POLL: Would you support or oppose 'universal background checks?'

[baldopepper]

Gringo31 you're on the right track.  All the talk of is it fair, will it stop criminals etc, etc is irrelevant if it goes to to a referendum vote.  These types of ideas that we may not totally like, but can maybe live with are far better than letting a referendum vote go the the general public in this state. (dosent matter what your opinion of the voters in this state is, it's the reality of what's likely to happen that matters-see leg hold trap legislation, hound hunting legislation if you want proof) I think it's time to think thru something we can live with and go to the legislators with it.  People living north of Everett, east of North Bend and south of Tacoma have some say there, but none if it goes to a general vote. That's just the way it is in Washington, take it or leave it.

[flinger]

Background checks
 Sure

[huntnphool]

It's completely unenforceable without maintaining a list of gun owners. This is why I oppose it. I could back gun show checks if the government could guarantee the information would be flushed once the check came back positive. But private sales can't work like that. It's not when the sale is made that's the problem. It's when there's a problem involving that gun. How would the seller be able to prove he'd had a background check pass for the person if all records had been expunged? He wouldn't be able to and it would be his word against a prosecutor.

+1, the ones committing these crimes are not going to be subject to a background check, so what is the point of making the people that are not committing these crimes go through one?

[magnanimous_j]

Pianoman has it right. Withput a regestry list this is not enforceable. If they cannot prove who owns the gun now, How can they prove it was sold illegally? There are millions of guns in private ownership no agency anywhere knows who owns what.
Carl

Not necessarily. A background check is not the same as a gun registry. The purpose of a background check is to see if the person is currently legal to buy a gun. It doesn’t necessarily have to record the transaction at all. The check could be done, the buyer cleared, the seller gets some portion of the form that proves a background check was done and the record purged at some point in the near future.

I’m not saying that is what will happen, but a background check can be done without a resulting registry.

[huntnphool]

Pianoman has it right. Withput a regestry list this is not enforceable. If they cannot prove who owns the gun now, How can they prove it was sold illegally? There are millions of guns in private ownership no agency anywhere knows who owns what.
Carl

Not necessarily. A background check is not the same as a gun registry. The purpose of a background check is to see if the person is currently legal to buy a gun. It doesn’t necessarily have to record the transaction at all. The check could be done, the buyer cleared, the seller gets some portion of the form that proves a background check was done and the record purged at some point in the near future.

I’m not saying that is what will happen, but a background check can be done without a resulting registry.

But without a registry there is no way to prove a buyer has undergone one, and once again this will only effect those that don't need to be checked anyway.

[Gringo31]

IF they do it the way I suggested, we ALL have our right free and clear unless it is removed from us due to something WE have individually done.  Only thing it would require is a special punch to be issued to the court house.

[magnanimous_j]

Pianoman has it right. Withput a regestry list this is not enforceable. If they cannot prove who owns the gun now, How can they prove it was sold illegally? There are millions of guns in private ownership no agency anywhere knows who owns what.
Carl

Not necessarily. A background check is not the same as a gun registry. The purpose of a background check is to see if the person is currently legal to buy a gun. It doesn’t necessarily have to record the transaction at all. The check could be done, the buyer cleared, the seller gets some portion of the form that proves a background check was done and the record purged at some point in the near future.

I’m not saying that is what will happen, but a background check can be done without a resulting registry.

But without a registry there is no way to prove a buyer has undergone one.

Let’s say the background check form is a government provided document. The first page is the form and the second page is two post card like sheets that have a serial number on them. The serial numbers on the cards match the serial number on the first page. The background check is processed and approved, then the data is dumped except for one line that says “Application number 0000001 is approved, 05/01/2013.” Then the buyer and the seller both take a card and keep it for their records. If legally compelled, either the buyer or the seller can produce the card and the serial number can be fed to the database that will say “Application number 0000001 is approved, 05/01/2013.” In that way, it’s not that different than what happens when you buy a gun from a shop now.

Again, I’m not saying it’s way it will go. Only that it can be done.

[huntnphool]

This way, everyone has the right to keep and bear arms unless you've done something which has removed that right from you

This way......its NOT about the guns, but about the people who have them. 

Thoughts?

Um...............this is a great idea............maybe that's why it's already in place.

[Gringo31]

Yes, but there is no quick check to see if there is an issue....hence the punch.....

[huntnphool]

Pianoman has it right. Withput a regestry list this is not enforceable. If they cannot prove who owns the gun now, How can they prove it was sold illegally? There are millions of guns in private ownership no agency anywhere knows who owns what.
Carl

Not necessarily. A background check is not the same as a gun registry. The purpose of a background check is to see if the person is currently legal to buy a gun. It doesn’t necessarily have to record the transaction at all. The check could be done, the buyer cleared, the seller gets some portion of the form that proves a background check was done and the record purged at some point in the near future.

I’m not saying that is what will happen, but a background check can be done without a resulting registry.

But without a registry there is no way to prove a buyer has undergone one.

Let’s say the background check form is a government provided document. The first page is the form and the second page is two post card like sheets that have a serial number on them. The serial numbers on the cards match the serial number on the first page. The background check is processed and approved, then the data is dumped except for one line that says “Application number 0000001 is approved, 05/01/2013.” Then the buyer and the seller both take a card and keep it for their records. If legally compelled, either the buyer or the seller can produce the card and the serial number can be fed to the database that will say “Application number 0000001 is approved, 05/01/2013.” In that way, it’s not that different than what happens when you buy a gun from a shop now.

