The Facts They Cite Prove The Bills Won’t Work
FactCheck.org is clearly supportive of the current gun control bills which passed the House and are before the Senate - HR8 and HR1446. They also fail to understand many realities about the illegal acquisition and use of guns. This analysis of their post follows their headings.
First of all, FactCheck.org fails to understand just how sweeping the bill is:
1) They never tell the reader that the bill radically changes the definition of the word “transfer” from transfer of ownership to the mere act of handing a firearm to another person. Doing so under any circumstances, without a background check, would be presumptive criminal and a federal felony.
2) In discussing the various “exceptions” to the background check requirement, they never mention the exceptions that do not exist — such as the fact that it would be illegal to allow another person to shoot your gun where target shooting is perfectly legal — such as on public or private land. They only place this would be permitted would be at an “established shooting range”.
Even more significant, they never mention that all the exceptions are “affirmative defenses”. This means that you can be charged with conducting an illegal transfer, and then must prove that the transfer fell within one of the narrowly worded exceptions. If you cannot prove your innocence, you go to prison.
“Is H.R. 8 bipartisan?”
FactCheck.org argues that the bill is bipartisan because 8 GOP Representatives voted for it in the House. Zero GOP Senators have expressed support. In my opinion that does not meet the practical definition of bipartisan.
“What effect would H.R. 8 have on mass shootings?”
FactCheck.org correctly quotes GOP Representatives pointing out that nearly every mass shooting involved a murderer who passed a background check at a licensed dealer — and therefore would not have been affected by this bill in any way. However, they do contend that the Odessa, Texas rampage shooting would have been stopped by a background check requirement on private sales. This is absurd. The seller in this case was an illegal manufacturer and dealer who broke several federal laws in constructing and selling the firearm in question. Why would he have been stopped by one more law? The fact that this is the best example they can cite proves that the bill in question would not have any effect on mass shootings.
This chart shows that background checks do not reduce mass shootings.
It also shows that the number of such shootings is not increasing, although population is.
To their credit they do quote a study from a pro-gun control group that found that comprehensive background checks “do not seem to be associated with the incidence of fatal mass shootings.”
"What effect would H.R. 8 have on gun violence?"
After quoting several Democratic Representatives who claim the bill will reduce gun violence, the article quotes a RAND review of multiple studies: “Available studies provide moderate evidence that dealer background checks may reduce firearm homicides and inconclusive evidence for the effect of private-seller background checks on firearm homicides.” Unbelievably they then argue that since dealer checks help, checks on “all sales and transfers” would have “a positive effect”. If criminals are obtaining firearms in large numbers as a result of otherwise lawful private sales, then the studies should show at least the same evidences as for dealer sales — and according to RAND, they don’t.
To their credit, they then quote several other studies that support the RAND review:
“Population-level studies of comprehensive background check policies “have often shown no clear evidence of benefit.”
“Purchaser licensing laws coupled with CBC [comprehensive background check] requirements were consistently associated with lower firearm homicide and suicide rates, but CBC laws alone were not.”
“There is not solid evidence that state laws designed similarly to H.R. 8 have saved lives.”
Finally, they quote a gun control advocate who says that the requirements in HR8 are “ a necessary first step” towards further restrictions — just in case you didn’t know that they want to proceed to registration and confiscation.
"Would H.R. 8 reduce gun trafficking?"
Here FactCheck.org makes a critical error: They assume that gun traffickers will follow the law, even though they are already breaking many state and federal laws. They fail to recognize that illegal dealers seldom obtain their firearms inventory through legal channels. Currently, their most common source is theft from lawful owners — something HR8 doesn’t touch. Increasingly, as technology such as 3D printing makes it easier, they are manufacturing their own firearms for resale.
"Would H.R. 8 confiscate guns?"
Here the article contends that because HR8 doesn’t mention or require confiscation, it’s wrong to mention it in connection with this bill. However, as noted above, gun control advocates admit that this bill is simply another step in that direction. When this bill doesn’t work, they will push for the next step until they get there.
HR1446
While this bill is intended to close the so called “Charleston Loophole”, the authors are forced to admit that the process failed in this case because of a law enforcement error that would in no way be affected by this bill.
"Would H.R. 1446 have prevented the Charleston shooting?"
According to the evidence cited by FactCheck.org, the answer to that question is a firm no. However, the article says that “the facts surrounding Roof’s background check are bit complicated, and it is unclear whether the bill now before Congress would have stopped the sale.”
They go on to describe how the law enforcement error happened. Significantly, they admit that, “It’s true that the FBI didn’t confirm that the sale shouldn’t have been allowed until after the shooting two months later.” This is long after HR8 and HR1446 would allow the sale to proceed — therefore there is zero question that this bill would not have even stopped the incident it is named after.
Would H.R. 1446 prevent ineligible buyers from obtaining a gun?
Here Factcheck.org again misses the point: The way that prohibited persons slip through the background check system is not the time limit. They slip though because the database is not accurate. They slip though because law enforcement fails to report an arrest or conviction to the system. They slip through because of an error at the FBIs background check center. HR 1446 does absolutely nothing to correct the real problem — it simply violates the rights of law-abiding gun purchasers by making them wait longer if the FBIs background check center cannot do their job in a timely fashion.
Again, the answer to the above question is a firm no.
FactCheck.org tries very hard to support these bills with facts, but they fail to do so because the facts to do so are just not there.
Rev. R. Vincent Warde
3-22-2021
