# Universal Gun Background Checks: How would this work? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 25, 2013, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349 "2013-02-25T15:12:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/141 "2013-04-17T15:20:22Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I would have preferred a jail sentence… Thats a pretty horrible sentiment. The desire to put people in jail for this sort of thing makes you seem like you just have an animus towards guns and gun woners. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/142 "2013-04-17T15:57:25Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Thats a pretty horrible sentiment. > > The desire to put people in jail for this sort of thing makes you seem like you just have an animus towards guns and gun woners. I have a laser-like focus on irresponsible gun owners who refuse to be held accountable when their negligence leads to the death of children or victims of crime. You seem to seem to have an irrational hostility toward anyone who seeks to impose any sort of accountability on gun owners for the security of their weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/143 "2013-04-17T16:09:19Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I have a laser-like focus on irresponsible gun owners who refuse to be held accountable when their negligence leads to the death of children or victims of crime. You seem to seem to have an irrational hostility toward anyone who seeks to impose any sort of accountability on gun owners for the security of their weapons. Well, in this case what led to the death of a child was the child killing himself. [Here is](http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/650-C/650-C-1.htm) the New Hampshire statute in question. **Fear Itself** , I’m curious what you think of Section V: > [@](#): > > V. This section shall not apply whenever any of the following occurs: > (a) The child has completed firearm safety instructions by a certified firearms safety instructor or has successfully completed a certified hunter safety course. So, imagine the exact same circumstances: man leaves pistol atop gun safe, 15-year-old son kills himself with it, _but_ the boy had completed a hunter safety course a couple summers before, and thus the man cannot be prosecuted. Acceptable outcome? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/144 "2013-04-17T16:18:59Z")
The statute also says: > [@](#): > > VI. A parent or guardian of a child who is injured or who dies of an accidental shooting shall be prosecuted under this section only in those instances in which the parent or guardian behaved in a grossly negligent manner. Given that the gun was in the man’s bedroom closet, I doubt a jury will find the required gross negligence. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/145 "2013-04-17T16:20:28Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Well, in this case what led to the death of a child was the child killing himself. How does that excuse the gun owner of negligence? > [@](#): > > [Here is](http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/650-C/650-C-1.htm) the New Hampshire statute in question. **Fear Itself** , I’m curious what you think of Section V: > > So, imagine the exact same circumstances: man leaves pistol atop gun safe, 15-year-old son kills himself with it, _but_ the boy had completed a hunter safety course a couple summers before, and thus the man cannot be prosecuted. Acceptable outcome? I would conclude that gun safety courses are not as effective in preventing gun violence as some would have me believe. So, legal under the law, but no, not acceptable; I disagree with Section V. Dad goes to jail, if I had my way. Gun owners should always be held accountable for negligence. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/146 "2013-04-17T16:21:06Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I was very precise in defining what securing your weapon means: if your gun is stolen, it was not secured. > > It is up to you to decided what level of security you wish to apply, and what risk you are willing to assume as a responsible gun owner. This is the crux of the law: gun owners must bear the risk for unauthorized gun use, instead of shrugging their shoulders and denying any accountability for securing their weapons. We as a society are no longer going to permit gun owners to deny responsibility for thousands of guns falling into the hands of criminals and children. Your right to own a gun is tempered by a responsibility to prevent it from being used by criminals and children. If that responsibility seems daunting, then I suggest you not own a gun. But it is up to you. Yeah, right. > [@CNN this morning](#): > > Few amendments may pass > While Democratic leaders are expressing optimism they’ll get enough votes to pass the Manchin-Toomey amendment, a CNN tally of senators indicates the measure is probably in trouble unless several undecided Democrats and Republicans – mostly from conservative states – throw their support behind it. > The proposal would extend background checks to include gun shows and Internet sales. “We as a society” don’t seem to have gotten the memo from “You as a society mouthpiece,” unless you think there’s a good chance that the Senate will reject background checks but enact your idea. Your proposed standard is absurd. There is no other context in which a successful theft is proof that the stolen item was unsecured. ETA: on re-reading, it seems perhaps you were saying that as a hypothetical only: IF this law were enacted,it would then MEAN that we as a society… if so, I apologize for the contrary assumption. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/147 "2013-04-17T16:25:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “We as a society” don’t seem to have gotten the memo from “You as a society mouthpiece,” unless you think there’s a good chance that the Senate will reject background checks but enact your idea. Since my proposal has no second amendment implications, and is in line with Heller, it can be enacted on the state and local level. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/148 "2013-04-17T16:38:54Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > How does that excuse the gun owner of negligence? I didn’t say that. You said that the negligence “led to” the death of children or victims of crime, which implies causation. In this case, the negligence didn’t cause the death. > [@Fear Itself](#): > > I would conclude that gun safety courses are not as effective in preventing gun violence as some would have me believe. You count suicide as violence? > [@Fear Itself](#): > > So, legal under the law, but no, not acceptable; I disagree with Section V. Dad goes to jail, if I had my way. Gun owners should always be held accountable for negligence. The statute actually has quite a few exceptions: > [@](#): > > V. This section shall not apply whenever any of the following occurs: > (a) The child has completed firearm safety instructions by a certified firearms safety instructor or has successfully completed a certified hunter safety course. > (b) The firearm is kept secured in a locked box, gun safe, or other secure locked space, or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure, or is secured with a trigger lock or similar device that prevents the firearm from discharging. > (c) The firearm is carried on the person or within such a close proximity thereto so that the individual can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person. > (d) The child obtains or obtains and discharges the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another person. > (e) The person who keeps a loaded firearm on any premises which are under such person’s custody or control has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises. > (f) The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry of any premises by any person or an illegal taking of the firearm from the premises of the owner without permission of the owner. Any of those acceptable? Also, the “gross negligence” part is section VI, not V, my mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/149 "2013-04-17T16:43:24Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Since my proposal has no second amendment implications, and is in line with Heller, it can be enacted on the state and local level. I don’t agree that it has no second amendment implications. You seek to establish civil liability for personal property that is stolen and used to cause an injury or death only when the property is a gun. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/150 "2013-04-17T16:49:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree that it has no second amendment implications. You seek to establish civil liability for personal property that is stolen and used to cause an injury or death only when the property is a gun. How is that a second amendment issue? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/151 "2013-04-17T17:14:02Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I didn’t say that. You said that the negligence “led to” the death of children or victims of crime, which implies causation. In this case, the negligence didn’t cause the death. The death could not have occurred absent the gun owner’s negligence. > [@](#): > > You count suicide as violence? You don’t? > [@](#): > > The statute actually has quite a few exceptions: > > Any of those acceptable? > > Also, the “gross negligence” part is section VI, not V, my mistake. Section V(a) is unacceptable, as described above. Section V(b) violates Heller by my understanding, because it imposes a requirement for safes or locks to qualify for the exemption. Section V(e) is so ambiguous as to render the entire law unenforceable. Section V(f) would be right out, as I would punish any gun owner who took no measures to secure his gun, and it was stolen and subsequently used in a crime or by an unauthorized child. Gun owners must take some of the responsibility for stolen guns. Gun ownership is never risk free, and gun owners should have no legal protection to pretend otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/152 "2013-04-17T17:23:49Z")
To the various lawyers - [QUOTE=Fear Itself] I was very precise in defining what securing your weapon means: if your gun is stolen, it was not secured. [/QUOTE] Since **Fear Itself** is suggesting jail time, this is a criminal matter, not a civil one. Therefore, wouldn’t such a law violate the presumption of innocence? Because it presumes criminal negligence whenever someone misuses your property. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/153 "2013-04-17T17:45:03Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > The death could not have occurred absent the gun owner’s negligence. But wasn’t caused by it. “Led to” is inaccurate, the alleged negligence contributed to, or facilitated, or enabled the suicide, it didn’t lead to it. Nitpicky, perhaps, but accuracy has value, with words and with firearms. > [@Fear Itself](#): > > You don’t? No. > [@Fear Itself](#): > > Section V(a) is unacceptable, as described above. > > Section V(b) violates Heller by my understanding, because it imposes a requirement for safes or locks to qualify for the exemption. > > Section V(e) is so ambiguous as to render the entire law unenforceable. > > Section V(f) would be right out, as I would punish any gun owner who took no measures to secure his gun, and it was stolen and subsequently used in a crime or by an unauthorized child. Gun owners must take some of the responsibility for stolen guns. Gun ownership is never risk free, and gun owners should have no legal protection to pretend otherwise. Ok, interesting. I’m assuming you’re find with (c) and (d), since you didn’t mention them. I’m not so sure (b) violates Heller, but I doubt the issue has been heard in court. (e) seems clear enough to me, and didn’t render the law unenforceable in the case you linked to, in which “Parsons left the house to run errands, while the boy – the 15-year-old son of the chief’s girlfriend – remained in the home.” (f) is there because the law criminalizes negligent storage when children are present; if a teen breaks into a childless neighbor’s house and steals his gun, that’s not at all what this statue is meant to deal with. Why not present a draft statute that incorporates what you’d like the law to be? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/154 "2013-04-17T17:47:14Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > How is that a second amendment issue? It chills the freedom to own firearms. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/155 "2013-04-17T17:56:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It chills the freedom to own firearms. That’s an interesting view of accountability. May I employ that in the future when conservatives seek to restrict civil rights, such as voter ID laws, restricting voting hours and polling places? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/156 "2013-04-17T17:58:41Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > (e) seems clear enough to me, and didn’t render the law unenforceable in the case you linked to, in which “Parsons left the house to run errands, while the boy – the 15-year-old son of the chief’s girlfriend – remained in the home.” The law hasn’t been enforced yet. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/157 "2013-04-17T18:01:45Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > The law hasn’t been enforced yet. Well, he’s been charged, and if the facts of the case were accurately reported in that article, he left home knowing that the boy was there, which means (e) doesn’t apply. ETA: He might be acquitted (or the charges dropped) on the basis of section VI, but not V(e). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/158 "2013-04-17T18:16:03Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > How does that excuse the gun owner of negligence? The “negligence” did not lead to the death. The death was not an accident, it was intentional and an intentional act cuts off proximate cause from negligence. > [@](#): > > Dad goes to jail, if I had my way. Like I said, that is a horrible sentiment to have towards someone who has just lost a child. > [@](#): > > Gun owners should always be held accountable for negligence. We already have laws that do this. Its just that you seem to want to replace negligence with strict liability. > [@Bricker](#): > > Your proposed standard is absurd. There is no other context in which a successful theft is proof that the stolen item was unsecured. Poison maybe? No? Surely we applyn this standard to dynamite? No? Acid? No? Napalm, how about napalm? No? So we don’t apply this sort of strict liability based on ownership of any other item except the item that is protected by a constitutional amendment? Yeah, I can see how that makes sense. :rolleyes: > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Since my proposal has no second amendment implications, and is in line with Heller, it can be enacted on the state and local level. So when the Supreme court said that you have a constitutional right to have a loaded gun (unsecured by a gun lock or locked in some form of gun storage) on your nightstand, you don’t think that you would have a problem with the sort of strict liability you are proposing? > [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree that it has no second amendment implications. You seek to establish civil liability for personal property that is stolen and used to cause an injury or death only when the property is a gun. I think he means to establish CRIMINAL liability not just civil liability. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/159 "2013-04-17T18:21:23Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > That’s an interesting view of accountability. May I employ that in the future when conservatives seek to restrict civil rights, such as voter ID laws, restricting voting hours and polling places? Sure. But note well what’s been said: the mere fact that it _implicates_ the second amendment does not mean that the second amendment decides the issue. It merely means that some kind of balancing test is called for. The restriction against felons owning firearms has second amendment _implications_. But the end result is that such restrictions are permissible. By the same token, burdens to voting such as voter ID also have constitutional _implications_, but are ultimately permissible. See _Crawford v. Marion County_; contrast _Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections._ ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2013, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349/160 "2013-04-17T18:22:22Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So when the Supreme court said that you have a constitutional right to have a loaded gun (unsecured by a gun lock or locked in some form of gun storage) on your nightstand, you don’t think that you would have a problem with the sort of strict liability you are proposing? Heller says the government cannot require gun locks or gun safes. My law does neither. Gun owners are free to keep guns where ever they wish, however, they assume the risk if something happens as a result. Accountability is not some sort of onerous tyranny. I have no problem with enforcing responsible gun ownership and and accountability for securing guns. Apparently you do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-gun-background-checks-how-would-this-work/651349.md?page=9)