The Fallacy of Universal Background Checks.

In the last couple of months it has been a firestorm of proposed legislation at the state and federal levels on many things that pertain to firearms. Everything from the registration of firearms, limitations on the size of the magazine (not a clip), “universal” background checks, to the outright banning of most modern firearms.

The problem that the vast majority of the media have, and those in State and Federal legislative positions also have is that they have no clue about what the current laws are on firearms, and they have zero or very little knowledge of firearms themselves and how they operate and can be used. Shouldn’t a person at least try to learn about the topic they are trying to legislate and restrict others on?

Time and time again I see on the news or read in articles on-line about legislation that proposes something that will make no difference at all in the supposed violence and mass murderers we have recently seen. I have even read about a bill proposing something that is already illegal and part of another law or already prohibited under federal rules or code.

Let’s use the example of the “universal background checks”. I have seen at least 10 legislators on various news outlets say we need to have universal background checks. And when asked about the topic almost every single one of them talks about the “gun show loophole” (which does not exist by the way, kind of like Florida’s “Stand Your Ground Law”). They say that you do not need a background check to buy a firearm at a gun show. Well that’s a half truth.

Most gun shows I have been to, and that’s a few, and most I know of are by far made up of Federal Firearms Licensed (FFLs) dealers. A very small percentage of those selling at gun shows are private parties selling just a few firearms. So if you buy a firearm from a FFL, no matter if it’s at a gun show or at a firearms store, you MUST complete a Federal background check using NICS (National Instant Background Check System). In fact even those private sellers are required BY FEDERAL LAW not to sell a firearm to a prohibited person. You may ask how do they know if the person they are selling to is prohibited of not unless they have access to NICS. They don’t. But many private sellers will not sell to anyone unless they have a state concealed carry permit. In that case they at least know the person they are selling to at the time they got the concealed carry license was not a prohibited person.

All of the information above is actually kind of pointless when you factor in that less than 1% of felons who used firearms and went to prison got a firearm at a gun show! That according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics survey in 2004 of inmates in federal prison.

Then they almost always bring up the sale of firearms over the internet. I hate to break it to the folks on national news shows and our supposed educated legislators but the vast majority of internet sales are done by licensed FFLs and as such the buyer has to have the firearm shipped to a local FFL and guess what? Yep you got it, they have to go through a background check to receive the firearm. In addition if its a firearm bought from a private party out of state and brought into the state, the person has to have it shipped to a FFL and again they have to go through a NICS check. That’s right private sales from out of state have a background check done on them before delivery.

So you may ask what are they talking about then? Great question! They are talking about the very few sales between two parties at the local level. And those are even governed already by the same federal laws. One person selling to another is prohibited from selling to a prohibited person. So if you’re selling a firearm, you better be real sure that the person you’re selling to is not prohibited from having a firearm.

And last, I would like to point out that several of the mass murderers who used firearms as the weapon of choice passed background checks. So what is the point of “expanding” background checks? In reality nothing. It will not stop one single mass murderer or criminal from getting a firearm if they want, but will make it more expensive and more time consuming than it already is for law abiding citizens to get firearms they want and need for self defense and home protection.

So a challenge to my news media and legislative friends. If you want to propose new legislation on firearms ownership maybe you should research what it is, how it will affect the criminals and law abiding citizens first? Just a suggestion.

BJS cited above – Report on Firearm Violence 1993 – 2011″

Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016

Advertisements

Background Checks and Red Flag laws and more laws would not have stopped Texas or Ohio Murderers.

So now that a bit more information on the murderers in those two incidents is coming out it is time to point a few minor things that those who are shouting “we must do something” and “it’s all President Trumps fault” fail to see or want to have pointed out since it will contradict their point of view.

So now that a bit more information on the murderers in those two incidents is coming out it is time to point a few minor things that those who are shouting “we must do something” and “it’s all President Trumps fault” fail to see or want to have pointed out since it will contradict their point of view.

