Background checks, round two?


PDA






Solo
May 8, 2013, 02:15 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/senators-discuss-changing-background-checks-bill-063940806.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senators backing gun control are discussing ways to revise the defeated Senate background check bill to help win the votes they need to resuscitate the measure.
Among the changes they might consider are limiting the fees buyers would pay at gun shows, adding provisions dealing with the mentally ill and altering language extending the background check requirement to all online sales, senators said Tuesday.
Supporters fell five votes short when the Senate defeated legislation last month that would have extended required federal background checks to more buyers.
...

<...Click the link to read the rest of the article...>

Somehow I doubt this is going to result in anything good, unless they manage to open up the machine gun registry or something of that nature.

If you enjoyed reading about "Background checks, round two?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PabloJ
May 8, 2013, 03:43 PM
It's a non-event. I had to fill out two forms for my last purchase. Entire process took <10 minutes. I'm not concerned about universal background check at all.

ShooterMcGavin
May 8, 2013, 03:49 PM
It's a non-event. I had to fill out two forms for my last purchase. Entire process took <10 minutes. I'm not concerned about universal background check at all.
Does a nation-wide registry of all firearms/owners concern you? ...because that is what it would take to enforce UBC.

Akita1
May 8, 2013, 04:24 PM
Does a nation-wide registry of all firearms/owners concern you? ...because that is what it would take to enforce UBC.
Is that really how it's drafted? Thought the term "Universal" meant "all", meaning no private sales with exemptions for such things as family transfers?

Texan Scott
May 8, 2013, 04:29 PM
Nothing to do but watch it, at this point. With the media frenzy losing steam in the wake of a fairly resounding defeat for gun control, they're fishing for more support in a Senate that has offered little. Their spotlight is dimming.

When they introduce actual legislation, we can kick into high gear and run down specific points of opposition. Until then, we wait... and build up.

M-Cameron
May 8, 2013, 04:34 PM
Background check for online sales??..... So I need a background check to buy the gun online....and another to take possession from my FFL...?

I swear these people need to not be allowed to draft laws anymore...because they have no idea what they are talking about.

Akita1
May 8, 2013, 04:37 PM
Background check for online sales??..... So I need a background check to buy the gun online....and another to take possession from my FFL...?

I swear these people need to not be allowed to draft laws anymore...because they have no idea what they are talking about.
Agreed; thought that was already in place given you have to ship to FFL if not in your local market.

morcey2
May 8, 2013, 04:48 PM
They're still trying to push it through to have it die in the House. That was the intention from the get-go. Then it would become club to (theoretically) beat those evil, mean-spirited House Republicans in the 2014 mid-terms.

cwo2lt
May 8, 2013, 04:53 PM
It's a non-event. I'm not concerned about universal background check at all.
It concerns me in that Congress would be acting outside of its charter. They are allowed to regulate interstate commerce only. That makes it a big event.

Deanimator
May 8, 2013, 05:00 PM
It's a non-event. I had to fill out two forms for my last purchase. Entire process took <10 minutes. I'm not concerned about universal background check at all.
Are you "concerned" about registration (without which this is all a nullity)?

How about the sort of de facto BAN that Chicago instituted merely by refusing to accept any registration forms?

TX1911fan
May 8, 2013, 05:13 PM
How about having to get a background check if your brother, son, wife, mother or uncle wants to borrow your gun to go hunting or to the range?

arizona98tj
May 8, 2013, 05:24 PM
Or your shooting buddy of 25 years is thinking about picking up a new ________ CCW for himself. He knows you have one sitting on the top shelf of the gun safe. You're more than happy to loan it to him for a few range trips....oh....their new bill would make you transfer it to him. Then....a few days later....he has to transfer it back to you. $$ spent both ways, trip to the FFL, etc.

Thanks no....I don't need government oversight on what I legally do with any firearm I own.

Midwest
May 8, 2013, 05:28 PM
UBC is already here in some states where you cannot lend out a firearm to your spouse.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I think it is already illegal to lend your pistol to your spouse in New Jersey.

