Universal background checks, Registration by another name

NO PRESENT GUN CONTROL PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE STOPPED RECENT SHOOTINGS

UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS UNENFORCEABLE

The recent shootings in El Paso and Dayton have triggered the calls for passing more gun control legislation. Of course, it has to be done quickly and irrationally to maximize the emotional anguish of the country.

Both of the perpetrators of these acts had passed background checks, did not have criminal records, and none of the proposed legislation would have made any difference. It seems that the urge to do something, even if really not effective, is the motive for more legislation. 

The current objective of the gun elimination crowd, is Universal background checks. At present all transaction with a licensed firearms dealer have a background check, this applies to both new and used firearms. All transactions conducted over the internet require that weapons be shipped to a licensed dealer in the buyers state, who conducts a background check on the purchaser. Sales at gun shows by dealers are checked.These laws have a very high rate of compliance because they are readily enforceable. The record keeping requirements are very strict and audited routinely.

Universal background checks would require all transactions between neighbors, family, friends and relatives to submit to a costly transfer and background check. You can bet all this information would be kept and would be in effect create a gun registration system. This would open the door to the possibility of confiscation in the future. While confiscation would be unlikely today, it is the goal of the ant-gun enthusiasts.

While enforcement of the present background check system is readily enforceable, a universal check would primarily be an unenforceable law. I am sure there would be cause for making examples of those who would be found to have not obeyed the law, but there would surely be a high degree of noncompliance. At present most gun laws are supported and complied with, passing laws that require good faith compliance would be a step in the other direction. 

The other call is for the banning of so called assault weapons, which the last time this was applied in 1994 the definitions of such weapons was that they had a flash-hider and pistol grip, the sale of the functioning same weapons continued just the appearance changed. The banning of magazines that hold large numbers of rounds have been banned in some states, mostly unenforceable and not complied with.

There is much frustration and helplessness with the possibility of a deranged or hopeless individual committing acts of mass murder. This is understood by all, but will legislation including the banning of all weapons eliminate this possibility? No. There is also the concern that passing oppressive and unenforceable laws will possibly increase future disregard of the law in general.

We are in the midst of the greatest divide in this country since the civil war. We have two diametrically opposed camps concerning the future of the country. There may be no peaceful resolution possible. Legislation will not bring about a peaceful resolution. 

It appears that some do not want a peaceful resolution. We see an organized effort to disregard many of the laws that we now have. We see the organized effort to disregard, humiliate and diminish the police. We see calls for public humiliation and harassment of public officials. We see physical assaults on opposition political supporters. We see groups like Antifa attack and assault opponents in public, without repercussion or arrest. How long will it take for someone to reciprocate in a very violent way. Is that the hope of some to cause a violent response and then label and use it as a political weapon? It appears that is the plan.

The calls for and passing of gun control laws since the 1990's has created the biggest demand and stockpiling of weapons and ammo in our history. Why has this demand been so great? Many people feel threatened by their government's actions and disintegration of social norms. We see the public disregard of our immigration laws, the public announcements of some cities to no longer prosecute minor theft crimes, to not cooperate in enforcing federal law. Yet at the same time asking for more regulation of the law-abiding. Does anyone believe that justifying their fears is a step in the right direction.

The country needs a common goal and needs to pass legislation with a strong bi-partisan support. We cannot keep ramming through major legislation by 1 vote or with deals with lawmakers that do not have the support of a large majority, whether it is healthcare, or any new legislation, nor do we need to gore the other parties supporters as spoils of victory. Sadly we don't see anything like that in the foreseeable future.


originally published 8/9/2019