Gun Control

For Those Who Say All Gun Buyers Should Be Screened, the Data Don't Matter

Whatever the numbers are, they supposedly support the case for universal background checks.

|

BATF

According to a new survey, about one-fifth of recent gun transfers in the United States occurred without a background check. That is half as big as the fraction commonly claimed by gun control advocates, based on a dubious extrapolation from a 1994 survey.

But it turns out that whatever the actual number is, it reinforces the case for mandating a background check every time someone acquires a gun. Duke University criminologist Philip Cook, who co-authored the 1997 study that was the source of the claim that "as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases…take place without a background check" (as President Obama has repeatedly asserted), says the new, much lower estimate shows that the goal of universal background checks is eminently achievable. "The headline is that we as a nation are closer to having a hundred percent of gun transactions with a background check than we might have thought," Cook told The Trace. "It's more attainable, and cheaper, to pass a universal requirement than it would be if 40 percent of transactions were still being conducted without these screenings."

The new estimate, which comes from a study reported this week in The Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on an online survey of 1,613 gun owners conducted in April 2015. The one-in-five estimate comes from a subsample of 424 respondents who had acquired a gun in the previous two years, 22 percent of whom reported that they did not undergo a background check. That share was lower, just 13 percent, for those who bought guns, and lower still, just 4 percent, for those who bought them in stores, which are required to conduct background checks under federal law. The share of unscreened gun owners was higher, ranging from 45 percent to 77 percent, for those who obtained firearms without paying for them (as gifts, for example) or who bought them from relatives, friends, acquaintances, or sellers who advertised online.

The federal background-check requirement applies only to licensed gun dealers, but it applies to them no matter where the transaction takes place. It does not apply to so-called private sales, which do not involve a licensed dealer, whether they happen at a gun show or elsewhere. That's why demands for closing the "gun show loophole" are misleading. Notably, all of the respondents in this survey who had bought firearms at gun shows in the previous two years underwent background checks.

The researchers found that the share of guns acquired in private sales without a background check was lower in states that require screening for such transactions: 26 percent, compared to 57 percent in the other states. That suggests about a quarter of private sales occur without a background check even when one is legally required, which is not surprising, since private sales are inherently hard to monitor. The persistence of unrecorded private sales, combined with gun theft and straw purchases by people with clean records, means that extending the background check requirement cannot reasonably be expected to prevent criminals from arming themselves.

At the same time, a universal background check requirement would disarm many people who pose no threat to public safety, based on the arbitrary disqualifications established by federal law. Anyone with a felony record, for instance, is forbidden to own a gun, no matter when his offense occurred and regardless of whether it involved violence or even a victim. That fact should give pause to progressives who oppose the disenfranchisement of people with felony convictions and applaud efforts to restore their voting rights. If it is unjust to prevent, say, a nonviolent drug offender from voting, it is at least as unjust to stop him from exercising the basic human right of armed self-defense. It is likewise unfair and unreasonable to decree that someone treated for suicidal impulses forever loses his Second Amendment rights. Requiring background checks for all gun transfers, regardless of how popular the idea may be, will only multiply such injustices.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Donald Trump, Julian Assange, and Russian Hacking

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The new estimate, which comes from a study reported this week in The Annals of Internal Medicine

    Emphasis added. WTF?

    1. The AMA injected themselves into this debate decades ago, on the gun control side. Their leadership is coastal, liberal, amd in inclined to think of the medical profession as an elite priesthood. I went to Johns Hopkins, one of the premier pre-med schools in the country. In the five years I was bummming around the Hopkins campus, I met TWO pre-meds who I would have gone to as doctors. The rest of them were self-important little shits, hardly worth the oil necessary to fry them in Hell.

      1. Weird. My wife went to Johns Hopkins for undergrad and didn’t experience any of that.

    2. Apparently according to one of my lefty aquaintances who’s in the medical profession gun crime can be studied like a virus in the way it spreads. That is why the CDC should be studying guns instead of one of the dozen agencies that study crime.

      Yes, that’s retarded, but when I pointed out that guns don’t infect people with homocidia I was informed that as a non-medical professional I just don’t understand.

      1. Right – they want to study it as an “epidemic”. If it’s medical, then it’s science. And we all know that we’re not allowed to argue with science.

        1. Science has taken the societal position that religion used to hold; to disagree with it [and it is no more infallible than a pope] is now heresy. And then you’re called deplorable, or a bitter clinger.

      2. The problem. Not enough money.

        Basically the gubt. isn’t spending enough on studies. No explanation of why maybe Bloomberg doesn’t fund studies on his own dime instead of wasting it on failed electioneering.

      3. well, you DON”T understand…. the way these annointed priests claim they understand it.

        The real disease is the inordinate determination to control……… and that DOES spread like a virus, and wreaks destruction all along its path.

    3. Exactly my question. People buying and selling guns is not a medical issue.

      1. Statistically homes that have guns in them are more likely to have a gun used for murder or suicide than homes that don’t have guns in them. This makes guns in the home a public health threat, and the buying and selling of guns a threat to public health as well.

        1. statistically people who walk to work trip more than those who drive to work, lets study walking

        2. Wrenches lead people to fix cars. Just look, all the people fixing cars have wrenches! What magic do they contain to compel people?

          1. And some of those cars the wrenches were used to fix were in accidents and injured people. Let’s ban wrenches to anyone not a government-approved mechanic. (I know the automakers would *love* to see that one enacted).

        3. Yeah, I know that’s the justification.

        4. Kids, statistically speaking [this is from CDC figures, if you care to know] are about 10X as likely to die from drowning than a gun shot wound.

          Home with swimming pools certainly make this many more times likely than those without.

          Swimming pools do not make a significant contribution to our well being, our cultural heritage, and certainly not to our safety.

          So let’s fund a study and strive to remove those dangerous pathogens in our midst.

          1. That captures teh absurdity well. Anything can be studied like that as a “risk factor”. They don’t seem to like the distinction between medical and non-medical risk factors, particularly when there is some public policy they want to push (like gun control or seatbelt laws).

          2. Imagine someone walking around with a swimming pool in their pocket, able to kill anyone who crosses them in a fraction of a second!

            I don’t support gun control, but comparing guns to swimming pools is stupid. Compare it to other tools that can be easily carried and concealed.

            1. Steak knives. The point is that it is absurd to state that people who own guns are more likely to be involved in a gun related death or incident. That’s the whole fucking reason they bought a gun, so that if they are caught up in a bad situation they have some means to defend themselves. Here is the very basic math:

              Criminal has gun, innocent person doesn’t: chance of gun being used if criminals attack unarmed innocent is almost completely dependent on the criminal.

              Criminal has gun, innocent has gun: chances of innocent being involved in a gun related incident now increases because there are two guns in play.

              If the innocent has at least a chance of defending himself, then that’s the sort of gun incident I am not particularly worried about.

