Enhanced background checks?

JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior MemberPosts: 6,636 Senior Member
The recent school shooting has brought this into the spotlight again. I keep hearing about improving background checks, but have yet to hear anyone put forth any details. I know there's talk of universal background checks, which, I guess, would mandate that ANY transfer of ANY firearm between two parties must include a check. This means, I guess, that if two individuals, neither of which hold an FFL, want to buy/sell a firearm from/to the other, they have to find an FFL holder and pay that person to run the check. That results in additional cost as well as a hassle. OTOH, there's no real way to enforce it short of some sort of undercover operation.

That law was passed in Colorado several years ago, but I don't know what impact it has had. Colorado also closed the so called gun show loophole years ago, and I don't think it has caused a problem with buying guns. I bought a few while I lived there, and didn't see it as an excessive burden. I had to pay a bit more, but the wait time was just a few minutes, and the Colorado Bureau of Investigations ran the check rather than the FBI, and the checks went smoothly and quickly.

But, to my point, what additional information could the government collect that would improve background checks? Some of what is asked, such as mental illness questions, is not verifiable due to that pesky doctor patient confidentiality thing. If the answer to one of the questions is not a matter of public record, I don't see how one could not get away with lying. And, I don't see how it would prevent the straw-man purchases (same for universal background checks). If one is so inclined to break the law, how does a background check stop that?

So would someone please tell me what changes should be made to background checks to make our country safer from liars, thieves, criminals and nut cases, none of which respect or obey the law?
Jerry

Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
«1

Replies

  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,212 Senior Member
    I'm still not hearing a damn thing about the feds prosecuting anyone found lying on a 4473....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,791 Senior Member
    I will say that approximately half the firearms I own were purchased without a background check. Right now it is super easy for someone who is not allowed to obtain a firearm to get one. That said mandating bg checks still probably doesn't do a ton to make it harder. Definitely a bit but not enough to stop a determined person. Most of the people who we're worried about would pass a background check anyway so it doesn't matter much for them either. This is mostly feel good legislation, but I would say with as large as the loopholes are now, the existing background check system is virtually worthless anyway because the internet has made it so easy to find private sales that circumvent it.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,190 Senior Member
    Feel good Bullsqueeze is what it is. They could save more lives by denying the purchase of motor vehicles by drunk drivers.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,351 Senior Member
    My thing is, they can't get what they got going now to work. The existing system would have worked in a large number of these shootings but someone somewhere screwed up. How is enhanced background checks going to work when they do it half-assed?
  • BAMAAKBAMAAK Senior Member Posts: 4,320 Senior Member
    They should enhance it on the gov't end. Less mistakes means less people who should not have a gun getting them. Make it known that if a felon tries to buy a gun from an FFL and comes back as a felon, the police will show up to take them into custody. But the NICS folks need to be held accountable for their mistakes too.
    "He only earns his freedom and his life Who takes them every day by storm."

    -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,195 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    How is enhanced background checks going to work when they do it half-assed?
    are. How "are" enhanced background checks going to work... You okay, Jerm? You've made a few grammatical mistakes lately, both with conflicting tenses and plural/singular conflicts.


    Anyway, to your last question which I highlighted (not due to the mistake): maybe that's the plan? Maybe they don't want the system to work? Maybe they want it to fail?
    Overkill is underrated.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,351 Senior Member
    are. How "are" enhanced background checks going to work... You okay, Jerm? You've made a few grammatical mistakes lately, both with conflicting tenses and plural/singular conflicts.


    Anyway, to your last question which I highlighted (not due to the mistake): maybe that's the plan? Maybe they don't want the system to work? Maybe they want it to fail?
    Sorry. I am working on estimates and doing this at the same time.

