1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Universal Background Checks

Discussion in 'Legal' started by bowserb, Jan 26, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bowserb

    bowserb Well-Known Member

    I hope this is the right forum. I get Legal and Activism mixed up as to which to use for gun control. Anyway,

    It seems to me that Universal Background Checks should be something to allow to happen--with one modification, that being not required for immediate family. Presumably, if you know your son needs treatment for bipolar disorder or chronic depression, you're not going to give him your AR! Other than that, I don't object to a background check. I'm not a busy buyer/seller of guns, but about a year ago I sold my G19 to a guy I know fairly well...at least I think I do. I don't really know his whole history, though, and even though I'm pretty comfortable that I sold that Glock to a good guy, I could still take comfort in a background check. Indeed, I tried to find a local FFL who would do that, but none would.

    Could someone explain to me the objection to UBC?

  2. USAF_Vet

    USAF_Vet Well-Known Member

    Criminals don't get back ground checks; they don't buy guns legally so back ground checks are pointless.

    Why impose more limitations on law abiding citizens?
  3. USAF_Vet

    USAF_Vet Well-Known Member

    Not to mention the fact that it is de facto registration, which could ultimately lead to actual registration, would could lead to confiscation.

    So there's that. Also, it's a massive cost that they cannot afford to implement.
  4. bowserb

    bowserb Well-Known Member

    Is it not a background check that is done when I buy a gun at a gun shop? That so called instant background check takes a couple minutes, and I was under the impression that there was no gun registration done, only the verification that I am not a criminal. The only record of what I bought is in the dealer's "bound book" that DOJ and BATFE have no access to--and that's been tested.

    I don't see how access to that same instant background check couldn't be done for individual sales. I don't have forms, but for a reasonable fee, couldn't any FFL do that? You have to do that if you buy a gun online. Does everyone who sells a gun sell only to people they know? If all you know is that he has cash to pay, how do you know you're not selling to a criminal?

    And please don't flame. I'm truly concerned here that maybe there really is a "gunshow loophole" that we could allow to be plugged. BTW, I'm also willing to give Diane two of the weapons on her list: rocket launcher and belt-fed semiauto.
  5. Blakenzy

    Blakenzy Well-Known Member

    A universal background check may be abused.

    If face to face transactions are made a felony, all transactions would have to go through a centralized system, under Federal scrutiny. If all firearm transfers are required to go through an FFL, ALL updated personal information of the buyer, seller and firearm being transferred will be collected. This would happen for each and every transfer. If provisions are not made that will limit the amount of time that records of said transaction may be kept on file, they could be held indefinitely, and that would add up to a impromptu registration system.

    Also, what exact criteria will be used to pass/fail an individual? Will the Federal Government be able to change said criteria in the future? Will a past history of antidepressant treatment disqualify you? Will going through civil court such as divorce proceedings disqualify you for the time being?

    Remember arbitrary no-fly lists? Could there be no-gun buy lists? What will get a person on that list? If you are on the no-fly list, will you be on the no-gun list?

    It could go very bad if the Law leaves to many parameters open ended, up to the Executive's or other Government Bureaucracy's discretion. A universal mandatory background check is in essence a licensing apparatus to exercise a Constitutional Right. You must seek approval for each and every gun you buy.
  6. bowserb

    bowserb Well-Known Member

    So, the proposed Universal Background Check is different from what is done at a gun shop now? Why couldn't the same procedure as the LGS uses now be available for private sales? I don't understand the objection.
  7. Blakenzy

    Blakenzy Well-Known Member

    Who is to say it will be the exact same thing done at a gun shop these days?

    My point is, a new Universal Background Check Law presented in the current political climate could contain anything. Before I am for or against it I must see the exact wording in the legislation. Whether I support it or not is highly conditional. The concept of a mandatory universal background check lends itself to potential abuse.
  8. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    The current background check system is specifically forbidden to be used as a form of "registration." However, while a registry of gun owners is forbidden. The current administration appears to be arguing that its "database of gun sales" is not the same thing.

    In addition, among the proposals currently on the table are proposals to keep information on all legitimate sales up to a year, allow all 4473 information held by ATF to be computerized and stored in a centralized database (which is effectively registration).

    bowserb, you can familiarize yourself with how the existing background check system works here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html

    The information is a bit dated; but describes the process in general.

    One objection to a universal background check is that Department of Justice studies show the two most common avenues of how felons acquire handguns (totalling over 75% IIRC) are:

    1. Illegal purchases "on the street"
    2. Purchased by friends/family (i.e. straw purchases)

    A universal background check doesn't do anything to either of those avenues.

    However, my primary objection is that in order to have a negotiation, you must first believe the other party is dealing in good faith and I do not believe that is the case. The people who are demanding universal background checks have been open and honest about wanting to take semi-automatics, .50 cal rifles, .30-30 ammunition, handguns and any magazine over 9 rounds from us. In New York, they actually proposed door-to-door confiscation of legally acquired rifles as part of the recent ban there.

    Now some are proposing as a compromise, we just agree to tell these same people where all those rifles are and who owns them. I don't see anything good coming out of that - certainly not on a level that would outweigh the inherent risk there. And even if we did believe the current people were dealing in good faith, what about those 20 years from now?

    And all of this to adopt a system that our neighbor to the north just abandoned because it was costly and inefficient in solving or preventing crime.
  9. bowserb

    bowserb Well-Known Member

    OK. I was under the mistaken assumption that the UCB was to be just an extension of the existing instant background check done by dealers. If this is a proposed new system, then my position absolutely NO. Thanks for clearing it up.

