What's the argument against background checks for private gun sales?

Okay, so I've never understood what the problem is. If background checks occur for sales via licensed firearms dealers, then why not for private sale? And I hear alot about "the gunshow loophole", but that assumes that ALL sellers at a gunshow do not have to do background checks, but if a licensed firearms dealer is selling guns at a gunshow, they of course still have to do background checks, even though they are operating outside of their regular business environment. However, my understanding is that private sellers at gunshows do not need to do a background check. Obviously to avoid confusion, a better name for the loophole would be simply: the private gun sale loophole. @RodB, @kazenatsu, @spiritgide, @Seth Bullock, @Bluesguy, @Giftedone, @drluggit, @XXJefferson#51, @AmericanNationalist, @modernpaladin.

 

@fmw.

 

The Federal government may only regulate interstate sales. More often than not private sales are done in the state in which the person that buys and the person that sells both live in, that makes it an intrastate sale, not interstate. The Federal government might be able to make a case to apply BGC's on gun shows due to so many people usually coming in from out of State, but that would be the most that they can do.

They might be able to do it if they make it to where you have to check if they are from another state. "If they are from another state then you must do a background check, if not..well, we can't make ya" type deal.

Legalities aside....background checks have been a dismal failure at preventing ANY mass shooting. In fact most mass shootings (77%-80% depending on who you listen to) have been by people who "legally" passed the background check. Whether they passed due to a failure of communications or because they never once committed a crime or a reason to bar them previously. So what's the point of having it other than to harass legal gun owners and make purchasing guns more expensive?

 

Well notice that my question was not: What's the argument against FEDERAL background checks for private gun sales?

And do you mean the Federal government may only regulate interstate PRIVATE sales?

Note that I didn't say anything about mass shootings though. My question has nothing to do with that. Background checks exist and I assume that you are okay with them, so the question is why shouldn't they be done for private sales too.

Speaking of weaknesses in background checks, I read somewhere that gun dealers are allowed to complete a sale if the results of the background check are not returned after a certain number of days. Do you know if that's right?

 

Well, mostly its unenforcible. Only people who care about obeying the law are going to worry about a mandatory BGC for a private sale, and people who care about obeying the law dont commit crimes with guns...

But also its very expensive with very little returns on 'investment.' We've had mandatory BGCs on private sales here in WA since 2016 or so. It costs an extra $10M/year to administrate and in that time we've had one single prosecution for a private sale without a background check. No one knew about the private sale until after the buyer used the gun to shoot someone, so it didn't prevent the shooting anyway. I dont think $60M is a justifiable cost get one strawpurchaser off the street. Our violence (including gun violence) rate hasn't changed much since the law went into effect either. It has increased a bit lately just like everywhere else, but overall, its been consistant since the MBGC law with what it was before.

 

Yeah but someone who doesn't care about obeying the law, wouldn't have a choice but to be subjected to the background check if they want to buy a gun from a seller who chooses to follow the law.

Yeah, funny, just 10 minutes ago I was reading about your 2014 ballot initiative which resulted in checks for private sales. And I was quite surprised to hear that in such a liberal state, only 59% of people voted in favour of the change!

What proof of the sale was there?

 

Its not really about the buyer. Police don't even bother investigating the cornucopia of reports of prohibited persons who attempt to buy guns and fail the BGC (not just in WA, but nationwide). Authorities are only concerned about the sellers, which is dumb because there will always be criminals willing to break the law to sell guns illegally for profit. Put one in jail and that creates more demand (more profit, more incentive) for another to take their place as an arms dealer. Supply in the black market is demand driven, and it will always supply guns as long as there is demand for them.

I would guess either the shooter gave up the seller in a plea deal or neither of them were smart enough to remove the serial number from the weapon.

WA isn't really a 'liberal state', its a sparely populated conservative state dominated by densely populated and aggressively progressive Seattle and Olympia. Those two cities have so many people they can effectively dictate law to the rest of the state. Most people east of the Cascades are more politically similar to Idaho than the coastliners.

 

the gun manufacturer is usually a large corporation doing business internationally. that makes this interstate commerce IF we want to regulate it.

our gun laws are unenforced. that does not make them unenforceable. the drug war and terror war showed that imaginative interpretation (by conservative judges) can be used to address social problems.

if a gangster uses an ak-47 for a drive by, i'm sure he can be encouraged to snitch on his kalishnokov supplier. straw purchasers and dealers can be punished. etc.

 

In theory, sure. In practice, WA has spent $60M trying to do that with only a single success...

Either the criminals are too stubborn to give eachother up, too smart to leave enough evidence for conviction, or the state is too inept to enforce its own laws. Whichever is the case, its clearly not working the way you expect it to.

 

Mainly the possible collection of information about who is buying them.

 

Yeah but at least that's one less illegal arms dealer, right?

Why would a serial number be traced back to the original owner?

 

Well is information collected during a background check at a dealer?

 

What do gun manufacturers have to do with background checks?

At a state or federal level?

 

You do realize that part of the reason some laws were allowed to get passed is that proponents at the time argued they had loopholes, so someone didn't have to be forced into a certain situation if they absolutely didn't want to.

Closing those loopholes would have to make us go back and question the original law again in the first place.

 

ridiculous. if i am the tyrannical government of the usa i already know (or can make a good guess) who has guns. everybody.

 

So then you're not saying that information is collected during a background check at a dealer.

 

No, it does not assume such thing. Dealers at gunshows are required to run background check. The "loophole" has always been about private sellers.

Criminals buy guns from law abiding citizens privately knowing there wont be a background check. If the requirement existed the law abiding citizens would run the check at a local store.

About 37% of WA voters are registered Dems, so 59% shows a fairly strong support. Gun ownership is common in WA

 

They are unenforceable because there is no way to determine who sold the gun.

 

Law-abiding gun owners would complete the sale at a gun store and the background check would be performed. Currently criminals can freely buy from law-abiding citizens and there are no questions asked, because it is not required. So, a law mandating the sale to be completed at a store would make it harder for criminals to buy guns.

 

I would be able to sell my gun without fear because no one knows I own the gun to start with.

 

Yes I know. I'm referring to how liberals seemingly refer to the "gunshow loophole" as if every gun sale at a show does not require a background check. That's why I said that it "assumes that ALL sellers at a gunshow do not have to do background checks."

Does that matter? Only registered democrats would vote for that change? I assume that there would be a healthy number of liberal independents in WA.

 

I don't know about liberals in your country, but here in US its common knowledge that dealers are required to run background checks no matter where they are selling their guns

No. It means 37% are Dems, and the measure got 59% of the total vote. You think every vote is always along party lines, which might be the case in your country, but this is an issue with support from both sides in US. Most gun owners don't care about the background check, because they have had it ran for every gun they have purchased. Criminals, and those who sell guns to criminals would obviously have a problem with it.

 

I think I can answer this. For mandatory background checks on private sales to be effective, a complete and accurate registry of existing privately owned firearms must be compiled. There is no practical, or constitutional way to accomplish this. Without such a registry, there would be no way to enforce the law, and any benefits to be gained by such a law would be lost.

 

What good does any of these laws do when they're not prosecuted?

Felons who are caught with guns aren't prosecuted in democrat cities.

People who have been indicted for MURDER are being released without bail. What hope does more law offer when it's not enforced?

 

So then why do liberals refer to "the gunshow loophole?" Don't you think that implies that all sales at a gunshow are exempt from background checks?

So why do you think that "59% shows a fairly strong support?"