And Illegal in New York if the spouse doesn't have a pistol permit, but the other one does . Unless both spouses have pistol permits with the same pistol listed on both permits.

And Illegal in Illinois if only one spouse has an FOID and the other doesn't.

Maybe Illegal in Massachusetts too if both spouses don't have FID's. (Firearm ID cards.)

ShooterMcGavin
May 8, 2013, 05:40 PM
Is that really how it's drafted? Thought the term "Universal" meant "all", meaning no private sales with exemptions for such things as family transfers?
You are correct, that is NOT how it is drafted, at least I think. I believe it says nothing about registration, and that's the catch. After they get UBC passed, they will say "ok, now we need to enforce it" as they push a bill through for registration of all firearms throughout the country. That is what it will take, in order to enforce a UBC law. How can you enforce background checks upon transfers without first knowing who has possession of what?

ShooterMcGavin
May 8, 2013, 05:44 PM
How about having to get a background check if your brother, son, wife, mother or uncle wants to borrow your gun to go hunting or to the range?
Wanna take it a step further, even... Let's say you are leaving the house and you have a long gun upstairs. Your wife/roommate/friend is staying at home. After you leave the house, possession of the gun has now, technically, been changed to your wife/roommate/friend. It will not be easy (or maybe possible?) to stay within the laws they want, nor will it be financially viable.

MRH
May 8, 2013, 05:45 PM
Unless the paragraph on a requirement for national record keeping is left out of any bill, I don't see the bill passing. I believe this was the main objection to the bill that was voted down.

Also, Colorado Democrats allowed revision to their CO bill to satisfy some of the objections here, e.g. no checks on transfers to immediate family members, provision for loaning gun in hunting season, etc. If the Senate added the changes made in CO, to the federal bill, there could be enough support for the bill to pass. (I hope not)

Mike

Texan Scott
May 8, 2013, 05:57 PM
Allowing Congress to mandate a Federal background check for private transfers = ceding to them the unconstitutional power to regulate intra-state commerce. "Acting outside their charter" indeed.

ShooterMcGavin
May 8, 2013, 06:11 PM
Unless the paragraph on a requirement for national record keeping is left out of any bill, I don't see the bill passing. I believe this was the main objection to the bill that was voted down.

Also, Colorado Democrats allowed revision to their CO bill to satisfy some of the objections here, e.g. no checks on transfers to immediate family members, provision for loaning gun in hunting season, etc. If the Senate added the changes made in CO, to the federal bill, there could be enough support for the bill to pass. (I hope not)

Mike
I have heard that according to the law, if you loan a gun during hunting season, and it is held/returned at a time outside of hunting season, a felony has been committed. Check for yourself before taking my word for it. I saw a Youtube video that said that, so take a look around.

Also, the provision for family members doesn't help if I have a friend visit my house and I want to go out to the store while they stay at home. That is a gun "transfer", and probably will become a felony.

...How does the family member provision prevent someone providing a firearm to their brother who is a violent felon? Oh yeah, we already have a law against that :rolleyes:

X-Rap
May 8, 2013, 06:23 PM
More lies and shrill talk from the rabble rousers and muck rakers, nothing to see here move on.:rolleyes:
Of course UBC will have to evolve into universal registration if it is to work.
They say the last bill made registration a crime but after it passes and there is another tragic mass shooting they will come needing another tool because they can't be sure of who is getting background checks until they know who has the guns.

MErl
May 8, 2013, 06:40 PM
Are you just trolling PabloJ? my last purchase I filled out 1 form and waited 3 weeks for the BG check to go through. Would that make it unacceptable to you?

I live in CO, this wont matter to me one bit since they are illegal now anyway. I still oppose it because I can still move somewhere where I have the right to sell my personal property.

r1derbike
May 8, 2013, 06:41 PM
Any way you wrap spoiled/dead meat, it still stinks; worse the second time around.

No UBC, not now, not ever!

r1derbike
May 8, 2013, 06:43 PM
Are you just trolling PabloJ? my last purchase I filled out 1 form and waited 3 weeks for the BG check to go through. Would that make it unacceptable to you?