    Now I'm only OK with giving up rocket launchers and belt fed semiautos.
  10. bushmaster1313

    bushmaster1313 Well-Known Member

    1. Slippery slope

    2. "I am against any gun control"

    3. Could lead to registration

    4. "If those @#$%$'s are for it I am against it.

    * * *
    Personally, I do not think it a bad thing as long as it is quick, easy and cheap (Like Bill Clinton's girlfriends)
    Note, the New Jersey system has been backlogged recently to the point of preventing the exercise of the right to purchase and keep a gun n the home.
    (I know the RTKBA is broader, but the backlog infringes even the most narrow right)
  11. Solo

    Solo Well-Known Member

    5. Only FFLs can use NICS. This means you have to route any private transfers through a middleman who might not be nearby, and who might charge exorbitant rates.
  12. splattergun

    splattergun Well-Known Member

    Apply that same logic to your right to assemble, your right to freedom of speech, your right to worship, etc etc.
    All fundamental liberties are interrelated. When you weaken one, you weaken them all, even if it is not immediately apparent to the short sighted and fearful.
  13. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    As it currently stands, there is nothing to prevent private parties from trotting down to an LGS, and paying for a transfer to be made, including a NICS check. Requiring universal background checks will do nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of those who really, really don't need guns (violent felons and violent, mentally ill). Violation of the law would be almost impossible to prosecute without full gun registration, so it won't be long before full registration is called for. Even then, I am not convinced that convicted felons could even be prosecuted for failing to get a NICS check done during a transaction. See Haynes v. US., 1968.
  14. abajaj11

    abajaj11 Well-Known Member

    PLease read the thread below very carefully. It should answer a lot of your questions.
  15. gbran

    gbran Well-Known Member

    While we don't tecnically have registration at the federal level, we see a lot tracing done after certain high profile crimes.
  16. Lost Sheep

    Lost Sheep Well-Known Member

    Criminals who have not been caught yet can pass a background check easily and thus purchase guns legally (except for lying on the form, for which there is no check and darned few prosecutions).

    Of course, this most recent push for gun control is not about criminals. None of the past year's mass shootings were done by UBC prohibited persons.

    You ask why? Gun control is not about guns so much as it is about control.

    Lost Sheep
  17. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Well-Known Member

    bowserb ask a good question, and he deserves a good answer.

    Many potential sellers would like to be able to make a background checks on an interested buyer, but unfortunately the mainstream media and backers of the proposal do not explain what they have in mind.

    The present law allows only FFL dealers, distributors and manufacturers to use the NICS system to make background checks, and they can only do so when they are transfering a firearm to someone who isn't licensed (read that to usually mean a retail buyer). Any dealer/distributor/manufacturer that uses the system in any other context is subject to a a civil fine up to $10,000.

    What you are (or were) thinking was that you could pick up a phone, call a number, give whoever answers some details about the buyer such as; name, address, age, driver's license number, S.S. number, etc - and then in a few minutes get a go or no-go answer.

    What they have in mind is that you and the buyer cannot deal directly, but have to go to an FFL to handle the transaction. The dealer would have to enter the gun(s) into their "bound book" and then have the buyer fill out a #4473 form, after which they could call in to get a background check. If the buyer was rejected you would have to fill out a form #4473 and go through a background check to get your own gun(s) back! For this service the dealer could charge any fee they wanted to. With no limit I would expect the fee to be at least $25.00 and $100.00 isn't out of the question, even if the deal fell through.

    Again I will point out that the advocates pushing for Universal Background Checks have never mentioned a word about how the mandated checks would actually be made.

    If I were you I'd be very upset. :mad:
  18. suemarkp

    suemarkp Well-Known Member

    A problem for me is I always get a NICS delay (criminals use a lot of aliases). What will the seller do if it comes back "delay" instead of "proceed"? Do I need to come back after 3 business days (could be a pain if we don't live close)? How do you do transactions outside of normal NICS hours? What do you do if NICS is down?

    I'd like there to be background check tools available (for guns and other things), but most of the implementations have problems. I feel fine if I sell to a person with a concealed pistol license -- I know they are good.
  19. tyeo098

    tyeo098 Well-Known Member

    What takes a 'couple minutes' for you takes me 5-7 days.
    I've had my CCW for over a year now, and I still get delayed ALMOST A WEEK whenever I buy a gun online or from a shop. Tell me how thats fair. All because I have a common name.

    A right delayed is a right denied. And for you to throw me under the bus for some 'feel good' measure that you're expecting criminals to follow, well that just isn't cool.

    Not to mention days like Black Friday and post-Newton when NICS SHUTS DOWN because of overload.
    The nobody can do any transfer. Imagine if all of a sudden they had a huge influx of requests? The whole system would collapse, no transfers allowed, de facto gun ban.

    Making it 'available' is one thing that should be looked at, i.e an NICS number that us regular folk can call if we so desire. Making it required will be the doom of us all.
  20. abajaj11

    abajaj11 Well-Known Member

    There is a Critical difference between ALLOWING ANYONE to make a NICS check, and MANDATING THAT EVERYONE make a NICS check.

    Allowing anyone to make a NICs check is a good thing.

    MANDATING that everyone make a NICS check is a pathway to registration, since the only way to monitor if this law is being followed would be to find out who owns what in advance. If a NICS check were mandated, POTUS and Mr. Holder will run with it and issue all sorts of executive orders and rulings that will result in de facto registration, in my opinion.

    We need to be careful, IMHO, to distinguish between ALLOWING anyone who wants to be able do a NICs check (GOOD), and MANDATING that ALL sales and transfers MUST go through a NICS check (BAD).
    Of course I am against any expansion of NICs because it will eventually lead to mandating that everyone use it.
    But this seems to be a difference of which we should be aware.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page