              No situation works out perfectly and accidents do happen, but an inability to ensure a perfect outcome or prevent an accident is not a good reason to make it more difficult for innocent civilians to own a gun than it is for violent criminals…

              1. Is the point absurd? I don’t think it is. I would only take issue with it being used as justification to infringe my second amendment rights.

                The problem is that too many people believe it’s possible to make everyone perfectly safe and that it’s the government’s job to pursue that goal. Liberals think we can achieve (or at least move closer to) that goal by banning guns. Conservatives think achieve (or at least move closer to) that goal by dropping lots of bombs on our “enemies”.

                People need to accept the simple fact that we will never be perfectly safe, but I don’t think that will ever happen. We’re actually trending in the wrong direction. People are becoming more paranoid and more fearful despite the fact that we have never been safer. People live such coddled lives that they have lots of time to think about how much their lives suck, so they end up complaining about how “unfair” everything is and fretting about boogeymen around every corner.

                People are stupid.

        5. That stat was debunked decades ago.

        6. and those who drive to work are more often killed in car crashes on the way to work

          and those who don’t work outside the home at all are involved in far fewer car crashes whilst commuting to work.

          The answer? Stupid simple: no one has to work any more.

    4. Probably one too many “N”‘s…

  2. A few years ago I unloaded several long guns with an ad in the newspaper and a transaction over a card table in my garage. Under PA law, it was my responsibility to not sell to a person I know is ineligible, which I adhered to, and for my buyers to be sure they are eligible under law, which is nothing I can effect. Why would the Left make this a crime?

    1. If they were serious about effective gun control, they’d be pushing to prosecute straw buyers and felons in possession much more earnestly than they currently are. Whether that would reduce gun crimes is a question worth asking; the point is, those options are already on the table, they specifically address criminals obtaining firearms, but rarely are they pursued by prosecutors. Instead, Democrats are looking to expand the milieu of prosecutable offenses related to the exchange of firearms, something that in no way enjoins gun crimes but does greatly expand a new class of accidental felons whose only crime is clerical. And that, in my opinion, is precisely why Democrats favor universal background checks and “closing loopholes.” Because the actual criminals who commit violent crimes with actual victims tend not to be suburban white men in Texas or Wisconsin but urban black men who live in places like Chicago or Baltimore, and Democrats are not looking to clean house. They want to punish red state voters.

      1. It’s also a glimpse into the progressive mindset, not merely for its imminently malicious intentions but for its moonshot theory of legislation. We have laws on the books which could be used to reduce violence on the margins, if they like. Instead, they’re pushing to mint reams of new legislation the size of a wheel of swiss cheese and equally as holey, shot through with exemptions, carve-outs, and nebulous voids where implementation will be left to the discretion of the heads of ATF, etc. For the progressive left, all political issues are resolvable with huge Barney-Frank/ACA-style bills, submitted for a vote unread with the purpose of having technocrats in various bureaucracies empowered to hammer out the details at a much later date.

        1. Oh, and most tellingly, Crazy Uncle Joe’s rationale as to why we cannot pursue criminals breaking currently extant laws? “[W]e simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.” They will, however, have the manpower in place to pore over Joey Baggadonut’s sale of a long gun, for which he dutifully filed the paperwork in compliance with a host of new laws Biden wanted passed.

          1. everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.

            I’m not a lawyer, but even if they prosecuted that, chances are a lot of people wouldn’t get convicted, because the prosecution would need to prove intent? Accidentally checking a wrong box or inaccurately answering a question doesn’t necessarily mean a crime has occurred, does it?

            This risks then setting a precedent that wouldn’t exist if they only prosecute cases that have a strong chance of conviction.

      2. in most states, when a felon IS found in unlawful possession of a firearm, that might be an add on charge to the main high profile crime… robbery, rape, housebreaking, etc. and then “plea bargained” away in exchange for a lighter level conviction on the high profile crime. that way they can spend fewer tax dollars and “deal” with “criminals” for the high profile crimes they commit. SO there ends up being no real deterrent to the possession of guns by “prohibited” persons. Thus those laws might as well not even be on the books. Further, by moaning about all the guns that get into the hands of the bad guys, they can manufacture “need” for more laws to prevent what is already “prevented” by existing laws. It is a beast eating itself, growing, ever consuming, demanding more, no end in sight.

  3. Was the main argument against universal background checks its lack of attainability?

    1. Seems like a decent argument to me.

      If gun control doesn’t keep guns out of the hands of gangs and the criminals who want them, then what’s the point?

      1. The point is to make every gun owner into a criminal.

        1. I meant, “What’s the good reason to do it?”

          1. Employment numbers go up.

          2. Being able to clamber up a pile of newly incarcerated bodies to the moral high ground.

        2. “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted ? and you create a nation of law-breakers ? and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

          1. One nice side effect of “Trump’s wall” is the amount of room to stand with your back to it.

            1. During the Depression, my Mom described her family as among the “landed gentry of eastern Iowa” thusly: “We owned the wall we had our backs to.”

              At least Grandpa was a farmer. Farm families may not have had any money, but they always had enough to eat.

          2. Tr’es apropos

    2. The main argument against universal background checks is that the State should not be encouraged to collect and retain such information about the citizenry. Such databeses are always, always, ALWAYS misused.

    3. The main argument against universal background checks is that the pro-gun people agreed to background checks for dealers on the condition that they would never apply to non-dealer sales. This is how the proggies destroy liberty, incrementally. The pro 2A people never should have compromised in the first place. The only proper answer to a gun controller is ‘fuck off slaver’.

      1. Exactly. I seems like somewhere in the constitution there is a specific prohibition of the federal government making any type of infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

        How any federal gun control law ever passed constitutional muster is plain evidence that our Constitution is as worthless as the paper it’s printed on.

        1. Well, any federal gun control law that passes constitution muster simply proves that SCOTUS is as worthless as the meat bags they are made of.

    4. Was the main argument against universal background checks its lack of attainability?

      Failed argument.

    5. MY main argument against UBC is this: since the NICS check process INCLUDES specific information about every firearm purchased, the “check” is now for TWO purposes: first, to “make sure” the purchaser is not “prohibited”. Second, to have a record of every GUN purchased/sold. In other words, a universal registry of who has what guns. If I buy at an FFL, four years later sell it to my neighbour no BGC, they don’t know who has it NOW. And this upsets THEM.
      READ your history of the past century. In EVERY CASE where government built and maintained a registry of all firearms, that government or its successor was able to, and did, come round later and confiscate everything.. because they KNEW who had what.
      NO PROBLEM you say? OUR gummit is different. Oh yeah? That’s what THEY all thought.. they whose guns were confiscated after they were good little boys and girls and let them be registered. Still think OUR government is different? HOW CLOSE did we come to getting a new sorrier excuse of a president who had been claiming for decades that SHE thought the Second Article of Ammdnemtnt “needs to be repealed”? Or how about Pelosi, Feinstein, Obama, Warren, and a host of other possible candidates?

  4. “Notably, all of the respondents in this survey who had bought firearms at gun shows in the previous two years underwent background checks.”

    Well, obviously, if the data doesn’t conform to our preexisting biases, then it must be wrong.

