Sunday, April 28, 2013

Sen. Tom Coburn Suggests DIY Background Check System

 USA Today

Getting a background check to buy a gun would be as easy as printing out an airplane boarding pass -- if Sen. Tom Coburn has his way.

Coburn's do-it-yourself background check plan -- which would expand the number of gun sales covered by background checks but also attempt to make them more user-friendly -- is one possible path forward for the gun safety legislation now stalled in the Senate.

Gun control advocates are more skeptical of Coburn's plan, and Coburn himself admitted he doesn't know whether it has the votes to pass. But it appears his plan will get a vote: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., promised as much last week as he pulled the gun bill from the floor, saying he would bring it up again later. Coburn has one co-sponsor, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., but the NRA has been silent on the proposal.

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 requires the involvement of a federally licensed firearm dealer for sales at gun shows and over the Internet.

"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. 

What's your opinion? I could see something like this working.  What if the system produced a record of the transaction which could later be accessed? What if gun owners were required to maintain a print-out of the background check approval as later proof? 

As with all background check systems, this one would work best with licensing and registration. 

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

36 comments:

  1. The whole point of this is the lack of transaction record so that you won't get any help building a registry.

    If you just want to mandate background checks, this is the way you'll probably get the most support. If you can't stand that it actually results in less government data on who owns what guns than the current system, then you show that you really care less about background checks than about incrementally moving toward that registry that you have an intellectual hard on for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wouldn't there need to be a way to control for compliance?

      Delete
    2. Control for compliance--that's the essence of your philosophy. Sorry, Hoss, but you're handing us turpentine and calling it fine Scotch.

      Delete
    3. Whenever we point out that one of your proposals is incapable of enforcement, you always tell us that this doesn't matter because enough people will obey the law simply because it is there.

      Do you not really believe that?

      Delete
    4. Well then, if they're already complying, why do you need privacy invading controls to enforce that compliance?

      Delete
    5. I picture it like this. Among truly lawful gun owners, the vast majority would obey the laws regardless of the inconvenience. Some, however, would only do so because they'd fear getting caught in violation. So, in order to get the best results, the possibility of control needs to be in place.

      Delete
    6. "Control for compliance", huh? It does serve to highlight what so many others have pointed out in the past. That is, that for anti-rights people, it's all about control of others.

      Delete
    7. RT, I really think that's a stupid accusation that you guys think sounds cool or something. It's about exactly what they say it is, crime and violence reduction.

      Delete
    8. Mikeb, that's only the case if you make criminal behavior that harms no one.

      But consider, you call millions of gun owners irresponsible and unfit, and yet you think they'll comply with your silly proposals. If we're as crazy and criminal as you suggest, why do you believe that we'll suddenly become compliant?

      Delete
    9. No, it's about crime creation. You want to take something that used to be legal, and make it illegal. New crime, new criminals. In the case of the original Schumer bill, it was going to be a whole heck of a lot of new criminals.

      But to set the record straight, a voluntary system would be a huge improvement over what we have now, since you said the vast majority of people would use it. Adding crimes to get slightly more people to use it by threat of the stick, would be a slight improvement over a voluntary system in your mind. The important part is getting the system in place. Am I reading your position correctly with that statement?

      Delete
    10. Yeah, just like the seat belt law was about crime creation. You probably hated that one too, I know I did. But, after a little kicking and screaming, most of us began to comply. And guess what, we were all better off for it.

      Delete
    11. "I really think that's a stupid accusation that you guys think sounds cool or something. It's about exactly what they say it is, crime and violence reduction." Really?
      1. "Stupid accusation". Hmm...given that so much suggested "Gun control" legislation would have the immediate effect of making criminals out of the law abiding, I believe my conclusion is reasonable.
      2. "Sounds cool or something". Given the seriousness of a debate over fundamental civil liberties I have neither the time nor inclination to worry about sounding cool. Your suggestion is a distraction, nothing more.
      3. It's interesting that anti-rights people, regardless of the civil liberty under discussion, spring so quickly to restricting that liberty in response to its misuse. They could focus on dealing with the misusers swiftly and firmly, though always with appropriate regard for due process. Instead, we get to hear how "this event" or "these circumstances" necessitate restricting civil liberties "just a little". That these restrictions typically have little or no impact on those proposing them gives the lie to suggestions like "it's all about crime and violence reduction".

      Delete
    12. Mike, I've said this before. The seatbelt law is an infraction, not a crime. The penalty is a fine, not imprisonment. Is that what you mean by "control for compliance", because I'd be ok with that? DIY checks with a couple hundred dollar fine if caught selling without it (with family exemptions). Does that meet your agenda 100% on the issue of background checks?

      Delete
  2. I can see something like this being workable, as long as there is no requirement to keep the records, and as long that the dems don't add a lot of garbage amendments to it like they did to the Toomey-Manchin-Shumer bill. I know you trust the government, Mikey, but I do not.

    Of course, it would do nothing to stop crime. It would do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It would essentially do nothing. But the government could then say they did something and everyone except the gun control fanatics would be happy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wasn't it the pro-gun side that added the amendment about reciprocal concealed carry?

      Delete
  3. This sounds like a variation of what I've recommended. And if the gun control advocates' claim of 90+% of people support background checks, then it would result in an immediate drop in the number of guns sold without the checks.
    And I see that the gun control advocates have come out of the closet so to speak with their objections to the proposed bill.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yup, you're offered something that might actually make sense--a simple check so sellers could do what you say you want--and it's not good enough for you. But at least it forces your side to admit publically that registration and licensing is the goal. You only succeed when you're deceptive.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mike B, you will never understand that it is none of the government's business...or yours, what kinds and how many guns I may or may not own. I've done the back ground check and am a CWP holder. That is all that is required of me by current law.

