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

The problem is the 2nd Amendment.

The fact that anti-gun people were able to circumvent the 2nd Amendment regarding "licensed firearms dealers" by way of the interstate commerce clause doesn't mean that clause can be used regarding private sales. Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment still has some teeth to it.

 

So you are against even FFL dealer background checks?

 

Criminals can buy firearms from the law-abiding now, because there is no way, and no requirement, for the law-abiding to check to see if their buyer is a criminal. You propose attacking the "requirement", and I propose attacking the means.

If "voluntary compliance" is good enough then why is a requirement necessary at all? Just give private sellers the ability to background check prospective buyers. I agree that most every one would do so voluntarily and enthusiastically, if given a free and convenient way to do so. After all, if there can be no consequence to selling a firearm to an unknown person in your driveway, why would you go to the trouble and expense to take it to an FFL, other than to comply with law? And, if the law makes that an arduous or expensive task, then you are actually encouraging non-compliance.

THIS thread is about private sales of used firearms; the so-called "gun show loophole", so the discussion of new gun sales at dealers is off topic. Regardless, without a registry database, there is no verifiable way to prove that the majority of sales include a background check or not, even though they probably do. I apologize if I misunderstood your assertion to be on-topic and about private sales.

 

The background check itself can absolutely happen. The enforcement of a mandatory check cannot, unless you have a registry.

 

Its your assumption, so why project it on others?

 

If there is no legal requirement, then why do it?

If there is no legal requirement, then why do it?

People will do it if there is such legal requirement, and it will make it harder for criminals to buy guns. See, they don't buy them in dark back alleys from other criminals (some do, but not many), they buy them from law-abiding gun owners.

 

Not at all. But any law that says private sellers MUST perform a BGC on a prospective buyer is unenforceable without a registry.

 

In all states?

Why not give private sellers the ability to background check prospective buyers AND make it a requirement?

 

So when liberals talk about "the gunshow loophole", they specify that it's only for private sales?

 

I don't know.

Because there is no way to enforce that requirement without creating an ownership registry.

 

Not only liberals, but everyone. Its really not about gun shows either, but any private sale.

Gun Show Loophole: Gun show loophole is a political term in the United States referring to the sale of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, that do not require the seller to conduct a federal background check of the buyer. This is also called the private sale exemption.

 

Why would it be necessary to know that a transaction has taken place, and who the previous owner was?

 

It is just this simple... Criminals don't need license, background checks, loop holes, serial numbers, legal requirements, or "stinkin' badges" to get a gun.... In fact, those are last things a criminal is NOT looking for...

 

Right. Only the buyers eligibility is being verified. I don't get all the talk about registries.

 

Because you would need that information to enforce the mandatory background check.

 

that is correct. When you hear "gun show loophole" you dealing with either an idiot or a liar.

Correct, private sellers CANNOT do a background check because they are not allowed access BY THE GOVERNMENT to the database.

The vast majority of private gun owners, if they could, very likely would complete the background check if allowed to. I certainly would.

Much of the Left in America is very pro-criminal and they do not like the Constitutionalists and Republicans that are not within their bubble. The focus of all their efforts is to burden their opponents rights to lethal self-defense while not disturbing the felons ability to keep and carry illegal guns. Stop and Frisk is an extremely effective policy that allows police to disarm violent felons.

https://www.nytimes.com › roomfordebate › 2012 › 07 › 17 › does-stop-and-frisk-reduce-crime › stop-and-frisk-has-lowered-crime-in-other-cities

Stop and Frisk Has Lowered Crime in Other Cities

"As a result of active crime-prevention techniques like stop and frisk, they are being arrested and imprisoned at a drastically lower rate. The number of inmates from New York City in state prisons..."

It has proven record reducing crime and it even reduces incarceration and arrest rates, but the Left fights it tooth and nail because it's an inconvenience to the criminal element of their political coalition. Remember, armed felon gangs only operate openly in our violent Blue Cities because so many of the public officials are bought off.

These same public officials habitually do not charge the gun crimes when they have to deal with illegally armed felons and they habitually do not charge their girlfriends and other women who make their straw gun purchases. Felons get most of their guns from public sales with background checks completed, they just make sure they are romantically involved with a girl with a clean record, or they find one with a clean record that is a drug user or for whatever reason finds herself associated with a criminal element and they pay her to make the straw purchases. These felonies are grossly undercharged, but, does the Left ever love to make law abiding citizens jump through hoop and after hoop, each raising the cost of transaction, in order to have the firearm protection that rich Leftists simply purchase through private security.

But, I see another poster suggested making the firearm background check open for private sellers, but, the decision makers on the Left will never go along with this because it does not serve their purposes of disarming the law abiding Constitutionalists and Republicans while leaving the criminal element undisturbed.

 

Nonsense. People run them all the time when hiring employees, tenants, babysitters or any other reason like curiosity. You can also run them on yourself.

LOL

 

You eventually will have a bureaucrat deciding who will and who will not have guns...

every law, no matter how well written, can and WILL be twisted to pervert it's intention.

 

Tell me the steps for running the federal background check for gun sales on myself, and I'll check your claim.

You might want to double check:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/g...ales-federal-firearms-licensee-guide/download

I infer from this that private citizens do not have access to conduct the federal background check required for gun purchases that dealers must use.

 

Well, that is the only way you're going to actually get a universal background check. About the only States that is going to make such a law is Democrat strongholds. Republican stronghold States won't do it.

They could make a case for it. They cannot do it for intrastate private sales. I'm not sure why you capitalized private though. If you had a reason for doing so please expound.

Well, I don't know the statistics for BGC's rate of success for regular criminals. I do know the vast majority of straw purchases are never prosecuted.

I view BGC's as pretty much useless though. If a person really wants to use a gun then they're going to get one regardless of them. I would prefer that we kept people that are criminals in jail though until they can prove that they can function in society without resorting to crime. Hence why I support Justice Reform into one of rehabilitation rather than of punishment.

Yes, this is true. Just depends on the State/local laws.

 

Why do you say they can do it for intrastate sales by dealer, but not by private people? And why can't they require private sales to be completed at a dealer who would perform the check?

 

The OP isn't talking about gun manufacturers. He's talking about private sales.

 

Think they need to improve the background check database and what info is shared with all these agencies because something obviously failed in this case. There were so many warning signs. Hard to understand why no one who knew him said anything.

If the background check system can be improved and maybe raising the buying age to 21, that alone can make a huge difference and not threaten 10s of millions of people with taking guns by force, which is insane. It won’t stop all the gang shootings but Democrats don’t give a **** about all that anyway. They just care about the high profile mass shootings that can be used politically. No real benefit in admitting that mostly minorities are killing each other at outrageous rates. Or most deaths by gun are suicides with handguns. Hard to use that to get votes

 

A gun dealer is considered an interstate business as they sell guns to interstate customers. That is why they can be regulated to have BGC's. This is not true of private sales which are not a business at all.

 

the same way we determine who sold the drugs or (very soon)who performed the abortion. you take the bottom feeder perp and sweat him until he talks.

i'm talking about intrastate commerce. which a private person selling something manufactured in another state could be.