Does Universal Background Checks = Tracking?

IMO, its feasible in theory but not probable in reality.

AlexanderA said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is just another variation of your multiple other posts.

Your idea is the same as a kid walking up to the school bully and saying 'Here, take my milk today and I'm hoping you remember what a nice guy I am and not take my lunch tomorrow'.

AlexanderA said:

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.

Click to expand...

Apparently you want gun owners to get rolled by the anti-gun cult the way the last four administrations have gotten rolled by the North Koreans.

NO, I REFUSE.

I have not be been able to follow the logic opposing Universal Background Checks by themselves. The opposition I've heard so far is of the slippery slope, nose of the camel, etc. type of argument. I disagree with those types of arguments. I haven't seen the inevitable link between UBC's and registration. That may be some "anti's" goal but I don't see how registration is a logical follow on to a time of transaction background check on the purchaser (not the gun). I may be naive but I'm going to support ideas that I think will help and will oppose ideas that I think will hurt and will evaluate ideas on their own merits.
I would like some form of no registration universal background check. I don't believe that is an impossible goal.

danez71 said:

IMO, its feasible in theory but not probable in reality.

This is just another variation of your multiple other posts.

Your idea is the same as a kid walking up to the school bully and saying 'Here, take my milk today and I'm hoping you remember what a nice guy I am and not take my lunch tomorrow'.

Click to expand...

+1

No bully ever STOPPED being a bully because he got what he wanted by BEING a bully.

DanTheFarmer said:

I have not be been able to follow the logic opposing Universal Background Checks by themselves. The opposition I've heard so far is of the slippery slope, nose of the camel, etc. type of argument. I disagree with those types of arguments. I haven't seen the inevitable link between UBC's and registration. That may be some "anti's" goal but I don't see how registration is a logical follow on to a time of transaction background check on the purchaser (not the gun). I may be naive but I'm going to support ideas that I think will help and will oppose ideas that I think will hurt and will evaluate ideas on their own merits.
I would like some form of no registration universal background check. I don't believe that is an impossible goal.

Click to expand...

Yes, you ARE being naive... giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I would like ISiS to become non-binary, vegan pacifists... but I'm not betting my life on it.

The other side are maximalists. They have no goal save a monopoly on the means of armed force.

How do you "compromise" with a salt water crocodile?

SilentStalker said:

You guys arguing over this point does nothing. AlexanderA you defeated your own points by identifying the fact that no background checks of any kind or registration or any of this nonsense will do anything. By your own admission, they can/will obtain them illegally therefore making any stupid laws, UBCs, whatever the biggest waste of time on earth. You cannot legislate hate, guns, violence away. Period. The only way any of this stops is if guns had never been invented in the first place or everyone on earth turned them in, all militaries, civvies, bangers, criminals, literally everyone would have to turn them in and agree to never make them again. Both are an impossibility at this point. People are making guns by hand, kids even in parts of Africa, the ME, Thailand, I can go on. That’s what we need to be arguing. Nothing they do will rid the problem. In short, drugs are illegal but it hasn’t done anything to curtail the problems has it?

Click to expand...

Actually, I totally agree with you! I've been saying for years that the more draconian the gun laws, the more they are ignored (citing my own experience in Greece as an example).

If the antigunners succeed in totally banning guns, they will have a total failure. Look at what happened with alcohol Prohibition. You can't go against culturally-ingrained habits.

Nevertheless, I want to comply with the laws. Having some input into the process assures that they will not become draconian.

(To some extent, all of this is Kabuki theater. But that's how the political game is played.)

AlexanderA said:

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.

Click to expand...

But you haven't mentioned anything in return.... just offering more and more to them


Not to get off topic but you mentioned Trump and North Korea. 1st, it hasn't happened so its not even a real example. 2nd, he offered a ,imo, pretty generous offer to them for DACA to include amnesty citizenship in exchange for wall money. They didn't even try to negotiate with him... it was a flat No.

AlexanderA said:

Then why is our side not proposing something like this, instead of stonewalling the issue?

Click to expand...

Let's flip this a bit.

If it is such a great idea that we should support, please explain why they haven't offered it to us?

Ita apparent to me its because they want registration, nothing less, and they don't want to give up anything. (Just as their lack of negotoations with DACA)

Scooter22 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."

Thats the original post I replied to and NY isn't NYC. Get the facts clear.

Click to expand...

Ok, cool your jets.... problem was, between the two posts, the facts were not clear. I appreciate the clarification.

For your edification, New York CITY played the register then confiscate game decades ago. In the 1960s, the CITY government decided to have residents register certain types of longarms. The standard argument broke out, the progunners complaining the only use registering guns served is for later confiscation. The ..... CITY officials retorted that confiscation wasn't their goal and promised it would never happen, and the law went into effect.
Then in the 1990s, under Mayor Dinkins, another law passed ---- banning those guns.
Guess what?
Those registration lists were used to assure that they got the guns!
This gave rise to atleast one incident (I believe more .... but I know of one) where the family that had registered their guns in the 1960s moved from their NYC apartment to Montana. Of course a new family moved into their old apartment.
One morning at about 8:00AM while eating breakfast, there came a loud crash and their front door was ripped off the hinges. Black clad police ESU forces (N. Y. P. D.'S version of S. W. A. T.) rushed in with shotguns and submachine guns yelling "where are the guns??!!"
Of course they were scared to death ----- imagine what the children went through!
The police appeared quit able to play American Einsatzgruppen with their tactical toys ..... but real POLICE WORK that could have determined who the ACTUAL RESIDENTS of the apartment were at the time ....given the possibility that after three decades, they could possibly NOT be the same people?
Not....so....much, I guess.
A scene from The Third Reich....played out in America.
We can all be proud!

danez71 said:

But you haven't mentioned anything in return.... just offering more and more to them

Click to expand...

