the proposed laws.
Too often we see the debate about guns turn into a shouting match, tossing of counter-numbers from skewed polls/data sets/etc, and personal attacks. We see people using the same word but with different meanings.
This does not let either side explain or explore the issue and come up with possible solutions or compromises.
I have spent most of my life around firearms: 24+ years in the military, raised on the family farm when not living on military bases, work as a Paramedic in Cleveland for now. I have many family/friends/co-workers who own firearms. I am a self described liberal christian who volunteered for the Kucinich campaigns both Congressional (he was my Congressman) and president.
I have a foot in both worlds and have been exploring the non-soundbite rational for why gun owners oppose the proposed gun laws.
Long look after the fold.
First let me explain I'm not going to defend the arguments I present beyond the attempt to better clarify what the argument is. I am going to give the argument gun owners have against proposed laws and why they oppose them. Not defend those arguments.
I will give a possible solution that most gun owners would support as a good compromise. That I will defend but only as a compromise to get something done that will reduce gun crimes.
That written, the first argument from gun owners that is the biggest fear from gun owners: Each little law is one more step towards total gun registry and then gun ban.
The fear of a gun registry is the main driver of opposition to gun control laws. This is the big "boogie-man" of gun owners. The NRA exploits this, and very well. The lesser pro-gun groups have this as THE main reason for existing. (Gun Owners of America, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, etc). This is why gun owners fight universal background checks.
The national registry. But wait, what national registry? Here is the disconnect between the two camps. How does having universal background checks equal a national registry of firearms? No law is creating anything called a national registry.
To understand the thinking of gun owners you have to know how current law works. for all gun sales between a dealer and a citizen, between citizens of two different states (internet sales), a background check has to be done along with a Firearms Transfer Form 4473.
A three page (with an additional three pages of directions) form that collects a lot of information about the buyer and THE GUN they are buying. Things like your SSN, Age, RACE, Sex, Address, Military service, Drug use, Mental health, citizenship status, type of documentation, Place of Birth, Height Weight, type of gun, serial number of the gun, where it was sold at (store, home, gun show, trunk of car - just kidding on the last, but it would be allowed), when it was sold, when the buyer took possession, validation number of the background check, Dealer number, Address, etc.
After filling out this form, the dealer calls the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System - No one really knows why it is not NICBCS other than it is hard to say) gives them the information, NICS enters it into the computer and says Yes/No or We will get back to you.
What the gun owner sees is 1) a form filled out by the dealer that has a lot of personal info about them and the gun they are buying. 2) the dealer telling the Fed Gov all that info linking the buyer to the gun being sold which is in some database that the ATF/FBI can pull.
This process has to be done every time a dealer is involved in the transfer of a gun. So if you go on line and buy a gun, it has to be shipped to a dealer. It can't be shipped to you. The dealer has to "run it through his books" (4473/NICS) and they charge you for the time and effort. Here in Cleveland area it runs $75 to $125 per gun. Upstate NY was $100 to $150 because there are state forms and checks to do.
But what about the "gun show loop hole"? Right now, they can buy a gun from a friend or local (instate) person with out having to fill out the form or go into the database. This means they can own a firearm that the Fed Gov does not know they own and never have to fear it being taken away. (which is the real fear that their guns will be taken away) It also means they don't have that additional cost.
One aside here, this is only federal laws, state laws are different so some states have even more restrictions on the sale of guns, I'm only know New York's, Ohio's, Vermont's and Kentucky's well enough to comment on those.
When a law comes out that has "Universal" background checks gun owners fight that because then EVERY gun will be associated with each person in a database. And it would apply for EVERY transfer, even between family members. I will give an example of this. In 1903 my great grandfather bought a rifle. In 1923 he gave it to my 9 year old grandfather. In 1958 he gave it to my 12 year old uncle. in 1977 he gave it to his 10 year old daughter. She has every intention of giving it to her daughter when she turns 9 or 10. (Next year she will be old enough to compete in the local sportsman's camp youth shoot out, we have spent several hours target shooting and she is very safe with it and a darn good shot, might even win the competition) The rifle could be replaced with an equivalent today for around $150. To do a transfer every time we handed down the rifle drives up the cost of ownership and creates a paper trail. They would still pay it because of the emotional value of having a rifle that five generations have used (and I hope more). {note: while they are going to 'give' the rifle to her, she won't be legally allowed to 'own' it till she is 18, till then it stays in the vault with her (future) shotgun and my cousins guns.}
So the fear is a registry of who own what gun owners fear. Why.
