Does Universal Background Checks = Tracking?

Does Universal Background Checks = Tracking?

  • yes

    Votes: 62 81.6%

  • no

    Votes: 14 18.4%
  • Total voters
    76
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kaybee

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
406
I have no trouble with the idea of passing a background check, but why does it have to equal tracking? Shouldn't you be able to just get a check and then be able to purchase a gun without it registering you on a list?

Everyone in NY registered their guns and then they received letters that their guns are now banned.

*edit* By New York I was referring to New York city under Mayor Bloomberg as I explained below.
 
Last edited:
Yep, eventually it will if it isn't already.

PA is a great example. The PICS system (PA's state version of NICS) is a loophole to allow the State Police to track the background check as a firearm registry is illegal in PA.

Or at least that's how I remember it.
 
I hate to say it but they already kind of keep a list. Every time you purchase a firearm at an FFL you are ran through a check no? They have it on file. Supposed to be destroyed after 10 years according to the atf but they can at the minimum track to the original purchaser. You ever wonder how police track guns used in a crime? Think about it. They might not be able to go to everyone it has been through but they can at least go to who bought it first. Of course this depends on how old it is as well.
 
I have a son in law that is unstable. He should not have a firearm. He probably does not fully realize that he is a prohibited person. So I'm not opposed to a system that would prevent him from making a private purchase, so long as it was accompanied by a requirement that no state or federal authority may keep a record of sales.

The problem with that is that I have very little confidence in agencies of government abiding by such requirements in the long term.

The compromise that was struck to get FFL and NICS legislation was that the FFLs would be the keepers of the transaction information, and the government could only access it when they had a real need. That doesn't seem to be working out exactly as planned.
 
Walt622 said:
How can you tell if someone sold a gun, unless you know they have that gun. Universal background checks = registration. They gotta know who's got 'em before they can track 'em.
Click to expand...

Exactly! End of story. The UBC is the wet dream of the left because its the only way they will ever get a national gun owners registry. That is what they need before they can confiscate them. Don't be fooled.
denton said:
I have a son in law that is unstable. He should not have a firearm. He probably does not fully realize that he is a prohibited person. So I'm not opposed to a system that would prevent him from making a private purchase, so long as it was accompanied by a requirement that no state or federal authority may keep a record of sales.

The problem with that is that I have very little confidence in agencies of government abiding by such requirements in the long term.

The compromise that was struck to get FFL and NICS legislation was that the FFLs would be the keepers of the transaction information, and the government could only access it when they had a real need. That doesn't seem to be working out exactly as planned.
Click to expand...

Rather than register everyone else's guns, we could report a prohibited person if they buy a gun illegally. I know its tough when its family. Don't get me wrong. But UBC would be the death of the 2A.
 
Walt622 said:
Universal background checks = registration.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. If the goal is to make sure that buyers (in private transactions) are not disqualified persons, we can check the buyers without reference to the guns that are to be purchased. The problem is that all the current proposals would run all transactions through FFL's, meaning that a Form 4473 would be filled out, and the gun entered into the dealer's "bound book." (This is a form of registration.) Of course the FFL's love this, because it represents an additional stream of income for them.

An example of a non-registration UBC system is as follows: Let's say you are interested in buying a gun from a private (non-licensee) seller. You go online to a public NICS portal, enter your identifying information, and receive an approval code number good for one transaction. (Perhaps a nominal fee would be charged to your credit card.) You then show the prospective seller the approval code along with your ID. He goes online and verifies that the approval code has in fact been issued to you. The transaction proceeds (or not...) and there is no record of the gun.

The sellers would have an incentive to use this system because, under its terms, they would be sheltered from liability in case the gun is misused. In addition, the ATF would conduct "sting operations" (such as having sham buyers with no approval codes trying to buy guns) to keep everybody honest. (A seller would be fined for selling a gun to somebody without an approval code.)
 
Kaybee said:
I have no trouble with the idea of passing a background check, but why does it have to equal tracking? Shouldn't you be able to just get a check and then be able to purchase a gun without it registering you on a list?

Everyone in NY registered their guns and then they just received letters that their guns are now banned.
Click to expand...

Where did you hear this??? Do you have a link. I live in NY and have heard nothing like this.
 
