Senate negotiations on "universal background checks"


PDA






AlexanderA
February 16, 2013, 02:03 PM
According to Greg Sargent of the Washington Post, a bipartisan group of four Senators (Coburn, Kirk, Schumer, and Manchin) are 95% of the way to an agreement on a proposed "universal background check" bill.

Some ideas that have emerged from this are the following:
1. Exemption of transfers among family members from the background checks.
2. Exemption for concealed-carry permit holders.
3. A mechanism to insure that the background checks don't result in a de facto national gun registry.
4. Having FFL's make the actual calls into NICS (for a nominal fee), but not having the FFL's enter the private transactions into their "bound book," and having the Forms 4473 retained by the sellers, not the FFL's.

(This latter seems to be a sort of hybrid system between having all transactions run through FFL's (as in the ordinary course of their business), and opening the NICS to inquiries by non-licensed individuals.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/02/15/bipartisan-deal-close-on-expanded-background-checks/

If you enjoyed reading about "Senate negotiations on "universal background checks"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
xfyrfiter
February 16, 2013, 02:13 PM
Criminals are not going to purchase guns legally in any case. UBC's are simply a feel good measure foisted on us by the antis.

Queen_of_Thunder
February 16, 2013, 02:27 PM
And what do we get for giving up what we have now.

Solo
February 16, 2013, 02:28 PM
Maybe points 3 and 4, though I have my doubts.

Tim the student
February 16, 2013, 02:58 PM
Well, it could be worse...

But my attitude remains unchanged: No compromise.

Ryanxia
February 16, 2013, 03:02 PM
Those sound a lot better but I'm still not compromising. We've compromised enough. These are our Rights and they will continue to erode if we don't do something to stop them NOW.

Write your representatives and urge them that ANY universal background check is unacceptable and un Constitutional.

mljdeckard
February 16, 2013, 03:05 PM
I started a thread a few weeks ago about #3, asking if it was even possible, and the bottom line is, even if it is possible to make such a provision NOW, there is absolutely no way to ensure that the law won't be abused in the future.

joeschmoe
February 16, 2013, 03:07 PM
Where in the Constitution did we give them the power to regulate private sales? Congress does not have the power to regulate private sales.
Are they going to tell us how to arrange our furniture in the living room next?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=703189

Under what power can Congress regulate private sales? No power for UBC?

wally
February 16, 2013, 04:08 PM
Having FFL's make the actual calls into NICS for a nominal fee

Define this? $5 $25? $100?


If we have to have it, add in:

5) Make the C&R FFL-03 valid for all guns (non-business, individual hobby dealer) and able to call in the NICS checks (to increase the supply of dealers for individual transfers to help keep the fees "nominal").

At least this way we'd gain something.

r1derbike
February 16, 2013, 04:13 PM
Beware the sweet smell of laundered scum of a bill that rises to the top, as the effluent below may not be seen, or smelled and may be miles deep.

MartinS
February 16, 2013, 04:18 PM
Any particular reason why the seller can't make the NICS call?

Billy Shears
February 16, 2013, 04:22 PM
If they get this passed, and the house votes it into law also (hopefully won't happen), this needs to be immediately challenged. Congress does NOT have the constitutional authority to regulate this, and we need to step up and drag them back to their limits if they can't abide by them themselves. If I sell a gun to another resident of my state or city, there is absolutely NO interstate commerce taking place whatsoever, and the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce.

Of course, Wickard v. Filburn, where a farmer not selling wheat was deemed to to be participating in interstate commerce because his inactivity had an effect on the marketplace, proves that there are no intellectual contortions our ̶l̶o̶r̶d̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶m̶a̶s̶t̶e̶r̶s̶ public servants cannot twist themselves through to regulate what they want. This means its vital to get such a lawsuit before the courts now, not later, before one of the now elderly conservative justices dies or retires, and Obama appoints another liberal who believes in a "living" constitution, meaning it can be interpreted how they like to achieve the desired result.

gc70
February 16, 2013, 04:50 PM
From the description in the article, the Senators are 95% on the way to agreeing to 95% of Senator Schumer's S.436 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s436is/pdf/BILLS-112s436is.pdf) background check bill from the prior session of Congress.

IF the final proposal is patterned after Schumer's bill, the landmines to watch for include:

- the exemption for family members only applies to a "bona fide gift" and;

- a transfer is not limited to a sale, but also includes "a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title."

alsaqr
February 16, 2013, 06:07 PM
Beware the sweet smell of laundered scum of a bill that rises to the top, as the effluent below may not be seen, or smelled and may be miles deep.

+1
It gets the camels nose under the tent. Schumer will reveal the rest of his camel as time goes by.

bhk
February 16, 2013, 06:16 PM
What constitutes a 'transfer' needs to be carefully defined. Does passing a handgun to my buddy on the range for him to try a transfer? Does lending my hunting partner a deer rifle for the afternoon a transfer? If not defined in detail, we could be in big trouble.

No new laws on this issue are best, of course.

Romeo 33 Delta
February 16, 2013, 06:47 PM
Just my opinion, but I don't believe anti-gunners or whatever you wish to call them are even remotely capable of writing a bill which I would consider acceptable. I would reject it out of hand just based on who crafted it and who signed on as sponsors. I'll come to the table ... but I offer NO COMPROMISES.

All I will offer is this:
1. States shall be required to provide data on those adjudicated mentally defective or under involuntary committment orders on the same basis as they report felony and DA convictions. The same frequency to the same data base.

2. The DOJ shall be required to:
a. Prosecute all instances of prohibited persons attempting to buy a firearm
b. Prosecute all instances of intentional falsification of information on a 4473
c. Prosecute all instances of a prohibited person in possession
d. The penalties for the above shall be the maximum
e. The sentences for conviction shall be consecutive, not concurrent

That's all I'm willing to give.

jamesbeat
February 16, 2013, 06:56 PM
Yep, enforce the laws we already have!

Texan Scott
February 16, 2013, 07:15 PM
^ We don't have time for that, apparently.

Billy Shears
February 16, 2013, 07:31 PM
Yep, enforce the laws we already have!
^ We don't have time for that, apparently.
It's not a matter of not having time for it, it's a matter of perception. The politician who passes a new law is seen as having "done something," while the politician who says "we already have the laws we need, let's just try enforcing them" doesn't look proactive enough for the low-information voters out there who comprise the majority of the electorate. It's a fundamental weakness of our system that will always provide a strong incentive for politicians to engage in meaningless, symbolic gestures that will accomplish nothing, and may even make things worse. Like gun control.

medalguy
February 16, 2013, 08:46 PM
You clearly don't understand. They don't have the money to enforce the laws already on the books according to the government. It's better to bargain down a felony offence to a misdemeanor and allow the miscreants to serve community service than to send them up the river to already overcrowded prisons.

But Sheriff Joe figured out how to handle that problem, forgot about that.:D

InkEd
February 16, 2013, 08:51 PM
Can you say useless crap and nationwide non-compliance.

JERRY
February 16, 2013, 08:54 PM
so what are they offering in return for these further infringements?

Old Fuff
February 16, 2013, 09:12 PM
When the camel gets his nose inside the tent it will not be long before the rest is there too. What gun control advocates (Democrat and Republican) want is a beachhead. Get the ball rolling and then build more on the foundation. None of them has explained exactly how this will prevent criminals and the insane from getting firearms when what we have now hasn’t worked.

The BATF&E has admitted on a number of occasions that they are generally unable to trace guns made or sold through dealers prior to 1968. Registration of rifles and shotguns simply wasn’t done before that, and only a few states or cities registered handguns – by whatever method. No one knows how many souvenir firearms were brought into the country after World War’s One and Two.

If gun owners choose to ignore the new law – if there is one – how does the government propose to prove that a particular gun hasn’t been handed down through a family for decades? What are they going to do about literally tens of thousands of inexpensive .22 rifles and some shotguns that never had a serial number?

The fact is that the cited Senators don’t have the slightest idea about the subject, or what stands a chance of working and what doesn’t.