Because if the Government knows who has a gun, they can ban that gun and take it away. Gun owners point to the Scotland which banned guns and then used the mandatory registration to collect all of them, or New Zealand or Australia which did the same. Some times they point to New Jersey and CA which mandated certain types of guns be registered with the state then later banned those guns and used the registration list to confiscate any that had not been sold out of state or turned in.
Further helping confirm the idea that registration leads to confection is statements from gun control advocates about tracking all guns, banning some or all guns, removing gun types that are used in mass killings, etc. That is in the mind of the gun owner when they hear "universal background checks". They see this as an expansion of the database to include all guns being run through a dealer/NICS check, higher costs, and a national registry leading to a seizing of their guns. (if they are minority gun owners they have expressed concern that since their race is on the forms, they will be targeted by the ATF due to the racist history of that agency.)
The gun control supporters of a national registry have only one argument for such a thing: It would permit law enforcement to track guns and see if irresponsible or criminal individuals are either selling their guns or giving them to individuals with no right to own them. (to which one gun owner said "yeah, do the cops job for them by collecting evidence against your self") That is a noble goal, but is it worth having if it results in no background check laws being passed?
This raises the question: what is the goal behind universal background checks?
Both sides would agree (we leave out the tin-foil hat types on both sides - JPFO i'm looking at you) that felons, drug addicts, domestic abusers, people kicked out of the military, people not citizens and not here legally, Mentally unstable, fugitive from justice, etc should not be allowed to buy a gun. Any gun. Even the NRA says this. This is not objected to.
What is objected to is the tying of the purchase of a gun to the person buying it. Which is what a background check does currently.
If we want universal background checks of all gun buys, there has to be some system set up that does not collect the information of what gun is being bought and who bought it but does validate that the buyer is not a prohibited person.
Such a system would be very hard for the NRA to fight with out going over to the side of "then the police won't have a way to know who bought the gun" argument in favor of a national registry.
I've bounced this idea off several gun owners and gotten very positive support of the idea, along with a very fatalistic "it would never happen because the anti-gun types won't support it".
We set up a system that says if you want to buy a firearm you have to have an ID card from the ATF showing you have passed the initial background check. the ID would be issued in the same way a Passport is and would be a "must issue" ID. Meaning if your back ground check was clean, they have to issue you the ID. No restrictions. Or you have to have a current Military ID.
When the person wants to buy a gun, they present their ID, the dealer calls in and says "I have ATF ID #1234 (or military ID DOD # 54321), who wants to buy a gun." They type that in and a second check is made for anything new, and the dealer is told Yes/No. All that is recorded is that #1234 was approved to buy a gun on this date, because they are not felons/drug abusers/fugitives/etc and a sale number would be issued to the seller. There would be a separate phone number for private sales that would require two id's but would not collect info on the firearm. Anyone selling a gun with out doing a check would be in violation of the law. After all the goal is to make sure anyone buying a gun is legal to own a gun. Not build some list of who owns what gun.
This would allow private sales to be checked, counter the fear of gun owners, and lower the cost to all people when it comes to buying a gun.
The police could run sting ops or do what they do now to track how bad guys got their guns - question the bad guy, offer deals for info, conduct investigations. But by taking away the registry issue, we get the main goal done - back ground checks for all gun transfers.
It this idea 100% good? No. Is it 100% bad? No. But it would have support from both sides to meet the goal of 100% background checks before any gun is transferred.
Next: this is a back door confiscation, this is punishing the innocent for what the guilty did, nit-pickyness, and it won't work.