If the check includes the specific SN of the firearm and a record of same is generated, then, yes.

If the check is just a mandatory examination of something like a CC permit that stands as an indicator of non-prohibited status, then no.

That would be the easy answer if people were interested in the checks, rather than the de facto registry.
 
I will say no just because I like to play devils advocate. Now it does not mean that we are not already being tracked but the truth of the matter is that information is money and since the invention of the credit card, this little piece of plastic is how we are being tracked. Every purchase you have made your entire life using a credit card is how they know what you have purchased from toilet paper to bullets to all of us who brag, post, and respond to questions on this forum and any forum on the internet. How many of us have boasted about how many bullets we have in stock to how many guns we have to the latest gadget. Guys you are not off grid to include myself as long as we are using the internet and modern technology to communicate on public forums it is like confessing and writing down a list of all that we own. Do not believe that their is privacy when you openly confess on a public forum what firearms you own or are getting ready to buy. All of us are at fault for airing out our dirty secrets to the public. So don’t blame the government for prying into your personal and private affairs...they do not have to! Also every time one answers a question where do you hide firearms around the house you also direct the criminal element where to find it.
 
ATLDave said:
If the check is just a mandatory examination of something like a CC permit that stands as an indicator of non-prohibited status, then no.

That would be the easy answer if people were interested in the checks, rather than the de facto registry.
Click to expand...
Then why is our side not proposing something like this, instead of stonewalling the issue?
 
Kaybee said:
but why does it have to equal tracking?
Click to expand...
That is where they want it to end up, so that is why it is to be feared. Not to mention having to go through a check to give your son or brother a gun. It's all about tracking all of them. They hate private transfers.
 
AlexanderA said:
Not necessarily.
Click to expand...
But that is their plan, and the first step in it. I am not surprised that you are taking this position though, considering your previously exposed positions in other gun control threads. You cannot appease the antis.
 
ATLDave said:
That would be the easy answer if people were interested in the checks, rather than the de facto registry.
Click to expand...
Bad thing is, they are not, they will only be happy with full registration and then confiscation. Don't give them the tool (Registration) to do it more easily.
 
Like Obamacare, "universal background checks" are nothing but a stalking horse for something else. Not only will they fail, they're INTENDED to fail.

Without REGISTRATION, sham "universal background checks" are UTTERLY meaningless. And more and more, anti-gun cultists are coming out of the registration closet.

Registration has NO purpose apart from facilitation of future CONFISCATION.
 
Kaybee said:
I have no trouble with the idea of passing a background check, but why does it have to equal tracking? Shouldn't you be able to just get a check and then be able to purchase a gun without it registering you on a list?

Everyone in NY registered their guns and then they just received letters that their guns are now banned.
Click to expand...

The federal NICS database is 'supposed to' retain records no longer than 6 months. I'm hoping that Trump and Sessions have carried this out. The way a gun can normally be 'tracked' is from the serial number. You can then go to the manufacturer and, in theory, follow the form 4473's down through every FFL. That chain breaks with the first private sale. That is why when I ever sell a gun (stopped doing that long ago) I get a signed receipt. Otherwise, unlawful use of the firearm will stop with you (and the police at your door).

Of course, state laws vary.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/nypd-targets-owners-multi-clip-shotguns-rifles.html

They made everyone register their rifles. Then in 2013 they reduced the magazine limit, including internal mags, to 5 rounds which most guns don't have.Then they confiscated them. A warning letter to start and then straight up officers in tactical gear to your front door. (For guns that fit the limit they added permit fees that costs hundreds a year)

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=2013+nyc+gun+confiscation&t=ffab&atb=v101-4_f&ia=web

Sure, it's only NYC you say. This was Mayor Bloomberg by the way, the 8th richest person in the world and he is major funder today for Anti Gun groups today. He gives millions of dollars and if you want to know what he wants for America just look what he did when he could.

112713gunconfiscations.jpg


Scooter22 said:
Where did you hear this??? Do you have a link. I live in NY and have heard nothing like this.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Years ago I read about a conceptual system for doing background checks in which all of the data that could make you a prohibited person would be tied to your driver's license number, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE A GUN OWNER. Then, if you want to buy a gun, you present your DL, and an immediate computerized check would be run on that. Such a system could be set up so that it would not retain any data about who is a gun owner.
 
