Previous Post
Next Post

Back in 1968, NRA was OK with the Gun Control Act outlawing gun sales to prohibited persons by federal firearms licensees (sanctioned gun dealers). In 1993, they didn’t say no to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mandating instant background checks for new gun sales. Despite the fact that background checks fall afoul of the Second Amendment’s prohibition against ANY infringements on Americans’ gun rights. And the fact that checks are useless. So how can the NRA defend new gun background checks and argue against background checks for gun shows and private sales? Although I doubt the veracity of the video above, I say checkless sales are how it should be for all gun sales, just like it used to be. What say you?

Previous Post
Next Post

228 COMMENTS

    • Make the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun; and the requirement to own a gun the same as to vote.

      Simply go to the polling place, fill out a Form 4473, show your ID, and the poll worker will check with the FBI database to make sure that you’re not prohibited from voting. If everything is working correctly, you will be allowed to vote in a few minutes.

      If the GCA/Brady system does not violate the rights of gun owners, then what possible objection could there be to implementing the same system for voting?

      • Because that would be a deterrent for minority voters, he’ll just requiring ID is oppressive. Why the left doesn’t raise the same argument on behalf of minority gun owners…well it’s not like they have a history of disarming minorities to make them softer targets for murder and harassment.

        • “…well it’s not like they have a history of disarming minorities to make them softer targets for murder and harassment.”
          Yeah, that stuff never happened….LOL.

      • I have used this argument on my more progressive “friends” and it can’t be argued (against) logically. Usually I get told to F myself.

        • Ask your progressive “friends” if they can identify which Amendments to the Constitution and, for that matter, the other laws, should be applied to which group? Obviously, they see it that some laws should apply to some groups, but not to others. Seems like they’re happy to live on the Animal Farm, aren’t they?

  1. I’m all for getting rid of it, but that will never happen. A bit more realistic would be to open NICS to the public. Maybe that way the antis will stop pushing UBCs. Also, drop the 4473 and the bound books because they are a registry.

    • You’re right, it won’t happen if we keep agreeing that it won’t happen.

      We need to stop agreeing. We need to start the conversation to repeal the NFA and GCA. We need to move the ball in the other direction, and not just keep trying to slow the ball moving in their direction.

      Resignation never wins.

    • I agree Just keep it simple. The buyer logs onto nics, runs the check and get a number if approved valid for x amount of time. All the seller would have to do is type it in and the nics site would say John doe of blah blah born on such a date is approved. No record of why the check was performed. Oh and it would have to be a voluntary check.

    • If you are going to drop bound books and 4473 then just drop NICS altogether because without those it is completely unenforceable.

      What I suggest is, keep NICS in place and simplify the process. Bound books should still exist because it cover’s the dealer’s ass more than anything else; however, the ATF should not be given unlimited access to the book and all of it’s records when they audit. Photos or electronic records of an audited bound book should be completely verboten, like the punishment should be the agent all the way up to their supervisor/ director lose their jobs and face criminal charges if they violate it. The phone call to NICS should also be simplified and should only include the minimum amount of information to establish identity and eligibility of the purchaser and then generate a unique record identifier to affix to the purchase in the bound book in case of audit. If no purchase happens the approval goes in the trash, but the NICS office does not need to know if the transaction is completed. If the buyer then purchases the weapon in question the only record should be the outgoing inventory on the bound book with the NICS approval. The point is to make it as dififcult as possible to connect the dots for someone looking to create a registry but simple enough that if they are running a crime trace they can see if the sale was good or not. That’s it. And it should be a requirement that all records are paper, no digital records allowed whatsoever. I wont be buying any new guns from Cabela’s anytime soon for this reason. I just recently bought a used deer rifle there and the entire process is electronic and stored god knows where. Imagine if a criminal hacks that, he has a Rolodex with all the customers’ identifying info (social, DOB, DL, CHL if applicable etc), and guns they bought while doing it oh and their address conveniently all in one place. Anyone not concerned by this should take a look at the Home Depot, JP Morgan, and Target data breaches.

      • “If you are going to drop bound books and 4473 then just drop NICS altogether because without those it is completely unenforceable.”

        Tex, NICS is completely unenforced now, and always has been. The few dozen prosecuted each year are being prosecuted for other reasons, the 4473 is just the only thing which can be proved. They claim 70,000 blocked sales a year, and 40 prosecutions, with 20 convictions, at a cost of WHAT? Not mentioned, cost is no object when prosecuting crap against gunowners.