Unfortunately their ignorance is not limited to this one issue. :banghead:

Anmut
February 16, 2013, 09:16 PM
How would this be enforced - with MILLIONS of firearms in non-nazi states that have traded hands since they were originally bought from an FFL, how would there even be a paper trail to prosecute someone? The ONLY way to make a UBC law work would be to have a Universal Registration.

PRM
February 16, 2013, 09:18 PM
It will take more than 4 corrupt Senators to change the Constitution. Then the Supreme Court will weigh in.

Folks need to quit talking about compromise... the left is willing to give up nothing. The only people who are loosing in these hypothetical talks are law abiding citizens. There is nothing in the OP's post that would have impacted Sandy Hook at at all.

Personally, I'm continuing to email all my reps.

MachIVshooter
February 16, 2013, 09:45 PM
Beware the sweet smell of laundered scum of a bill that rises to the top, as the effluent below may not be seen, or smelled and may be miles deep.

+1

That's how they garnered public support to ram this excrement through here in CO. Yeah, sure, it sounds like a good idea that can't hurt the law abiding on the surface. But read a little bit, and you quickly discover that if you lend a handgun to your sister for self defense (legal no-BCG transfer for immediate family) and your brother-in-law picks it up, now he and you are in violation. Exchange shotguns or rifles with your buddy while hunting? Perfectly legal. Your buddy goes home a day before you with your gun and you still have his? Felony.

I just got home from visiting the widow of a good friend of mine, and she is planning to sell some of his guns to long time family friends in the near future. She is 75 years old, and does not keep up with the minutia of this nonsense; she had no idea that this was going on. When he died, private transfers were perfectly legal. But if our governor signs this law, they won't be, and she likely would have violated the law by doing something that had been perfectly legal her entire life. She is a grandmother, a good person, and a very law abiding citizen, but under the letter of the law, she would be guilty of a class VI felony for each transfer.

These laws are intended to snare law abiding people who either haven't kept up with the recent changes, did not take the time to read the law line-by-line, or did read it but didn't fully comprehend it as an attorney would. Even our own legislators were unclear on the specific exemptions and what would or would not constitute a transfer.

Blakenzy
February 16, 2013, 09:54 PM
Some ideas that have emerged from this are the following:
1. Exemption of transfers among family members from the background checks.
2. Exemption for concealed-carry permit holders.
3. A mechanism to insure that the background checks don't result in a de facto national gun registry.
4. Having FFL's make the actual calls into NICS (for a nominal fee), but not having the FFL's enter the private transactions into their "bound book," and having the Forms 4473 retained by the sellers, not the FFL's.

And

5. Repeal the Hugues Amendment and re-open the MG registry.

6. Exempt sound suppresors, SBS and SBR from the NFA

That would make it a "compromise"

Or... just repeal the NFA, GCA '68 all together. <That would make it a FAIR compromise.

TNBilly
February 17, 2013, 12:18 PM
Just my opinion, but I don't believe anti-gunners or whatever you wish to call them are even remotely capable of writing a bill which I would consider acceptable. I would reject it out of hand just based on who crafted it and who signed on as sponsors. I'll come to the table ... but I offer NO COMPROMISES.

All I will offer is this:
1. States shall be required to provide data on those adjudicated mentally defective or under involuntary committment orders on the same basis as they report felony and DA convictions. The same frequency to the same data base.

2. The DOJ shall be required to:
a. Prosecute all instances of prohibited persons attempting to buy a firearm
b. Prosecute all instances of intentional falsification of information on a 4473
c. Prosecute all instances of a prohibited person in possession
d. The penalties for the above shall be the maximum
e. The sentences for conviction shall be consecutive, not concurrent

That's all I'm willing to give.
The open "antis" couldn't have said it better than you have!

Romeo 33 Delta
February 17, 2013, 02:04 PM
Apparently some of you have missed my point ... with the exception of requiring states to provide public record information on adjudications and committments, there's NOTHING new here. What I've indicated is already the law. I'm only insisting that the government enforce the existing laws BEFORE creating infringements that clearly cross over the line of Constitutional protections.

As to the "mental health" component (if you'll allow me that term), I can't think of a good reason it was NOT included when the whole NICS background check system was created. It's a "due process" situation, like a felony conviction ... not just the opinions of some group of shrinks or whatever. (or at least that is MY intention for it).

As to the matter of background checks when buying from a dealer in general ... that ship has sailed. It's a matter of FACT and that will never be changed. Do I like that? NO! I'm more than old enough to remember the first Good Old Days ... Hy Hunter, Klein's ... all those cool ads in The American Rifleman. Send them a check and they send you a gun. But those days are OVER and aren't coming back.

To sum up ... what I intended in my remarks was ... JUST FULLY ENFORCE THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE BOOKS BEFORE YOU CREATE NEW ONES. Beyond that ... I'm not interested in giving ANYTHING up. Not now ... NOT EVER!

PS ... and the excuse that we don't have enough time or we don't have enough money or we don't have enough man-power is NOT an acceptable excuse or acceptable reason. JUST SHUT UP AND DO YOUR JOB!

Does THAT make my position on the matter at hand more clear?:cuss:

NeuseRvrRat
February 17, 2013, 02:16 PM
how can background checks be enforced without firearms registration?

blaisenguns
February 17, 2013, 02:26 PM
The question still is: how do you practically enforce this without a national registry? without the latter it is a completely useless bill. Let them pass it, they wont be able to enforce it.

jamesbeat
February 17, 2013, 02:36 PM
The question still is: how do you practically enforce this without a national registry? without the latter it is a completely useless bill. Let them pass it, they wont be able to enforce it.
...Their next step would then be to argue that they need registration so that they can enforce the background check laws.

Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. That has been their intent all along. An inch at a time, camel's nose, thin end of the wedge, slippery slope.

That's how these snidy little cowards operate.

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 03:04 PM
The question still is: how do you practically enforce this without a national registry? without the latter it is a completely useless bill. Let them pass it, they wont be able to enforce it.
Huh? This argument makes no sense to me. We have background checks now, without a registry. My state does have handgun registry, unreleated to NICS. Why would requiring you to go into a FFL to perform the background check require a registry? I oppose it on principle, but this argument seems flawed.

The correct argument, IMO, is that regulating individuals is a police power resereved to the states. Congress does not have the power to enforce such a law. See USA v Lopez

JohnKSa
February 17, 2013, 03:20 PM
We have background checks now, without a registry. My state does have handgun registry, unreleated to NICS. Why would requiring you to go into a FFL to perform the background check require a registry?The reason background checks (to the extent that they are currently required) are enforceable is because the background checks are performed by FFLs on their transfers. FFL transfers have a paper trail that can be traced to demonstrate if the gun was transferred without a background check.

Right now, private transfers have no paper trail, so there is no way to enforce background checks on private sales because there's no foolproof way to demonstrate that a person acquired a gun without a background check in the absence of supporting evidence.

Of course, stings would work, as would cases where the gun in question was demonstrably transferred after the background check came into effect. Those exceptions aside, in general, one could mount a foolproof defense by merely stating that the gun was acquired in a private transaction before the universal background check law went into effect.

The concern is that this "obvious loophole" would be presented for remedy (universal registration) down the road. Such a remedy would have considerable traction based on the fact that no one likes unenforceable (or largely unenforceable) laws on the books.

Your point that the Federal government has absolutely no business regulating the intrastate sale of legal items between two citizens, neither of which is breaking any state or federal law and neither of which is a federally licensed dealer is right on target. That should be the focus of letters to senators.

People either forget or don't understand that the only way the federal government got into the business of regulating firearm sales was via the ingenious FFL system. People who want to deal in firearms (dealing in firearms being fairly reasonably defined as interstate commerce since they buy from distributors some of which are almost certainly out of state) essentially volunteer to be licensed by the federal government and thereby also volunteer to be bound by the laws applicable to FFL holders.