I live in CO, this wont matter to me one bit since they are illegal now anyway. I still oppose it because I can still move somewhere where I have the right to sell my personal property.MErl, thanks for thinking outside the box and supporting us that don't live in the peoples' republik of CO!

HOOfan_1
May 8, 2013, 06:52 PM
It's a non-event. I had to fill out two forms for my last purchase. Entire process took <10 minutes. I'm not concerned about universal background check at all.

Death by a thousand cuts....

No new gun control PERIOD

mrvco
May 8, 2013, 06:58 PM
On-line sales referred to in-state private-party Armslist type transactions. It didn't change the current process when ordering a gun from an out of state FFL holder, shipping to your local FFL and executing the transfer there.

If they actually removed the "On-line sales" restrictions, you'd only be restricted from private sales at "gun shows" that fit their technical definition (i.e. You would have to walk across the street to the neighboring "arts and crafts show", or whatever, to complete the transaction without a background check). And you'd still be able to buy and sell guns with other private parties within your state that you contact on-line or otherwise. You would also be able to use your CCW License in lieu of a background check for face-to-face transactions at any FFL gun store in the country (e.g. I could drive to Wyoming and legally buy a gun and bring it home to Colorado).

And I don't know where you guys are getting your information, but by all accounts there wasn't anything in the failed bill that created a national registry, however it did make it a felony to create one.

ShooterMcGavin
May 8, 2013, 07:06 PM
On-line sales referred to in-state private-party Armslist type transactions. It didn't change the current process when ordering a gun from an out of state FFL holder, shipping to your local FFL and executing the transfer there.

If they actually removed the "On-line sales" restrictions, you'd only be restricted from private sales at "gun shows" that fit their technical definition (i.e. You would have to walk across the street to the neighboring "arts and crafts show", or whatever, to complete the transaction without a background check). And you'd still be able to buy and sell guns with other private parties within your state that you contact on-line or otherwise. You would also be able to use your CCW License in lieu of a background check for face-to-face transactions at any FFL gun store in the country (e.g. I could drive to Wyoming and legally buy a gun and bring it home to Colorado).

And I don't know where you guys are getting your information, but by all accounts there wasn't anything in the failed bill that created a national registry, however it did make it a felony to create one.
I agree with the bolded part. However...

How do you enforce the UBC law without a registration list of all firearms/owners? Is there another way that I have not thought of?

M-Cameron
May 8, 2013, 07:09 PM
And I don't know where you guys are getting your information, but by all accounts there wasn't anything in the failed bill that created a national registry, however it did make it a felony to create one.


it creates a defacto gun registry......because there is no way you can enforce universal background checks without it.

mrvco
May 8, 2013, 07:29 PM
it creates a defacto gun registry......because there is no way you can enforce universal background checks without it.
Certainly no more of a "registry" than we have now (countless millions of 4473 forms) and removing the "Internet Sales" restrictions would allow you to continue to complete private-party transactions within your state of residence, so we'd be right back to where we started (except for the new freedom to conduct interstate purchases at FFL dealers w/ no background check for CCW permit holders).

Of course a "defacto registry" would result in a "defacto felony"... there may be a case there that would require FFL's to destroy their 4473 forms.

X-Rap
May 8, 2013, 07:33 PM
There is 0 ways for UBC to have any effect unless you know who owns the gun to start with. If they succeed in enacting 1/2 of it there is no doubt they will soon be trying to finish the deal.
Don't go after some carrot on a stick trick that makes you feel like your rights have been restored because when the other boot hits the ground on this UBC we will pretty much be finished.

Bruno2
May 8, 2013, 07:37 PM
God help us all if people cant see that this a foot in the door to registration. The fence sitters and the "I am cool with UBC's" crowd is going to end up helping to sell us out.

Everybody knows that this wont stop any crime or keep criminals from getting guns. So why do they keep pushing for it? It's simple this is the way to get all the guns registered. Why are they not regrouping and pushing for a AWB or Hi cap mag ban? Because they never really wanted it to start out with. That was the red herring to keep people from thinking about the UBC so they could sneak it in. Then they get all the guns.