        This has been a complete waste of taxpayers’ money, and should be discontinued INSTANTLY. If a prohibited person attempts a purchase and is not immediately put in prison as a result (not 5 years later), the law is a waste, he can get a gun any of hundreds of places, most cheaper than his LGS, like stolen guns on the street, for pennies on the dollar.

        Without prosecutions, the rest of your sensible arguments are unimportant, the law should be repealed. I agree with above that the NFA and GCA should also be repealed.

        • Once the NICS is approved, the number obtained From FDLE is put on the Form 4473 in Florida. After that, FDLE nor the FBI have that info. Plus, they only know if its a long gun or handgun.

      • out west some states get a single fingerprint others maybe all fingerprints. Anyone know if they ( cabelas) do that by electronic means also?

    • NICS open to the public would be a disaster. It would be used by people to check out their neighbors, the new babysitter, a potential date they met on some dating website, political opponents, potential job candidates, etc. The system would crash in the first fifteen minutes. Additionally, I can almost guarantee the security of the underlying data would be a joke and it would get hacked shortly thereafter.

      • You’re kidding, right? With a single online tool and nothing but your name, I can find how much you owe on your mortgage, your criminal records, your estimated salary, everyone you’ve lived with and everyplace you’ve lived for the last twenty years, the name of your wife, kids and parents and a lot more personal data that’s much more intrusive. NICS is nothing.

        Wake up.

    • elimination of NICS checks will never happen. gun owners will have to accept that background checks is not a battle that can be won. it doesn’t matter if NICS is ineffective, doesn’t matter that denials are not prosecuted. the public simply doesn’t care and is not interested about that.

      gun owners should focus money and effort on those battle that can be won. background checks is not one of them.

      • Absolutely correct Dan. Our ranks are filled with arm-chair constitutional authorities who deride any tactical or strategic discussions in the name of purity. None of them seem to have a practical suggestion as to how to achieve purity in a filthy world run by politicians. None of them point us to crowd-funding sites where we can all match their generous contributions to the repeal of any existing laws. Were these absolutists in the vanguard who fought the good fight that got us Shall-Issue in so many States in the past quarter century?
        How do we make progress within the political system We the People have created in the past century? I read these blogs looking for people with ideas that can actually move the ball forward. I find precious little; among them, your observation that we work on battles than CAN be won; getting rid of NICS not making that cut.

  2. So, is he saying that blind people shouldn’t be allowed to purchase firearms? Seems a bit discriminatory to me, but I’m not a Democrat.

    • He’s running in Mesa Arizona (the most conservative large city in America) against the incumbent republican. I would make some kind of blind joke here but I am trying to avoid the low hanging fruit today.

      If he paid $100 for that gun at any gun show in Phoenix I am apt to call bullshit since I can’t even get a used hi point for that much around here. If he didn’t show ID then the seller could be prosecuted for not verifying he is an in state resident. So either he is flat out lying or he has some seriously good luck.

      • It’s a 125 year old top-break that will probably blow up on the first shot. That’s why there was no background check.

      • There’s no law in Arizona requiring a private seller to verify residency, nor should there be. If they want to open nics up to the public (and make it free), then they can start requiring checks, until then, tough nuts.

        • Federal law states that non FFL handgun sales may only happen in the state of residency to a resident of the state, so my wording should have been “The seller could be prosecuted if he sold the handgun to an out of state resident without verifying ID.”

          FWIW I personally have never been able to buy a gun without at least showing my ID, even in omgwtfskurryguns Arizona.

        • Well, I have SOLD guns without requiring an ID, particularly since I wouldn’t know what to look for anyway. Hell, a long time ago, I sold a truck to a couple of kids who wanted it right now, couldn’t wait for banks or dealers to open, want to take it with us. I ain’t no dummy, Of course not… OOoops, they handed me the full amount asked in cash, bye-bye. The plan as they explained it was to spend Dad’s money for the truck, then drive it down to Peru to deliver it to him. They showed back up to transfer papers and such a couple weeks later, I was in no hurry either. I had notified my insurance company of the transaction, otherwise I couldn’t figure why it made a difference to me if they never transferred the title. Same with guns. Give me the money, and I give you the gun.

          • I bought a long gun from an LEO, asked him if he wanted to see an ID, he asked “are you legal to purchase or own a gun in this state?”. I said yes, and he told me that he had fulfilled his legal duty as a private seller, nothing further was required. Paid him and left with the gun.