    But yea, by doing it half-ass, conservatives can claim they did something without really doing anything while liberals can claim that it does not work and push for additional restrictions. As a result, the American people will lose yet again.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,733 Senior Member
    According to statistics that Fox News put out, 20% of felons are intentionally not being added to the database. Do it right before you start adding on to it.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Making private firearm transfers illegal without asking "Mommy May I" will be about as successful as making it illegal to make/sell/possess alcohol- - - -even if they amend the Constitution to do it. All of us know how well that worked out! I wonder how many dummycraps have a pesky pot possession felony arrest lurking somewhere in their past that would disqualify them to vote, hold office, or buy a gun?
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,212 Senior Member
    BAMAAK wrote: »
    They should enhance it on the gov't end. Less mistakes means less people who should not have a gun getting them. Make it known that if a felon tries to buy a gun from an FFL and comes back as a felon, the police will show up to take them into custody. But the NICS folks need to be held accountable for their mistakes too.

    I take a harder line...if a person fills out a 4473 and the NICS check comes back refused...this is a huge yellow flag..worthy of a peek by law enforcement. If investigation reveals the person lied on the 4473 , they have committed a federal felony and need to be prosecuted....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    I am wondering why some idiot hasn’t offered legislation with having to have a Federal Firearm Owner I D card? Make the ATF bigger and more invasive and have gun owners have to beg for permission like we do with NFA items. Back when Odumba was in it surprised me with him supposedly being from Chicago and IL having the FOID thing he didn’t try it on the Federal level.
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,351 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    I take a harder line...if a person fills out a 4473 and the NICS check comes back refused...this is a huge yellow flag..worthy of a peek by law enforcement. If investigation reveals the person lied on the 4473 , they have committed a federal felony and need to be prosecuted....
    I thought is how the current laws are supposed to work.
  • shootbrownelkshootbrownelk Senior Member Posts: 2,026 Senior Member
    NCFUBAR wrote: »
    I am wondering why some idiot hasn’t offered legislation with having to have a Federal Firearm Owner I D card? Make the ATF bigger and more invasive and have gun owners have to beg for permission like we do with NFA items. Back when Odumba was in it surprised me with him supposedly being from Chicago and IL having the FOID thing he didn’t try it on the Federal level.

    Yes indeed, the Chicago & Illinois FOID system. That certainly works in reducing gun violence in Chicago.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,190 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    I thought is how the current laws are supposed to work.

    The system is SUPPOSED to work like that, but it HASN'T WORKED LIKE THAT since GCA 1968 was passed. ATF and LE don't give a rat's crusty butt about lying on the Form 4473 UNLESS they can use the person as a snitch/stooge to entrap someone bigger. Otherwise, THEY DON'T CARE! Never have cared, and never will care.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,212 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    I thought is how the current laws are supposed to work.

    They are, but they are seldom, if ever, prosecuted....not sexy enough cases more most Federal Prosecutors..
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,636 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    They are, but they are seldom, if ever, prosecuted....not sexy enough cases more most Federal Prosecutors..

    At least not until someone commits a mass murder who should have been prosecuted for lying on his background check form. Then it will be all over the news, and the press will be on it like a duck on a june bug.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 19,019 Senior Member
    Just another small chip out of the Second Amendment to give the liberals and soccer moms a warm, fuzzy case of "the feels" and doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to solve the problem
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • ArmoredmanArmoredman Member Posts: 351 Member
    Would EBC be like double secret probation?
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,503 Senior Member
    Armoredman wrote: »
    Would EBC be like double secret probation?

    No. Double secret probation is what you get when you fall the background check and are a convicted (but misunderstood) felon. The shaft is what you get if you're anybody else, especially if you have an "arsenal", (which, as we all know is more than three guns).... God forbid you should have more than one building on your p property, er.... I mean "compound". :roll:
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • SkolnickSkolnick Member Posts: 47 Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    I'm still not hearing a damn thing about the feds prosecuting anyone found lying on a 4473....

    On May 13, 1999, Janet Reno said, "Since the passage of the Brady Law, over a quarter of a million felons, fugitives and other people who should not have guns have been stopped from buying them. And violent crimes committed with firearms have dropped by 27%."

    Since the Brady Bill has not been repealed, the crimes in the news should have been thwarted by the Brady Bill.

    And there should have been a quarter of a million arrests of felons and fugitives.