  5. Years ago I was looking for a .357. Found a ad in a local weekly. Drove to over Parkersburg. paid the guy,a county deputy and went home with my gun. I bought Churchill O\U new. Brought it at a gun store in WV. Since I lived in Ohio I had to wait 2 weeks to pick it up. The day I got it I shot 2 grouse with it. Happy ending huh.

    1. I have N guns, and N-1 of them were obtained without a background check. N-X at a gunshow through the gunshow “loophole” and X from a family member.

      1/5 may be the number, but you can certainly obtain whatever you want through private sale if that’s what you prefer. You pay a premium, but it’s worth it, IMO.

      1. Or wait for grandpa to pass on and grandma tells the kids and grandkids to take his shotgun collection if they want them.

        1. Didn’t grandma listen to Uncle Joe at all?

        2. not MYB grandma. She’d have kept on using them. SHE wanted them, AND her octagon barrelled lever action .22 rifle.

  6. If it is unjust to prevent, say, a nonviolent drug offender from voting, it is at least as unjust to stop him from exercising the basic human right of armed self-defense.

    Most leftists will say that government has the monopoly on all legitimate force. That means that armed self-defense is wrong because only government can legitimately use force. Many will go so far as to equate armed self-defense with vigilante justice. So they will support any incremental means of disarming people.

    1. When I lived in Baltimore there was a case where a JHU student defended himself against an armed intruder with a machete. The case was notable because of the machete. The city then seriously considered charging HIM with a crime, arguing that he should have called the police instead of taking matters into his own hands. They only backed down after some popular outcry.

      Big city police department often say with a straight face that if confronted by a dangerous person you should defend yourself by calling them for help.

      Those same departments will then argue that they cannot investigate actual crime or respond until after crimes have occurred because they just don’t have the time and/or resources.

      1. They would rather you die with a phone in your hand than live with a weapon in your hand.

      2. perhaps they’re saying that the biggest threat to you is being shot mistakenly by a cop. If you are completely unarmed it might help reduce that danger. At least eventually, after everyone else in the country is unarmed too and no cop gets shot for a few years, and they can eventually start to feel safe and relax some.

        1. Sarcasm, right?

      3. Big city police department often say with a straight face that if confronted by a dangerous person you should defend yourself by calling them for help.

        Unless it’s one of theirs, then just call repeatedly.

        CPD’s clearance rate for homicides is abysmally low and worse for shootings involving children. The funny thing is, Sup. Johnson is frustrated that the community doesn’t support them. They had 10% more arrests of armed felons this year than last so he’s sure his officers are working hard. The Mayor has promised hundreds of new officers and detectives in the coming year, but it’s still going to be an uphill battle if the community doesn’t support them.

        I guess throwing pensions at the problem doesn’t make it go away.

  7. Keep charging that hill, proggies. This time, you’ll get your ban and confiscation, I just know it.

    1. I don’t think they really care about guns.

      I think it’s mostly about lashing out at the racist rednecks in their minds.

      1. Oh, they care about guns. A lot.

        Much easier to force utopia on an unwilling citizenry if you control all the guns.

  8. Wait, but isn’t Reason supposed to be on the gun control train because they’re a bunch of urban hipster cosmos who rub shoulders with the proggies?

    Seriously though, thank you for standing up for gun rights.

    1. Theoretically, there might be a libertarian argument for gun control, but I’ve never seen any libertarian argue for gun control.

      Not at Reason. Not anywhere else either.

      1. John was arguing that no Reason writers actually care about gun rights the other day. Because Bill Weld or something. May be a reference to that.

        1. Yup. I’m sure John will be along any minute now to tell us that this article *really* means that Reason supports gun control.

        2. It argued that magazine restrictions would be a small burdock for gun owners. It really pissed me off. As if making me a felon for all the thirty rounders in my safe is a small burden

          1. In reference to a Chapman article a few weeks ago was define hit piece on the NRA.

          2. Yeah, everyone hates Chapman for good reason.

        3. No. They don’t Zeb. The Doherty article is the perfect example. And so are all of the articles defending Weld. If they cared about gun control, they would consider it to be nonnegotiable like they do other issues like gay marriage and the drug war.

          1. They don’t all prioritize it as high as you or I might. I’ll give you that.

      2. a Chapman article a few weeks ago was define hit piece on the NRA.

        1. Are you referring to this one?

          https://reason.com/archives/201…..e-of-trump

          Chapman certainly minimized the gun control agenda from Obama et al., wrongly IMO. But he was right in calling out NRA fear-mongering. Not that it’s unique to the NRA – pretty much all of the advocacy groups do it. “Give us money or Armageddon will befall us all!” But there’s nothing special about the NRA that excludes them from just criticism.

          1. Quoted from the article.

            His “anti-gun” proposals amount to ending the manufacture and sale (though not possession) of “assault” weapons, limiting magazines to 10 rounds and requiring background checks for all firearm purchases, not just those from licensed dealers. These changes would have a minimal impact on law-abiding gun owners.

            Making me a felon for all the 30 round magazines I own is absolutely not a minimal impact.

            1. I agree. He was wrong for minimizing Obama’s gun-grabbing impulses.

            2. not to mention the not-so-well-hidden agenda that is part of the universal background check mandates: that of a complete and comorehensive gun registry. That is, a list or database of every firearm and who owns it. THAT is the desire of the UBC crowd, do not be deceived. WHY ELSE have the NICS forms always required specific identifying information on EACH firearm purchased (up to five per form, now reduced to four)? Is it a check on the purchaser, or a means to record his acquisitioins? Anyone who is a prohibited person knows it, in the vast majority of cases. THEY won;t even try a NICS check. ANyone else KNOWS they will get the Proceed code thus qualifying the purchaser as “legal”. Then WHY the make, model serial mumber of EACH gun being purchased?
              Think about it….

      3. Google Cato Institute “Gun Control: Grounds for Compromise?” and get back to me.

        1. And remember that was written by the President of CATO. That wasn’t some think piece written by a new hire who went off the reservation. That was written by the President of CATO and represents the position of the organization. How anyone can give that group of hacks a dime is beyond me.

      4. The Doherty article last fall defending Weld. It did not argue the merits of gun control. It just said gun control was a unimportant issue worth compromising on if doing so reduced the overal size and scope of government. That is bad enough.

        1. “It just said gun control was a unimportant issue worth compromising on if doing so reduced the overal size and scope of government. That is bad enough.”

          Why is that “bad enough”, John?

          I think part of being a Libertarian is recognizing the full range of rights that need to be defended, not just gun rights.

          Obviously, Libertopia is the desired goal when all of our rights are strongly defended.

          But in the course of getting from here to there, what compromises are you willing to make?

          Here is a thought experiment: Would you be willing to accept, say, universal background checks for gun purchases, in exchange for a Constitutional amendment abolishing the income tax? Personally I would seriously consider it. Because the income tax is IMO a much greater threat to our liberties overall than universal background checks for gun purchases, and making that compromise I think would lead to a net increase in liberty overall.