Again, I’m not saying it’s way it will go. Only that it can be done.

Your effort is commendable Mags but as I've stated many times it will only effect you and I, the criminal intent on his actions will not be effected or deterred.

 The other potential problem it presents is a liability issue, should you or I ever lose the documentation we are supposed to now be responsible for for the rest of of our lives. It's just a added burden that we, as law abiding citizens, should not be subjected to, since we are not the problem to begin with.

[huntnphool]

Yes, but there is no quick check to see if there is an issue....hence the punch.....

And there are no fake or stolen ID's available out there right?

[CP]

Yes, but there is no quick check to see if there is an issue....hence the punch.....

And there are no fake or stolen ID's available out there right?

Everyone that is ineligible could have CRIMINAL or LUNATIC tattooed on their forehead.   No tattoo = good to go.  Simple.

[huntnphool]

Yes, but there is no quick check to see if there is an issue....hence the punch.....

And there are no fake or stolen ID's available out there right?

Everyone that is ineligible could have CRIMINAL or LUNATIC tattooed on their forehead.   No tattoo = good to go.  Simple.

 Now you're getting deep, maybe we should begin discussing Revelations 

[SGTDuffman]

As has been said this law would be completely unenforcable without gun registration. It's all based on the honor system anyways, which only works for honorable people. There is absolutely no way for them to know if I sold a gun to you before or after this law went into effect, unless they require complete and mandatory registration of all guns.

Say this passed and they say universal background checks are now mandatory, what's to say I can't just say I sold the gun before that was the case. Now prove to me how they would know if that's true or not without registration. It's easy to predate a bill of sale or the like. This law is pointless without registration, which I assure you, would be swiftly coming as an amendment if they managed to pass it.

According to the Department of Justice something like 0.7% of guns used in the commission of crimes were obtained from gun shows. The people would be far better served by enforcing current laws, than creating new ones that can't be enforced. 39.6% of criminals gets their guns from family or friends, and 39.2% get their guns from the streets or illegal sources. Maybe we close that "loophole" first, and punish the friends and family members who knowingly or negligently allowed their firearms to make it into the hands of a known criminal, and don't tell me their friends and family didn't know they were a criminal. Seems to me getting 40% of illegally possessed firearms off the street would do far more good than removing 0.7% of them.

The Department of Justice Report

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

This nonsense about gun show loopholes or internet sales is getting old. Any gun sold at a gun show, at least on the western half of this state, is regulated by Washington Arms Collectors. Only members may participate in sales at gun shows in western Washington. All members are backgrounded. So there are no sales at gun shows that are not already run through a background check, at least on the western half of this state. Internet sales must also pass through an FFL before transfer to the purchaser. Don't buy into the media garbage man. They like to scare people with contrived nonsense. They'll parade children and family members across the screen all day and outright lie to get what they want. Criminals by definition don't follow the law, what's one more law going to do? It's illegal for them to posses a gun, but they do it anyways. It's illegal to conceal the weapon without a permit, but they do that too. It's illegal to brandish the weapon, but they do that. It's illegal to rob/rape/murder/assault/threaten, but they do all of that. What difference is it really going to make to say it was also illegal for them to illegally buy the gun they already weren't allowed to have without a background check that is completely unenforcable?

[huntnphool]

As has been said this law would be completely unenforcable without gun registration. It's all based on the honor system anyways, which only works for honorable people. There is absolutely no way for them to know if I sold a gun to you before or after this law went into effect, unless they require complete and mandatory registration of all guns.

Say this passed and they say universal background checks are now mandatory, what's to say I can't just say I sold the gun before that was the case. Now prove to me how they would know if that's true or not without registration. It's easy to predate a bill of sale or the like. This law is pointless without registration, which I assure you, would be swiftly coming as an amendment if they managed to pass it.

According to the Department of Justice something like 0.7% of guns used in the commission of crimes were obtained from gun shows. The people would be far better served by enforcing current laws, than creating new ones that can't be enforced. 39.6% of criminals gets their guns from family or friends, and 39.2% get their guns from the streets or illegal sources. Maybe we close that "loophole" first, and punish the friends and family members who knowingly or negligently allowed their firearms to make it into the hands of a known criminal, and don't tell me their friends and family didn't know they were a criminal. Seems to me getting 40% of illegally possessed firearms off the street would do far more good than removing 0.7% of them.

The Department of Justice Report

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

This nonsense about gun show loopholes or internet sales is getting old. Any gun sold at a gun show, at least on the western half of this state, is regulated by Washington Arms Collectors. Only members may participate in sales at gun shows in western Washington. All members are backgrounded. So there are no sales at gun shows that are not already run through a background check, at least on the western half of this state. Internet sales must also pass through an FFL before transfer to the purchaser. Don't buy into the media garbage man. They like to scare people with contrived nonsense. They'll parade children and family members across the screen all day and outright lie to get what they want. Criminals by definition don't follow the law, what's one more law going to do? It's illegal for them to posses a gun, but they do it anyways. It's illegal to conceal the weapon without a permit, but they do that too. It's illegal to brandish the weapon, but they do that. It's illegal to rob/rape/murder/assault/threaten, but they do all of that. What difference is it really going to make to say it was also illegal for them to illegally buy the gun they already weren't allowed to have without a background check that is completely unenforcable?

BINGO!