      • The wording of the law as I understand it is that you may not knowingly sell to a prohibited person. There is no requirement to ID the buyer nor ask any questions pertaining to their legal status. If you sell to a felon or other PP and it comes back to you the only legal repercussion will be if they can convict you of having known or suspected in advance. A tricky thing to pull off without a confession or recording.

  3. As they exist now: yes. What little good they do are far out weighed by the problems they cause. Not to mention how easy it is for these checks to be used against persons who have committed no crime or action that warrants to revocation of their rights.

  4. No NICS, No NFA and No FFL. Buying and selling a gun shouldn’t be any more difficult than buying socks.

    • It most definitely should be more difficult.
      Socks: high or low, white, black, or brown. Easy choices.
      Guns: Semi-auto, full-auto, bolt action, lever action, etc., pistol v. rifle, caliber, barrel length, optics, … Much harder choices, and I’d like even more options.

      • Absolutely. Anyone advocating that it is OK “somewhat” is playing to the progressive agenda. Infringed is infringed. The progressive machine churns slowly but certainly. People who 20 years ago were solidly opposed to NICS checks now are wishy-washy ok with it, to some extent. Their kids will never have seen a problem with it, and smart guns will be a good idea, so long as they cannot be remotely disarmed by authorities. The next generation will be to the point that those few people allowed to own a weapon in public should have it remotely armed/disarmed by authorities…..etc. You notice one thing, the compromise never seems to help gunowners, it always enables further controls. That isn’t real compromise. That is “progress”, or so they claim. Like it or not, most gun owners are guilty of capitulation, and are all responsible for the death of the 2nd Amendment, and so much more of our freedoms as well.

      • You showed me nothing of any difficulty in the “guns” category. Simply start out with one of each, and go from there.

        • A man should have a wardrobe to suit any occasion including at least one suit, he should similarly have an armory to suit any occasion including at least one .50cal.

  5. Yes. No background checks to practice religion, or speak freely, or for the RKBA. Such is the price of freedom. Punish those who use these rights as access to wrong-doing, do not inconvenience those doing nothing wrong.

    • Weeeel we already have to register and jump through hoops to gain the full benefits of being a church, they are working on registering the press, along with some “common sense” requirements open to interpretation and alteration later. And we have been required to register our marital status since certain people realized that would be a handy tool against minorities.

      • You are playing apples and oranges. One can worship freely wthout going through any hoops, and one can open a church with similar ease. The “hoops” relate to taxation, and have nothing to do with worship. In fact one can easily be ordained a minister online for free in minutes.
        That they are “trying” to register the press and that effort is being opposed only underscores the truth of my point, not yours.
        Keep trying.

  6. Background checks are middle-class solutions to problems that are rooted in criminality. The more we attempt to regulate the sale of guns to the “wrong kinds” of people, the greater the propensity for those people to simply resort to smuggling and theft as ways to arm themselves. Not surprisingly, gun smuggling is rife in countries like the UK and OZ were there are restrictive gun-control laws. That’s exactly what’s happened with the “war on drugs”. When most 15 year old’s know how and where to buy street drugs, it’s clear that kind of regulation doesn’t work very well.

  7. The list of things to eliminate is rather long. At the moment, the only organizations that would not fall under that category are those which are strictly voluntary. Big subject…

    To answer the specific question: Yes.

  8. No. I would much rather have public, anonymous access to NICS. As in, no permanent record of what was transferred to whom. Merely a check, pass/fail, and move on. It would be helpful for anything from baby sitters to contractors to the cable guy to the guy you met from Armslist. I don’t want prohibited persons having access to firearms and if I’m the (private) seller I want to perform all due diligence to ensure that I am not supplying a prohibited person.

    I also disagree that checks are useless. Violent crime peaked in 1993, the same time the Brady Bill was passed and it’s been in steady decline since. While BCGs are NOT a catch-all to prevent all crime from happening ever, it does seem to have *some* effect.

    • Correlation is not causation, and there are probably private sector solutions to having a background check that could be voluntary and similar to a credit check.

    • “I also disagree that checks are useless. Violent crime peaked in 1993, the same time the Brady Bill was passed and it’s been in steady decline since. While BCGs are NOT a catch-all to prevent all crime from happening ever, it does seem to have *some* effect.’

