Except when it is.
The REAL lie is that "universal background checks" are anything BUT a stalking horse for REGISTRATION, followed by CONFISCATION.
It's a laughably false argument. The "alternative" to slavery was FREEDOM, not "slavery lite".
You would keep the authorization code given to you by the buyer and verified by you through the NICS portal. That way you are protected if the gun is misused and then traced to you (using existing procedures). No new record would be made of the gun.
The right kind of UBC's are not registration. Unfortunately, we're going to get the wrong kind of UBC's unless we wake up and do something about it. I'm not being a defeatist here; I'm just being a realist.
But of course there'd be no way to know IF you did the check... without REGISTRATION.
That's like saying "the right kind of 'separate but equal' isn't discrimination."
There's only ONE kind of sham "universal background check" that leads in ONLY one direction.
I think it's pretty obvious what you're being.
Nor does one persuade thinking adults with obvious sophistry, refute ad infinitum by its proponents.
It would be to your advantage to do the check. (The system would be set up to incentivize voluntary compliance.) Beside that, there could never be an airtight system, registration or no registration. Law enforcement doesn't work that way. Running red lights is illegal, but a certain percentage of people do it anyway, and a certain percentage of those are caught and have to pay a penalty. People want to avoid the trouble, so most comply.
By simply saying "Not one more inch!" the pro-gun side is abdicating any input into those details. We have to assess the chances of something being passed, and we have to be flexible in dealing with it. I don't want any gun control, but if we're going to get it anyway, I want a seat at the table. This is a matter of strategy and tactics. I would say, looking at it objectively, that we are going to get some form of nationwide UBC in the next ten years. OK, if we get nationwide UBC, why not tie it to nationwide concealed carry (for example)? The worst result would be to lose and not get anything.
I'll have to at least partially disagree here. In part, I think you're mistaken, and in part, I think this idea runs into some insurmountable problems.
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 ....
Most of my firearms have been purchased in face to face transactions with persons known to me. They'd never even exist under your scheme, which without registration would be a nullity.
How many people are prosecuted for lying on a Form 4473? Prosecutions are not the test of this system. Preventing prohibited buyers is the test. If a felon doesn't use this proposed UBC system, he doesn't get a gun from a compliant seller. Of course, he would still get a gun from illegal sources, the same as he does now.
I disagree. Law enforcement is a game of percentages. You start with voluntary compliance, giving people incentives to comply (such as immunity from civil and criminal penalties for a seller if the gun is misused by the buyer). Then you do spot checks, such as by sending undercover agents to gun shows, pretending to be buyers without the requisite authorization code. If a seller bites, you arrest him (very visibly). The word would get around quickly that it doesn't pay to ignore the system. No records need to be made of the guns themselves. This is focused on the people, not the guns. And it's transactional in nature. That's why I suggested that the authorization code be for one-time use only, and expire after a number of days. The record of the request would then be deleted.
Why? This is not a ban on guns, so there is no issue of grandfathering. It would apply to all transactions after the effective date, regardless of when the guns were made.
That's a valid point. Maybe the seller would have to keep a notarized copy (to take advantage of the benefits). Or a way could be found to keep the approval codes in an anonymous database.
I call it being scared into giving something up for nothing (And it will be nothing), which plays right into their hands.
The point is that it is not a registration system.
Absolute malarkey.
And what exactly do think "a seat at the table" at the Wannsee Conference would have bought the Bielski brothers?
That hasn't been your main point, your main point, which has been consistent from thread to thread, is to give in for fear of something worse. UBCs have no other end result but leading to registration, that is why they are pushing so hard for it. They have to have this first.
I believe we are rapidly reaching the point of political equilibrium on guns. That's the point at which the parties can negotiate, each giving up something in order to get something. Once we pass the point of equilibrium, and the other side has the upper hand, it will be too late. They will just ram through anything they want, and what we want will be irrelevant.
Exactly.
The point is that it inevitably leads TO a registration (and confiscation) system.
No, I have consistently said that we should get something in exchange for any concessions that we make. And that presupposes "confidence building measures" and interlocutors that can prove that they're bargaining in good faith. I'm not prepared to give anything away free. Look, if Trump can meet with the North Koreans we can at least talk with the antigunners.
