from owning a firearm. Non-violent offenders should not be. Waiting periods, on the other hand, are ridiculous. Especially when you already own multiple firearms.

    • “…The background check is painless, and since I am not a criminal, I have nothing to worry about. ”

      Do you drive around looking for DUI checkpoints just because you haven’t been drinking?

      Since you are not a criminal why should have to prove that fact just to purchase a piece of property that is legal to purchase and legal to own?

    • Well, background checks are hardly “painless”. There are fees involved as well as an entire bureaucracy supported by those fees so it could be argued that both human and market capital could be put to better use.

      I guess you could argue that these types of jobs at least keep people off welfare but beyond that I don’t see that they have much social utility.

  24. Yes, without hesitation. But at the same time I do actually want to see some significant reform of the mental health system, which will include involuntary holds on personal arms at least temporarily. but no rights can never be taken without at least some sort of due course of law. And the state must prove it’s case FIRST. Not the other way around. Making life easier on the agents of the state is never an excuse to damage enumerated of anyone.

  25. I realize that I am in the minority here, but I can see the “need” for some type of background check. I do not, for one minute, believe that it can stop people from getting a gun if they really want one, but it might stop that “someone”. I certainly understand the argument that as it is written today some people argue that it infringes on the 2nd amendment. I admit that I am new to gun ownership and that I am trying to learn as I go. I bought my first gun about 2 months ago, before I had my LTC here in Texas, background check took about 30 seconds, did not even really know that it was such a big deal, did not bother me as I had nothing to prevent me from passing. I am reading everything I can to try and determine the “best” course of action. I actually teach High School History so I really think that all of this is very important. I do believe in a National Reciprocity Law, just not exactly sure on some other issues. Feel free to attack, as I said I teach high school, or better yet feel free to inform.

    • The book “Unintended Consequences” is an amazing novel with a lot of historical facts embedded into the fictional story. It’s a bit pricey, but worth every penny in my opinion, and I’m a cheap b@stard. It has been described as the most requested out-of-print book – Bookfinder.com lists it at 37 currently, and it was listed by The New York Times’ Sunday Book Review as one of the most sought after out-of-print books of 2013.

      It is currently back in print, I bought my copy here: https://www.accuratepress.net/

      Reading Unintended Consequences had a profound effect on me. I have no connection to the author or seller other than as a customer. I had actually read a borrowed copy of the book and wanted to buy a copy in order to support the author. I cannot speak highly enough of this book, I just wish is were cheaper so I could buy copies for my friends. I also wish Donald Trump had the author advising him on gun rights.

  26. I agree and respect your beliefs on the matter. Background checks are like gun free zones. They offer a false sense of security and nothing else.

  27. Yes background checks are a big waste of time. They are also the Grand Poobah of gun grabber schemes so don’t look for them to be going anywhere anytime soon.

  28. Foreground checks are needed, of course like most government backed ideas, they don’t exist, and never will.

    BACK-ground checks look at PAST illegalities, there are no MID-ground checks that detect PRESENT illegalities, there are no FORE-ground checks that detect FUTURE illegalities. The only way to ensure that a governmental check actually detects crime before it takes place or soon after is by completely demolishing any semblance of individual rights and the total death of freedom, which the Lame Duck has taken America farther in 8 years than most presidents that preceded him. Only by completely monitoring in real-time the entirety of a citizen’s life, can the state get anywhere near the needed totalitarian control to watch for crime, only problem is that the state is so absorbed in finding new revenue vectors in citizens lives and not being able to see the crimes before them as their eyes are fogged by their own illegalities. Best “check” available is the 6th sense of the gun store clerk and his years of customer experience.

    • I agree that the “Best “check” available is the 6th sense of the gun store clerk and his years of customer experience.” as long as the gun store clerk’s judgement isn’t compromised by a sense of greed.

      Of course, if the government relied on the sellers intuition, they would also want the seller to assume responsibility for crimes wrought by the buyer, since bureaucrats don’t care about personal responsibility, or who is punished, as long as they can punish someone, and I doubt anyone here wants that.

      As long as our government bureaucrats can profit from regulating objects instead of punishing people for violent criminal behaviors, we will find our right to self-defense more and more necessary.

  29. It’s a lot more than guns. Any and every law that has no effect, those laws created by overpaid politicians to give the appearance of doing something, should be taken off the books.

Leave a Reply

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