Universal background checks are absolutely pointless. Criminals looking to bypass the system will either buy black market firearms or use a straw buyer, like in Chicago. All this does is make it more difficult for law-abiding people to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Further, it’s constitutionality is questionable at best.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected a lawsuit that sought to challenge Washington state’s universal background check law.
A federal appeals court panel has unanimously rejected a challenge to Washington’s law requiring background checks for gun transfers.
Washington voters approved Initiative 594 in 2014. It requires people transferring a firearm to go through a federally licensed firearms dealer to conduct a background check on the buyer, even for private sales or sales at gun shows.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel said the remaining plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the law because they had not shown a credible threat that they might be prosecuted.
Unfortunately, the whole argument of standing is annoying. The law impacts every lawful gun owner in the state, but that’s not enough in this case, which is a pain.
For gun rights, an outright upholding of the law would be preferable, since that would lay the groundwork for a potential Supreme Court challenge down the road, but no. That’s not in the cards, at least not right now.
It’s a shame.
Some gun control activists look at universal background checks and say, “What’s the big deal? You guys get them at gun stores, why is it a problem to go through the same process on all purchases?”
I’ll be honest, this is far from the most onerous proposal from the gun control crowd. I tend to get a background check on all my firearm purchases as it is, so I wouldn’t really notice a difference.
Yet I still oppose it and want these laws to die in a fire.
You see, all laws are an infringement on what I can do as a citizen. Some make a lot of sense because they say I can’t infringe on the rights of another. I can’t murder someone or steal their television, for example. Morality alone says I can’t do that, but laws also state the potential punishments for conducting such immorality.
When more and more laws are created, they create more and more of an infringement on a person’s liberty. Again, this isn’t always a bad thing. It’s usually a pain in the rear, but not necessarily a bad thing. However, for them to not be a bad thing, they have to do more than simply infringe the individual’s personal freedom.
Universal background checks, don’t. Criminals will still get their hands on firearms. Universal background checks are unenforceable as well. It’s a law that’s put in place that does nothing to stop violence in any way, shape, or form. It’s a hurdle that accomplishes little to nothing.
That the epitome of a bad law.
Unfortunately, the Appeals Court refused to hear this one because the people impacted by this law supposedly don’t have sufficient standing to file a lawsuit. As a result, a bad law will remain on the books for just a little while longer.