Claim: Universal background checks would be ineffective.
Example: "There are three basic problems with universal background checks; it will have no effect, the numbers don’t prove the case, and the only way to make the scheme remotely effective is repugnant to the people." -C.D. Michel
Response:
They apparently do work at reducing both homicide and suicide rates. In Missouri, for example, the repeal of their mandatory background check law in 2007 was followed by a significant increase in murders. These laws have also been shown in multiple studies to be linked to lower suicide rates.
Thursday, March 1, 2018
Evaluating anti-gun control arguments #13: Universal background checks would require universal gun registration to be effective
Argument: Universal background check legislation would only be effective if supplemented with a law requiring all privately owned guns to be registered with the federal government.
Example: "The Obama-era Justice Department acknowledged UBC [universal background check legislation] requires national gun registration to be effective." -NSSF
Response:
First, it should be acknowledged that this claim is fundamentally true: a 2013 DOJ memo, obtained and released by the NRA, did in fact say that the effectiveness of UBC legislation depends on "requiring gun registration". However, this memo was never officially released by the Obama administration at all, and the AP stated that it "has the look of a preliminary document". Additionally, a DOJ official at the time said that the memo was "an unfinished review of gun violence research and said it does not represent administration policy."
Under federal law (specifically, the Brady Act), it is illegal for the federal government to keep a registry of guns, and since 2004, records generated from background checks are destroyed within 24 hours of being approved. Creating such a registry would also be so complex as to be practically impossible. Those opposed to such a registry are certainly well aware that they have significant influence over Congress-more than enough, certainly, given that they can stop universal background checks from becoming federal law. Not only that, any confiscation policy that might hypothetically be implemented would be struck down for being unconstitutional.
Perhaps most important is that creating an actual gun registry would require repealing/amending the Firearm Owners Protection Act--something that actual UBC bills introduced in Congress never do.
Example: "The Obama-era Justice Department acknowledged UBC [universal background check legislation] requires national gun registration to be effective." -NSSF
Response:
First, it should be acknowledged that this claim is fundamentally true: a 2013 DOJ memo, obtained and released by the NRA, did in fact say that the effectiveness of UBC legislation depends on "requiring gun registration". However, this memo was never officially released by the Obama administration at all, and the AP stated that it "has the look of a preliminary document". Additionally, a DOJ official at the time said that the memo was "an unfinished review of gun violence research and said it does not represent administration policy."
Under federal law (specifically, the Brady Act), it is illegal for the federal government to keep a registry of guns, and since 2004, records generated from background checks are destroyed within 24 hours of being approved. Creating such a registry would also be so complex as to be practically impossible. Those opposed to such a registry are certainly well aware that they have significant influence over Congress-more than enough, certainly, given that they can stop universal background checks from becoming federal law. Not only that, any confiscation policy that might hypothetically be implemented would be struck down for being unconstitutional.
Perhaps most important is that creating an actual gun registry would require repealing/amending the Firearm Owners Protection Act--something that actual UBC bills introduced in Congress never do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)