CDC: No Proof That Gun Laws Are Effective

A check on the buyer is a good idea and I think the least that could be done. Keeping lawfully owned firearms out of those who should not have them due to criminality or instability is a worthy aim.

 

Slippery slope argument? I like that, "soft tyranny". Thin end of the wedge eh?

- - - Updated - - -

If it's a constitutional right then any law that touches on it must be invalid, right?

Protection of homes/families? No-one is suggesting that someone shouldn't have that very basic right. I'm talking about background checks to lawfully purchase a firearm, that's all, nothing about self-defence.

 

if you prevent someone from buying a firearm, you are preventing them from protecting their homes and families

background checks have no other purpose then preventing someone from buying a gun which as you said "No-one is suggesting that someone shouldn't have that very basic right"

I am all for allowing the first 100k of unlabored income to be tax free for everyone.... gifts, stacks, interest, ect....

.

 

There is plenty of proof of gun laws not being effective. Look at California, we have about the toughest gun laws in the United States, yet when you look at the list of violent cities, murder rates etc, there are always several cities that rank right up near or at the top. I live in one of them, Stockton, California.

 

Background checks on new purchases are already in place. UBCs are about second hand purchases. UBC's can't be enforced without first implementing registration of all 300 million firearms that are currently in circulation. Most anyone who values the second ammendment is completely against gun registration. That's the reason they have been a no starter.

 

Then everyone should be given a free firearm so they can defend themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

Where does registration clash with the 2nd?

 

Registration always leads to confiscation. That is in direct conflict with the 2A.

And keep in mind the right to privacy, which several Amendments protect. The government has no right to know what I own.

 

They will confiscate. They may not pass a law explicitly ordering confiscation, but they will pass a spiderweb of various separate laws which will work together to accomplish the same. They will make broad and vaguely worded laws, and delegate discretionary power to other government officials who will then essentially be empowered to enforce confiscation on a more individualized level.

They say that they do. And will use taxation as a justification to find out exactly what you own—anything that may be of interest to them.

There's an old anecdote about how a slave master tricked his slaves to exert maximum profit out of them, since negroes were notoriously lazy.
First he announced a prize–a gold watch–to whomever could gather and pack the most bales of hay that day. Everyone worked their hardest to try to win the watch, which was worth a considerable sum of money. The master recorded how many bales each slave made. But from thereon after each slave was expected to fill his quota, based on the number of bales he had been able to pack, and those who failed to meet their quota were whipped.

 

Anyone who values the 2a, and wants to make sure that at some time in the future there is no chance of confiscation, will not support registration.

 

In your Socialist version of America, that might be the idea. Meanwhile, in a world where people EARN what they have, even Jesus is quoted as having said "If you have not a sword, sell your garment and buy one".

 

Background checks allow the legal system to link a gun to its owner. There are already plenty of untraceable guns. Criminals need not go through a background check therefore there is nothing linking the criminal to the gun. Is it just me, or is this just bassacwards?

 

Registration doesn't always lead to anything. It's a singular process. It helps to keep track of a particular firearm and its whereabouts. Confiscation is something that is usually carried out on a limited level, e.g where a firearm is seized as evidence and after conviction may be ordered to be confiscated. I don't see a conflict with the 2nd Amendment or where the laws on registration exist they would have been struck down. And the government has the right and duty to act both within the law and to discharge the law.

- - - Updated - - -

Fair enough. But if it happens and they don't register then they must accept the consequences.

- - - Updated - - -

I hope your aim with your firearm is better than your reading comprehension.

 

It creates one more tax and layer of red tape for a constitutionally protected right. Right now, in my area, the act of getting a background check for a firearm presents a $25-75 fee for purchasing a firearm from a third party due to initiative 594 in Washington state. This manifests itself as a 10-30% tax on $250 firearms, and a 5-15% tax on $500 firearms, so on so forth.

I also have a concealed pistol license that required a background check before I could get one. Each time I renew that license, which is a $65 tax, a new background check is initiated. In my particular case, I would be getting taxed via fee twice to purchase an item that is protected by my natural rights, reinforced by the Constitution.

My argument would be a lot weaker if I could do background checks on people without having to take the firearm and both parties to a specific location, fill out the paperwork, have them log the firearm into their books, then transfer it to the next party, while charging a fee. We do not see this same hoop jumping for the first amendment protected rights.

