Expanding background checks for guns.

[AndyS]

https://www.democraticunderground.com/126213977
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216131589

I posted these a few days ago and it occurs to me that there MUST be something that can be done to reduce the increasing carnage within the framework of gun ownership. If so then it is clear to me that too many of the wrong people are getting guns, that is, people who don't have training, people who have antisocial issues and possibly people with psychological issues or even personal grievances.

I suggest that the background check system be expanded. We already recognize the need to include private sales in the background check and although it is yet become law it can't end there. People who buy guns must be screened more carefully.

For me the NICS check is not enough. Given all the after-the-fact stories of manifestos and 'missed signals on social media' a social media scan has to be part of the background check. It is, after all, public in almost all cases.

Next I'd add local law enforcement. They could scan court records for divorce proceedings, custody battles and other high stress proceedings. Personal interviews with intimate partners, employers and family members should also be part of the background check system. Then, at the discretion of local law enforcement, a 'permit to purchase' order could be issued with a 6 month expiration date. A purchase after 6 months would require another permit application because life changes.

A permit to purchase order and a certificate of training should be required along with the standard NICS check before taking possession of a firearm.

This would necessitate the re-reinstatement of 'May Issue' to replace the current 'Must Issue' standard. Bring human discretion back into the process.

Because many states would refuse to implement such a standard and states are not required to enforce federal law without federal funding this standard should be mandated at the federal level and paid for with taxes on guns and ammo. The second amendment is a constitutional mandate and the constitution is a federal document, so I don't see an issue with taking the lead over the 50 states.

Eventually there must be an electronic data base of guns and owners. How else can those who become 'prohibited' be located and their guns removed? In fact, the NRA has a pretty extensive data base already provided by dealers for promotional purposes.

Looking at each of these steps I see nothing that the courts have held as violating the second amendment.

[Sancho]

1. Here's my suggestion....

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[AndyS]

3. Yes, this looks comprehensive and a possible solution

to gun violence. Thanks for the considered ideas.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

2. The current case before SCOTUS this term is likely going to present a problem

NYSRPA v Bruen was just argued in the beginning of November. Based on how the arguments went(and trying to predict the outcome of the case based on the oral arguments can be hit or miss), the "may issue" standard is likely going to be declared a violation of the 2nd Amendment and unconstitutional. Discretion will be removed entirely and it will be solely based on whether the person meets the legal requirements. Now, this case has been narrowed to specifically address the issuance of concealed carry permits, but its unlikely that may issue for permit to purchase or possession would survive a challenge when that standard is barred for concealed carry. Of course SCOTUS could shock everyone and let the may issue standard stand, but with a 6-3 conservative majority, I highly doubt it.

That all said, NICS definitely needs to be strengthen and all agencies, fed, state, and local, need to actually report to it. That was the problem with the Texas church shooting a few years ago. The USAF failed to report the gunman's court martial and conviction to the FBI. Had they done so, his NICS check would have failed when attempted to purchase the guns he used in the shooting. Reporting to NICS is spotty and inconsistent and needs to be better.

[AndyS]

4. Thanks for the information.

I wasn't aware of of Bruen and if that has the outcome you predict it will be a setback. On the other hand with the rapidity of court ignoring Stare Decisis it may not make a big difference

Welcome to DU