Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Do-it-yourself Background Checks

 USA Today

Here's how Coburn's plan would work: A gun buyer would log in to a free federal web portal and enter some personal information. If the buyer passes the background check, he or she would get a multi-digit key code, good for 30 days, to print out and take to a seller. That seller would use the same portal to confirm the authenticity of the background check. 

The self-service system, the Oklahoma Republican said, would bypass the cost and record-keeping requirements required by the current proposal, which would require the involvement of a federally licensed firearm dealer for sales at gun shows and over the Internet. It's unclear how much it would cost to create a public-facing portal, but Congress has already authorized more than $1.2 billion to improve the system available to law enforcement and licensed dealers.

That dealer might not be convenient, and may charge a fee for the transfer service, Coburn said. And forcing everyone to go through a licensed dealer would simply push gun sales into the shadows. "If you make it easy for people to comply with the law, they'll do it," he said. "If I'm a gun owner, I want to know I'm not selling to someone who's on the list."

Sales to family members would still be exempted from the system, unless the seller has reason to believe the family member wouldn't pass. And states could pass laws making even more exceptions to cover friends, neighbors and co-workers.

Still, critics say Coburn's plan relies too much on voluntary compliance by private sellers.
"It's unworkable," said Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, "and there would be no incentive for any private seller to do a background check under the legislation."

Another problem for gun control advocates: There would be no lasting record of the sale. 

From the beginning of the discussions about background check improvement, there's always been the idea that withough registration it would be unenforceable.  This is no different.

I'm afraid what we need is comprehensive gun control, not more of the mish-mash spattering of laws that pass for gun control now. 

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

15 comments:

  1. And this is why we can never work with you. You've said before that law-abiding gun owners would comply with a new law. Why not with this one? This would provide a way for responsible people to check. Criminals and the like wouldn't bother, but they won't bother with any law you care to propose.

    But what we see here is that gun control freaks are unwilling to accept anything less than total control--which translates into total civilian disarmament.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So are you rejecting background checks? Look, your way didn't pass. Do you want this, or would you rather keep the status quo? Remember the M-T bill didn't have registration either, right? Right??? I don't remember you rejecting it for that reason. Besides, I remember you saying in the past you didn't care how it was done, as long as you got background checks.

    Colburn's comment about making it easy is practically a quote of mine. The best way of getting compliance on anything is to make it cheap and easy. When Ladd talks about "incentive", he means the stick. It's pretty clear what he wants.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was hoping this was getting its chance. The article is from April when the bill was first introduced, do it appears we are still at the same place- gun control advocates fighting against background checks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Still, critics say Coburn's plan relies too much on voluntary compliance by private sellers.
    "It's unworkable," said Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, "and there would be no incentive for any private seller to do a background check under the legislation."

    Currently, the gun control industry is claiming that 80 to 90 percent of citizens are in favor of universal background checks. If this figure is accurate, then does there need to be an incentive. After all, we only need the people selling the firearm to insist on using this process to complete the sale.
    If the buyer doesnt pass the check, he doesnt get the gun. And since you dont put a high priority on prosecuting prohibited persons who attempt to buy firearms.
    You and others in favor of stricter gun laws always fault the gun rights side for refusing to compromise when "reasonable" gun laws are proposed, yet when a law is proposed that gets the same results, you reject it because it doesnt meet your vision.So in actuality, both sides are unwilling to compromise.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mike, indulge me if you will, with an answer to this question: would you rather have DIY checks or nothing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not oppose it. In fact, I think it's the way of the future. The airplane ticket analogy is a good one.

      I could see the DIY background check system working perfectly with my idea of good gun control. Licensed owners would simply need to keep a printout of the transfer to have proof of legitimate ownership.

      Delete
    2. Mikeb, you should take what little we're willing to give you. We won't be so amiable on any of your other desires.

      Delete
  6. Well, at least we have clarity: you won't accept anything less than registration, and we absolutely will not accept registration. It's just a good thing that most Americans hate the idea of a registry--so much so that the administration had to spend lots of time and effort saying "This isn't a registry! We don't want a registry!"

    And so you, Ladd, et al, continue discrediting yourselves and hurting even the chances of the lesser gun control mishmash that the President wants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you miss this part?

      "I do not oppose it. In fact, I think it's the way of the future. The airplane ticket analogy is a good one."

      Delete
    2. Did you miss this part: The time stamp.

      My comment was made the day before you posted that comment.



      As for your comments about accepting DIY checks, you still would not accept this proposal as the end of the road. You have let us know that we won't REALLY have gun control until we have full registration and may issue licensing for ownership. So, even if you would accept a form of DIY checks, you would not accept THIS form of them as the end of the road, but just another stepping stone like Manchin Toomey.

      Delete
  7. Mikeb, will you agree that a DIY background check system would do some good? If so, why would you oppose it? You may doubt that it would be enough, but isn't any gain something? The thing here is that this is a check system that most of us can agree to. It's a minor infringement, much better than many I've seen proposed. Why can't you support it?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Please, make up your mind. Either lawful gun owners would comply or they wouldn't. You can't have it both ways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When they say 90% want better background checks that includes gun owners and non-gun owners. When it comes to voluntarily complying with an inconvenient law that no one can check, most gun owners would say, fuck it.

      What is it with you guys playing dumb lately? Is Kurt that influentual that you guys do whatever he does?

      Delete
    2. So you claim that a lot of gun owners wouldn't volunteer to comply with an inconvenient law that's hard to check on, but you believe that if the government demanded that we turn in weapons that it doesn't know we have, we'd obey? Or magazines that aren't kosher any longer?

      The point here is that Coburn's check system is not a registry and trusts good citizens. Your system requires a registry and treats all gun owners as suspects.

      Delete
    3. Mike, the line from your camp is that even 74% of NRA members want it, and those are the hardcore ones who join an extremist terrorist uncompromising gun rights organization. Or are you doubting those numbers? Look, M-T was an even more "inconvenient law that no one can check" because it required getting in your car and driving to an FFL, paying a fee, and waiting for a check to clear. The only difference being that if you happen to get caught in violation you go to prison, which seems to be the part Ladd gets a stiffy over. Regardless of how many people would use it, you're adding an option that they don't currently have, which means more checks, and that should be a good thing. Even if 10% of sellers use it, that's a million more background checks per year (according to your side's 40% of sales are private figure). Yet Ladd is willing to derail it because it "incentivize" people with jail. It shows us how much he thinks background checks save lives.

      Thanks for saying you "don't oppose" it though.

      Delete