FFL holders are a very special class of person under the law, however, that is now lost on many who think that the laws that FFL holders voluntarily choose to be bound by should be applicable to everyone who buys or sells a firearm.

phil dirt
February 17, 2013, 03:39 PM
NO compromise! The anti Constitutional gun grabbers will never give up. Don't surrender an inch to these scum bags. Keep the heat on your representatives. Let them know that we will remember when they run for re-election.

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 03:55 PM
The reason background checks (to the extent that they are currently required) are enforceable is because the background checks are performed by FFLs on their transfers. FFL transfers have a paper trail that can be traced to demonstrate if the gun was transferred without a background check.

Right now, private transfers have no paper trail, so there is no way to enforce background checks on private sales because there's no foolproof way to demonstrate that a person acquired a gun without a background check in the absence of supporting evidence.

Of course, stings would work, as would cases where the gun in question was demonstrably transferred after the background check came into effect. Those exceptions aside, in general, one could mount a foolproof defense by merely stating that the gun was acquired in a private transaction before the universal background check law went into effect.

The concern is that this "obvious loophole" would be presented for remedy (universal registration) down the road. Such a remedy would have considerable traction based on the fact that no one likes unenforceable (or largely unenforceable) laws on the books.
That's non-sensical. Innocent until proven guilty. Proof on innocence is very different from proof of a crime. How can you prove you didn't pay that girl to have sex with you? You don't have to. The government must prove you did. How can you prove you didn't know the person you sold your gun to was a felon? You don't have to, the government must prove you did. That's their problem, not ours. If they can show you bought the gun without a background check, then you're guilty.
The government can't demand you prove you didn't break the law. Our legal system doesn't work that way.

If the only argument for registry here is that it makes it easier for the government to prove you didn't commit a crime, then it's non-sensical and not at issue here. This is about background checks, not registry or confiscation.

Your point that the Federal government has absolutely no business regulating the intrastate sale of legal items between two citizens, neither of which is breaking any state or federal law and neither of which is a federally licensed dealer is right on target. That should be the focus of letters to senators.

People either forget or don't understand that the only way the federal government got into the business of regulating firearm sales was via the ingenious FFL system. People who want to deal in firearms (dealing in firearms being fairly reasonably defined as interstate commerce since they buy from distributors some of which are almost certainly out of state) essentially volunteer to be licensed by the federal government and thereby also volunteer to be bound by the laws applicable to FFL holders.

FFL holders are a very special class of person under the law, however, that is now lost on many who think that the laws that FFL holders voluntarily choose to be bound by should be applicable to everyone who buys or sells a firearm.

IMO, that's the only argument here. States can do this, but Congress cannot pass a law regulating individual sales.

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 04:08 PM
Another gapping hole in the argument for UBC is that all these guns did first go through an FFL and background check. Not one of these guns entered into private possesion without first going through the current background check and 4473 forms. Everyone can be traced back to the FFL they came from. The gun can be traced from birth, distribution to the FFL who sold it to the individual who's info stays on file.
There is no "gun show loophole".

Individual private sales are not within the power of Congress to regulate.

Black Butte
February 17, 2013, 04:18 PM
Carolyn McCarthy wants a urine and blood sample for a toxicology screening prior to any transfer.

lilguy
February 17, 2013, 04:21 PM
Kirk is my Illinois Senator, I have confronted him at a TH meeting. His " I accept the Supreme Court decision on the second amendment but support an AWB" canned answer
along with his F rating from the NRA makes him at trojan horse in the Republican Party.
You folks that think this is not so bad are sleepwalking on the road to Armageddon.

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 04:31 PM
You folks that think this is not so bad are sleepwalking on the road to Armageddon.

Who said that? I don't see a single post here that comes even close to that.

Solo
February 17, 2013, 04:31 PM
Carolyn McCarthy wants a urine and blood sample for a toxicology screening prior to any transfer.
Maybe we should mail her a jar?

blaisenguns
February 17, 2013, 04:43 PM
Huh? This argument makes no sense to me. We have background checks now, without a registry. My state does have handgun registry, unreleated to NICS. Why would requiring you to go into a FFL to perform the background check require a registry? I oppose it on principle, but this argument seems flawed.

The point is how can you prove I did or did not sell a gun with or without a background check through a private sale if there is no registry of who has what.

JohnKSa
February 17, 2013, 04:51 PM
The government must prove you did.That's exactly correct. And since, in the general case they will have no way to do so, the law is unenforceable. With universal registration it is enforceable.That's their problem, not ours.It's their problem right up until they point out that they can't enforce the universal background check and need registration to make enforcement feasible. Then it's our problem.

I think you're missing the point of my response. Nothing I said was intended to imply that we have to (or should have to) prove innocence. The point was that for a law to be feasible, there needs to be a reasonable plan for enforcement. If a law is passed that will obvously, ultimately require registration to make enforcement feasible, then people need to understand that a push for registration will be coming in the future. They also need to understand that push will be strengthened by the fact that it is required to enforce an existing law.

You and I agree that the feds don't have the authority to regulate private, instrastate sales, but many people don't understand or believe that. A lot of people don't see the harm in requiring universal background checks. What they don't understand is that to make the law workable, registration will be required.

Blackhawk30
February 17, 2013, 05:04 PM
Don't forget the NRA came up with the instant check system back in the 80's as a replacement for the waiting period.How many states still have waiting periods?
I thought that Senator from OK was supposed to be pro-gun.Whats up with Coburn?

AlexanderA
February 17, 2013, 05:14 PM
Whats up with Coburn?

1. He announced that he's not running for re-election, so now he doesn't care what his constituents think.
2. He grew a beard, so now he has to live up to his new image as a hipster.:)

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 05:17 PM
The point is how can you prove I did or did not sell a gun with or without a background check through a private sale if there is no registry of who has what.There is no "did or did not", "with or without" in law. It is innocent until proven guilty. The government must prove you commited a crime. Not require you didn't commit a crime.

How do they catch people in murder for hire schemes? Same as other laws on the books now.

By;
getting caught in the act
informant
sting operation
as part of another investigation gathering evidence
confession of guilt
etc

If, you sell me a gun in a parking lot and I go and tell my LEO handler what happened. Here is the gun, audio and video recording. Then you go to jail.
Or, you advertise a gun for sale and an undercover cop buys it from you without a FFL background check. Then you go to jail.
Or, you get busted for something else, then you stupidly admit to more crimes (amazingly this is one of the most common ways to land in jail)

There is nothing different about enforcement of this from other laws that would require registration. I don't see why you guys think it does.

The real issue here is Congress simply does not have the power to regulate private sales. Never did, never will. Read USA v Lopez (also v Morrision).

Torian
February 17, 2013, 05:23 PM
Agreed on the "we are done compromising". The minute you trust liberals to safeguard your rights, they will take that inch you give them, and take it for miles. It happened in NY state before anyone even realized what was happening.

The time for being reasonable is done. Any laws that target law-abiding citizens instead of criminals are nonnegotiable in my book.

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 05:25 PM
That's exactly correct. And since, in the general case they will have no way to do so, the law is unenforceable. No. It can easily be enforced just like any other laws. Your conclusion is faulty. There is nothing to prevent them from prosecuting you if you are caught commiting this offense in the act, or afteward if there is proof you did it. Just like any other law. With universal registration it is enforceable.It's their problem right up until they point out that they can't enforce the universal background check and need registration to make enforcement feasible. Then it's our problem.

I think you're missing the point of my response. Nothing I said was intended to imply that we have to (or should have to) prove innocence. The point was that for a law to be feasible, there needs to be a reasonable plan for enforcement. If a law is passed that will obvously, ultimately require registration to make enforcement feasible, then people need to understand that a push for registration will be coming in the future. They also need to understand that push will be strengthened by the fact that it is required to enforce an existing law.
If you sell your gun to an informant or under cover cop without going to NICS, then you go to jail. No registraion required.

You and I agree that the feds don't have the authority to regulate private, instrastate sales, but many people don't understand or believe that. A lot of people don't see the harm in requiring universal background checks. What they don't understand is that to make the law workable, registration will be required.