First, there has been a cry for universal background checks for a couple of years. After every mass murder that uses a firearm, there is a cry for “universal background checks”. But what many who are for them don’t want to be said and will try and shout down anyone that dares to bring it up is that many of the mass murderers passed background checks to get the very firearms they used. The most recent two shootings, one in El Paso Texas and the other in Dayton Ohio both passed background checks. So what good would UBC’s do then if mass murderers with obvious questionable backgrounds can still pass them? When put that way kind of sounds stupid doesn’t it?

Then there are the “Red Flag” laws that everyone is touting as part of a possible solution. The only problem is not all of these laws are created equally. Some states, like my own of Florida, have already enacted these types of laws and guess what? They have found they are abused and were not thought out very well. Many states laws do not have any kind of due process written into them. You know that pesky thing called your right to due process under the law. Sound familiar? Anytime that the Government wants to take away a persons property or right (owning and possessing a firearm is both of those) they should have to go before a Judge, and have a chance to defend themselves in a court of law. Our system was founded on that very principle. Circumventing that now for firearms can and will lead to further infringements. Don’t get in an argument with a vindictive ex-spouse or such, all they need do is call the police, tell them you own guns and made threats. No need to substantiate it and prove it, you have to prove you did not. Isn’t that twisted around from what our system is supposed to be like?

And for those crying that we have to do something. Why? The Murder rate is actually down by >40% since 1993. People are waking up all across this great country and realizing that self-defense and defense of your family is your responsibility, not the government. The last three mass murders, Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton all took place in or as people exited a gun-free zone. Read this excerpt from the El Paso murderer’s supposed manifesto and you see that they (the mass murderers) think about this:


Attack low-security targets. Even though you might out gun a security guard or police man, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers. Do not throw away your life on an unnecessarily dangerous target. If a target seems too hot, live to fight another day.


So what would have stopped him? More security? More police in the area? Why do you think they do not attack police stations or federal buildings or other hardened targets? Because the chances of being shot before they can cause much carnage is greater. People wonder why no one in Texas was carrying (big state for carry rights and laws) but all one need do is look at the Walmart and the demographics of the area and you will see why. The Walmart was a posted “gun-free zone” and in Texas, if posted properly with 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07 signs, it makes legal carry in the establishment illegal. So again law-abiding citizens are disarmed, and the mass murderer could care less and murdered 22 people, AND NOT ONE WAS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES! Does that not sound wrong to you? Obviously, it worked in the murderers’ favor.

And last of course is blaming the current President for these shootings. People say it is his “message” that caused the murderers to go out and kill (even though the murderer in Texas made it clear it was not) like he ordered them to go out and kill people. If this is the case why did he post tweets in support of certain specific Democratic candidates before the murderers? Shouldn’t we blame them then instead? Of course not. You don’t blame the actions of a psychopath or sociopath on others. You blame the person themselves.

So let’s just stick to the facts. We now have a mass murderer who clearly said that they pick “low-security targets” that have little chance of them being confronted or engaged by armed resistance. Maybe we should listen to him and use that against the next one? Self-defense and defense of your family is your responsibility and not the governments. Police (I was one for 38+ years) only come when called. You have to be alive to call them. And why do you call them? Because they bring firearms to the scene to confront the armed attacker. Would it not be better to not have to wait and be at the mercy of these deranged individuals? When most mass murders are over in minutes and it takes law enforcement minutes to get there, what do you do in the meantime? Hide and hope not to die? Sorry, not in my nature.

So I guess what it all boils down to is the cry from those wanting something done, and something is done now, just what do you propose that would have stopped any one of the last 10 or 20 mass murderers over the past couple of years? Please give us a solution or idea. Since Murder is already illegal and carries the stiffest of penalties in some places (death) and that does not seem to stop them, please don’t propose a law that only disarms more law-abiding citizens. Let’s hear some concrete thought out helpful ideas and stop playing the blame game, blaming President Trump, blaming guns, blaming poor mental health screening, but not blaming the real root causes. Those are for another article.