AlexanderA said:
Not necessarily. If the goal is to make sure that buyers (in private transactions) are not disqualified persons, we can check the buyers without reference to the guns that are to be purchased. The problem is that all the current proposals would run all transactions through FFL's, meaning that a Form 4473 would be filled out, and the gun entered into the dealer's "bound book." (This is a form of registration.) Of course the FFL's love this, because it represents an additional stream of income for them.

An example of a non-registration UBC system is as follows: Let's say you are interested in buying a gun from a private (non-licensee) seller. You go online to a public NICS portal, enter your identifying information, and receive an approval code number good for one transaction. (Perhaps a nominal fee would be charged to your credit card.) You then show the prospective seller the approval code along with your ID. He goes online and verifies that the approval code has in fact been issued to you. The transaction proceeds (or not...) and there is no record of the gun.

The sellers would have an incentive to use this system because, under its terms, they would be sheltered from liability in case the gun is misused. In addition, the ATF would conduct "sting operations" (such as having sham buyers with no approval codes trying to buy guns) to keep everybody honest. (A seller would be fined for selling a gun to somebody without an approval code.)
Click to expand...

If there is no record kept of the sale how do I prove I sold the gun to a legal buyer? The only way you will be able to prove a legal sale is that there has to be a permanent record that you sold it to a legal buyer and who it was. I'd be lucky to remember the name of someone I sold a gun to 6 months after the sale.
 
Walkalong said:
Which side are you on I would have to ask.
Click to expand...
I want to keep my guns, and to that end, I oppose registration. To avoid getting registration, we have to come up with alternate ideas. UBC's are coming, in one form or another. Not this year, but we'll see it in the next ten years. Best to be prepared, and to mitigate the damage. I'm simply being a realist.
 
Kaybee said:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/nypd-targets-owners-multi-clip-shotguns-rifles.html

They made everyone register their rifles. Then in 2013 they reduced the magazine limit, including internal mags, to 5 rounds which most guns don't have.Then they confiscated them. A warning letter to start and then straight up officers in tactical gear to your front door. (For guns that fit the limit they added permit fees that costs hundreds a year)

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=2013+nyc+gun+confiscation&t=ffab&atb=v101-4_f&ia=web

Sure, it's only NYC you say. This was Mayor Bloomberg by the way, the 8th richest person in the world and he is major funder today for Anti Gun groups today. He gives millions of dollars and if you want to know what he wants for America just look what he did when he could.

View attachment 781709
Click to expand...

You better get YOUR FACTS straight before posting. New York City is a whole different world and laws than the rest of NY state even with the SAFE act. Always has been. Theres no confiscation in NY state and "compliant" ARs are still for sale.
 
Walkalong said:
Don't give them the tool (Registration) to do it more easily.
Click to expand...
As I pointed out, vetting buyers is not the same thing as registration. Saying that it is, frankly, is a lie, and is a transparent straw man argument that is easily knocked down by the other side. Let's not insult people's intelligence. I explained exactly how you could have vetting of buyers without having a record of the guns.

The problem is, admittedly, that the antis want registration of guns to go along with the vetting of buyers. And we're giving them exactly what they want by not proposing an alternative plan.
 
Scooter22 said:
You better get YOUR FACTS straight before posting. New York City is a whole different world and laws than the rest of NY state even with the SAFE act. Always has been. Theres no confiscation in NY state and "compliant" ARs are still for sale.
Click to expand...


I thought Kaybee's point WAS it was New York City that had done what was in the posted document. Someone is talking past the other .... :confused::uhoh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Bloomberg is going to be a huge threat when he's done being mayor of NY
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
4K
GambJoe
G
B
  • Locked
Bloomberg at it again
Replies
24
Views
2K
Strykervet
S
M
  • Locked
What are the cons of universal background checks?
2 3
Replies
64
Views
3K
GBExpat
GBExpat
primalmu
  • Locked
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark) strikes back against Bloomberg
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
TRX
TRX
D
  • Locked
‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not
2 3
Replies
72
Views
5K
Robert
Robert
Back
Top