No universal background checks on guns

Here is the letter I wrote the Cookeville Herald-Citizen, published on May 14, 2019:

The Thursday letter questioning Rep. Rose indicates that the writer either doesn’t know all the facts, or he is purposefully misleading readers. 

Here’s how the mentioned background checks would create issues for lawful gun owners. These universal check laws seek to require a check each time a firearm changes hands. For example, the law passed in Washington state does not allow for handing a friend or relative a firearm at a shooting range, without first going through a check. Then, when the firearm is handed back, the original owner would also undergo a check. Never mind that he may have lawfully owned the gun for fifty years. Yet, background checks have not been shown to reduce crime, the purported objective. 

The writer uses the phrase ‘we all know’ several times. In one instance, he states, “We all know most people approve of background checks.”  The fact is, background checks have not been shown to keep guns from prohibited persons. With half a billion guns in circulation in the United States, that's just a pipe dream.

The writer states,  “...their (NRA) members send them millions each year because they scare people into believing their right to bear arms will be taken away.”  But when Kamala Harris says, “We need a … renewal of the assault weapon ban,” that sounds like taking away the right to bear arms, doesn’t it? When Julian Castro supports “gun buybacks", of guns the government never owned, what does that sound like? When Bernie Sanders says we need to, “ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons”, uh, is this starting to have a familiar ring?

History has shown that universal background checks (registration) have no good upside, yet plenty of bad downside. 

Liston Matthews

Cookeville

The letter I was referring to was published here: