We have to have rules that don't end at the city line....
Background Checks
- Thread starter NightSwimmer
- Start date
We have to have rules that don't end at the city line....
marvin martian
Emperor
NightSwimmer
Senator
I would have no problem with requiring background checks that were thusly limited in scope. Are you aware of any documentation to indicate that either existing or proposed background checks are/would be limited in such a manner? I'm not. It worries me that so many support the idea of background checks without any knowledge whatsoever of what they actually entail.
I'd like to know more about your definition of "violent crime". Would that include having been arrested for getting into a fist fight with your obnoxious brother in law? Does "committed to a mental institution" include a woman being involuntarily held in a hospital to monitor for depression after having suffered a miscarriage? These things are all black&white in the abstract. Real people are not always so simple.
I personally know some, and I have inferred that others fit this description based upon the totality of their commentary on the subject.
I probably could, but what would be the point. I wasn't referring to those who openly advocate for the elimination of private gun ownership, but those who would like to reach that goal in baby steps, fearing that exposing their true ambition would not be so effective a tactic for attaining their goal.
Mytzlplk
Governor
I don't see anything to fear, given that I've seen no movement towards further restrictions other than ending the private sale hole. We may see more on the mental health front, but that's about it.
Methinks Heller went a long, long way towards preventing the realization of your fears http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/12/19/177938/supreme-court-rulings-limit-options.html
Methinks Heller went a long, long way towards preventing the realization of your fears http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/12/19/177938/supreme-court-rulings-limit-options.html
NightSwimmer
Senator
I don't consider it fear, so much as reasoned concern.
Rules on background checks also apply to those attempting to get a gun....too bad you can still answer ads in the paper or just go hang out in the parking lot of the local gun show....and get a gun without a background check....
What do you think about a paroled felon being able to buy a gun without a background check? Would you prefer we make that a little harder to do? I would.
marvin martian
Emperor
That depends on where you live. ALL firearms purchases in California (where I live) must go through a licensed dealer and are ALL subject to a DOJ background check and a ten day waiting period. And, of course, there is no gun crime in California, so it must be working out great! The entire country should be exactly like Los Angeles in terms of crime, wouldn't that be great?
Mytzlplk
Governor
well, let's not quibble over such.
I don't think whatever you prefer to describe it as ever coming as close to being realized as say, the very real and demonstratable two-tiered (or more) criminal justice system we have in this country based largely on the same factor -- how much money you have.
I don't think whatever you prefer to describe it as ever coming as close to being realized as say, the very real and demonstratable two-tiered (or more) criminal justice system we have in this country based largely on the same factor -- how much money you have.
NightSwimmer
Senator
That is, indeed, the environment from which I express my concerns. I've witnessed a great deal of personal liberty dissipate into thin air during my lifetime.
Arkady
President
Some NRA types say they support background checks....but want them so watered-down or exclusionary to be useless. Trap for instance doesn't want them to be implemented for "private sales" because he "fears it will lead to registration".
It's like when they talk about 'keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill".....but if you add "paranoia" into the list of mental illnesses that disqualify you from getting a weapon?
You eliminate half of the Gun Right.
I came up with a method of enforcing background checks in private sales without requiring registration. It's not as good as a full registration system, which I advocate, but it would be better than nothing.
Here's how it works. Any person buying a gun would need to get a certificate authorizing the purchase. The certificate would be produced by a government computer system, which would run a background check on the purchaser. Assuming the background check was passed, the system would produce a certificate of authorization, which would include an authorization number that embedded into it encoded information about the identity of the owner, and the serial number of the gun. The government system would not store any of this information (thus no registration), and the mathematical algorithm for creating the authorization number would not be reversible (a simple thing to manage, mathematically). In other words, if you knew the authentication number, you couldn't use it to tell you who owned that authentication number. But, what you could do is run a person's information against the number and find out if he's someone who could possibly have produced that authentication number -- similar to the way that knowing the blood type of a child can't be used to figure out who the child's father is, but can sometimes be used to figure out that a certain person CAN'T be the father.
The seller would then be required to enter the authentication number and the buyer's name, his own authentication number for that gun (received when he bought it), plus the serial number of the gun into an authentication app, which would run a simple mathematical algorithm that would confirm whether the buyer's data set could have created that number, while checking the government database to confirm the authentication number is a genuine one that has been issued (with each being unique). Only if the app confirms authenticity (and thus confirms that the buyer is allowed to buy that gun, and that the gun isn't already contraband) is the seller permitted to make the sale.
The whole process would only take a few seconds. However, when it was done, the purchaser would have a license that confirmed he was the authenticated owner of the gun with the serial number in question. Later, if he's found with the gun, the police can ask to see his license and confirm whether he's the authentic owner of it (by running the authentication app). If he loses his license, they can run his identity information through the app to make sure it could produce the authentication number associated with that gun. People who don't have a license to a gun they're in possession of would be guilty of a serious crime.
From a privacy or gun-advocate's perspective, this system would have advantages over registration. The government would have no central database identifying gun owners. Their database would only list firearm serial numbers and the most recent authentication codes reported for them. So, there'd be no way to use the database in order to implement gun seizures, nor any way to make gun ownership status public in order to shame gun owners, or anything like that.
From the perspective of society, the system would have advantages over not having such a system. It would give gun buyers an incentive to go through background checks -- because, if they didn't, they'd essentially be buying contraband.... a gun that they didn't have a license to possess, which could therefore get them jailed if they're found in possession of it.
It would also give gun sellers an incentive to insist that buyers use background checks, too. Although an in-authenticated gun couldn't be traced back to the illegal seller directly, by way of a simple registration database, it could be linked indirectly as part of an investigation -- for example, offering the illegal buyer a reduced sentence if he identifies and testifies against the illegal seller. It would also be easier to prove the identity of the illegal seller, if the last known authentic code associated with that gun serial number was, mathematically, one that could have been produced by that alleged seller's name, when he first bought it.
Like I said, this isn't as good as a true registration system.... and it's not even nearly as good as a registration system with high-tech ballistic fingerprinting. But it would probably reduce the illegal gun trade, by making straw-man sales an impractical business model. Since a great portion of guns used in crimes at least start off their lives in a legitimate sale from the manufacturer to some wholesaler or legitimate gun shop, they'd start out with associated with a legitimate license in the database, associated with their serial number. The owner of that authentication code has an incentive to make sure anyone he sells to gets authenticated, too, so that a new code supplants his in the database.
The system could also be enforced through undercover purchases. Have police officers go to gun shows to try to buy without the background checks, or respond to classified sales, etc., and make sure the sellers require them to produce an authentic code showing they're qualified to buy that gun. If they don't, make it a serious offense that could land a person in jail.
It's far from the best solution, but it would be an improvement.
Queen Titania
Senator
Why don't you just get everyone micro chipped and be done with it ?
And what is the punishment for selling a gun without a background check? How many guns were already in circulation? Does anyone think everybody with a gun would automatically throw them in the trash or suddenly comply with the law? How hard would it be to drive to Nevada to buy a gun where universal background checks are not the rule?
Is it too hard for you to think about solutions?
While you point to Los Angeles as how bad things can get, background checks came as an answer to how bad it had gotten without them....the problem is that the BC law doesn't go far enough.
1. All purchases of a new gun would be accompanied by an Ammunition Purchase License. The APL would be recorded in an FBI database which would consist of the APL serial number, the date, the serial number and caliber of the gun. No identification of the owner. On the card itself would be your picture and the serial number and caliber of the gun.
2. Don't have an APL, no problem, come on down to the nearest gun store, with your gun and ID. If you pass the BC you get an APL for a couple of bucks. Don't pass the BC, the gun store will either sell your gun on consignment or send it to the gun dealer of your choice.
3. Sell your gun, bring it on down to the gun store with your buyer. He passes the BC and he gets an APL....yours is now invalid.
Cost of the system is minimal. Equipment to swipe the APL to verify that you can buy that ammo is simple veriphone or even the kind of reader that works on an iphone....
Is it too hard for you to think about solutions?
While you point to Los Angeles as how bad things can get, background checks came as an answer to how bad it had gotten without them....the problem is that the BC law doesn't go far enough.
1. All purchases of a new gun would be accompanied by an Ammunition Purchase License. The APL would be recorded in an FBI database which would consist of the APL serial number, the date, the serial number and caliber of the gun. No identification of the owner. On the card itself would be your picture and the serial number and caliber of the gun.
2. Don't have an APL, no problem, come on down to the nearest gun store, with your gun and ID. If you pass the BC you get an APL for a couple of bucks. Don't pass the BC, the gun store will either sell your gun on consignment or send it to the gun dealer of your choice.
3. Sell your gun, bring it on down to the gun store with your buyer. He passes the BC and he gets an APL....yours is now invalid.
Cost of the system is minimal. Equipment to swipe the APL to verify that you can buy that ammo is simple veriphone or even the kind of reader that works on an iphone....
The point is that local laws are irrelevant. The laws, whatever they are, have to be national. Chicago is a city where you can't buy a handgun in city limits. Is there any shortage of handguns in Chicago? No. If a city were to enact the perfect background check rules that in and of themselves, it would be near to impossible for a resident who had had a felony conviction or someone who had been committed to a pschiatric hostpital couldn't buy a gun....how do you stop someone from driving across the city line and getting a gun....
We already knew that the laws in those cities can only apply after someone has already broken them and have to rely on the punishment as a preventative measure....that isn't enough.