No. No registration is required. It can be enforced just like other laws, except Congress does not have the power to regulate private sales in the first place.

AlexanderA
February 17, 2013, 06:04 PM
The real issue here is Congress simply does not have the power to regulate private sales.

Of course it does. Practically all guns move in interstate commerce, and those that don't, "affect" interstate commerce.

Texan Scott
February 17, 2013, 06:13 PM
http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516...olicy-memo.pdf

Also HERE on THR: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=702992&p=8739561

This is a link to a Justice memo published 04 Jan 2013. It's only 9 pages long. It's intended to be a short summary of findings and policy recommendations. The real agenda outlined is shockingly plain and frightening in the extreme. These people ADMIT ubc will require full registration, and that registration will facilitate confiscation. They ADVISE that gun control will only work on a much larger and more restrictive scale than being publicly discussed.

This is not conspiracy theory tin hattery. This is a government document given to President Obama by the NIJ less than 6 weeks ago, and it is VERY PLAIN in its meaning.

This administration WANTS YOUR GUNS. Any statements to the contrary, any soft words about reasonable compromises that respect your rights, are UTTER BS LIES.

Don't take my word for it, but don't dismiss this as hyperbole or "tin hat" craziness until you READ THE NIJ MEMO.

JohnKSa
February 17, 2013, 06:13 PM
There is nothing to prevent them from prosecuting you if you are caught commiting this offense in the act, or afteward if there is proof you did it. Just like any other law.That is correct. In certain circumstances it can be proven that a crime took place. You will note that I pointed this out in my first point.If you sell your gun to an informant or under cover cop without going to NICS, then you go to jail.That is correct. In certain circumstances it can be proven that a crime took place. You will note that I mentioned stings as one of these situations in my first post.No. No registration is required. It can be enforced just like other laws...I'll try once more and if this still doesn't get through to you then I'll concede that while your repetition will not make what you repeat true, it apparently makes it true to you. :D

Because we have had, for the duration of the existence of this country, the unfettered ability to transfer guns in private intrastate sales with absolutely no paperwork or proof requirement, it is impossible, in the general case, to prove when a gun, acquired by private intrastate sale, was transferred. Therefore, for many years after universal background checks are instated, it will be possible for anyone who is charged with breaking the law to merely state that they acquired the gun legally prior to the universal background check being instated.

YES, as I have stated more than once, and as you have stated, there are SOME circumstances where proof might be available to show that a law had been broken, but in the GENERAL case, the law would not be enforceable because in the GENERAL case it wouldn't even be possible to prove that a crime took place, let alone to pin it on someone....Congress does not have the power to regulate private sales in the first place.Well, you and I believe that, but many in Congress don't. Even if the Supreme Court eventually agrees with you and me, that won't necessarily prevent a tremendous amount of trouble from coming to pass in the interval between Congress passing a law and the Supreme Court overturning it.

If we can educate people now as to the reasons why it's a bad idea (in ADDITION to it's being outside the federal government's power) to instate universal background checks then we may be able to prevent that trouble from coming to pass in the first place.

Trying to argue against this law SOLELY on the basis that such laws are outside the intended purview of Congress is like trying to argue with someone who is trying to kill you that they can't do it because it's illegal. They may not be legally able to kill you, but you won't be any less dead for the fact that the murderer had to step outside the law to end your life. In that situation, you would likely have been better off if you could have convinced the bystanders why it was a good idea for them to come to your rescue rather than simply pointing out to them that it would be against the law for the bad guy to kill you.

Same with this case. If we can convince people why universal background checks are a bad idea vs. simply repeating that Congress can't/shouldn't do it, it could save everyone a lot of trouble.

Ryanxia
February 17, 2013, 06:30 PM
Even if they make a Bill that sounds all good and nice but may be vague, couldn't the president make executive orders on how to enforce it? Similar to Clinton did? (I could be wrong just asking)

blaisenguns
February 17, 2013, 08:02 PM
I think you're missing the point of my response. Nothing I said was intended to imply that we have to (or should have to) prove innocence. The point was that for a law to be feasible, there needs to be a reasonable plan for enforcement. If a law is passed that will obvously, ultimately require registration to make enforcement feasible, then people need to understand that a push for registration will be coming in the future. They also need to understand that push will be strengthened by the fact that it is required to enforce an existing law.


That will lead to an executive order for a national registry.

If, you sell me a gun in a parking lot and I go and tell my LEO handler what happened. Here is the gun, audio and video recording. Then you go to jail.
Or, you advertise a gun for sale and an undercover cop buys it from you without a FFL background check. Then you go to jail.
Or, you get busted for something else, then you stupidly admit to more crimes (amazingly this is one of the most common ways to land in jail)


A. The recording you made was illegal and inadmissible in court unless I consented to it.
B. That is entrapment and is of questionable legality on behalf of the cops.
C. Anyone who says anything to the police without a lawyer present is a fool, however if I ask for a lawyer anything said is inadmissible in court after that point.

This administration WANTS YOUR GUNS. Any statements to the contrary, any soft words about reasonable compromises that respect your rights, are UTTER BS LIES

Everyone remember when Feinstein said exactly this in '95? I was 5 and I do.

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 08:17 PM
Of course it does. Practically all guns move in interstate commerce, and those that don't, "affect" interstate commerce.
No. Simply "moved" is not enough. SCOTUS has already rejected such a claim by Congress in USA v Lopez.
Please read SCOTUS cases Lopez, also Morrison. Or read this thread; http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=703189

"The Bass Court set aside the conviction because although the Government had demonstrated that Bass had possessed a firearm, it had failed "to show the requisite nexus with interstate commerce"
...
The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce.
To uphold the Government's contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States.
...
but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated "

Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. [n.3] Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity,
... Under the theories that the Government presents in support of §922(q), it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the Government's arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.

SCOTUS
USA v Lopez

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 08:35 PM
That is correct. In certain circumstances it can be proven that a crime took place. You will note that I pointed this out in my first point.That is correct. In certain circumstances it can be proven that a crime took place. You will note that I mentioned stings as one of these situations in my first post.I'll try once more and if this still doesn't get through to you then I'll concede that while your repetition will not make what you repeat true, it apparently makes it true to you. :D

Because we have had, for the duration of the existence of this country, the unfettered ability to transfer guns in private intrastate sales with absolutely no paperwork or proof requirement, it is impossible, in the general case, to prove when a gun, acquired by private intrastate sale, was transferred. Therefore, for many years after universal background checks are instated, it will be possible for anyone who is charged with breaking the law to merely state that they acquired the gun legally prior to the universal background check being instated.

YES, as I have stated more than once, and as you have stated, there are SOME circumstances where proof might be available to show that a law had been broken, but in the GENERAL case, the law would not be enforceable because in the GENERAL case it wouldn't even be possible to prove that a crime took place, let alone to pin it on someone.Well, you and I believe that, but many in Congress don't. Even if the Supreme Court eventually agrees with you and me, that won't necessarily prevent a tremendous amount of trouble from coming to pass in the interval between Congress passing a law and the Supreme Court overturning it.

If we can educate people now as to the reasons why it's a bad idea (in ADDITION to it's being outside the federal government's power) to instate universal background checks then we may be able to prevent that trouble from coming to pass in the first place.

Trying to argue against this law SOLELY on the basis that such laws are outside the intended purview of Congress is like trying to argue with someone who is trying to kill you that they can't do it because it's illegal. They may not be legally able to kill you, but you won't be any less dead for the fact that the murderer had to step outside the law to end your life. In that situation, you would likely have been better off if you could have convinced the bystanders why it was a good idea for them to come to your rescue rather than simply pointing out to them that it would be against the law for the bad guy to kill you.

Same with this case. If we can convince people why universal background checks are a bad idea vs. simply repeating that Congress can't/shouldn't do it, it could save everyone a lot of trouble.


First you admit there are cases where it can be possible to prosecute, just like every other law. Then you say it's "impossible". I don't get how you get from one point to the next. It is easily possible. The only way anyone is ever convicted of any crime, in any case, is when there is PROOF of a crime. Like getting caught in the act, testimony or other evidence after the fact. Registration is not needed to enforce the millions of other laws on the books now.