      So you voted FOR I 594???

  9. Criminals don’t buy guns from dealers. Background checks can get it wrong and deny a lawful person a permit. Case in point. A former colleague applied for a transfer permit in NC. He was here on a 6 month contract. So he went and got an NC driver’s license. Has a CCH from his home state.
    GSO denied the transfer permit because someone with the same name, but provably not him, was accused of a felony 30 years ago in Texas. Never convicted. Just accused and it wasn’t him. GSO said their hands were tied by federal law.
    I guess it is good thing I have a less common name. Lord help anyone named Joe Smith.
    Holder’s Justice department twisted the interpretation of existing law to expand the list of people not eligible.

    • I know some people are against it, but if he put his SSN on there the whole name thing is completely avoided.

      I had that problem on my very first paperwork, a week later I did it again with my SSN on there and I have never had a problem since.

    • That sounds fishy. Being accused of a felony is not disqualifying, only a conviction, under federal law.

  10. I would argue that the background check system limits the liability of gun dealers, and as such facilitates gun sales. Imagine the alternative in today’s gun sales and legal climate, whereby each salesperson at a gun store needs to make the decision of whether or not to sell a gun. The potential for a civil suit on discrimination grounds is huge. Even an unsuccessful suit could put a store out of business. Under those conditions, I doubt many stores would choose to open at all. With the NICS system, most transactions (aside from somebody acting super-crazy) are a simple binary decision; you either pass the check or you don’t.

    • I posted this above, but I’m sure there are private sector solutions to having some sort of background check if a dealer wanted to have one that could function similar to a credit check. When people say “the government must do X, think instead about how private enterprise could do the same thing.”

      • There “are” or there “could be”? I am not aware of any private sector solutions, and if there were, who is going to pay to create, maintain and update the database on a daily basis? As it is, the Feds can’t seem to compel some states to submit their information at all, others only provide some information. Further, any such private sector business, without a special law in its favor, would not have sovereign immunity for errors in the database, and in particular an absence of records that allow prohibited persons to purchase firearms. Which means that your private sector business will soon find itself sued into oblivion for its “negligence” in failing to maintain adequate records. IF there is to be a system to vet buyers, there is no practical way to accomplish it other than through an inefficient federal bureaucracy.

        • I don’t have all the answers and thanks for nitpicking the choice of “are” vs “could be,” but how exactly does does an insurance company estimate risk? Each company operates by a series of calculations and in the end they come up with a coverage amount and a premium you must pay based on risk.

          Similarly when your credit rating is determined they use it to tell you If you are getting a loan or not. In absence of background checks a private company could use similar data via cooperation with various agencies who have useful data(big data analysis maybe) about you where it pertains to your risk of violence with a weapon. Trends can also be analyzed in terms of who is most prone to violence and who is not. The firms with the best prediction measures would rise to the top.

          As to your question of who would pay for it. I suspect that each gun shop would pay for access to this info, and might even get a reduction in their premiums if they subscribe and perform checks of their customers. Whether or not these firms or services are established in the first place will depend on the demand for some info about the risk of selling to customer A vs customer B. That info is unknown to my mind.

          The firms that don’t provide good info might get sued(although our litigious society is incredibly stupid), and the best ones won’t.

          This is just spitballing here.

          Ideally I’m not for having any background checks at all, but by saying that it can’t be done(should people choose to do so) except via the status quo is in my mind intellectual sloth at best.

  11. I don’t care about NICS. Just get rid of the 4473. That’s the gun registry right there. Get rid of the 4473. No 4473, no registry.

    • No way, Jose. You simply cannot do that. It would be far too sensible. I mean, without it, how could we trace Fast & Furious guns?

  12. While I won’t argue the constitutionality of NICS, I find it surprising that the POTG often dispel the effectiveness of NICS by pointing to the number of false positives. While false positives should be a factor in evaluating the performance of NICS, it is not a good indicator of its effectiveness.

    We all agree that most criminals today obtain their guns through nefarious arrangements. Could the same be true prior to the implementation of NICS? The real measure of the NICS effectiveness is to know what percentage of prohibited persons obtained their guns through legitimate means prior to NICS.

    The majority of prohibited persons do not bother with FFL’s because they know NICS will deny the transaction. But, if no such system existed would prohibited persons still acquire their guns via the black market. Since black market prices are almost always higher than those obtained through legal trade, would the removal of NICS drive criminals to legally obtain firearms through an FFL, without worry of being denied the transaction?

