The Problem of Universal Background Checks.

[Seven_Sicks_Two]

I live in a state that requires Universal Background Checks (California) and UBC's present another problem that is often overlooked. Put simply, it hurts small businesses.

CA law requires that as dealers, we are compelled to perform Private Party Transfers, and the fee that we charge for this "service" cannot exceed $10.00 (on top of the $25 that the state charges for background checks). The stated reason for the artificially low price is so that folks aren't disincentivized from complying with the law by having to pay market prices for the service.

The transfer process in California is a bit more complicated than in other states and, as a result, we lose an average of $40.00 or so for every PPT we perform at our shop. Here's what UBCs and PPTs look like at our shop:

- We have to pay for an employee's time to do the initial paperwork (having the buyer fill out a 4473, having the salesperson log into the CA background check system and fill out and submit a Dealer's Record Of Sale (DROS)).

- At some point during or immediately after the transfer, an employee has to add the firearm to our Bound Book/Point-of-Sale system. Since we're subject to both ATF and CA DOJ compliance audits, we also have to pay an employee to review and audit both the 4473 and DROS for guns that we store for the mandatory 10-day waiting period.

- Ten days later, an employees has to review all the paperwork, perform a "Safe Handling Demonstration" (making the customer perform a series of mandated steps to ensure that they know how to safely load and unload the firearm) if the firearm in question is a handgun, then collect more signatures and remove the gun from our Bound Book/Point-of-Sale system.

- At some point, all of this paperwork will be re-audited in-house to ensure that all the paperwork that is filled out at the time of delivery is in order.

All that for ten lousy bucks. As dealers, we get stuck with all of this extra work as "the cost of doing business". Every PPT that walks in the door literally takes money out of my paycheck. Furthermore, like any other transfer we're legally responsible for ensuring that all paperwork for PPTs is in compliance with all state and federal record keeping requirements... except we actually lose money for being forced to assume that liability. It sucks.

When someone talks about UBCs, feel free to ask them why they want to hurt small businesses and their working-class employees. Most folks that I talk to about the issue never consider these aspects of UBC laws.

This whole mess is coming to a gun store near you if you don't work to defeat every UBC law and every politician that supports them.

[45dotACP]

UBCs have surface validity and thus are appealing to most.

There are two separate issues that appear in the UBC debate. One is the prevention of what we think of as economic, poverty, drug usage, bad neighborhood crime. It's probably the case that UBCs won't touch those crime rates.

The second issue is that UBCs are suggested to stop mentally ill folks from easily acquiring firearms. NICS check and enhanced state reporting are seen as preventive. That might have stopped VT and Cho and perhaps the Gabby Gifford's shooter. It ties in with legislation like the SAFE act. While some rampagers were not in the systems at all, it is argued that blocking those in the system would stop them as they might not be able to manage an illegal sale. That is an empirical question.

Currrently, such draconian mental health reporting is suspect in the professional literature. However, I just wanted to point out a rationale used for UBCs other than the standard economic felon.

The mental health issue is a privacy concern, but also has huge concerns with effectiveness. Some types of mental illness are more dangerous than others but it hardly matters when a person decides to go on a suicidal shooting rampage. A person with Schizophrenia (like Loughner) can give in to the voices telling them to shoot up a political rally. Most often, they will not. The overwhelming majority of schizophrenics are not dangerous.

A person with depression may decide that it doesn't matter if they shoot up a school because they broke up with their girlfriend, because they intend to kill themselves too. But depression is an incredibly common illness. Someone like Cho would be characteristic of this type of killer

A person with a personality disorder is absolutely more dangerous than the typical mentally ill person. They are typically the Sociopaths, Narcissistic, and Borderline personalities. Manipulation and lack of empathy is symptomatic of these illnesses, but they are typically very difficult to diagnose, as a person with a personality disorder is not often hospitalized for it. If they are diagnosed at all, it is because they either have another mental illness that put them in the hospital, or they are diagnosed by a prison psychologist. These people are like Harris and Klebold, or the Santa Barbara shooter. It's fairly common among violent criminals, with Drew Peterson being a textbook case for Narcissistic personality disorder. It's common with other murderers who display little remorse or even smugness after being caught.

[Wondering Beard]

A person with a personality disorder is absolutely more dangerous than the typical mentally ill person. They are typically the Sociopaths, Narcissistic, and Borderline personalities. Manipulation and lack of empathy is symptomatic of these illnesses,

Wrong.

Personality disorders are many more than what you listed and you are incorrect about borderlines.

Let's not generalize from a few characteristics from a selected few personality disorders to a statement about what does or does not make a mental illness more "dangerous" than any other especially when one doesn't know the individual sufferer.

Let's not even go into what "normal" folks are capable of doing.

[45dotACP]

Wrong.

Personality disorders are many more than what you listed and you are incorrect about borderlines.

Let's not generalize from a few characteristics from a selected few personality disorders to a statement about what does or does not make a mental illness more "dangerous" than any other especially when one doesn't know the individual sufferer.

Let's not even go into what "normal" folks are capable of doing.

Mea culpa. Don't mean to generalize. It was poorly worded, but I stand by the statements that sociopaths and narcissists are more dangerous.

