This has been bugging me for a while, I've finally been able to articulate what's so stupid about the whole concept of universal background checks.
<rant>
Let's assume for a moment that we live in a world where a licence is required for owning guns. (like Massachusetts)
By requiring a licence to posses a gun, we *already have* universal background checks.
The whole *point* of a licence is that the bearer has been pre-checked. That's why you carry a driver's licence, that's why people who go through special screening get to skip a lot of TSA crap. The entire reason to have a licensing system is to pre-check people.
If every single sale has to be checked at the time it happens, why bother with a licensing system at all?
The new law as written would require we use a computer to check a state database before a transfer to make sure that the buyer and seller are both legal.
But how is that different than having a card that says we're legal?
It isn't, see "the point of licensing", above.
There's a couple edges cases:
- Someone forges an LTC. This problem can be solved by making the licences hard to forge, like a driver's licence.
- Someone commits some crime, *gets caught*, and then tries to buy a gun in the time between when he gets caught and the police come and arrest him or confiscate his card. That's a pretty small window. I'm having trouble seeing how this one happens. We could add "or sell" to this, but really, we don't care if bad people get rid of guns, right? Isn't bad people getting rid of guns a good thing?
- Someone becomes a prohibited person unknowingly (e.g. 209(a)), and law enforcement don't bother to arrest him or confiscate his licence. If whatever someone did isn't bad enough for the police to bother doing their job, it's hard to argue it's important enough for anyone else to do it for them.
So... what do we get for universal background checks?
Absolutely nothing in terms of public safety, it just harrasses people
who have done nothing wrong, and have already gone though the effort
of getting an LTC.
Now let's assume we live in a world where a licence is *not* required,
like Vermont or Alaska.
Say you wanted to make sure that "bad people" didn't get guns. (a reasonable want)
One way to do that is to open up the NICS system to anyone who wanted to use it. Make it a requirement that you verify that someone who is not known to you isn't a prohibited person before transfering a gun.
I'd be more or less OK with that law. (with some conditions)
- It's already illegal to knowingly transfer to a prohibited person
- It wouldn't be registration (no data about the firearm is part of the check other than the type)
- It would allow me to make sure I'm not handing a gun to a known thug if I didn't know the buyer well enough for my comfort level.
- If you know the person (personally or through reputation) you'd not be required to check.
</rant>
<rant>
Let's assume for a moment that we live in a world where a licence is required for owning guns. (like Massachusetts)
By requiring a licence to posses a gun, we *already have* universal background checks.
The whole *point* of a licence is that the bearer has been pre-checked. That's why you carry a driver's licence, that's why people who go through special screening get to skip a lot of TSA crap. The entire reason to have a licensing system is to pre-check people.
If every single sale has to be checked at the time it happens, why bother with a licensing system at all?
The new law as written would require we use a computer to check a state database before a transfer to make sure that the buyer and seller are both legal.
But how is that different than having a card that says we're legal?
It isn't, see "the point of licensing", above.
There's a couple edges cases:
- Someone forges an LTC. This problem can be solved by making the licences hard to forge, like a driver's licence.
- Someone commits some crime, *gets caught*, and then tries to buy a gun in the time between when he gets caught and the police come and arrest him or confiscate his card. That's a pretty small window. I'm having trouble seeing how this one happens. We could add "or sell" to this, but really, we don't care if bad people get rid of guns, right? Isn't bad people getting rid of guns a good thing?
- Someone becomes a prohibited person unknowingly (e.g. 209(a)), and law enforcement don't bother to arrest him or confiscate his licence. If whatever someone did isn't bad enough for the police to bother doing their job, it's hard to argue it's important enough for anyone else to do it for them.
So... what do we get for universal background checks?
Absolutely nothing in terms of public safety, it just harrasses people
who have done nothing wrong, and have already gone though the effort
of getting an LTC.
Now let's assume we live in a world where a licence is *not* required,
like Vermont or Alaska.
Say you wanted to make sure that "bad people" didn't get guns. (a reasonable want)
One way to do that is to open up the NICS system to anyone who wanted to use it. Make it a requirement that you verify that someone who is not known to you isn't a prohibited person before transfering a gun.
I'd be more or less OK with that law. (with some conditions)
- It's already illegal to knowingly transfer to a prohibited person
- It wouldn't be registration (no data about the firearm is part of the check other than the type)
- It would allow me to make sure I'm not handing a gun to a known thug if I didn't know the buyer well enough for my comfort level.
- If you know the person (personally or through reputation) you'd not be required to check.
</rant>