    • BS. The only valid indicator of such a law’s effectiveness is the conviction rate. I doubt 1000 people have been convicted in the 20 years it has existed. If not enforced, it is useless, repeal it.

      • Now that is not true. The NICS was to prevent sales to unqualified buyers, not to prosecute people for attempting to buy a firearm. There are plenty of folks who may show up on a prohibited list for a reason unknown to them, or who may be mistakenly on the list, or temporarily on the list. An unresolved court case is a good example. If and when the person is found not guilty, they are again qualified.
        I am anti-NICS, but you seem to not understand the underlying reason for them in the first place.

    • You have made several false assumptions, 1: the price of black market guns. Everything we know about them suggests this is not true. In the case of straw purchases it makes sense. As the purchaser may be paid for the service. However a burglar who squires a $500 flock for free is not likely to demand or receive near market value. Neither is the buyer likely to pay retail when the potential available guns always outweighs demand. 2: you seem to think that denying the purchase at the counter thus forcing the buyer to go black market is a good thing. The black market being fueled by theft proves that wrong. 3: you suggest success is measured by the rate of denials, not the intended effect on crime. There is zero link between gun control and reduced crime. If your success is defined as no deterrence from violent gun crime with a necessary rise in burglary and assault you are using fundamentally flawed metrics.

  13. What I will write has no relevance for US gun debate due to the 2A as well as the large proliferation of firearms in population already. Nevertheless, I very much enjoy the fact that here in the Czech Republic, having the shall-issue gun license, I can buy & carry concealed basically any gun I want (bar full autos) and at the same time be quite sure that if I ever have to use it in self-defense, the chances of the bad guy having a firearm are next to non-existent (unless it is a premeditated hit on me). Background checks make sense when they are designed in a way that really makes it very hard for a criminal to get a hands on gun and at the same time poses only a minor hassle for law abiding citizens.

    • Background checks make sense when they are designed in a way that really makes it very hard for a criminal to get a hands on gun and at the same time poses only a minor hassle for law abiding citizens.

      How can that be done?

      • No, they don’t make sense, period. They are legal today only on FFL purchases, because they are not technically required of the purchaser, but as a requirement upon the seller. An FFL licensee must comply with applicable laws, so the infringement is not on the purchaser, per se. UBC’s change that, and hence are in no way constitutional.
        Background checks only inhibit those who would follow the law.

      • Of course it can’t.
        I know for a fact it is not hard to get firearms illegally in Czech Rep. Up to and including fully automatic rifles. Russian soldiers would sell anything before we kicked them out of country.
        There is still lots of WWII leftover guns around. And black market with stolen and smuggled guns works just like everywhere.
        I have been offered “black gun” from random strangers several times. As a ccl holder I refused naturally.

    • What evidence do you have that a criminal is less likely to be armed? Are there statistics or is it the warm fuzzy reassurances of the law makers?

  14. when i started dating my girlfriend she was a bit concerned about me being a gun owner. then i told her that for every gun i bought i went through a background check. if i was a felon, i would not be able to buy a new gun. that actually worked and she was then ok with it lol

  15. I’m not opposed to it in principle, but it can’t work in practice without infringement. Either you place a requirement on gun sales from stores that is not on the general population (which basically makes it ineffective), or you open it up to the public (which is a 4th amendment infringement). And the 4473 is definitely a 4th amendment infringement.

    • Right now the reasoning you mention is why it is legal at all. The government cannot legitimately infringe gun purchasers, but it can require FFL sellers to do a background check before making a sale. You can always purchase from someone else, in theory, so long as it is not an FFL.

  16. ” Shall not be infringed.” Either that means exactly what it says or it means nothing. NO checks, NO registration, NO government involvement whatsoever.

  17. I would eliminate all checks and waiting periods. No where does the second amendment call for these.

  18. I am opposed to it on principle….for all legal citizens non citizens can go fight and die in their home country for their own second amendment

  19. When I was 13 I bought guns at yard sales and road them home on my bike. At that same time mail order guns were delivered straight to your home. The background check for the mail order guns consisted of a single quetion on the order form you tore out of the magazine. Actually, 2 questions

    Are you old enough to buy this gun?

    Is it legal to own this gun in your state of residence?

    Wording may not be exact. A few years have gone by.

    NICS? ATF? Waiting periods? Approved lists of guns? NFA? Not only no, but phuck no.