The stats are already in place to call for banning pistols. That's what all the gun murders are committed with. Hand guns killed thousands times more people every year in the past than AW's. So how hard do you think it would be to get the people in a frenzy to ban pistols? Not very hard and if you know where they all are at then you just tell people to bring hem in or go get them.

mrvco
May 8, 2013, 07:38 PM
There is 0 ways for UBC to have any effect unless you know who owns the gun to start with.

...

As long as it is not reported as stolen, why does it matter where the gun came from?

Bruno2
May 8, 2013, 07:40 PM
As long as it is not reported as stolen, why does it matter where the gun came from?

Then how does anybody know if you did a bg check or not?

mrvco
May 8, 2013, 07:42 PM
Then how does anybody know if you did a bg check or not?
How does anybody know that I had a background check done on any of the guns that I've bought from an FFL holder?... the FFL holder has the record.

MErl
May 8, 2013, 07:43 PM
I'd want to read through the real proposal but last time "Internet sales" was defined so broadly that every sale was an internet sale. advertise it online? discuss it in email? internet sale.

Telling me it is fine to sell something but I cannot advertise it for sale is the same as saying I cannot sell it.

The 4473 is a defacto registry, sitting there waiting for the day when one it not illegal. They could be scanned into a database very quickly. Forcing more and more transactions through that system just makes a more complete registry if the day comes.

M-Cameron
May 8, 2013, 07:45 PM
Certainly no more of a "registry" than we have now (countless millions of 4473 forms) and removing the "Internet Sales" restrictions would allow you to continue to complete private-party transactions within your state of residence, so we'd be right back to where we started (except for the new freedom to conduct interstate purchases at FFL dealers w/ no background check for CCW permit holders).

Of course a "defacto registry" would result in a "defacto felony"... there may be a case there that would require FFL's to destroy their 4473 forms.


the ATF aided terrorism.......pretty sure that is a felony........how many ATF agents have gone to jail?


Bill Clinton committed Perjury......a felony......tell me how many days he spent in jail.

David Gregory committed a felony on national TV.......never even saw handcuffs.


the law is only valid if people are willing to enforce it.......how many federal agents do you think are going to be knocking down doors because a politician broke the law?


just because it would be a felony to create a gun registry......do you honestly think that would stop anyone.

mrvco
May 8, 2013, 07:49 PM
I'd want to read through the real proposal but last time "Internet sales" was defined so broadly that every sale was an internet sale. advertise it online? discuss it in email? internet sale.

Telling me it is fine to sell something but I cannot advertise it for sale is the same as saying I cannot sell it.

The 4473 is a defacto registry, sitting there waiting for the day when one it not illegal. They could be scanned into a database very quickly. Forcing more and more transactions through that system just makes a more complete registry if the day comes.
Obviously the vagaries of banning "Internet Sales" was as much of a non-starter as banning all private-party transactions outright, especially in the age of the "smart phone".

mrvco
May 8, 2013, 08:00 PM
the ATF aided terrorism.......pretty sure that is a felony........how many ATF agents have gone to jail?


Bill Clinton committed Perjury......a felony......tell me how many days he spent in jail.

David Gregory committed a felony on national TV.......never even saw handcuffs.


the law is only valid if people are willing to enforce it.......how many federal agents do you think are going to be knocking down doors because a politician broke the law?


just because it would be a felony to create a gun registry......do you honestly think that would stop anyone.
I'd rather have "creating a registry" be on the books as a felony, than the current situation where it is extraordinarily hard for me to believe that they aren't already actively filling a database with all the data that they can get their hands on under the auspices of "domestic terrorism prevention" or some such mumbo-jumbo, "just in case" they need it or are allowed to use it in the future.

M-Cameron
May 8, 2013, 08:06 PM
I'd rather have "creating a registry" be on the books as a felony, than the current situation where it is extraordinarily hard for me to believe that they aren't already actively filling a database with all the data that they can get their hands on under the auspices of "domestic terrorism prevention" or some such mumbo-jumbo, "just in case" they need it or are allowed to use it in the future.

let me put it like this....

if they are/have/ planning to create a gun registry.....they are going to do it, felony or not.

ide rather not make it easy for them by passing regulations that give them a need to create it...

k_dawg
May 8, 2013, 09:16 PM
They should first put forth a 'good faith' effort to repeal many of the current laws which infringe our rights.

