Two House Representatives – Republicans, of course – introduced a bill that would remove race and ethnicity data collection on ATF Form 4473. Now, if we only are able to remove all the other questions…
A bill introduced in the House of Representatives would remove race and ethnicity reporting requirements on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) background checks for firearm purchases.
The bill, named the FIREARM Act, is sponsored by Reps. Diane Black (R., Tenn.) and Ted Poe (R., Texas). It will make the race and ethnicity reporting optional instead of mandatory on ATF Form 4473, removing what supporters of the bill call a “back-door” form of gun control.
“You shouldn’t have to answer 20 questions to Uncle Sam in order to get your firearm, it should be your Second Amendment right to do that,” Black said. “The race and ethnicity requirement on the background check is not necessary.”
Well in this case, it to make sure they have the correct “Michael Johnson” when doing the background check. Might as well eliminate gender while you are at it for all the “Pat Michaels” out there.
I would prefer they remove race / gender questions from education and employment applications. In those instances it is not used to positively identify the individual and determine if they are a prohibited person, it is to discriminate based upon race and gender.
NICS checks on the other hand NEVER use race or sex as a basis for approval or non approval, the information is there to determine if somebody is a prohibited purchaser and I actually don’t have a problem with it except for some of the qualifiers for being a “prohibited person.” For example if you have been charged, but not convicted of domestic abuse you are usually a “prohibited person” and that is a bit at odds with “innocent until proven guilty.”
Yeah I’m getting to that point where I’m confused about the concept of gender, age, and race. Every time I fill out one of these forms I feel like I’m being profiled.
I think background checks should be quicker and easier… and more like a credit score.
I’d like to be able to check a guy out before I sell him a gun, give him a job, rent out my house…
The downside would be that the government could easily make a person unemployable, no rights, etc… but having a bad paper record already does that to a person, it’s just a matter of does the employer/ seller/ owner carry out due diligence.
If I had access to a tool, even a commercial service, that could be used to check out buyers (and it was economical) I would use it.
I’ve never backed out of a sale, but I’ll admit that there have been times that I’ve been skeeved right-up-to-the-line by a buyer’s appearance, speech, or behavior.
Our laws most certainly DO provide an avenue for Citizens to lose their rights through due process of law, and I believe that’s something that should be enforced to the best of our ability, and also that we have a duty as Citizens to do so.
I disagree. I’m not seeing the “infringement” in a NICS check. This is one of the few times when we actually look for the “bad people” rather than just deny rights to all because “bad people might get a gun.”
I only wish they did something about the “bad people” who fail the check besides tell the FFL it’s a “non approval.” Seems to me that typically means a felon attempted to obtain a firearm which was actually a crime last time I checked.
I do think we should return to destroying 4473s after 5 years however.
I am of the firm belief that “shall not be infringed” means what it says, and I vehemently oppose any attempts at restricting an inalienable Right. (In fact, courts repeatedly have ruled that there should be no Prior Restraint on the exercise of a right) Besides the fact that background checks (BCs) are unconstitutional and force citizens to prove their innocence in order to exercise a God-given Right, 1) BCs do not prevent crimes, 2) BCs are the means to gun registration and confiscation, and facilitate genocide, and 3) BCs invite arbitrary abuses from the government. Perhaps you want BCs on citizens prior to them exercising any of their inalienable Rights? A BC on reporters before they are allowed to report? A BC on the local preacher before he may preach?
The Bill of Rights is very clear on the fact that our RKBA shall not be infringed, and nowhere else in the U.S. Constitution do we find the same verbiage. We cannot, and never should, accept any compromise to the RKBA.
I don’t think you will find anyone more second amendment than a NFA dealer and four decade collector.
But sometimes I think people believe having to drive to the gun store and pay for a gun is “infringement.”
Quite honestly, I find the current age requirements to be a more true form of infringement than a NICS check. I find the prohibition against mail order firearms to be a more true form of infringement than a NICS check.
I don’t see how a BC is “infringement.” When has a NICS check ever prevented a law abiding citizen from buying a gun?
BC checks may not prevent crime, I’m with you there, but in some instances they prevent “prohibited persons” from simply walking into a gun store and coming out with a gun.
BC are NOT a means of back door gun registration, with the exception of states that “register” firearms a NICS check does not provide make, model or serial number. The only info provided is “handgun”, “long gun” or “both.” The 4473 is a much bigger registration concern as ATF will routinely make copies of 4473s during compliance inspections.
I honestly wouldn’t mind a “positive ID” process before one is allowed to vote.
To me BC really don’t qualify as infringement. So long as you are not a prohibited person it is “typically” 3 minutes to confirm you are who you say you are and you are taking your gun home the very same day.
We aren’t talking about anything dramatic. It’s barely an inconvenience. It’s like the parking lot at church being full, it’s not really preventing you from practicing your religion.
More importantly, gun owners suffer from the actions of bad people with guns enough as it is. Things like background checks are no more than due diligence to try and prevent that from happening. We have a lot of whack jobs walking around that nobody is willing to lock up. They are trying to get John Hinkley permanently released. Do you really want him to be able to walk into a gun store and buy anything he wants because it’s his “inalienable right”? I don’t.