Simply repeating that UBC's will lead to registration does nothing to our cause. Moderates who seem to be in favor of UBC's don't believe it, because that is not what is being suggeted. It sounds like tin foil hattery, because it is. It does not have to follow any more than confiscation must follow registration. Our fear that it could is not going to convince the moderates of this position now because it's not on the table and it's simply not true.

What is on the table, UBC's, is a vast expansion of federal power into private actions. Congress simply does not have the power to regulate private sales anymore than they can ban the Amish or Budhism.
We must educate people that Congress's power is not unlimited and this is beyond thier power. Too many people, even gun owners think they can as long as they get 51% of the vote. No.

Texan Scott
February 17, 2013, 08:41 PM
Yes, but go find the memo. READ the memo. SPREAD copies of the memo.

"Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies", published by the National Institute of Justice (DOJ research arm) on January 4, 2013 by Dr. Greg Ridgeway, PhD.

He basically advocates going BIG on gun control or going home. This is end-game stuff.

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK... 9 easy pages. READ IT.

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 08:42 PM
That will lead to an executive order for a national registry.

:banghead:
No. Please learn how our government works. EO's cannot do that. Please stop repeating these absurd myths. They make all gun owners look dumb.

A. The recording you made was illegal and inadmissible in court unless I consented to it.
B. That is entrapment and is of questionable legality on behalf of the cops.Both false. You really need to learn how the legal system works.
C. Anyone who says anything to the police without a lawyer present is a fool, however if I ask for a lawyer anything said is inadmissible in court after that point.You'd be stunned to learn how many people in prison are there because of the info they freely gave to police., but yes, most criminals are dumb.
Everyone remember when Feinstein said exactly this in '95? I was 5 and I do.I don't care if she said she wants to be queen and have us all kiss her feet. That's not going to happen either.

316SS
February 17, 2013, 08:44 PM
The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce.

We aren't talking about mere possession, we are talking about sale or transfer, which is an economic activity and arguably is beyond the scope of the Lopez decision.

Simply repeating that UBC's will lead to registration does nothing to our cause. Moderates who seem to be in favor of UBC's don't believe it, because that is not what is being suggeted. It sounds like tin foil hattery, because it is.

Registration and confiscation have been discussed openly at both state and federal levels. To deny that is to deny an objective fact.

Deanimator
February 17, 2013, 08:59 PM
Moderates who seem to be in favor of UBC's don't believe it, because that is not what is being suggeted.
Anyone who favors the sham "universal background check" is either:

ignorant.
lying.

It can ONLY be enforced via REGISTRATION.

Tell the class where registration led in Chicago.

NO, I REFUSE.

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 09:13 PM
We aren't talking about mere possession, we are talking about sale or transfer, which is an economic activity and arguably is beyond the scope of the Lopez decision.
Lopez was in possesion to sell his gun at school. That is not enough to bring into the commerce clause. The law itself is not for regulating commerce, but crime. Like the GFSZ act in Lopez, UBC's are an attempt at violence control, not regulate economic activity. The court rejected the governments grab at power.

"Section 922(q)[GFSZ] is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. [n.3] Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity" SCOTUS- US v Lopez

"The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, and there is no better example of the police power, which the Founders undeniably left reposed in the States and denied the central government, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims. Congress therefore may not regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on the conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce." SCOTUS- USA v MORRISON
Registration and confiscation have been discussed openly at both state and federal levels. To deny that is to deny an objective fact.

We are discussing UBC's. Registration and confiscation are not in the proposals for UBC's. It does not help to go off on a tangent about the extremists who want to do those things. It just makes us look like extremists.

316SS
February 17, 2013, 09:31 PM
Lopez was in possesion to sell his gun at school. That is not enough to bring into the commerce clause.

The law in question (GFSZA) had nothing to do with sale or transfer, but only possession. That is why the commerce clause did not apply. The proposed law requiring a BGC as a condition of all transfers is another animal entirely. No matter how shrilly you proclaim "they can't do that!", I'll paraphrase Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau: Just watch them.

We are discussing UBC's. Registration and confiscation are not in the proposals for UBC's. It does not help to go off on a tangent about the extremists who want to do those things. It just makes us look like extremists.

Slightly more sophisticated folks recognize such a thing as context. In any case, extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice.

Deanimator
February 17, 2013, 09:31 PM
We are discussing UBC's. Registration and confiscation are not in the proposals for UBC's. It does not help to go off on a tangent about the extremists who want to do those things. It just makes us look like extremists.

The sham "universal background check" CANNOT be enforced WITHOUT registration.
Anti-gun extremists are driving the push for gun control.

Pretending otherwise makes you look duplicitous.

Tell everyone what followed from registration in Chicago.

I know that anti-gunners think gun owners were born yesterday, but what TIME yesterday?

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 09:45 PM
The law in question (GFSZA) had nothing to do with sale or transfer, but only possession. That is why the commerce clause did not apply. No. It was thrown out because the whole law was a criminal law, not part of a larger economic policy. Just like UBC's. "Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity"
The proposed law requiring a BGC as a condition of all transfers is another animal entirely. No matter how shrilly you proclaim "they can't do that!", I'll paraphrase Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau: Just watch them.
He was Canadian who bows to a queen. This is a Republic and we don't bow. I'm going off what SCOTUS has already thrown out and limited Congress on. Not just my wish of what I hope for. They said these are police power reserved to the states. Intrastate sales must have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce for Congress to regulate. Congress does not have the power to regualte private sales. If they could they could regulate anything, and SCOTUS has said they can't.

Slightly more sophisticated folks recognize such a thing as context. In any case, extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice.You and I understand incrementalism, but we have to fight these attacks one at a time and not look like kooks screaming about confiscations when the moderates think they're just supporting UBC's. We fight them one at a time, and they will lose on each point and never get to the next stage. That's how we defeat incrementalism.

316SS
February 17, 2013, 09:51 PM
The sham "universal background check" CANNOT be enforced WITHOUT registration.

I think joeschmoe has shown earlier in the thread that a UBC law could be enforced in limited, specific circumstances without registration. However, we deny the experiences of our friends in the UK, Canada, and Australia, who have warned us that universal background checks are simply a stepping stone toward a severe curtailing of private firearm ownership, at our peril.

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 09:52 PM
The sham "universal background check" CANNOT be enforced WITHOUT registration.


Why not? Of course it could.

jerkface11
February 17, 2013, 09:56 PM
Why not? How about because without registration they wouldn't know when private sales were taking place.

Deanimator
February 17, 2013, 09:57 PM
You and I understand incrementalism, but we have to fight these attacks one at a time and not look like kooks screaming about confiscations when the moderates think they're just supporting UBC's.
I don't CARE what they THINK they're supporting. I care what they're ACTUALLY supporting, which is REGISTRATION, from which flows BANS and CONFISCATION.

Perhaps you missed the video of New York Democrat legislators asking Republicans not to talk about the proposed CONFISCATIONS of so-called "assault weapons" and normal capacity magazines.

Explain to everyone who benefits from helping the other side conceal its REAL intentions, and the absolutely ESSENTIAL role of creating a NEED for REGISTRATION.

316SS
February 17, 2013, 10:01 PM
You and I understand incrementalism, but we have to fight these attacks one at a time and not look like kooks screaming about confiscations when the moderates think they're just supporting UBC's. We fight them one at a time, and they will lose on each point and never get to the next stage. That's how we defeat incrementalism.

Well I think we've arrived at the heart of our disagreement, because I believe if we don't call out anti-gunners on their end game, in all its horror, early, often, and loudly, we'll find ourselves living it soon enough. As I alluded to in my post above, there are examples of this progression in very recent history in the UK, Canada, and Australia. Anyone who looks at those examples and says "that can't happen here" should have their picture next to the definition of "naive" in the dictionary.