      • If he was 13 in 1967, there were still mail order sales of guns. That would mean he was born in 1954, and is now 60, not 93.

        I believe his last line is what he believes should not exist in the USA.

  20. LOL. So if the seller denied selling the gun to the blind guy he would be sued for discrimination. When he sells the gun to the blind guy he is evil because- gun show loophole!

    Oh… why does the blind guy get a pass on brandishing a firearm in a public place? Now that’s discrimination!

  21. I guess no one noticed the dirty bomb in his little black briefcase he left behind on the bench. . . . . a BLIND TERRORIST !! Just like that Shiek in the first World Trade Center bombing!!!

  22. I think there should be some kind of background check for gun show sales. Just like at the local gun shops. But, I do doubt the effectiveness of it in preventing criminals from obtaining guns. Doubt that many of them actually get their guns at gun shows. And the I-395 abortion in WA State is an example of some liberals writing a law that overreaches to the extent it is ridiculous and probably unconstitutional. Some lawmakers just can’t seem to control their urges to make a simple law more and more complex. As if they really think they are accomplishing something by doing that.

    • “I do doubt the effectiveness of it in preventing criminals from obtaining guns.”

      Agreed. But if a law will not accomplish its reason for existence, repeal it!

  23. “In 1993, they didn’t say no to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mandating instant background checks for new gun sales.”

    I’m sorry, but did I miss the site’s re-branding? Are they changing it to The Half Truth About Guns? The relaunched THTAG may have a tough go of it, though, as that is an extremely crowded field with many groups already providing half truths about guns. And that’s not even counting the outright liars.

    The NRA supported instant background checks, albeit less than ideal, in exchange for doing away with federal waiting periods.

    Now, if you prefer waiting periods to background checks, then say so. If you think you can build a bigger gun rights organization and achieve better legislative outcomes, then do so. I’m sure the NRA would love for you to show ’em how it’s done.

  24. Let ‘s have mandatory background checks on guns and everything else. Cars, gasoline, knives, Tylenol, nails, saws, pillows, airplane tickets, rope, razor blades, fertilizer…
    Background checks on everything! Vote for me!

    /sarc

    I hate when a lawful anti-gunner goes in, purchases a gun and complains about how easy it is. Of course it’s easy, you’re a law abiding citizen!

    • “I hate when a lawful anti-gunner goes in, purchases a gun and complains about how easy it is. Of course it’s easy, you’re a law abiding citizen!”

      Yes EXACTLY!

      Jeee I just went and bought a gun, see how easy it was?
      Well was there some reason you shouldn’t have a gun?
      Well noooooo…. but it shouldn’t be EASY.

    • I’m with you 100% on that one. Maybe even worse is when licensed carriers buy a gun from an FFL and brag about “skipping” the background check, feeling as though tbey’re among the chosen ones, some special select few who get to skip it. Well.

      The reality is that they’re skipping it only because they’re being checked by their state monthly or perhaps continually as a condition if maintaining their license. That all happens behind the scenes, though, so people eithet don’t think of it or maybe even don’t know of it.

      All the while they’re thinking themselves special, when in reality they’re very heavily checked, AND they’re paying a license fee for the privilege of having their freedom infringed.

  25. We seemed to get along just fine for 200+ years without NICS. I bought my first gun from the Sears Catalog. Arrived in the mail. Took it to school (IN NY MIND YOU) twice a week in winter for rifle team practice in the basement. Think my old High School still has a rifle team practicing in the basement?

    • I took my rifle to school also. In NYC. And my high school once had a range in the basement, but sacrificed it when the pool was enlarged.

  26. The problem isn’t NICS, the problem is the classification of people who are not incarcerated as ‘prohibited’. As long as we want to ban certain people from possessing firearms at all (and that seems to be the consensus at the moment,) NICS is a relatively unobtrusive solution.

    I would rather spend time and effort on getting silencers off the NFA list, or liberating slave states.

  27. I’d be ok with the NICS if it were available to all, online, by a mobile app, with database limited to instant yes/ no with database adminn contracted to independent third party not under direct control of the Executive, with open audit by citizens at any time. This is not rocket science. If you donate to a political organization, your information is publicly available. If you have a drivers license, or credit, or criminal record, your information is publicly available. And soon, although it should not be so, your health records will be avaiable, already via the federal govt, and insurancd co’s and various leaks, thru fusion centers to state and local pds, and marketers and data brokers va insurance co agreements.