Then, they should mandate that 'universal' be truely universal. That is, the maximum standard any state/city/county can impose. including NYC, Chicago, etc.

"Shall issue" to every US citizen with no felony conviction, 100% free, office must be available at least 80 hour per week, 24/7 online, must-issue within 15 minutes.

Put teeth in it: make it a federal felony with mininum of 25 years, 25 million fine for any politician or public employee to even attempt to not comply with the law, or work towards overturning it. Court shall be administered by the NRA, with a jury of NRA members.

roadcoder
May 8, 2013, 09:19 PM
All that "registration" crap is FUD propagated by people getting paid to create FUD. No big deal.

The UBC legislation that was proposed (and didn't get 60 votes) had language in it making registries illegal. If another UBC bill is proposed it will be weaker than the first one, if anything.

Everyone relax (and quit hoarding ammo LOL)

meanmrmustard
May 8, 2013, 09:28 PM
Not worried about it.

MO went the way of Kansas, thumbed its nose at Holden, and voting HB436 into law in August will be sublime.

76shuvlinoff
May 8, 2013, 09:35 PM
No new infringement, no concessions, no compromise, period.

MErl
May 8, 2013, 09:40 PM
a registry is already illegal (on federal level)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926?quicktabs_8=1#quicktabs-8

all those 4473 waiting to be put into a searchable database. Start talking destruction of records and we have an improvement over now. Another statement saying Gov cannot do what it is already disallowed to do is not a concession on their side.

Ryanxia
May 8, 2013, 09:46 PM
Nothing to do but watch it, at this point. With the media frenzy losing steam in the wake of a fairly resounding defeat for gun control, they're fishing for more support in a Senate that has offered little. Their spotlight is dimming.

When they introduce actual legislation, we can kick into high gear and run down specific points of opposition. Until then, we wait... and build up.
Well said. Kick back and have a beer until we have something concrete we can attack in earnest. We must remain ever vigilant but for now we watch and when the time comes make sure to write your reps as ferociously as we did before. Our voices will stop Bills like this, and reelection needs to be the time to unseat as many of those oath breaking Senators as we can.

DSling
May 8, 2013, 10:31 PM
God help us all if people cant see that this a foot in the door to registration. The fence sitters and the "I am cool with UBC's" crowd is going to end up helping to sell us out.

Everybody knows that this wont stop any crime or keep criminals from getting guns. So why do they keep pushing for it? It's simple this is the way to get all the guns registered. Why are they not regrouping and pushing for a AWB or Hi cap mag ban? Because they never really wanted it to start out with. That was the red herring to keep people from thinking about the UBC so they could sneak it in. Then they get all the guns.

The stats are already in place to call for banning pistols. That's what all the gun murders are committed with. Hand guns killed thousands times more people every year in the past than AW's. So how hard do you think it would be to get the people in a frenzy to ban pistols? Not very hard and if you know where they all are at then you just tell people to bring hem in or go get them.

I think they should get data on how many of the pistols are illegal ownership (ie Chicago firearm deaths)


UBC is already here in some states where you cannot lend out a firearm to your spouse.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I think it is already illegal to lend your pistol to your spouse in New Jersey.

And Illegal in New York if the spouse doesn't have a pistol permit, but the other one does . Unless both spouses have pistol permits with the same pistol listed on both permits.

And Illegal in Illinois if only one spouse has an FOID and the other doesn't.

Maybe Illegal in Massachusetts too if both spouses don't have FID's. (Firearm ID cards.)

That is a state issue. The federal government doesn't have the right to tell states how they should regulate weapons.




Not worried about it.

MO went the way of Kansas, thumbed its nose at Holden, and voting HB436 into law in August will be sublime.

+1 for HB436

Ed Ames
May 8, 2013, 10:54 PM
Just a minor point...

You can enforce a ban on selling sans-BC without a registry. The method is well established and, I would argue, far worse than a registry.