Arkady
President
It doesn't worry me. It just means people think some form of background check would be good. That doesn't mean they support all background checks. It's the same way I can say I support testing of drivers for them to get a driver's license, without that meaning I support any possible test you could come up with. The devil's in the details, but there's nothing wrong with supporting the idea in principle while the details are being worked out.
If it resulted in a criminal conviction, maybe. Depends how we set the rule. It could be set at the felony level only. Or, if we want to make it tougher, it could be set to weed out ANYONE with enough impulse control issues to resort to violence even of a misdemeanor level.
It could. Again, that's a detail to be worked out. A woman with a history of mental illness so bad that she had to be confined against her will to protect others or herself from harm isn't exactly who I want carrying around a weapon that can cause death if she has even a brief instant of homicidal or suicidal depression in the future.
Do you have an example of someone from this forum? We have a lot of liberals here, most of whom seem to support background checks. If many of those who support background checks actually want to ban all gun ownership, surely you can find one or two examples here, right?
Fair enough. In the same sense I don't accuse people like you of openly wanting to make it legal to shoot anyone who speaks out against gun rights -- I just think you secretly want to reach that goal in baby steps, but you fear that exposing your true ambition would not be so effective a tactic for attaining that goal.
Arkady
President
Blah, blah, blah.
marvin martian
Emperor
Once again, for the slow people, CRIMINALS DON'T BUY GUNS IN GUN STORES. Why is this a difficult concept?
Let's look at Mexico, where Chicago-style gun laws are nationwide. It's illegal for a private citizen to own a gun in the ENTIRE country of Mexico, and they have no gun crime in Mexico, right?
I like this idea....it would mean that a stolen gun wouldn't be as easy to buy ammo for....since even the APL would become invalid once the theft is reported. The gun couldn't be reregistered.
1. All purchases of a new gun would be accompanied by an Ammunition Purchase License. The APL would be recorded in an FBI database which would consist of the APL serial number, the date, the serial number and caliber of the gun. No identification of the owner. On the card itself would be your picture and the serial number and caliber of the gun.
2. Don't have an APL, no problem, come on down to the nearest gun store, with your gun and ID. If you pass the BC you get an APL for a couple of bucks. Don't pass the BC, the gun store will either sell your gun on consignment or send it to the gun dealer of your choice.
3. Sell your gun, bring it on down to the gun store with your buyer. He passes the BC and he gets an APL....yours is now invalid.
Cost of the system is minimal. Equipment to swipe the APL to verify that you can buy that ammo is simple veriphone or even the kind of reader that works on an iphone....
1. All purchases of a new gun would be accompanied by an Ammunition Purchase License. The APL would be recorded in an FBI database which would consist of the APL serial number, the date, the serial number and caliber of the gun. No identification of the owner. On the card itself would be your picture and the serial number and caliber of the gun.
2. Don't have an APL, no problem, come on down to the nearest gun store, with your gun and ID. If you pass the BC you get an APL for a couple of bucks. Don't pass the BC, the gun store will either sell your gun on consignment or send it to the gun dealer of your choice.
3. Sell your gun, bring it on down to the gun store with your buyer. He passes the BC and he gets an APL....yours is now invalid.
Cost of the system is minimal. Equipment to swipe the APL to verify that you can buy that ammo is simple veriphone or even the kind of reader that works on an iphone....
I've gone thru background checks......one for a fed govt job, one to work with children, and two for volunteer work. it didn't kill me. two places even demanded my fingerprints.
background checks could pick up criminal activity, mental health institutionalizations. it could pick up protection orders, stalking complaints. there would need to be universal agreement as to what should be put in the base and the jurisdictions responsible for getting it in there on a timely basis. having a waiting period would help the background checkers do a thorough job.
1. Most Criminals do not buy guns in stores (some do try)....must mean that Background checks are working, but only in stores. so we need a solution to gun sales that do not happen in stores.
2. Comparing Mexico to the US is hardly compelling for a ton of reasons....for one, the corruption in Mexico dwarfs that of the very worst city in the US. For another...what country could you go to in order to get a gun easier than the US?
If we implemented a better background check system would you cross into Canada to get a gun?
Arkady
President
Interesting. That's a good point about the way a gun, once reported stolen, couldn't be re-registered.
Regarding ammunition, there would still be, I suppose, ways around that. For example, if you had one gun illegally but another that took the same caliber of bullet legally, you could do legal ammunition purchases that would suffice for both guns. And you could do straw-man purchases of ammunition. But it still sounds like that could help.
Anyway, I'm intrigued by the way mathematics could be used to make this work. It's somewhat similar to public/private-key encryption, where you can encrypt something with a public key that only the person with the private key can decrypt, and there's no way to reverse-engineer the keys.