Personality disorders are characterized by difficulties relating to others, not just manipulation or lack of empathy, but those two characteristics are common with sociopaths and narcissists and that makes them more dangerous.

My point, however is that the system of background checks is ineffective enough and involving the mental health system in the system of background checks would make it needlessly difficult to determine what danger a so called "ill" person poses.

[Wondering Beard]

Mea culpa. Don't mean to generalize. It was poorly worded, but I stand by the statements that sociopaths and narcissists are more dangerous.

Personality disorders are characterized by difficulties relating to others, not just manipulation or lack of empathy, but those two characteristics are common with sociopaths and narcissists and that makes them more dangerous.

My point, however is that the system of background checks is ineffective enough and involving the mental health system in the system of background checks would make it needlessly difficult to determine what danger a so called "ill" person poses.

First off, I solidly agree with you about background checks.

When it comes to sociopaths and narcissists, I would only say that they are probably potentially more dangerous.

Let me give you some personal examples. I know a diagnosed narcissist who would have my back if bullets start flying, becoming a buddhist (but not a pacifist) and following his own interesting variation of a 'chivalry code' (along with a peculiar sexual fetish) has enabled him to compensate for his lack of empathy and other narcissistic traits; though he can be quite the asshole. I know a borderline who lies very easily and well but would give the shirt off her back to help others, will never attack anyone but willing to defend to the death those close to her (pretty good with a knife too). I know a few others who could be cited for lack of empathy and manipulation as part of who they are but in no way exhibit the type of behaviour that makes them dangerous to the public at large (though woe betide anyone who tries to do them violence).

Also, people diagnosed with asperger's syndrome (apparently the last DSM gets rid of that diagnosis but I like the specific distinction) can also be said to have a lack of empathy.

My point, so that I don't ramble on, is that, while lack of empathy and manipulativeness, are definitely causes for concern, they are but two variables in the many that a diagnosed sociopath and/or narcissist carry. Each individual is going to be so different that it is near impossible to tell which one is going to carry out the next mass murder.

It's real easy to put people who suffer from mental illness (not pointing you 45dotacp, just making a general point) in some sort of a category as separate from the rest of us "normals" that deserves more suspicion and attention (think of libs about soldiers who suffer from PTSD) because a whole lot of the population is just ignorant of this complex subject (again, I don't mean you 45dotacp, I want to be sure you know that ) and thus manipulatable by ruthless politicians.

Still, to repeat my first point, you and I are in agreement about background checks.

[Dagga Boy]

I am against them because you are restricting the sale of legally obtained private property within a State (interstate requires and FFL transfer and a new background check). I find it insulting that the anti-gun people want a Federal background check for a non-federal transaction that is not illegal (every private transaction I have done the last several years, the seller demanded a concealed carry license to prove my residency and that I was not a felon or restricted person). The same people who want these Federal intrusions tend to be the EXACT same folks who do not want drug use information and medical information released that tends to be the one consistent thing amongst high profile shooting cases where people who should have been restricted bought firearms with a background check because the disqualifying information was never reported (mostly marijuana usage and psych treatment). So we have a federal government that is not prosecuting federal drug crimes due to executive decision, that does little or no follow up on current violations, yet wants to expand an information gathering program on firearms purchasers. Why would they want more information on firearms purchases that do not fall under federal purview, that they are not prosecuting lying on the background, and not prosecuting or reporting information that would make the transferee a restricted person........weird why getting that information is SO important. Kind of like how they do not keep the multigun purchases or specific purchases in border states........

[JV_]

(every private transaction I have done the last several years, the seller demanded a concealed carry license to prove my residency and that I was not a felon or restricted person).

I recently had one where the seller would not even show me his drivers license. He said it's not required for a gun shop transaction so he's not providing it.

I told him I'm not a gun shop, the state, or the feds, so if he wanted this gun he'd have to provide it (and a CCW, which he said he had).

I did not sell him the gun.

[JConn]

My biggest problem with UBCs is that they are virtually unenforceable without the institution of some sort of gun registry. If the government doesn't know who has the guns in the first place how can they know who sells what to who? They may catch a few people with stings like they do with prostitution and drugs (entrapment anyone?) but most private sales would never be effected by the law. The only people who would abide are people like us. Law abiding informed citizens.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[GardoneVT]

My biggest problem with UBCs is that they are virtually unenforceable without the institution of some sort of gun registry. If the government doesn't know who has the guns in the first place how can they know who sells what to who? They may catch a few people with stings like they do with prostitution and drugs (entrapment anyone?) but most private sales would never be effected by the law. The only people who would abide are people like us. Law abiding informed citizens.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

As it stands now, few cases are pursued for 4473 violations. Ive yet to read of a prosecution in California for the violation of their UBC act.

The point could be deduced that its less about controlling criminals and more about controlling the distribution of firearms in a law abiding group.

[Dagga Boy]

As it stands now, few cases are pursued for 4473 violations. Ive yet to read of a prosecution in California for the violation of their UBC act.

The point could be deduced that its less about controlling criminals and more about controlling the distribution of firearms in a law abiding group.

Bingo.