As I was finding my topic for this morning I happened upon a note where some in the House and Senate a pushing for expanded Universal Background Checks. I was going to head in the direction of picking apart the proposed legislation, but then I came across this gem on YouTube, Gun Laws For Dummies.
It’s an interesting piece of propaganda, but fails the sniff test. Basically the cartoon indicates criminals (Mr. Bad Guy) will first try to legally purchase a firearm from a dealer as their crimes escalate. I just don’t see that as a reality. Why would a criminal ever legally do anything? It seems no one ever takes a minute to explain that thoroughly. We all want to think people are doing the right thing, but the fact is criminals never do the right thing. They don’t care about the law at all.
So next Mr. Bad Guy goes after he is foiled at the gun store and apparently has found a treasure trove on the internet. What the video fails to recognize if the posting is out-of-state the only way Mr. Bad Guy could get the firearm is at a dealer. You cannot send handguns through the mail unless you are a licensed dealer and the major shipping companies have strict rules in place as well. So the only way a criminal can make a transaction is face to face. Now since I live in North Carolina let’s stick with a legal sale in NC. For a handgun you must have a CHP or a PPP which is shown to the seller to indicate a background check has been completed. If the buyer has neither and the seller sells the handgun to them then they are also breaking the law and a criminal. So the validity of the internet angle for criminals is pretty much nonexistent unless the criminal robs the seller and most sellers are armed during private transactions. Either the background check was already completed for a handgun with the CHP or PPP, or the transaction was illegal.
You may ask yourself how do criminals find these guns than. To be honest, I don’t actually know. What I do know is I currently know no person who smokes or uses marijuana, but I would bet within two hours I could purchase some on the street, maybe less. So finding outlets for illegal firearm procurement should not be much more difficult with a little tenacity. There is no background check in the world which is going to catch these people, what it might do is allow their prosecution for the crime once they are caught.
Now what we should do is once someone is rejected by a background check they should get a visit from the police department or the feds. There are probably several rejections each day for any number of computer glitch reasons, but wouldn’t it make sense to spend money on resources to check out those who try to purchase a firearm and are rejected? If that person is innocent then it should pan out quickly. If they are not then perhaps we could stop someone who should not have a firearm from ever getting one. Suppose the video showed the cops arriving and Mr. Bad Guy being cuffed and stuffed instead of walking out of the store. I think a few minutes with a police officer might be just what the doctor ordered.
With all that in mind, I am not against background checks. I want to keep illegal guns off the street. Generally most crimes are committed with handguns. Rifles and shotguns are rarely used, but the news media would have you believe every thug is carrying around a full auto .50 caliber to shoot through walls from miles away. The reality is many of the firearms criminals have are either not working, using the incorrect ammo, or have the incorrect magazine which renders the firearm incapable of firing. In one analysis the percentage of non working firearms confiscated during arrest was 41%. Criminals are not going into a store and purchasing a new firearm or a quality firearm. They are getting them used and abused on the street from some other thug and no background check is ever going to stop this type of transaction from happening. If you think it will, you are delusional.
At the bottom of the video below on YouTube it says:
“The Brady Law has blocked 2-million gun purchases by criminals and other dangerous persons prohibited from possessing a firearm.”
What I want to know if the number who have been arrested as a result of those blocks. I suspect it will be a negligible number. This column backs me up stating of the 80,000 denied in 2010 only 44 were charged with a crime. Don’t you think it would make more sense to enforce the laws we have and prosecute those who break the law or try to break the law than to try to implement additional legislation? If the percentage has been constant then across the US only 0.055% of those who were rejected by the background check have been charged. With such a low percent being charged it makes me wonder if anyone in government even cares and if the check has validity in the first place.