    As of May 27, 1999, the Justice Department had prosecuted one (1) person under the Brady Bill and about 20 unsupervised juveniles who were caught with a firearm out of an estimated 20,000 cases.
  • john9001john9001 Senior Member Posts: 668 Senior Member
    [QUOTE=alphasigmookie;723323, because the internet has made it so easy to find private sales that circumvent it.[/QUOTE]

    That was proven to be not true.
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 23,987 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Feel good Bullsqueeze is what it is. They could save more lives by denying the purchase of motor vehicles by drunk drivers.

    And outlawing cell phones turned on while driving.
    A Veteran is someone that served in the Military, it does not matter where they served.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,190 Senior Member
    NN wrote: »
    And outlawing cell phones turned on while driving.

    There's a fix for that already. Just needs to be installed as standard equipment on vehicles...........which would be promptly disconnected by someone who will post a how-to video on Youtube.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • ArmoredmanArmoredman Member Posts: 351 Member
    john9001 wrote: »
    That was proven to be not true.

    Yep, 72 tries, 72 fails.
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,636 Senior Member
    Trump was talking about strengthening background checks to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. I like Trump, be he has to know that is nothing more than political bs. Unless someone's mental illness is a matter of public record, there's no way to know if someone is mentally ill. Add to that the problem of where do you draw the line to determine if someone is unfit. If they're on anti-depressants, does that make them unfit to own a gun? What about other medications.

    It would be nice to have a crystal ball that could distinguish between mentally sound and mentally unsound when they fill out their background check form, but I have yet to see one of those. Simply put, I don't see how a background check can be strengthened to weed out such folks.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 7,099 Senior Member
    Ok. . .so assuming all this goes perfectly - and that's a HUGE assume - you only catch the people that have ALREADY been officially found to be crazy or criminal.

    And what guidelines do we have that keep nervous old blue haired Mrs. Neighborhood Watch from calling in on you and greatly complicating your life because you disagreed on the state of your lawn and she saw you loading a gun case into your car once or twice?

    Nope. No potential for civil liberties violations here AT ALL.:roll:
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • ArmoredmanArmoredman Member Posts: 351 Member
    There was a bill here in AZ to do the confiscation for mental illness. One of the criteria listed in the bill that wanting to purchase a firearm was a sign of mental illness. Needless to say, it dies a quick death.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,190 Senior Member
    If local, state, and Federal LE actually did their jobs in keeping the database for NCIS updated, AND they also did their job regarding firearms laws (about 20,000 and counting) ALREADY passed into law, then there wouldn't be a real problem.

    The FL school shooter was investigated for domestic violence several times. Even ONE arrest and conviction would have banned him from ever legally owning a firearm. But the local cops dropped the ball on that one repeatedly. The FBI was warned at least twice that he was talking about shooting up a school. They dropped the ball.

    All I've seen so far in the reason he got as far as he did is simple. Local, State, and Federal LE were really busy like a bunch of monkeys fornicating that football to the point that they didn't even bother to do their jobs.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,733 Senior Member
    Universal background checks, on their face, sound like a very reasonable addition to what already exists, assuming that everybody was executing it properly. At least, many reasonable people who don't keep up with the issue think that.

    So, assuming that they were right, what about the millions of guns that have already been swapped or bought from an individual, or handed down from a relative? If the new law only governs transactions that are made after the bill becomes law, then used gun (those that were purchased new, before the bill) transactions can continue, by simply claiming that the transaction was made before the bill passed. That makes the bill too weak to be of any value, in the eyes of gun control advocates.

    On the other hand, if they make it retroactive, i.e. require previous undocumented transactions to be accounted for, the feds either have to confiscate the guns that they come in contact with, even though they were actually acquired legally. Or, even worse, they could require all guns to be registered, so as to document the ones that didn't go through the FFL system (again), To determine that, they have to require FFL's to submit the data from their bound books, for audit. We all recognize registration as the last thing  socialists or fascists do, prior to confiscating them all.

    Of course, they already know who has purchased a firearm from a dealer, and most of us probably believe that they have a great deal more information, due to BATFE examinations over the last few years, many or most of which have gone beyond what the rules allow.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,733 Senior Member
    Duh. Never mind. I just typed three well thought out paragraphs and lost it when I tried to edit out one word.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.