Deanimator
February 17, 2013, 10:02 PM
However, we deny the experiences of our friends in the UK, Canada, and Australia, who have warned us that universal background checks are simply a stepping stone toward a severe curtailing of private firearm ownership, at our peril.
Why look to foreign countries when you need look no farther than Chicago?

What is the ONLY way to enforce a sham "universal background check"?

How was Chicago's handgun BAN implemented?

universal background check => registration => bans and confiscations

Deanimator
February 17, 2013, 10:03 PM
Why not? Of course it could.
Sheer nonsense.

How would anyone know when a firearm changed hands WITHOUT registration?

Whom do you think you're fooling?

Deanimator
February 17, 2013, 10:05 PM
Anyone who looks at those examples and says "that can't happen here" should have their picture next to the definition of "naive" in the dictionary.
"It can't happen here"???

It's already happened here, in Chicago. I know, I lived there when it did.

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 10:10 PM
Sheer nonsense.

How would anyone know when a firearm changed hands WITHOUT registration?

Whom do you think you're fooling?
How do you know when drugs are sold? When there is evidence of a crime.
Same as other laws on the books now.

By;
getting caught in the act
informant
sting operation
as part of another investigation gathering evidence
confession of guilt
etc

Ask millions of Americans in prison how they got caught.

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 10:15 PM
Well I think we've arrived at the heart of our disagreement, because I believe if we don't call out anti-gunners on their end game, in all its horror, early, often, and loudly, we'll find ourselves living it soon enough. As I alluded to in my post above, there are examples of this progression in very recent history in the UK, Canada, and Australia. Anyone who looks at those examples and says "that can't happen here" should have their picture next to the definition of "naive" in the dictionary.
Then we disagree. I don't care if they're end game is to see us all in chains kissing thier feet. Not going to happen either. I will fight them each step of the way. They will lose each step of the way and they can dream of slaves. All they want all they will get is defeat today and tomorrow.

Congress does not have the power to regulate private sales or ban arms. Fear of confiscation and slavery is a red herring.


ETA; those coutries are monarchies who bow to a queen and don't have anything like the 2nd amendment. We don't bow here. It's absurd to suggest that over 80 million are just going to "turn them in" like the aussies did. I think that's "naive".

This seems fitting here;

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/33367952.jpg

Deanimator
February 17, 2013, 10:19 PM
How do you know when drugs are sold?
What percentage of drug sales are KNOWN??? Never mind the percentage prosecuted.

When were drugs EVER hard to get for anyone who wanted them, even though there's NO legal way to obtain most of them?

If you think that ANYBODY would fall for such foolishness, you clearly think that gun owners are as stupid as the girl in the Allstate commercial.

Don't tell me, you're a French model too.

Bon jour...

Deanimator
February 17, 2013, 10:24 PM
I will fight them each step of the way.
HOW? By giving them the opening they so desperately need???

It would be FAR more accurate for you to say, "I will fight FOR them each step of the way."

The only question is whether you're intentionally serving as their stalking horse or through ignorance and lack of clear thinking. In the end it makes little difference.

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 10:27 PM
***?

Deanimator
February 17, 2013, 10:34 PM
***?

*** --- ***

Do you REALLY think people can be hoodwinked THIS easily?

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 10:37 PM
What percentage of drug sales are KNOWN??? Never mind the percentage prosecuted.

When were drugs EVER hard to get for anyone who wanted them, even though there's NO legal way to obtain most of them?
I don't know any law that is 100% perfect. I don't know why you think that is required. It would be a crime. If you get caught, you go to jail. How they prove it is their problem. The government passing weak infective laws is hardly new.
If you think that ANYBODY would fall for such foolishness, you clearly think that gun owners are as stupid as the girl in the Allstate commercial.
Again, not following the logic here.
Don't tell me, you're a French model too.

Bon jour...

What?

316SS
February 17, 2013, 10:39 PM
Do you REALLY think people can be hoodwinked THIS easily?

If he does, he's not wrong. That's how incrementalism works, each increment is repugnant, but can be tolerated. Only when the destination is reached do some realize how far they've been led. But that is why we need to fight against the destination, not the increment du jour.

Edit: Should have said, we need to fight the increment du jour because we object to the real destination.

joeschmoe
February 17, 2013, 10:40 PM
HOW? By giving them the opening they so desperately need???

It would be FAR more accurate for you to say, "I will fight FOR them each step of the way."

The only question is whether you're intentionally serving as their stalking horse or through ignorance and lack of clear thinking. In the end it makes little difference.


And we're done. Grow up. This kind of stuff makes all gun owners look like paranoid mouth breathers.

316SS
February 17, 2013, 10:45 PM
This kind of stuff makes all gun owners look like paranoid mouth breathers.

It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you.

blaisenguns
February 17, 2013, 10:49 PM
How do you know when drugs are sold? When there is evidence of a crime.
Same as other laws on the books now.

By;
getting caught in the act
informant
sting operation
as part of another investigation gathering evidence
confession of guilt
etc

Ask millions of Americans in prison how they got caught.

The problem is that if the get this law passed, then they will be saying in a few month what a LARGE percentage of guns (:mad: nonsense statistics mind you) are changing hands without checks, maybe some other mass shooting occurs then BOOM executive order requiring registration of all firearms in compliance with law XYZ (because the Pres has the power to enforce the law right?) now we all have to register our stuff. By the time this is over turned by the supreme court (many cases take years to even be heard) they have confiscated all our guns. I said earlier "Let them pass it", I wholeheartedly take that back now.

C.F. Plinker
February 17, 2013, 10:57 PM
What constitutes a 'transfer' needs to be carefully defined. Does passing a handgun to my buddy on the range for him to try a transfer? Does lending my hunting partner a deer rifle for the afternoon a transfer? If not defined in detail, we could be in big trouble.

No new laws on this issue are best, of course.
The law under consideration in Colorado addresses these two situations in the exception section as temporary transfers where neither title or ownership is being transferred. The temorary transfer at a range must be done an an incorporated range. This could exclude municipal ranges, forest service ranges, and informal ranges on public land. Your hunting buddy example is allowed where you are hunting and both parties must have valid hunting licenses. You couldn't loan the rifle from your house or even the motel room where you are staying.

It seems to me that if a grandpa gave his grand-daughter a rifle, neither Mom or Dad could even clean it (at any place other than a range) without the grand-daughter needing to get a background check on her parent.

Edit to add:
This section was added to the part on exemptions after the most recent hearings:

(f) A TRANSFER OF A FIREARM THAT IS MADE TO FACILITATE THE
9 REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE OF THE FIREARM; EXCEPT THAT THIS PARAGRAPH
10 (f) DOES NOT APPLY UNLESS ALL PARTIES WHO POSSESS THE FIREARM AS
11 A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER MAY LEGALLY POSSESS A FIREARM.

My comments above regarding cleaning guns may not be pertinant any longer.

Deanimator
February 17, 2013, 10:58 PM
I don't know any law that is 100% perfect.
This is a law that would be 100% INEFFECTIVE without REGISTRATION and you know it too.


I don't know why you think that is required.
I don't know what the point is of a law which has no enforcement mechanism. Of course the enforcement mechanism for this would would be... REGISTRATION.


The government passing weak infective laws is hardly new.
And that should be encouraged... WHY???

But now YOU admit that without REGISTRATION it would be "weak" and "ineffective".

Deanimator
February 17, 2013, 10:59 PM
And we're done. Grow up. This kind of stuff makes all gun owners look like paranoid mouth breathers.
I can't stop you from trying to dupe me.

You can't make me fall for it.

That seems to anger you.

Deanimator
February 17, 2013, 11:02 PM
It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you.
It's ESPECIALLY not "paranoia" when you can cite SPECIFIC instances of it happening.

I'm from Chicago. I KNOW what comes from REGISTRATION.

This con CANNOT be enforced without registration, whether it's instituted immediately, or later to "fix" it.

Anybody who claims otherwise is dishonest.