You do what they are already doing in the "drug war" ... stings, secret (undercover) police, forcing businesses that sell "related" goods (e.g. hydrophonic gardening and aquarium supplies, reloading equipment and ammo) to produce their customer lists and then get warrants to search the homes of people who are suspicious (e.g. just turned 21 and buying ammo), and in general make people afraid of getting caught up in the whole thing so that sellers won't risk selling and buyers won't risk buying unless they are already pegged as a suspect.

Yeah it tears at the fabric of society and is ineffective (people still buy and sell drugs) but people seem OK with that.

MagnunJoe
May 9, 2013, 09:33 AM
Some people don't get it. It's not really about UBC. more is never enough for the antis. When they get that, they will want more & more.

pockets
May 9, 2013, 11:27 AM
When they get that, they will want more & more.
Now I have those AT&T commercials in my head....but with all the congressional seats filled with little girls chanting in unison,
"More is better than less because if stuff is not less... if there's more less stuff then you might, you might want to have some more and your parents just don't let you because there's only a little. We want more. We want more. Like, you really like it. You want more."
.

sansone
May 9, 2013, 11:38 AM
Does a nation-wide registry of all firearms/owners concern you? ...because that is what it would take to enforce UBC.
yes, in order for UBC to function ALL firearms must be in a national database..
This is very different from your dealer's stack of 4473 forms that go nowhere..
A national database also helps ANY governmental body to collect private arms

FROGO207
May 9, 2013, 11:40 PM
A stack of 4473's (really a bound book) that can go nowhere for 20 years----or are turned in when FFL retires/sells out/ATF yanks license for violation. Some FFL's never fill a complete bound book in their entire business lifetimes. So SOME are now being stored at ATF today.:banghead: How many of them will get destroyed after 20 years by them??

So no need to worry?:cuss:

Joke & Dagger
May 10, 2013, 12:12 AM
I will keep my thoughts simple:

Not one more inch.

RiverPerson
May 10, 2013, 12:43 AM
Any new gun regulations won't do anything to stop mass shootings. When the next one occurs, they'll say the new regs aren't strong enough and we will need more. It's just a downward spiral to eventual confiscation.

I cannot stand these people that keep saying nobody wants to take our guns away. Yes they do. Politicians have stated this as their end goal. "We're just getting started" or "This is just the beginning."
Not exact quotes, but similar.

One law will lead to another.

MagnunJoe
May 10, 2013, 10:20 AM
They actually think they can flip 5 senators who voted NO, the antis must know something we don't know. Be weary, my friends.

TX1911fan
May 15, 2013, 06:24 PM
How does anybody know that I had a background check done on any of the guns that I've bought from an FFL holder?... the FFL holder has the record.

mrvco, this is EXACTLY the point. At present, it is impossible to know if any GUN has had a background check done with respect to it. The assumption is that if you bought a gun from a dealer, you got the bg check done, but if you bought it privately, you did not. If we are to go to UBC, that assumption can no longer be made. So, the government now realizes that in order to enforce UBC, they have to know which GUNS were subject to the UBC in order to know if the law is being complied with. Hence, they will come back after UBC passes and state that there is no way to enforce this law that "90% of the public wanted" unless we track every GUN. That is how we get a registry.

Texshooter
May 15, 2013, 11:27 PM
Is that really how it's drafted? Thought the term "Universal" meant "all", meaning no private sales with exemptions for such things as family transfers?
Without Registration, how will they know about private transfers?

The whole legislation is phoney as the pols pushing it.

Nothing good can come from it, including the violation of Hippa laws.

Deanimator
May 16, 2013, 06:40 AM
How does anybody know that I had a background check done on any of the guns that I've bought from an FFL holder?... the FFL holder has the record.
FFLs are subject to announced and unannounced record audits.

You want that for EVERYBODY?

GambJoe
May 16, 2013, 11:36 AM
Can we see the law first? Does it prohibit one to one sales between individuals? Would the new law say these checks would not be used for "further investigation" as Schumer put or to create a registry?

Could it get by the Supreme court?

If you enjoyed reading about "Background checks, round two?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!