          I don’t think it makes anyone a Libertarian apostate to be considering such practical compromises that might need to be made, as long as one remains focused on increasing liberty overall, which you yourself even admitted Doherty has done when it comes to gun rights.

          1. I think part of being a Libertarian is recognizing the full range of rights that need to be defended, not just gun rights.

            Sure. But if you are going to compromise, then what you are willing to compromise on says what you think is most and least important. Everyone has their favorite pony. Some things are more important to each of us than others. I will be the first to admit, gay marriage is way down on my list of priorities. That is the truth.

            Well gun rights are way down on the reason staff’s list of priorities. What you think of that is a question of how important you think gun rights are. I think gun rights are very important, so I don’t think much of it.

            1. Well, when it comes to making practical compromises with the goal of a net increase in overall liberty, I tend to be more utilitarian. Gun rights are important to me too, but I’ll say somewhere “in the middle”, not real high and not real low. Part of that is because there are bigger issues that represent much bigger restrictions on everyone’s liberty. So quite frankly I tend to be on Doherty’s side on this one, not because I hate guns or side with the proggies or some such nonsense, but because I’d like to make advances in liberty where I can get them however I can reasonably get them.

              1. Gun rights are important to me too, but I’ll say somewhere “in the middle”, not real high and not real low. Part of that is because there are bigger issues that represent much bigger restrictions on everyone’s liberty.

                I strongly disagree. I don’t think there is any threat to are liberty bigger than gun control. If the Progs ever succeed in disarming us, they will be able to use political violence effectively. That is why they hate guns. An armed populace can’t be terrorized into compliance by mobs of brown shirts. If this country didn’t wasn’t armed, the progs would use the threat of riots and urban violence to force people to vote however the Progs wanted. Only our gun rights prevent this and the progs know it and can’t stand it.

                1. “I don’t think there is any threat to are liberty bigger than gun control. If the Progs ever succeed in disarming us, they will be able to use political violence effectively.”

                  What if we don’t have any money, John, due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, no jobs, and a socialist economy? Sure we have guns but we can’t afford to buy bullets.

                  What if we don’t have any cars, John, due to greenie regulations making ownership of cars extremely burdensome? Sure we have guns but we can’t go anywhere on our own schedules, we are forced into mass transit schemes.

                  And what percentage of Americans own guns? Last I read it was about 40%. What percentage of Americans own cars, or have money? I’m willing to bet, much higher than 40%. So from a practical, utilitarian POV, which leads to a greater *net* increase in liberty, more gun rights or more economic freedom? More gun rights or more individual freedom of movement?

                  1. What if we don’t have any money, John, due to high taxes, burdensome regulations, no jobs, and a socialist economy? Sure we have guns but we can’t afford to buy bullets.

                    The ability to shoot back tends to temper these policies and keeps them from coming into fruition.

                    1. “The ability to shoot back tends to temper these policies and keeps them from coming into fruition.”

                      They do? Look at our current economy. It’s got major socialist elements in it. How many tax resistors are shooting at IRS agents? We have had creeping socialism for decades and there aren’t widespread armed insurrections over it.

                      Do you think that if we ever did get single-payer health care – which is not creeping socialism at all, but a giant leap towards socialism – that there would be armed insurrections over it? I don’t.

                      When was the last time there was organized violence against the state when the state wanted to crush someone’s liberty *other than* over gun rights? You might call the Branch Davidian fiasco an example of that. How many others? It seems that there is only organized violence against the state for crushing liberty, when that attempt to crush liberty is directly aimed at gun rights. I think it’s folly to think that patriotic citizens are going to start rebelling just because their tax rates go up a few percentage points.

                    2. They do? Look at our current economy. It’s got major socialist elements in it. How many tax resistors are shooting at IRS agents? We have had creeping socialism for decades and there aren’t widespread armed insurrections over it.

                      It’s boiling a frog v. tossing the frog in the fire. I’d much rather slow creeping socialism over quick soul-crushing totalitarianism. I’m not convinced that there is any other option besides those two.

                    3. The creeping socialism IS a form of totalitarianism. With more money, the state exerts more control over you, and with less money, you have less control over your own life. One might argue that creeping socialism is a greater threat than a small diminution of gun rights, because the money from high taxes are used to fund all sorts of anti-liberty hijinks from the state.

                      It seems as though, in practice, that “Second Amendment Solutions” are only seriously considered when the Second Amendment itself is threatened. What about all of our other rights? If there were actually large numbers of people like the Bundys, who were willing to engage in armed protests (if not outright violence) when rights *other than* gun rights were being threatened, like more general land-use rights, then you might have a point. But people only seem to get shooty when the gun rights themselves are threatened.

                    4. The bottom line, I think, is that the zealous pro-2A people only seem interested in defending their own rights to own guns, and not all that interested in defending liberty generally, even though their construction of the 2A predicates armed defense of liberty generally, not just gun rights. From a purely self-interested point of view, if gun rights advocates aren’t willing to come to my defense of my rights, why should I come to their defense of their rights?

                    5. if gun rights advocates aren’t willing to come to my defense of my rights, why should I come to their defense of their rights?

                      I think your case here is a false dichotomy.

                      These things aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. you pretend that gun-rights people are somehow not also for smaller govt in general… (cite needed)… ergo, you see no need to defend 2nd amdt rights?

                      I think the reason you see such “single-issueism” out of the gun-vote is because these rights are very directly attacked on a near-constant basis. Taxes are more of an amorphous constant which can ebb and flow, and not such black/white “now you have it, now you don’t” issues.

                      You seem to think there’s an either/or trade-off between “general liberty” and “specific liberty” which i don’t think actually exists in reality. e.g. the advocates for gun rights are somehow *detracting* from more general efforts at broader liberty by spending all their energies on a specific area.

                      It would be more helpful if you named the specific issue you felt gun-advocates needed to include in their political priorities.

                      Lacking that, it sounds like you’re just trying to excuse gun-control on some false pretense that allowing it would somehow “open up” liberties elsewhere, which i don’t think has any basis in fact.

                      You could make the same (specious) argument about “Gay rights”, or “free speech”, and complain that the narrow focus was detracting from ‘broader freedoms’

                    6. One might argue that creeping socialism is a greater threat than a small diminution of gun rights, because the money from high taxes are used to fund all sorts of anti-liberty hijinks from the state.

                      You’re still missing the point. You don’t get to choose. It’s a package deal. Without gun ownership, you don’t get creeping socialism, you get dystopian totalitarianism, and you get it in a short period of time. What keeps the totalitarians from simply “compromising” on gun liberty to the point where the populace simply can’t defend itself and then simply “compromising” on all other liberty the day after? What are you going to do, throw rocks at them?

                      Rule of law is a farce unless it is backed up with the threat of violence from the populace.

                    7. remove one or two “simply”… I didn’t proofread.

                  2. So from a practical, utilitarian POV, which leads to a greater *net* increase in liberty, more gun rights or more economic freedom? More gun rights or more individual freedom of movement?