JohnKSa
February 18, 2013, 12:52 AM
First you admit there are cases where it can be possible to prosecute...Yes, I do. In my very first post on this thread I pointed out that in certain circumstances enforcement was possible. I even listed a couple of examples to make it even more plain what I meant.Then you say it's "impossible".No, I didn't say that and I don't understand what possible motive you could have to try to twist things around to try to make it sound like I have when it's so painfully obvious that I haven't.

You can't take a single word out of a paragraph and pretend that sums up the entire gist of the paragraph. It is even more ridiculous when, to avoid just such a "misunderstanding", I even emphasized the critical part of my statements about the difficulty of enforcement to make it even more plain.

Let's try it again, this time I'll add even more emphasis.

Because we have had, for the duration of the existence of this country, the unfettered ability to transfer guns in private intrastate sales with absolutely no paperwork or proof requirement, it is impossible, in the general case, to prove when a gun, acquired by private intrastate sale, was transferred. Therefore, for many years after universal background checks are instated, it will be possible for anyone who is charged with breaking the law to merely state that they acquired the gun legally prior to the universal background check being instated.

To sum up, enforcement is possible under certain limited circumstances, but impossible in the general case.

Not "impossible" period, "impossible in the general case".Simply repeating that UBC's will lead to registration does nothing to our cause.If it were merely repetition, you would be correct. However, I am not relying on repetition. I am relying on logic and on facts acknowledged to be true by a NIJ PhD.

I get that you don't understand the logic that I and others have explained on this thread in painstaking detail, and I am about ready to concede that you do not comprehend the difference between "impossible" and "impossible in the general case", but fortunately, you don't have to rely on any of that. Just go read the memo by the NIJ expert.

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

"Universal background checks
... Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process."

I don't see how it could be any more plain.How do you know when drugs are sold?Because one can use drug possession or evidence of drug use to prove a crime has taken place in the very likely case where one can not actually witness the purchase itself taking place.

HOWEVER, merely owning or using a gun would provide absolutely no evidence of a crime unless it could be proven that person took ownership via a private transaction AFTER the UBC went into effect. How do you suggest that such a thing could be proven--outside the limited circumstances/situations already acknowledged and amply discussed? Without knowing who owns guns NOW, it is very difficult (impossible in the general case) to prove tomorrow that non-background-checked transfers took place. The government passing weak infective laws is hardly new.NOW we're getting somewhere. Yes, they do this all the time. And then when the desired result is not obtained (which is VERY likely when weak/ineffective laws are concerned), the very weakness and ineffectiveness of the law is used as a foot in the door to take the next step, to pass a more restrictive law, to limit actions and rights even further because the initial law was too weak, too hard to enforce, etc.

You brought up the drug laws--it's a good example. Look at how they have progressed over the years. We have to sign our names to buy effective OTC allergy medication at the supermarket, the glassware in yesteryear's children's chemistry sets are illegal today, and that's just a small portion...

Spymaster
February 18, 2013, 01:04 AM
Good points all^^^. Ultimately, those that are supporting incrementalist infringements, are self-centered elitists, men and women who feel that the UBC is somebody elses problem, and thus they have no problem with the infringment, its somebody elses problem, they are above it.

These are not the kind of people you want on your team...

MachIVshooter
February 18, 2013, 02:32 AM
Folks, pay attention to what John is saying.

For the most part, this UBC thing in CO will be unenforceable. Not only do they not know who has what now, but they will have no way of knowing how many times and on what dates a firearm initially distributed prior to the effective date has been transferred. Even the ones manufactured after the effective date are not going to show up any differently unless an inquiry of disposition is made, which takes some time; Cops can see NCIC, and that only tells them if it was reported stolen. Furthermore, even following an inquiry with results that show a post-effective date manufacture, they still have to track down the 4473. There's nothing in the Colorado bill requiring you to retain records or remember which FFL did the transfer, which means the prosecutor's burden is now figuring out where the 4473 is, and he absolutely does not have the authority, even if he had the resources, to scour every FFL's 4473 files from effective date forward.

Basically, unless one sells to an undercover officer or otherwise self-incriminates, there is no way to enforce it. No, a private citizen could not attempt their own sting, because the buyer violates the same law as the seller; Any anti-gunner with the idea of pulling a Bloomberg will land themselves in prison.

So yes, they will seek registration later to make it an enforceable law. God willing, the democrats who said they don't support registration will maintain that position on that day (assuming they still control the legislature)

gc70
February 18, 2013, 02:51 AM
Another gapping hole in the argument for UBC is that all these guns did first go through an FFL and background check. Not one of these guns entered into private possesion without first going through the current background check and 4473 forms. Everyone can be traced back to the FFL they came from. The gun can be traced from birth, distribution to the FFL who sold it to the individual who's info stays on file.
There is no "gun show loophole".

"Not one" is technically correct, but can you guess how many millions of guns sold before 1968 are still in circulation.

Shadow 7D
February 18, 2013, 05:28 AM
Also for consideration, what about NON serial numbered guns????
until 64, a SN was NOT required, I happen to know at least ONE of mine is NOT sn'd (old mossy 500)

Well, we now know the law is UN-enforceable
WITH OUT A UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION....

this is the SIMPLE argument, these people want to ban guns, what do I receive from them - NOTHING, I will not help the person attempting to remove a "god given right".

radiotom
February 18, 2013, 06:57 AM
And we're done. Grow up. This kind of stuff makes all gun owners look like paranoid mouth breathers.

Somebody who says that, isn't on our side. They will just reassess their principles once the next "moderate" or "compromise" position is touted in the media.

jon_in_wv
February 18, 2013, 07:25 AM
Criminals are not going to purchase guns legally in any case. UBC's are simply a feel good measure foisted on us by the antis.


Is is so much worse than a "feel good" measure, it is another enraging attempt to make the law abiding person the criminal instead of just punishing the criminal. So now a criminal is caught with a firearm the ATF traces back to you. The crook is trying to save his tail so he says he will testify you gave it to him without a background check. They knock on your door with a warrant to see your 4473. You lost it, can't find it, whatever, now they have evidence you transferred a firearm to a person without a background check and you are arrested because HE committed a crime. Great job congress. Can't you guys see now dangerous this law is? Besides the complete over reach of their congressional power, the potential for future registration, this is another way to criminalize YOU for engaging in legal commerce. We need to fight this one folks.

BTW, folks this pie in the sky idea the feds have to "prove" you did it and if you didn't there is no way you can go to prison I hate to break it to you but the fact he has your firearm and his testimony ARE proof. You are the one who will have to prove your innocence regardless of what the law says. Just like the law says they can't give him a lower sentence in exchange for fingering you for a crime but they do that every day.

Folks need to quit talking about compromise... the left is willing to give up nothing. The only people who are loosing in these hypothetical talks are law abiding citizens. There is nothing in the OP's post that would have impacted Sandy Hook at at all.


Amen, they come up with a restrictive law then they loosen slightly the restrictions and call it compromise. That is NOT compromise. Compromise is when you get something and the other party gets something, NOT I get 99% of what I asked for and you get nothing especially when you know darned well they ask for more than the goal anyways so they can reduce it to what they want and call it compromise.

Bubba613
February 18, 2013, 08:16 AM
Of course it does. Practically all guns move in interstate commerce, and those that don't, "affect" interstate commerce.

The gov't already regulates guns in interstate commmerce. You cannot sell one directly to someone across a state border.
Therefore they are proposing to regulate guns in intrastate commerce. They have no power to do this.

In any case, does anyone really think this will cut down on crime in any fashion at all?

sporty66
February 18, 2013, 10:18 AM
ubc's will not work criminals don't get backround checks.if they were to get this passed when it doest work what are we to give up next. Fight them every step of the way and give them nothing.

MachIVshooter
February 18, 2013, 10:38 AM
So now a criminal is caught with a firearm the ATF traces back to you. The crook is trying to save his tail so he says he will testify you gave it to him without a background check.

While feasible, this situation is doubtful. It is a crime for both the transferee and transferor, so he'd be adding to his own list of charges.

