Background check bad idea (!). Nice article.

Discussion in 'Hunters Rights Forum' started by 'tween_fly_ways, Jan 27, 2007.

  1. 'tween_fly_ways

    'tween_fly_ways Moderator

    Jan 3, 2002
    South Tennessee via North Alabama
    Why the Instant Background Check Is a Bad Idea
    By Larry Pratt

    The anti-gun Centers for Disease Control has examined several studies that focused on guns and crime and concluded that gun control laws have no impact on crime.

    Congress has legislation before it to expand the Instant Background Check, aka the Brady Law. Rather than expand the program, it should be abolished.

    Since the background check is mostly defended on its value in supposedly "keeping guns out of the wrong hands," let's consider that idea.

    If we were to do away with the Instant Background Check, the question is frequently asked, how would we keep guns out of the wrong hands. The answer is, we would be as successful without the check as with it. How do we know?

    The Centers for Disease Control, an anti-gun federal agency, has examined several studies that focused on guns and crime. Their conclusion? They found that there is no impact from gun control laws,
    including the Brady Law, on crime.

    More dramatic evidence comes from the "laboratory" of England. This island nation has banned handguns. They don't need a background check because there are no legitimate sales. Following the confiscation of over 1.5 million guns, including all legally owned handguns in 1997, violent crime has skyrocketed. Illegal handguns are estimated by police to number over 3,000,000. According to a UN study in 2000, England is the most violent of all the world's industrial countries.

    Unless England can figure out how to keep guns out of the "wrong hands" how does anyone expect an instant background check to do anything? Even if a criminal did not have a friend or a false ID, it would not be difficult to get a gun in other ways.

    So, if the Instant Background Check is useless, why are we violating the Constitution, which gives no authority to the federal government to regulate guns? Moreover, the background check is based on a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused ("Why do you need a gun?") to prove his innocence ? a total reversal of the presumption of innocence required in our legal system.

    An equivalent to the background check to buy a gun would be to run a background check on people before they can become reporters or preachers ? or before they can send letters to the editor. Well, some have argued, we have laws against shouting "fire" in a theater, so why not a similar prior restraint with the background check. Other than the fact that the background check does no good, there is no equivalence. The equivalent to shouting "fire" in a theater is to use a gun illegally. No background checks are run on those entering theaters and the legal consequences of shouting "fire" are only imposed after the deed is done.

  2. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Apr 15, 2000

    Good post! Thanks!

    Also pending is an expansion of the Brady law to cover ALL firearms transactions, not just those at gun shows.

    A new class of "banned" individuals will include all persons on "No Fly" lists. No fly lists are known to contain thousands or even hundreds of thousands of errors. Teddy "the toad" Kennedy was on the list until he used his political weight to get his name removed.

    We must continue to make everyone aware of the folly of gun control legislation. This includes many (I hope not most!) hunters who care nothing about others' guns as long as their shotguns and rifles are not being targeted. You can see their attitudes reflected in their comments about the NRA and other firearms freedom organizations. Short-sighted is the best I can say about such an attitude.


Share This Page