                    This is just a basic misunderstanding of why gun rights are important. It’s not an either-or. It’s a “slow crawling” erosion of rights because of the armed populace or a quick descent into authoritarianism (including no money, no cars, etc) because nobody is there to hold the gov’t in check.

                    Gun rights are fundamental to all liberty because the only thing actually holding politicians’ feet to the fire in any capacity is the fact that if they piss too many people off, they’ll get shot. All the reams of paper (Constitutions, etc) and all of the patriotic concepts (“rule of law,” etc) isn’t worth jack shit if the people don’t have the means to enforce their sovereignty.

                  3. 40% is enough to make mob violence and intimidation a contact sport. It doesn’t matter that everyone has a gun. It only matters that a significant number do and the mob doesn’t know which ones do and do not.

                2. John, you sincerely believe people are a lot more complicated, and intelligent than I do.

                  People tend to not have grand plans, especially not at a social level. They’re just making do incrementally and trying to improve their lot as they can define it.

                  1. I don’t think they are that complicated. But I do think that all people understand the use and value of violence whether they admit it or not.

          2. Right because if we compromise gun rights we get to have forced Nazi cakes. It’s fucking win-win.

          3. you misunderstand the concept of “liberty” and specific liberties” in particular.

            We have the right to breathe, correct?

            We have th right to freely move about, do we not?

            We have the righjt to privacy also, correct? To be secure in our persons, papers, houses, effects?

            we have the right to freely worship/not worship as we please, true?

            We have the right to control over the items we lawfully own, too, yes?

            How about we nogoatiate away YOUR right to worship/not worship as YOU please in consideration for your continued right to breathe?

            ALL our birthright rights are non-negotiable,. You can trade away your freedom from some tax burden for your right to arms, I’m fine with that. But DO NOT under any circumstances make any attempt to negoatiate away ANY of MY rights.
            If the tax burden becomes too onerous for me, I can always opt to squat on some pubilc land, earn no money, grow my own food, and thus incur no tax liability. I still comply with the most onerous tax laws out there. But to demand my free right to arms? TO worship? To freely associate with whomever I please? To eat as I choose? No, they all come as a package. NONE are negotiable.

      5. Sure, theoretically there could be an argument for gun control outside the USA. In the USA, we have the 2nd Amendment which prohibit any infringement of gun rights. No matter what the tools the SCOTUS and police say. They do not get to make exceptions to the Constitution.

        Zero regulation of firearms is the only Constitutional government action on this issue.

        1. I will assert a positive action in the part of government at all levels, mandated by that Second Article:

          It says SHALL NOT BE. that is an imperative active voice statement… government are thereby mandated to secure and preserve our right to arms, assuring that right is not infringed in any way by any force or factor… including government.

          Thus FedGov have the OBLIGATION to move, agressively, against any state government (or city or county or internaitonal) that is seen infringing upon our right to arms.

          that “shall not be” is a mandate.. make certain that right is not infringed at any level in any way by anyone or thing.
          And every government official swears to uphold that mandate as part of the Constitution as a preconditioin to his holding any office of the public trust.

    2. Sullum is consistently very good on guns (and just about everything).

      But I’ve been informed that they don’t really mean it when they defend gun rights.

      1. He is good on gun rights. And isn’t he a bit older? He has never stuck me as being a millennial

        1. Yes, he is definitely not a millennial.

          I see your point about what you are willing to compromise on revealing what issues you consider more important.

          I’d say gun rights are more central to me than to several of the Reason writers. Probably largely because they are sort of urban hipsters and guns aren’t an important thing in their lives. Which is fine with me. They aren’t hurting the cause of gun rights and there are plenty of good gun rights orgs out there.

          I wouldn’t mind seeing Reason hire someone a bit more on the “yokel” side of things. They are pretty heavy on the young “cool people” a the moment and could use a bit more diversity of viewpoint sometimes.

          1. My complaint about reason’s bias is not that it exists. It is that it only goes one way. I see no problem with having left leaning libertarians write at the magazine and writers like Doherty or Suderman or Soave who go off the Libertarian revervation on some issues. The problem is that reason never seems to hire a writer who goes off the libertarian reservation to the right. Where is the reason writer who took up the contrarian position on gay marriage? Or the reason writer who isn’t completely open borders or against every military intervention of any kind? Where is hte right leaning equivilent of Sheldon Richman or Chapman? They don’t have one. And that is the problem. The fact that they have writers like Richman and Chapman would not be such an issue if they had any writers who were biased the other way.

            1. The fact that they have writers like Richman and Chapman would not be such an issue if they had any writers who were biased the other way.

              The closest they have is Slade, Stossel, and Napolitano, and only Slade is a true Reason writer (and she hardly ever writes). I can’t remember the last Stossel or Napolitano piece I’ve seen here.

              I think it would be awesome to have a Reason writer who published weekly (give or take) and took a longer view in his/her articles. Half of the reason that Reason seems caught up in the lefty issue of the day is because they spend most their writing effort playing reactionary to whatever the lefty MSM ginned up crisis du jour is. Other libertarian publications play long-ball better than Reason, and I think that Reason would do good by at least having one or two writers that published content that wasn’t directly linked to some article/journal/study that was published in the last 3 weeks.

            2. I can generally agree with you there. I do happen to agree more with the Reason staff than you do, I think. But there are definitely plenty of issues where reasonable libertarians can disagree and I agree that it would be nice to see someone making the other arguments a bit more, even if I don’t agree.

    3. Wait, but isn’t Reason supposed to be on the gun control train because they’re a bunch of urban hipster cosmos who rub shoulders with the proggies?

      As is always pointed out when these arguments are leveled at any particular writer; Reason is not defined by one writer’s opinions and/or vice versa. Further, just because one is not foaming at the mouth to take people’s guns away does not make them pro-2A or anti-progressive. Even the NRA is/was on the “label them mentally ill, then take their guns” train for a while.

      Not to indict Reason at large or definitively convict any other writer(s) but I’ve certainly heard sentiments along the lines of “using the internet and/or opposing abortions leads to shootings” out of Reason writers strongly suggesting a wholesale swallowing of ‘guns as boogeyman’ to the point where they question fundamental libertarian underpinnings.

      1. Both Gillespie and Doherty have said that Weld’s positions on gun control, while problematic are out weighed by the importance of his position on the overal size and scope of government. Yes, they may support gun rights in principle and in an ideal world want people to have them but they don’t view preserving those rights as something that is important much less non negotiable. Gun rights are one of those Libertarian issues to be traded away so that Libertarians can look reasonable and make headway on other more important issues.

        That is view of gun rights held by the majority of the staff. Sullmn might be the only exception to that.

        1. Both Gillespie and Doherty have said that Weld’s positions on gun control, while problematic are out weighed by the importance of his position on the overal size and scope of government.