    Besides, the ATF is making a de facto registration list anyway. When they go into gun shops to check records, they have been taking photo copies of the gun shop books of purchases made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It sounds like you better start buying us some weapons privately so the government won't know about them when the confiscations begin. When do you expect that to happen, by the way?

      Delete
    2. Your reply was completely irrelevant to what I said.

      As far as gun confiscations, your side has already stated that that is your ultimate goal.

      Delete
    3. Hey! The classic Mikey dodge! When someone makes a point that makes him uncomfortable, he dodges addressing it, insinuates insanity or paranoia, and tosses a new red herring!.

      Delete
  6. Ladd, here is the incentive for people to use it: because you have been pounding us all with "90% support background checks". Is he now admitting that it's BS? That people need to be forced by criminal repercussion to do something that they supposedly want to do?

    That is still my big question on the Colburn bill- what are the penalties? Apparently, it is not enough for Ladd, so we're off to a good start. Otherwise it sounds a lot like the TS plan that I have shared with you for years.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why are you so worried about forced compliance, Mike? This is a 90% issue. Almost everyone wants to do background checks, remember?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think it would be "forced compliance" any more than posting the 55 mph speed limit sign is. It would need to be checked though.

      Delete
    2. Apples to oranges in that comment Mike. Posting the speed limit sign would be akin to posting signs at gun shows reminding everyone of the law. Your Checks would be more akin to putting a GPS tracker in the cars to match speed to the limit, and periodically having cops check to see if they needed to issue a citation if the system showed any speeding.

      Except, of course, that instead of a citation, we're talking felony charges and jail time. But of course, that's not forcing compliance at all!

      Delete
    3. Tennessean, am I correct in understanding that traffic violations are a civil offense, akin to keeping goats in one's back yard when livestock aren't allowed in city limits?

      Delete
    4. For the record, you'd rather have DIY checks than nothing, right? Ladd seems willing to derail it.

      Delete
    5. Greg,

      We didn't really delve deeply into traffic law in any classes I took (was mostly a business, taxation, immigration student with Constitutional law and some criminal law classes tossed in). However, my understanding is that violations of ordinances are criminal matters. The confusion comes in because most of the time the government doesn't prosecute the case in the circuit court with other criminal cases; instead, a municipal judge just issues summary judgment and issues a fine. Further confusion comes from the use of civil proceedings to collect fines.

      They are able to do this, typically, because the penalty is below the federal and state thresholds for a jury trial.

      However, get multiple tickets for driving without insurance, or without a valid license, or a ticket for speeding above whatever the local threshold is, and you'll quickly find yourself charged with a crime.


      If someone knows better, I'd be glad to be corrected on the above. But to get to what I think you were getting at, Greg--even if traffic violations and urban farming are dealt with as crimes, they are dealt with as such minor crimes that we toss their enforcement over to a municipal judge who is king of his courtroom and issues piddly (in the grand scheme of things) fines. Gun laws, on the other hand, make not just a federal case of every infraction, but a felony one.

      Delete
    6. I'm just remembering someone going on in the immigration debate about how crossing the border illegally was the same order of offense as a traffic violation. Priorities, I suppose.

      Delete
    7. I think folks say that because we don't lock you up for a certain number of years before deporting you. It's an apples to oranges comparison. If you come here illegally, the law doesn't say that we charge you with a crime. Instead, it says that we deport you, willingly or unwillingly, and you can't apply to come here legally for 10 years. All of this is handled through the immigration courts--a parallel system.

      It would make as much sense to say that crossing the border illegally is equivalent to a felony punishable by 10 years. But really, both comparisons fall short.

      Delete
    8. @ Tennessee;

      I'm not sure if this is relevant to your post about municipal judges and fines so the government can avoid the expense of jury trials, but...A couple of years ago, I received a ticket in the mail from the town of Ridgeland, SC. Unbeknownst to me, they had a speed trap camera set up under a bridge overpass on I-95. (According to SC law, it is against the law to set up a camera speed trap unless the offender can be handed the ticket in person by an officer of the law within an hour of the infraction.)

      It was 2:00 AM, my brother was driving my truck and I was asleep in the passenger seat. We were clocked at 82 in a 70. A strobe flashed that was so bright, it woke me from a sound sleep and almost made my brother swerve off the road. I got the ticket in the mail and thought that it was bogus. Did a little research and found out that there was a class action lawsuit against the town of Ridgeland about the speedtrap camera and decided to fight it. It cost me twice what the fine would have been, but it also saved me the points on my insurance.

      When I drove the five hours down to the town for court, there were many others there who got caught in the same trap. Most of them just pleaded their ticket down to a fine of $85 bucks, but I went up and told them I wanted a jury trial, especially since I wasn't driving. The officer looked at the picture, looked at me and asked if I knew who was driving. I said yes and he took the ticket, wrote dismissed on it and told me I could go.

      Sometimes it does pay to fight the law.

      Delete
    9. You can push and get a jury trial. The rules and structure for this vary from state to state, but it is usually a possibility--most people just don't do it because of the expense.

      That's also why so many locales get away with illegal ticketing schemes that amount to highway robbery by the local government. That town was not complying with S.C. law, but very few people were willing to fight them on it, so they get to rake in the money.

      Good on ya for standing up to them.

      Delete
  8. It's amusing, in a bitter sort of way, that gun control advocates can insist that they aren't interested in any sort of national registry and then complain that this idea avoids such a thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's why I give Colburn a lot of credit for bringing this up now.

      Delete