    So this sould be reverted back to the citizen with open access and use.

    All the citizen need do, to abide by law of sale to approved person is keep a record of the check at the time of sale. This puts the onus on the government to make it work. And in case of disputes on accuracy, the default is on the govt to prove citizen is wrong, ie innocent until govt proves guilty, by verified crosscheck of criminal or mental health status, within some reasonable time, say 14 days.

    This forces the government to focus on the keeping the data clean, and gives tools to address the person who no longer qualifies, so the State can address thrir criminality and mental health teatment as needed.

    But only if 4473 and any other record of the gun were expunged and prohibited. That is the registry. That is meaningless as it only tracks the tool, and that is a fools game for two reasons. History shows weapons registration only leads to confiscation. Second, the numbers and cost of tracking provide no practical beneftit UNLESS the goal is confiscation. The Canadians recent experience trying then dropping long gun registration proves great expense, for no net benefit.

    If the NRA and SAF were to simply agree to educate the public on the above, it would go a long way to take away the confusion and fear that is the primary tactical tool of gun grabbers.

    I’d suggest to nominate the NRA to be the third party independent NGO running the process, (remember the roots of NRA was as partner to Federal govt to train riflemen, among citizenry), then we gun owners would feel comfortable the data would be in the hands of an independent entity working for the citizens, not the State.

    If the NRA, SAF, GOA could join forces in a public education campaign to hammer this message of lawful citizen empowerment, home in every single election, from county to national, we’d be done with gun control in four years, and focusing on individual lawbreakers, instead, and putting them in jail, or getting them the mental health needed.

    A separate but independently run campaign to formalize a national concealed handgun carry permit, with rational training baselined, and certificate updated to NICS as to status, would further incentivize legal gun owners to improve their skills, and create more disincentives to criminals.

    This also has been proven to work in numerous states.

    This alos focuses the uneducated public on the reality the Progressives dont want to acknowledge, holding individuals responsible for illegal behavior, instead of penalizing the much larger mass of the law abiding, we abolish fear of the tool, and promote trust in the law abiding.

    By simplifying the process of who is allowed, vs who is not, the State can then focus on the irresponsible or criminal few, instead.

    In other words, hold people accountable for their actions, and stop fearing the tools in the tool box.

    Its time to get this done. Gun control and information control are weapons of a tyrranical State. By ceding both to citizens, we can get moving on bigger issues facing the nation.

    • “In other words, hold people accountable for their actions, and stop fearing the tools in the tool box.”

      Progressives Modus Operandi is for people to NOT be accountable for their actions.

  28. There should be no “prohibited persons” to begin with.
    If youre too dangerous, either due to criminal tendancies or mental incompetence, to be around firearms, then you are equally ill prepared to deal with the daunting responsibility associated with operating a motor vehicle, or possessing a knife, wrench, baseball bat etc.
    If youre such a dangerous person that we camt trust you with a gun, you should still be in prison or a mental institution.

    • ^^^ That was so sweet! This person did all my typing for me! 🙂
      …but then again I think suppressors should be sold out of vending machines.

    • If youre such a dangerous person that we camt trust you with a gun, you should still be in prison or a mental institution.

      Agreed — keep the violent bastards in prison where they can rot. Because as soon as they get out, they’re going to commit new crimes, which would be a lot easier for them if they can go to their LGS and buy a gun.

  29. The irony is that even with a background check, Mr. Woods would still have been able to buy the gun. No checkbox on 4473 for “Are you blind?”.

    I think the only requirement to buy and own a gun should be that you’re 18 years or older. I don’t want kids hacking into Mom’s Amazon account and ordering some guns. If you have a prior felony conviction, you should be able to buy and own a gun, or you should still be in jail. Otherwise, what you spend your money on is up to you, and should not be subject to government oversight.

    And as for the blind guy? How about we wipe all the gun laws off the books. Every one of them. And replace them with the 4 Rules of Gun Safety. Punishing violations of the rules criminalizes the behavior, not the gun. Mr. Woods would have violated all 4 of the rules with what he was doing on that bench. Send him to jail for that, not for owning a gun.