          I don’t disagree. I think the hiccup or weak link in the chain of reasoning is the Johnson/Weld *ticket*. I wouldn’t agree, but I can understand tolerating a gun grabbing VP if it’s counter the campaign and/or party platform and the other tickets are similar, as bad, or worse. I don’t think supporting Bill Weld in any way shape or form definitively makes one (entire magazine) anti-gun.

          My point was that even absent such complex trade off schemes, you don’t have to look very far down the Reason roster to find a writer or regular contributor who has or would effectively give up *both* 1A and 2A rights because guns are scary. Even if you take the terrible two or three out of the list, you can still readily find a writer who would convert a win-lose libertarian solution to a lose-lose situation because guns. Rather openly saying things like owning guns isn’t an issue as much as having an opinion on abortion *and* owning guns.

          1. I can understand tolerating a gun grabbing VP but that is not what Doherty and Gillespie said. They dind’t say “sure Weld is bad but he is only the VP. ” They said “yes Weld doesn’t respect gun rights but he is still a good candidate because of his other views”. That is totally different than saying “hey Weld sucks but he serves a purpose.” Gillespie and Doherty both like Weld and don’t think he sucks.

  9. According to a new survey, about one-fifth of recent gun transfers in the United States occurred without a background check.

    I think that figure is likely low. Most people I know who own guns buy them from friends or family and never have background checks. I never have despite owning a fair number of weapons. The issue is not whether that number is true but whether it matters. Background checks don’t accomplish anything. So who cares if 100% of gun transfers occur without a background check? To argue this figure is to grant that it is important and that background checks accomplish anything. They don’t and this figure is not important no matter what it is.

  10. I hope to read the next your article update obat penggugur kandungan semarang Thank you for sharing in this article obat penggugur kandungan surabaya i like it!

  11. Duke University criminologist Philip Cook, who co-authored the 1997 study that was the source of the claim that “as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases…take place without a background check”…

    We’re fine so long as no one does anything stupid, like sell these weapons of mass destruction out of the Sears catalog or some shit. Could you imagine the mayhem?

    1. Look Hamster, the only thing keeping most people from machine gunning 2nd graders on playgrounds is the fact that the federal government keeps automatic weapons out of their hands. Didn’t you know that?

      1. I thought it was those magical “Gun Free Zone” signs.

  12. Bentley . true that Ashley `s blurb is good… last week I got Lotus Esprit sincee geting a check for $5815 this-last/five weeks and-even more than, ten/k lass-month . without a doubt it is the easiest work I’ve ever done . I began this seven months/ago and almost immediately startad earning minimum $77… per-hour . more tips here

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  13. The new estimate, which comes from a study reported this week in The Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on an online survey of 1,613 gun owners conducted in April 2015.

    So no one bothered to conduct any similar survey between 1997 and 2015 to update the 40% claim? Even to double-check how true it might be?

    I used to commission lots of survey work in a consulting practice and we were getting results from 10,000 people a week for companies, trade associations, advertising agences, NGOs, etc. … some clients were spending hundreds of thousands just *validating* or updating stale previous research, reiterating the same work with different cohorts, different geographies…. everyone in the business who used that kind of research treated it as dubious, unreliable, needing extensive & constant qualification

    When these advocacy groups rake in 10s of millions of dollar annually (like the “Everytown” types), yet can’t seem to spring for any solid, consistent, and up to date research? It just convinces me that they have absolutely no interest in the underlying reality they’re constantly screaming about. All they need to do is borrow some academic’s headline “wild guess” and run with that, until someone else happens to generate a different-but-better headline number to flog. They have zero interest in whether those data are *true* – they only care if the number is useful.

  14. why would anyone admit to aquiring a gun without a background check hence the flaw with the study

    1. Bingo. And how would the people conducting the study even know to ask them?

    2. Also, did anyone do background checks on the background checks?

      I’ve had dozens of background checks every time I bought a firearm! Hundreds of ’em. You won’t even believe how many background checks I’ve had. You would seriously be ill from the number of checks. I guarantee it.

  15. Fwiw. I have personally been involved in this process in my agency, as well as the CCW application process.the aspect of the process that causes MOST of the delay most of the time when it comes to the background check for CCW’s is the mental health checks.criminal stuff is RELATIVELY easy (NCIC, etc).

    I agree it’s a good litmus test for progressives etc who want to restore voting rights to convicted felons and/or who don’t think they should be denied the right to vote based on felony conviction (varies state to state of course…)

    the bright line should be – if it’s “minor” enough such that voting rights should be restored (or never taken in the first place), the same should apply to RKBA.

    of course with RKBA, there is FAR FAR FAR less due process and threshold required to rip away somebody’s rights- no criminal conviction at all is required – just a DV order… these orders are issued based on a Preponderance of evidence standard, a respondent has NO right to an attorney to defend against the issuance of one, and in many cases, an order (no contact) will be issued based on the order of a judge after an arrest, even AGAINST the wishes of the “victim”

    1. then of course you have the misdemeanor convictions that disqualify as well

      reason wanks about state power,but the ultimate power somebody has to take away your RKBA is simple – piss off your GF, boyfriend, spouse, exspouse, roommate, former roommate or anybody else who qualifies as “family or household member” under the VAWA, they apply for an order – if they win at the hearing to make it permanent- your rights go bye bye

      1. the ultimate power somebody has to take away your RKBA is simple

        Yep. Somewhere along the way, the 2nd Amendment turned “icky” and was relegated to a conditional right. Nothing makes it more clear than how quickly and easily your guns permanently go bye-bye when domestic violence is alleged.

    2. Laws prohibiting even violent felons from owning a gun accomplish nothing. If someone who has already been convicted of a felony is still willing to use a gun for criminal purposes, no law making it illegal for them to have a gun is going to keep them from obtaining a gun and using it in a crime. All these laws do is serve as sentence enhancers for felons on their second offense. That is it.

      It seems to me that depriving people of their rights is a pretty stupid way to get longer sentences against repeat offenders.

      1. It seems to me that depriving people of their rights is a pretty stupid way to get longer sentences against repeat offenders.

        Ding ding ding.

      2. As you point out, a law banning violent felons from owning guns can be used as a ‘preventative’ measure. Ie, no, we my not be able to stop him from acquiring a gun, but if he’s caught with one, we can send him back up the river.

        1. Except for that pesky 2nd Amendment that prohibits infringement of keeping and bearing firearms

      3. I will say based on my experience, many convicted felons purposefully avoid carrying a gun or even stealing a gun due to these laws.I have interrogated several burglars who admit, as convicted felons, they don’t even consider carrying a gun as they know the penalties are WAY more stiff than for unarmed burglary.i have seen several cases where handguns were in plain view and they didn’t take them.and later explained they didn’t steal the guns (but did steal the jewelry etc) because they knew getting caught with the gun massively increased their potential sentence.

        there are rational (and intelligent) actors among criminals… disproportionately we are less likely to arrest them and see them in court obviously. I can tell you they DO modify their behavior to avoid VUFA and like laws.

        Ironically,while a citizen has carte blanche in my state to blow away a burglar even if he makes no threatening moves apart from his mere presence, most are convicted felons and most are unarmed. vast majority in fact.