And making sure Hinkley can’t buy a gun does NOTHING to prevent you or I from buying a gun. So I really don’t have a problem with background checks. The only exception is from “non dealers”, I don’t think private sellers should have to accept that level of responsibility to sell their personal property. So long as they aren’t selling to a “known” prohibited person it should be no different than selling their lawn mower.
I always thought that question was optional like your SS#. In NJ they use your FID # when calling in your NICS check so I guess they already know all that information.
Yes, the current BC system does very little if anything to prevent access to firearms by unauthorized persons. Someone truly committed to commit a crime using a firearm will find the means by which to do this, whether it means acquiring a firearm from a source where BCs are not enforced, using a straw purchaser, stealing the firearm, etc. In order for BCs to be more effective at preventing access to firearms by felons and other “unauthorized persons” (the legality of which is a debate in itself), BCs must universally be established, and registration must be in place. Universal BCs are enforceable, and more effective, only when registration of firearms is in place. I don’t believe placing a Prior Restraint (which UBCs and registration clearly are both) on the exercise of a constitutionally-protected Right passes constitutional muster, and it conflicts with our Natural Law.
Do you believe the 2A allows the government to register the citizens’ firearms?
Are the current BCs effective? If not, what if anything should be changed?
Finally, I believe due process needs to take place before anyone is designated a terrorist by a government. Either you are a terrorist, in which case you should be prosecuted (and receive due process) for your alleged terror crimes, or you’re not, in which case the government has no right to restrict your right to travel.
Except that it completely prevents them from accessing firearms- in the instances when it’s used.
Kind of like all the crazy stuff we used to do to score alcohol as kids… wouldn’t it have been easier if they just sold it to us direct without checking our age?
The law would be in place to prevent minors from consuming alcohol (just as the law will always been in place preventing prohibited persons from accessing firearms), but we could all just play stupid like we don’t know a 13 year old is buying a bottle of Vodka (or a Dirtbag is buying an AK). It could be like a trust thing…
Sounds like a great plan!
What makes you think that registration must be in place? You’re not regulating the guns, you’re screening the people to ensure that they have the right to posses them.
As an employer, I use eVerify. I think that we should be able to plug in someone’s social and get their citizenship status, criminal history, are they on the sex offender registry, etc…
Most of that information is public record anyway, we just have to go to several places to access it, and seldom do.
I think it should be in a smartphone app people can use to screen buyers, renters, boyfriends, etc… and it should be free.
No, but you’re clearly obfuscating.
We’re in full agreement here.
I think the Terror Watch List and the No Fly List should both be the same as the Sex Offender Registry.
The government shouldn’t be able to look at someone, call them a terrorist, and list them any more than they should be able to look at someone, call them a dirty perv, and list them.
You and I both wish to prevent unauthorized persons access to firearms. BCs may prevent immediate access to firearms to those denied, yet ultimately only a tiny fraction of those denied are prosecuted, so how can you claim people are denied, and crimes averted, when those denied are free to frequent the many other outlets from which to acquire firearms without going through a BC. A 2010 DOJ report (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf) claims NICS denied 72,000 applicants (a denial rate of approx. 1%). Of those 72,000 denied applicants, only 22 were prosecuted by a US Attorney’s office. A 0.03 % prosecution rate is not preventing crimes or locking up those who were denied. I fail to see how anything but UNIVERSAL BCs, coupled with registration (to enforce that people go through the UBCs), will do anything at all to prevent crime and to a greater extent deny those who should be denied. In fact, the DOJ has admitted that UBCs, only when coupled with registration, may prove to be effective at denying access to those who should be denied, of whom there are many.
…and the other 71,978 just went on Armslist and did a casual sale. (let’s be honest)
If it means going to a gunstore, paying some guy and/or the State, and filling out paperwork, then I say no deal.
There should be a smartphone app that anyone can use to pull info from a publicly searchable database and see if someone is a prohibited person or not.
If he’s not eligible to own a gun, and he’s trying to buy mine, I’ll gladly hold him down until the cops arrive. If he gets away I’ll snap a pic of his plate. Hell, make the app transmit the location of the sale immediately upon denial- that way the cops are on it whether or not the seller happens to be a responsible firearms owner.
Totally incorrect- it’s immediately preventing crimes by 100% of those who are denied… at a minimum the crime of possession by a prohibited person.
Whether they choose to obtain firearms the easy way through a casual sale, or choose to endure the grave risk of stealing them, is not immediate, but in the future… and we can eliminate the possibility of them being obtained through a dirty casual sale if we choose to.
Again, I think you’re deliberately obfuscating because registration is out of the question, and has nothing to do with background checks.
If a quick, easy, and free means of background checking someone existed out there, I’m sure most of us would use it voluntarily just to make sure we aren’t selling to dirtbags.
We already do a cursory google search on business partners, dates, neighbors, etc… and some records are hidden (like the terror watch list), some are tricky to find but still public (like arrest records), and others are simple to find (like the sex offender registry).
I say put it all in one place and make an official source. It actually wouldn’t have to just be about guns, and I wouldn’t have to tell them why I’m inquiring as to a person’s citizenship, criminal record, etc…