  30. Short answer is yes. Rights shouldn’t require background checks. Long answer is yes … because:

    * As a method of attempting to prevent bad guys from getting weapons, it cannot ever be as effective as its proponents want it to be. Bad guys will either steal a gun, use a straw purchaser, find an underground seller, or find an alternative weapon to use (knife, fist, fake gun, baseball bat, etc.). The proponents of the background checks will always push for more restrictions, because bad guys will continue to get guns or other weapons. (See how they’re pushing for “knife control” in the UK. They WILL NOT STOP.)

    * Any false positives are a needless obstacle to those who are purchasing a firearm, and are potentially dangerous – if a firearm is quickly needed for self-defense against a likely threat (e.g. ex-significant other, stalker, etc.).

    * Nobody is actually harmed when possession of a gun changes. If there’s no harm, it shouldn’t be a criminal offense. It’s simply one person buying a piece of metal & plastic from another. Car sellers are not responsible if a person buys a car, then later drives drunk and kills someone. The bad guy is the guy who causes harm.

    * It is no business of the government who has what firearms. Background checks allow a government to create a gun registry. As the 2nd Amendment exists in part so that citizens may defend themselves against an overreaching government, it is not in the interest of the people for a government to have a record of firearms transactions.

    * Rights do not require permission. Insisting on a background check is asking permission to exercise a right. Having a background check be a mandatory government requirement in order to become a journalist would be insane. This is no different.

  31. For those with very short memories, the NRA was OK with the NICS system because it did away with the federal waiting period. While the efficacy of the system is still hotly debated, the numbers show that quite a few actual, honest-to-badness felons were indeed refused a sale through legal channels. So I file the check system under “due dilligence.” I’ve never seen it as “gun control,” but rather, “criminal control.” Most of us breeze through a check in under 15 minutes (my last was WELL under — about three), and the few “false positives” are still inconvenienced less than they were during the old waiting period days.

    We know of very few gun controls that actually impact criminals. NICS seems to be one that does. At least the lazier, more apathetic (and stupid) of the lot. So I have no problem with it. I’d also have no problem with them beefing it up to handle higher traffic and allowing anyone selling a gun to run their own check. Put it online, like a sex offender registry, and let ME check out whoever wants to buy any guns I want to sell. If it was online, you could run checks anywhere cellphone service, wifi or a landline is available; from gun shows to the kitchen table. No registry, no forcing sales through FFLs to jack-up fees, no gunk untrol nonsense.

    But the gun banners aren’t really concerned with safety and would fight this idea tooth and nail. And many firearm fans, who think that any effort to keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals is some sort of infringement will JOIN them to scuttle the idea. In short, it’s a classic impasse.

    • Just because a felon or other prohibited possessor gets blocked by NICS (and prosecutions for which are EXTREMELY rare, despite the big numbers NICS lovers spew), that does not mean that these same individuals did not manage to acquire a firearm for their purposes through other means.

      And it certainly does not mean they did not carry out their criminal plans by some non-firearms means, either. NICS is a phony measure meant only to frustrate and intimidate lawful firearms owners. It serves to establish the government as the right and proper gatekeeper to our natural, civil, constitutional, and human rights, such as that to keep and bear arms.

        • You flatter yourself that this validates your reasoning, it does not. It validates that rights are rights, nothing more. That you concoct a statement that could effect similar sentiment does not make your statemenf valid. Nice try.

          • Did I not predict your reply? It’s a yes or no question.

            Rights are indeed rights. Criminals abdicate them when they choose their behavior. We deprive them of their freedom — the most basic right — and nobody questions it. Many state and national offices are then closed to them once they’re released — they cannot hold public office — and again, we accept it. Some states deny them a vote. Yet when it comes to denying people who have already demonstrated a contempt for, and/or inability to follow, the law and have harmed others in the past access to firearms, that somehow represents the “slippery slope?” Sorry, but I’m not buyin’ it. I’m all FOR a way for those who have made honest mistakes the ability to restore their gun rights, but when it comes to career criminals and serial violent offenders, THEY earn the consequences of their actions.

            • I can predict that the sun wil set this evening, that it does so is not validation of my prediction. Only an idiot would be flattered by such things.

              • Indeed, which is why flattery has nothing to do with it. Human behavior, or, in particular, dogmatism, is ever so slightly different than the orbital mechanics of the Earth around the sun. Only an idiot would conflate the two.

            • Despite your asinine assertion, one cannot “abdicate” rights. One can be deprived of rights, though the term deprivation itself implies a limit, a less than permanent situation. Deprivation of life is a bit irreversible, of course. It is a progressive and unconstitutional view that one can lose natural rights.