        1. Okay. Even if they avoid carrying a gun, they are still committing crimes aren’t they? Would they be doing anything different if they had a gun? What crime or harm would they be committing if they had a gun that they are already not committing?

          1. Would they be doing anything different if they had a gun?

            Yes, they’d be really tempted to use it when they are confronted. I have no problem saying that armed burglary is a different and more concerning class of crime than unarmed burglary.

            I get your point that breaking two laws isn’t much of a concern when they’re willing to break the first one, but 25 years for getting popped is a much different risk analysis than 5 years for getting popped.

            1. Understand that using a gun in a crime is a huge sentence enhancer whether you are a felon or not. If you go out and rob someone with a knife or your fists, you might only get a year or two in jail in many states even if you are not a first time offender. Go and do the same thing with a gun and you are looking at ten or more years in even the most liberal states. The same is true for drug crimes. Carrying a gun buys you a much longer sentence.

              So there already is a huge deterrence against using a gun while committing a crime. The examples that Dunphy gives are more likely the result of the criminals in question not wanting to use a gun to commit a crime at all rather than not wanting to carry one as a felon.

              1. So there already is a huge deterrence against using a gun while committing a crime.

                I think a decent counterpoint here is that there’s a very low/practical ceiling to the deterrent effect as well that people who generally disagree with the death penalty like to conveniently overlook.

                Chicago’s former police superintendent literally made the argument that gang members would be killed for losing a gun and, thus, had no compunction about shooting it out with officers rather than losing guns. He deliberately and obliviously goes on to say that a sensible way to combat this is to make gun ownership commensurately onerous in the first place.

                Even if you ignore the extreme sophistry, the notion that there is some manner of huge crime deterrent effect to such laws supposes that the felon expects not just to get caught in the crime, but caught by the police (as opposed to someone who would shoot or beat them), and significantly cares about the outcome if caught.

                1. gang members would be killed for losing a gun

                  That is to say, killed by other members of their gang for losing a gun.

        2. I will say based on my experience, many convicted felons purposefully avoid carrying a gun or even stealing a gun due to these laws.

          I can’t decide of you work for Interpol out of Switzerland, just small-town cop who finds the unarmed thieves easier and more convenient to nab than armed robbers, just plain dumb, or all three.

          Every year, somebody knocks off a railroad car in Chicago and takes between dozens and hundreds of guns and nothing else. UCR and crime research statistics consistently show correlations between firearm homicides and (previous) felony arrests. To the point where it’s not even really a question and is the basis for the laws John’s talking about.

          It’s like you’ve never even heard the phrase “If owning guns becomes a felony then only felons will own guns.” or heard it and just considered it to be a plain statement of logical fact rather than a nonsense tautology.

    3. mental health checks.

      unless someone has been involuntarily committed at some point, there’s no such thing as a “mental health check”.

      1. Really? Never paid for therapy, have you? That involves big checks.

  16. What’s interesting is no one looks at what a ‘universal background law’ actually looks like. They keep saying “purchases”. That’s not what your universal background law will look like. How do I know? Because I live under one.

    The lawyers that pen the law will pretty quickly realize that you and I can *wink*wink* give each other guns, or you can give me a gun as a gift and then sometime later I can give you cash that has nothing to do with the gun purchase because *wink*wink* there’s no actual “purchase” taking place.

    So the lawyers craft a law that uses the words “transfer” and refuse to define what a transfer means. Now you’re a potential felon for handing your neighbor a gun so he can look at it. The law enforcement priests will assure you that they won’t prosecute you for that, but will refuse to define what a “transfer” is.

    For the rest of you not living under this oppression, I’m telling you, don’t give a universal background check one millimeter of compromise, because you can only lose.

    1. Well the whole purpose of this “need to close the gunshow loophole” is that the only way to really police it is with a national gun registration system which is really their end game.

  17. Chemjeff argues in bad faith. You’ll see.

  18. It ain’t that hard. Shall not be infringed. End of story.
    If you want to see heads explode, suggest that a CCP should be required to vote. Same constitution, should be the same level of rights; but for one, even a picture ID is an oppressive burden, for the other, no limitation is too oppressive.
    Almost like they were lying about what they believe, and what they really want to accomplish.

    1. Almost like they were lying about what they believe, and what they really want to accomplish.

      For both gun safety and the right to vote.

  19. They will cite bogus [statistically sloppy, not peer reviewed, flawed conclusions, you name it] studies, in sound bytes, and that’s good enough for the proletariat

    You disagree then you are arguing with “settled science” and you are branded a heretic [in that “science” in all it’s specious forms is the new “religion” of the land]. You will also be accused of racism, misogyny, and of hating children. Expect it. It’s the new dogma.

    Politics gotta fix it; that means legislation [the stuff Schumer says he was “born” to do], funding, hiring, and a technocracy that knows better than you.

    Wash, rinse, repeat. Got it?

    There now; we have a better, cleaner, safer, and more fair world. Prog-topia here we come!

  20. One in five seems overblown. Are these supposed to be private sales, or are they counting sales in states where you can buy a gun at an FFL without a background check, as long as you show your concealed carry license (which you had to go through a background check to get/keep)?

  21. I bought multiple firearms in 2016 “without a background check” because my state’s concealed weapon permit qualifies as NICS exempt. Would this be considered a transfer without a background check?

    1. This is based on responses to a survey, so how many people in states where the CCW is a NICS exemption actually know that fact?

      I’d expect that most people who fill out the 4473 thinks of the form as a part of the background check, rather than a record of the sale.

      1. This is based on responses to a internet survey

        Which, despite not being called a census, registry, or database, is still pretty much the thing that plenty of gun owners and pro-2A people generally oppose.

        I strongly suspect the 1600 respondents were either pre-selected somehow or skimmed from a much larger pool of BFG-9000, railgun, and golden gun owners.

  22. “The headline is that we as a nation are closer to having a hundred percent of gun transactions with a background check than we might have thought,” Cook told The Trace.

    What kind of dickhead logic is that? Make up an alarmist number and then when corrected, use it as proof that disarmament is easy?

    Well, I can do that too Cook. Studies show* that 100% of all tax money goes directly to preventing America from being swallowed whole into the earth’s core and everybody dying!

    This just in: new proof is in that less than 0.1% of tax money actually goes to preventing America from being swallowed whole into the earth’s core and everybody dying!

    This goes to demonstrate that the consequences of no one paying taxes are not as severe as we thought. Abolish taxes!!!

    *as far as you know

  23. For me, gun control is a litmus test.

  24. We need “Universal Background Checks” for the 1st Amendment too!
    With a Mandatory Ten-Day Waiting Period.

  25. Even anti gunners, if pressed, will admit that the right to possess guns is a constitutional right. They disagree with such holding, which is their right to do. They also have the right to seek changes in the constitution.

    That said, how is it that the acquisition of firearms, a constitutional right, requires government permission, this background check is in effect government permission? No other constitutional right is so limited? I submit that members of the gun control cabal need to, in detail, answer this question.

