Universal Means Universal
By Mitch Berg
James Taranto notes that while “Universal Background Checks” will have no effect on crime – serving as they do only to further harass and hamper the law-abiding, and price more low-income shooters out of the market – they will infringe on peoples’ privacy rights.
Currently, Federal Firearms License (FFL)-holding dealers perform these background checks online or via phone. FFLs, by the way, are pretty tightly regulated; it’s not something you get for the asking. On the other hand, Universal Background Checks would require all private transfers to get the background check.
And that means everyone:
Currently access to the FBI’s background check system is limited to licensed firearms dealers, who have an incentive not to abuse it lest they lose their license. If it’s opened up to all prospective sellers of guns–that is, to everybody–what’s to prevent someone from abusing it, say by requesting a background check on [Anti-gun WaPo columnist] Greg Sargent, who presumably has no interest in acquiring a gun?
The system only gives a yes-or-no answer as to whether the putative buyer is eligible to own firearms under federal law. But if you’re looking to dig up dirt on someone, a “no” answer on a firearms background check would give you a nice clump of it.
It’d put a big info-trawling tool into the hands of the unethical.
Think that won’t get abused?
Look at the last ten years in the history of Twin Cities’ leftyblogging and ask if you want that crowd to have access to a “there’s trouble here!” flag on every man, woman and child in the country.
March 26th, 2013 at 9:42 am
Increasingly there are news stories that our putative public servants are abusing their authority and snooping on their fellow citizens. The news only reports on the ones that have been caught of course. (Funny, the same people who believe we need even more regulation due to one incident – horrific as it was – seem oblivious to multiple instances of information access abuse.)
“Joe the Plumber’s” tax, licensure and status was outed by an Obama backer who also happened to be a person of authority in the state government of Ohio. Our dominant media culture ran with the information, not questioning where it came from or if it was legally obtained.
“Private” Citizen? How quaint.
March 26th, 2013 at 10:03 am
the question we must ask is: Do we want DG or peeve vetting everyone that irritates them?
March 26th, 2013 at 11:16 am
We certainly wouldn’t want Emery in that position since we already know how he treats confidential information when you get under his skin.
March 26th, 2013 at 12:49 pm
On a somewhat related note, I saw one of the best bumper stickers ever today on the back of a Ford F-350 pick up. On one side, was Marine “Semper Fi” sticker and the other side was a picture of Obumbler and his logo asking “Does this ass make my truck look big?” At least it was a 2012 model with the fuel efficient 6.7 Power Stroke Turbo Diesel, illustrating that the driver wasn’t a hater!
March 26th, 2013 at 1:48 pm
The preferred solution to allowing private citizens access to the database is to simply require that every transfer be done through a federally-licensed dealer. In effect, extending background checks to private sales by outlawing private sales.
And they wonder why we oppose it?
Meanwhile, the simple solution is ignored – allowing anyone who wishes to have a background check run on themselves, and then to provide documentation that they’ve passed, than they can then present to the buyer. We have that now, in Minnesota, with our Permits to Purchase and Permits to Carry, except that they are optional on private sales.
Of course, that fails on a number of counts: it doesn’t add inconvenience to gun owners, it doesn’t add to the expense, and it doesn’t create a paper trail.