I continue to be gobsmacked by events in Washington. The latest is the controversy over the requirement that people making private gun sales perform a background check on the buyer, just like all licensed gun sellers are required to do. This proposed law has the support of over 90% of the population, including an overwhelming percentage of Republicans and NRA members. It’s so popular, in fact, that NBC News is reporting that the NRA is willing to concede the point and not score the law against members of Congress who vote for it. Except, they have one condition. They don’t want there to be any requirement that the private gun seller keep any record that they performed the background check.
That might not be a problem as long as the government kept the record of the background check, but that possibility is already illegal under existing law, and no one is proposing to change it. The concern is that the government not be allowed to create a national gun registry that they could conceivably use in some dystopian future to round up and confiscate people’s firearms.
Now, all we need to do to see why this is an insane requirement that the NRA is insisting upon is to think about the purpose of the law. If you have a gun that you are thinking of selling to someone, doing a background check allows you to make sure that you aren’t giving the gun to a felon or someone considered dangerous. If the recipient of the gun has a clean record, you are obviously protected against any conceivable liability, but you also can have an easy mind about the sale. And, in the unlikely case that they fail the background check, you have the opportunity to do the right thing and look for another buyer. You can’t argue that the requirement to get a background check is a pain in the ass (although it often will be) because the NRA is conceding that you need to get a background check. You can’t argue that it will cause your name to be on record forever, because the government will still have to destroy the record. About the only legitimate objection I can come up with is that you will potentially be exposed to liability if the person you sold the gun to commits a crime and you can’t produce a record of running the background check. Anyone can lose some paperwork, but that’s an argument for the government maintaining a record that you complied with the law, not a reason to oppose the law in general.
So, what are we left with? You sell a gun to someone and they commit a crime with it. The police determine that you gave them the weapon and ask to see a record of your background check. You can’t produce it because either you didn’t carry it out, or because you misplaced the paperwork. The police ask the government for a record, but they can’t say whether one ever existed because they are required to destroy all records. No one can ever hold you accountable and no one can ever clear your name.
So, would such a law do any good at all?
I think it would, but barely. It would help by making law-abiding citizens more mindful about who they sell their guns to. It would reduce the universe of sellers for people who can’t pass a background check.
Why? Because the Republicans are right about one thing. Most criminals don’t submit themselves to background checks that they know or suspect they will fail. That’s what drives them away from licensed gun sellers in the first place. Insofar as private sellers comply with the law, criminals will be denied guns, at least for a time. Someone who is not eligiible to own a gun will have to worry that the seller will insist on running a background check, so they won’t even ask unless they trust the seller to join them in a crime.
The only problem is that it totally absolves the gun seller of any legal responsibility for that illegal gun sale. And that just doesn’t make sense.