  26. “According to a new survey, about one-fifth of recent gun transfers in the United States occurred without a background check. ”

    This cannot be an accurate representation. According to the Brady Act, anyone with a concealed-carry permit does not have to undergo a background check and at least 25 states follow this practice of waiving the background check for a CCP. CCP is increasingly popular, so it makes sense that a significant number of those transfers without a background check, in fact had a different background check under a different set of records. More than ten states have more than 8% of the entire state population owning a concealed carry permit. Florida alone has 1.3 million concealed carry permit holders.

  27. Dear NRA…..
    Stop “negotiating” excuses to INFRINGE on OUR RIGHTS.

    If there must be background checks, let’s try this idea…
    Are there any ‘legislators’ that are interested in a Constitutional Background Check?

    Since SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means exactly that..

    Let’s try a “Background Check” that DOES NOT INFRINGE on anybodies RIGHTS.. A FULL, IN DEPTH background check for ALL Politicians, Bureaucrats, and ALL government employees, and set MINIMAL INTELLIGENCE, JOB SKILLS AND CHARACTER QUALITIES that must be met before they can run for office, be appointed or hired.

    That way, WE, THE PEOPLE, get a much better class of politicians and bureaucrats, as well as EMPLOYEES that can be trained to do the jobs they are being hired for.

    Any bets on how hard the political class will fight to prevent it?

    THAT would be a Background Check that nearly ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS will support and I don’t much care if the illegals and their sycophants don’t like the idea.

    1. I don’t know.. It seems reasonable on its face, but do you really want bureaucrats and politicians to be smart and competent?

  28. There are over 370 “mental disorders” listed in the latest version of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) The list includes “Tobacco Addiction Disorder” among other equally mundane and ridiculous so-called “mental illnesses.”

    If the DSM is the standard by which politicians wishes to remove our rights to own guns, then I’d guess 90% of the American people could probably be classified with a mental disorder of one kind or another.

    BEWARE, BEWARE

    —-

    Mental health is the avenue to gun control..

    American Psychiatric Asso: Half of Americans are mentally ill..
    After crafting by politicians and Media all will be crazy except for them..

    300 million prescriptions for psychiatric drugs were written in 2009 alone..
    Your children on medication for ADHD?
    Single woman with children diagnosed with depression?

    be careful what you ask for

  29. a few points to ponder….. requiring ALL sales include BGC is stupid, and everyone who owns or uses guns knows it. My neighbour. whom I’ve known and trusted for decades will NOT require a BGC as far as I am concerned. Most transfers between family members are exempted by states requiring UBGC. COmmon sense. If Grandpa gives his cherished goose gun to Grandson, WHY a BGC? Again, stupid.

    Next, surveys… when I am contacted by them I generally decline. I know how they twist questions to skew results. Selecting the targetted population is also a good trick to skew a survey.

    In states not requring UBGC private sellers can legally sell guns at gun shows… so the statement they are almost universally checked is inaccurate.

    A surveyor will NEVER get a positive answer from me admitting I engaged in illegal activity. I’d either falsify my answer or hang up.

    1. One serious question regarding UBGC… for we who have paid the money and uo with the dog and pony show and gotten our Mother May I Card to carry concealed, WHY do we have to endure a new BGC every time we buy a new gun? EVERYONE knows that the local LE who signed off on that Card will hop in his car and pay me a visit if every ay hint that I’ve done something that disqualifies me from owning guns…. because then they get to take all of mine. So WHY must we do a new BGC if I bought a gun last week? This, once more is STUPID. OR, if anyone has bought a gun and had BGC in the last year, show that record and no new BGC required.

      Second serious question: WHY do they REQUIRE the identifying information on the gun being acquired on the 4473 form? Either I am qualified to purchase any gun legal to own in the US, or I’m not. If yes, the gun information is not relevant. If not, it still isn’t relevant, and the sale won’t go through. WHY do they need the specific info on what gun I am buying? The very fact they do tells me they’re up to no good. There is only ONE reason for this: it lays one key foundation stone for eventual gun registry. Needs to end.

  30. Do You want to get good income at home? do you not know how to start earnings on Internet? there are some popular methods to earn huge income at your home, but when people try that, they bump into a scam so I thought i must share a verified and guaranteed way for free to earn a great sum of money at home. Anyone who is interested should read the given article…
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.homejobs7.com

  31. my roomate’s step-mother makes $72 every hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her check was $13623 just working on the computer for a few hours. blog here

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  32. uptil I saw the paycheck for $7608 , I accept that…my… friend woz realey bringing home money in there spare time on their apple labtop. . there aunts neighbour has done this for under 18 months and at present paid the loans on there house and purchased a new Chrysler . Check This Out

    ==================== http://www.homejobs7.com

  33. I bought brand new RED Ferreri by working ONline work. Six month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then 98$/hr i can’t beleive. But when i start this job i have to beleived herNow i am also making 98$/hr if you want to try just check this out…..

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  34. Nevaeh. I agree that Richard`s storry is shocking… last wednesday I got a great BMW M3 from earning $5318 this-past/4 weeks and just a little over 10/k lass month. without a question it is the most comfortable job Ive ever had. I began this 10-months ago and pretty much straight away got me at least $83, p/h. see here now

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  35. There is another “loophole” via which a significant number of firearms transfers can legally be conducted without the magical panacea background check: a number of states have come into compliance with federal standards such that their Mother May I Cards, (issued to grant “permission” for their residents to exercise their RIGHT to BEAR arms as guaranteed under the Second Article of Ammendment) exempt their holders from the federal background check on the premise that these cardholders have not only been subected to background checks far more stringent than the NICS check to buy a gun, but also that law enforcement keep such cardholders under closer scrutiny that they do the non-cardholding public. I wonder how many of those transfers “without background checks” fall under that category?

    Under “once a felon always a felon thus no rights” thinking, the date of the offense matters naught. Apply the same logic to everyone who buys one gun in any given year, so, no NEW background check need be made for the remainder of that year? Or why not the five to seven years state driving licenses remain valid? WHY mandate a new check today when I just passed one last week? Last month? Last year? Trust me, if anyone DOES get charged wiht a felony, the law enforcement folk in his home jurisdiction get word quickly, typically within a day or so. It is, and has been, a felony for such persons to buy (or attempt to buy, but how often is THIS enforced?) any firearm or ammunition.

    1. No, the only REAL reason to demand BGC for each purchase is NOT to log the fact Charlie bought a new gun. No, it is to log WHICH GUN(S) Charlie just bought,. Do not be deceived. WHY are the particulars of each gun purchased REQUIRED to be on the form? A firearm is a firearm. The BGC is alledgedly to check the BUYER. If Charlie gets the “proceed” code from NICS, what difference does it make, at this point, which guns, or how many, he buys? If HE can lawfully purchase, then the gun grabbers are happy, right? Not so…. they ALSO want to know WHICH ONES he bought. I’ll leave the gentle reader to speculate on what advantage might accrue to government on that issue. WE know……

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.