It would also end up being a case of your word against his, and he's the one who has demonstrated dishonesty. Even if they're inclined to believe the criminal, all you need is one character witness who testifies in your favor, and mr. criminal gets the perjury bonus.

If you're able to remember the FFL who conducted the transfer, the 4473 will be on file (or with ATF if he's out of business). Of course, these guns will not be in his bound book, so if the 4473 went missing, there'll be no record. That is unlikely, though, as no FFL wants to be investigated, even if the allegation is untrue. ATF investigations are disruptive to business and stressful.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but the language of the bill is very clear that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. I don't know how they figure they're going to be able to, but that's how it is written.

Once again, they don't expect this law to accomplish anything without registration, and so it is a precursor.

Ryanxia
February 18, 2013, 11:02 AM
The problem is that if the get this law passed, then they will be saying in a few month what a LARGE percentage of guns (:mad: nonsense statistics mind you) are changing hands without checks, maybe some other mass shooting occurs then BOOM executive order requiring registration of all firearms in compliance with law XYZ (because the Pres has the power to enforce the law right?) now we all have to register our stuff. By the time this is over turned by the supreme court (many cases take years to even be heard) they have confiscated all our guns. I said earlier "Let them pass it", I wholeheartedly take that back now.
Exactly. Once it's a law even a weak one the president can use executive orders to 'enforce' it. And of course what everyone else has said about it not working without registration.

Assuming a private citizen is not required to save paperwork, once someone asks that person who he sold a gun to and at which dealer he can simply say I don't remember. They then would have to what? Look through every FFL in your state for that transaction? What if it's a long gun and you transferred it the next state over?

Not to mention dealers will charge $50 for me to lend my buddy a $40 shotgun and another $50 to get it back. They talk about setting a $20 cap on it but many dealers will simply refuse to do private transfers as it would be below their 'cost' to do it (employee's time, paperwork, etc.). Which would effectively end private sales in many areas.

MachIVshooter
February 18, 2013, 11:10 AM
What if it's a long gun and you transferred it the next state over?

Interstate private transfers have to go through an FFL, even long guns. That is (and has been for a long time) federal law.

But.........private individuals can ship directly to out of state FFLs. Of course, this is (probable) CO law, so if the gun is not in the state, Colorado has no authority to even investigate.

If UBC becomes federal law and it reads like the CO bill, it will have all the same problems with enforcement, magnified by geography and population.

Currently, even if a firearm goes through FFLs for every transfer, it is not traceable after the first resale, unless each buyer and seller recalls the FFL who did the transfer (and are willing to disclose it, which I would not be). Nothing will change.

Ryanxia
February 18, 2013, 11:23 AM
Actually long guns can be transferred interstate in private sales. I've spent a lot of time trying to find out the legalities of this and finally with my LGS we asked an ATF agent and he said they are legal it's just not widely known. I spent hours looking over the law book on that particular law and finally after hearing it straight from the horse's mouth it's good enough for me. I know you shouldn't just take the word of someone in authority but it's pretty much accepted as fact around here.

AlexanderA
February 18, 2013, 11:55 AM
Actually long guns can be transferred interstate in private sales. I've spent a lot of time trying to find out the legalities of this and finally with my LGS we asked an ATF agent and he said they are legal it's just not widely known. I spent hours looking over the law book on that particular law and finally after hearing it straight from the horse's mouth it's good enough for me. I know you shouldn't just take the word of someone in authority but it's pretty much accepted as fact around here.

This is sooo incorrect. If you want to transfer a gun accross a state line, you have to do it through an FFL dealer. A private individual can buy a long gun from a dealer in another state, but not from a private (unlicensed) person in that other state.

The following is from the ATF's website:

Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?
A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?
A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

This just goes to show that even ATF agents can be misinformed.

jon_in_wv
February 18, 2013, 09:29 PM
While feasible, this situation is doubtful. It is a crime for both the transferee and transferor, so he'd be adding to his own list of charges.

It would also end up being a case of your word against his, and he's the one who has demonstrated dishonesty. Even if they're inclined to believe the criminal, all you need is one character witness who testifies in your favor, and mr. criminal gets the perjury bonus.


What you say sounds good but let's put it in these terms. A drug addict gets caught with a 3 ounces of crack. He tells the US attorney he will make a deal for a lighter sentence by giving up the guy he bought it from. Now he is admitting to the purchase not just the possession and he will even testify he made similar purchases from the dealer once a month for the past year. The dealer gets arrested, charged with the sale and is sentenced based on 36 ounces of crack (3x12). This is the reality of how the federal justice system works. You and I know how it SHOULD work, I'm telling you how it DOES work. In the case of the firearm the crook is already screwed because he has illegal possession of the firearm and is facing up to 25 years for it. He has nothing to lose by rolling over on you. His possession of the firearm without, according to him, a background check (the fact he has it supports that claim) is evidence you transferred it to him illegally. Along with his testimony you will have the weight of the evidence stacked against you and you will have to PROVE you didn't commit the crime. They have are suggesting you maintain the 4473 and maintain the paperwork as evidence of the transaction. If you can't get a hold of the dealers records, which the ATF has free access to not you (besides when you tell them where you did the transfer his records may be impounded by the same people seeking to convict you), and you can't produce your 4473 I can see the situation where you are truly screwed. I'm not saying this is the plan for all cases. I'm saying this can and will happen if this becomes the law of the land. I won't divulge my profession but I do review sentencing documents every day at work. You would be amazed now much weight is put on crimimals testimony when it serves the purpose of the state.

blaisenguns
February 18, 2013, 09:32 PM
You would be amazed now much weight is put on crimimals testimony when it serves the purpose of the state.


And other times I am certain they attempt to discredit the source.

michaelbsc
February 19, 2013, 04:01 AM
And other times I am certain they attempt to discredit the source.

Rather amazing what the "interest of justice" can justify.

Vartarg
February 19, 2013, 07:42 AM
The point is how can you prove I did or did not sell a gun with or without a background check through a private sale if there is no registry of who has what.
Yes....but it criminalizes otherwise legal behavior, and sets up an environment ripe for selective and arbitrary prosecution......totally unsatisfactory IMHO.

George

michaelbsc
February 19, 2013, 07:22 PM
an environment ripe for selective and arbitrary prosecution......totally unsatisfactory IMHO.

How do we know that's not part of what they want?

jamesbeat
February 19, 2013, 07:28 PM
It would certainly discourage firearms ownership and trade...

JayBird
February 19, 2013, 08:09 PM
Another reason to be against 'UBC's

Personally, I dont need another reason to be against them.

But lets think about funding....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/19/sequester-guns-background-check-fbi/1930923/

Looming across-the-board federal spending cuts threaten to weaken the national criminal background check system for gun purchases, federal officials warn, even as lawmakers work to draft compromise legislation to expand and improve the background check system.

...

Third Way, a left-leaning think-tank, noted in a memo in November 2011 that the lack of funding could lead to NICS shutting down for nine hours on Saturdays or Sundays, inconveniencing legal gun purchasers.

So now, if you want to buy a gun on a Saturday or a Sunday....you may not be able to buy it.

Going to that gun show on Saturday? How about your local Gander or Bass Pro Shop, or your LGS. Saturday? Nope. Tough luck.

I wonder if all private sales of guns required a background check, what if the government simply shutdown NCIS. Would that block any sales of firearms...for forever?

Those here that say they are for 'UBC's should probably reconsider that stance.

MachIVshooter
February 19, 2013, 08:13 PM
I wonder if all private sales of guns required a background check, what if the government simply shutdown NCIS. Would that block any sales of firearms...for forever?

Nope. You'd just fill out the 4473 and come back after 72 hours to pick up your firearm.

They have 3 days to come back with a "Proceed", "Delayed" or "Denied". No response is an automatic "Proceed"

jon_in_wv
February 19, 2013, 08:45 PM
And other times I am certain they attempt to discredit the source.

Sure thats why the US Attorney's office has had over a 90% conviction rate the past few years because that defense works so well.

If you enjoyed reading about "Senate negotiations on "universal background checks"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!