Background Checks and the 2nd Amendment


Supporters of arms control are focusing on the introduction of Universal Verification of Previous Experience as a next step in the prevention of weapons violence. Arms groups challenge the need for more checks and see the concept as progress in the plan to erode the right to wear weapons. They are afraid the government will track firearms and try to deny progress to the critics of the second correction.

Advocates of the background check require huge public support, but four of the last six countries that consider the idea of ​​private transfers have rejected it. Washington endorsed voters' checks last November. Since then, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Vermont, and Virginia have refused to require the checks. Oregon has recently passed a law to check the past, but such an upcoming legislation in other countries is by no means certain that it may pass or even be likely to be considered.

Members of the US House of Representatives reintroduced a bill (HR 1217) to demand checks over past years for most firearms transfers. The proposed law failed in the US Senate in April 2013 as a modification of the Senate Arms Control Bill. I expect to fail again, this time in the judicial committees. Let me explain why this law continues to fail, and why the effort to pass seems useless.

Universal background Checks would not hinder any of the seven major 21st century shooting sites from Virginia Tech in 2007 to Charleston this year. Six of the seven shooters Cho, Hassan, Lowner, Holmes, Alexis and Rowe received approval from the NICS when they acquired their weapons. The seventh pole of the rifle that he used from his mother after killing her with another weapon. She had bought them from local dealers with NICS checks.

Many firearms involved in other crimes have passed a check of the past and whether or not they have a small difference. Criminals simply do not buy their weapons legally. The National Institute of Justice claims that most weapons used for crimes come from theft or straw purchases. Since both methods of acquisition are already violating the law, addition of the crime to avoid the necessary screening of the background has no significant deterrent value.

Arms control attorneys, such as Everytown For Gun Safety and Americans for Responsible Solutions, seem to be making efforts to implement Universal Background Checks for two reasons beyond the stated goal of stopping forbidden purchases. These two unsettled provisions may not seem in vain if your goal is to reduce or eliminate the civilian property of most firearms.

First, the created computer records will improve the government's ability to track firearms and help implement other arms control measures. The Obama administration wants to trace "to prevent the anonymous build-up of firearms," ​​according to verbal arguments in a US Supreme Court case involving checks of the past (Abramski v. US, No. 12-1493, 2014). Some states with universal control laws already use the fire seizure records. In New York, the Ammunitions and Firearms Protection Act allows law enforcement authorities to use cross-data databases to search for illegally held firearms. California does the same with the armed forbidden system. Chicago's Weapons Weapons Department seizes weapons under the Firearms Owners Identification Program.

Secondly, arms control supporters are seeking "progress" towards larger goals. The supporters of Washington's successful initiative, for example, recently announced new anti-weapons proposals. Since the change in the US Senate's weapons check in 2013 was unsuccessful, President Obama said: "So while this compromise did not contain everything I wanted or anything [Sandy Hook] families want, it's progress. "The progress that the president is striving for is aimed at" transformation "to restrictions such as" in the United Kingdom, Australia … "as he said after the Naval Force shooting and again in Charleston.

Defenders of the second correction understand these two reasons quite well and find them disgusting, so they furiously oppose inspections on a general basis. With resolve to make progress on the one hand and political resistance on the other hand, the pointless rethinking of checks continues.