To put it in another way, an argument for registration of first amendment rights would be to force someone to register themselves when they wanted to exercise their specific rights when talking about a specific subject or even a group of subjects. When a person wants to talk about abortion, birth rights, and parental responsibilities, they would need to register with the state saying they wish to talk about those subjects, and then pay a fee to do it. If they want to talk about property rights, it would require another fee, registration, and documentation that you want to talk about that subject. Each time a person wants to exercise their right, forms must be filled out, persons talking about those subjects must be tracked so they know where they are, and the right can be revoked because the state can then ban certain subjects to be discussed through popular vote, legislative action, or a combination thereof. Anyone found talking about those subjects could be fined, jailed, or both. The people that are allowed to speak of those subjects could in theory be tracked down and if they still possessed those subject passes would then be imprisoned because the state knows who can talk about those subjects, and the state also knows for how long those subjects were discussed about after it became illegal to possess the right to speak of those subjects.

 

ETA: Read this article and see if there is much of a stretch to believe that the government, with a list of names and addresses of gun owners, could outlaw a specific type of firearm and then seize that firearm without due process. Asset seizure has been around for a very long time and usually results in the owner of the assest not getting it back. They can go jump through the legal hoops of getting it back, but this involves lawyers and lawyers are $$$$.

Emphasis added.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-agency-weighed-spying-on-cars-at-gun-shows-1422398739

You may call me a tin foil hatter, but things like this happen all of the time. Even if it is not true, many Tea Party 501(c)3 organizations in the United States (a non-profit political group) have felt like they are being unfairly targeted by the IRS by delays and non-issuance of tax exemption because of their political leanings. Read the following, but I will copy/paste the highlight.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/14/irs-official-lerner-approved-exemption-for-obama-brothers-charity/

Now, with the above as an example, even if it is not true, people would feel that if a hostile administration towards firearms could go around and make life hard, if not impossible, to own firearms. The starting point of the hypothetical situation would be registration of firearms, and before that can happen, universal background checks would need to be implemented to track the owners of certain firearms.

 

it is illegal under the Brady Bill.............that's where it clashes with the 2ndA.
next.................

 

FIREARM OWNER PROTECTION ACT
It is illegal for the government to keep records
The Act also forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law (Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926) being:

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.

 

On the costs - fair enough objection. I would hope those are fair administration costs and not some sort of penalty or just a money grab.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Has registration been deemed to be unconstitutional?

 

Yeah that is a Federal act. States can and do require one to register when the buy a gun. There is no requirement for registration of already owned guns however. Bottom line, if one is a law-abiding citizen, chances are law enforcement knows you own a gun.

 

It is not a penalty or fee paid to the government, it is a fee paid to a third party. Because of that, fees vary widely based on location and business practices. I would be more in favor of background checks if it was a completely different system that was not linked to a specific firearm and could be used by any individual as long as certain stipulations were in effect.

I would support a system that you could call into an automated, or even phone conversation type system that had identification numbers assigned to people. For example, I would be selling a firearm and my unique user ID is 44PDA, and I am selling it to you, user ID 27CQU. I call into the system, put in my ID number, then input your ID into system, and the system says this person has no known restrictions such as felony . No firearm data is input, and no firearms are tracked. This would satisfy universal background checks, but not link specific people to certain items. To be honest, a system like this could be expanded to more people and subjects outside of just firearms such as employment checks, lending money, or anything. It would require both people to participate so that unannounced checks could be made because of the unique IDs that shouldn't/wouldn't be given out except in the case of a background check.

To prevent abuse, make a nominal fee that also provides revenue for upkeep, or just make it a flat $50 fee to register. I don't know exactly, but currently an FFL has to call into a phone tree system and talk to an individual that inputs all of the same information and a go/no-go call is made. The system is already there, but through application of technology, the entire system can be used by private party individuals instead of having to fill out forms at a specific location, and paying an undetermined fee to a third party to facilitate the the transaction.

 

"This page last updated October 2, 2003"
http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/r031002.htm

 

Law in my state requires that NICS check records be destroyed after sixty days.

 

What federal laws have been passed since then that would change that finding?

 

2005. Supreme Court changed the definition of the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290

Wouldn't it make sense that if the definition changed, the laws would have to change as well to fit the new definition?

 

FFL holders still need to surrenender 4473's if they go out of business. Even though the NICS check is completed and records destroyed, the BATFE can go through all transfers that a particular FFL has done.

 

What specific federal gun law has been passed since this CDC report that has been proven effective at impacting violence?