My #1 item would be the repeal of the Hughes Amendment. I've mentioned this numerous times. And taking suppressors and SBR's out of the NFA. (That's what I call a "compromise" because my maximalist position would be to repeal the NFA entirely.)

Tommygunn said:

For your edification, New York CITY played the register then confiscate game decades ago. In the 1960s, the CITY government decided to have residents register certain types of longarms. The standard argument broke out, the progunners complaining the only use registering guns served is for later confiscation. The ..... CITY officials retorted that confiscation wasn't their goal and promised it would never happen, and the law went into effect.
Then in the 1990s, under Mayor Dinkins, another law passed ---- banning those guns.
Guess what?
Those registration lists were used to assure that they got the guns!

Click to expand...

This is exactly why I don't want registration. The kind of UBC plan that I am proposing is a way to avoid registration! If the antigunners reject such a plan, then the onus will be on them for not being reasonable. Remember that we are playing to the general public, not to pro-gun activists. The general public does not want registration but is OK with UBC's.

AlexanderA said:

This is exactly why I don't want registration. The kind of UBC plan that I am proposing is a way to avoid registration! If the antigunners reject such a plan, then the onus will be on them for not being reasonable. Remember that we are playing to the general public, not to pro-gun activists. The general public does not want registration but is OK with UBC's.

Click to expand...

The one problem I see with any kind of UBC plan isn't whether or not it can be used to effect a register-then-confiscate scenario, it's that it will not work.
Criminals will never subject themselves to a check, they'll steal guns, they trade them off with other criminals, and some gangs that operate on a near nationwide basis have a underground black market already set up right now.
The failure of a UBC to make any deep dent in gun crime will not result in an epiphany amongst the antigunners and politicians, it will simply drive them to pass more antigun laws ....."WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!.....IT'S FOR THE CHILLUNS!"....... possibly even to actual confiscation.

And I sincerely believe THAT is their ultimate goal.

One of the Mod’s (I think) wrote this up a few years back, with his permission I copied and emailed to a few people

Anyway, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen it
So, enjoy


First, here is a brief essay explaining how the existing background check system works for non-NFA firearms. This system is a result of the 1968 Gun Control Act, which in turn is rumored to have been inspired by the Nazi Firearms Law.

As you'll see, the system above is not a background check system and does not actually do anything to verify that the purchaser is legally allowed to purchase firearms. At best, the paper form provides evidence as to whether the purchaser lied during his purchase of a firearm; but does nothing to verify that the purchaser was not a prohibited person.

The job of determining whether a person is a prohibited person is done by the National Instant Check System. The 1994 Brady Act proposed a requirement for a background check on firearms purchasers to be conducted during a 5 day waiting period. However, during the debate, an amendment was proposed to replace the 5 day waiting period with the National Instant Check System (side note: Portions of the Brady Act relating to background checks were later struck down by the Supreme Court in Printz v. United States.) The NICS system became operational in 1998.

Currently, NICS checks are only required (at the national level) when sales are made from a Federal Firearms Licensee (a gun dealer), regardless of whether that gun dealer is at a gun show, his own house, or a business. Private sales (or other transfers such as loans of firearms, gifts, etc.) do not require a NICS check unless the firearm is shipped interstate (simplified version, there are exceptions). Additionally, some states have stricter requirements that extend even to private sales.

Initially, NICS was limited to only FFLs. The concern was that unscrupulous people might use the system to conduct their own background checks on neighbors and acquaintances if the system were accessible by anyone. As a result, access to NICS is still relatively controlled. However, because NICS is conducted primarily through FFLs for privacy reasons, every NICS check also generates a Form 4473 under the recordkeeping requirements under the 1968 Gun Control Act.

EXISTING PROBLEMS WITH NICS
==========================

In 2010, NICS denied about 153,000 purchases (73,000 Federal and about 80,000 through State agencies) making a grand total of 2.1 million denials since NICS became operational). The most common reason for denial was a felony conviction (47%). Fugitive from Justice was the second most common reason (19%). Of the 153,000 denials - around 12,000 were appealed and later reversed.

Of those 153,000 purchases, only 4,732 were referred by FBI to ATF for further investigation (even though a prohibited person lying on a Form 4473 - which would be a part of the NICS process - is a Federal crime punishable by up to ten years in prison). Of the cases referred to ATF for investigation, fully 26.5% of them (509 cases) turned out to be a person who was not prohibited from purchasing firearms. Of the remaining cases, ATF confiscated the firearm in 1,164 cases (same source) and prosecuted only 62 cases in 2010.

So, one thing we immediately notice with the current background check system is that even with incomplete record reporting from many states (currently seven states don't report people who are prohibited for reasons of mental illness at all), actual violations of the law in prohibited persons attempting to purchase firearms are rarely investigated. On those rare occasions where they are investigated, usually nothing more is done than to take the gun they know about. In a very tiny minority of cases, there are actual prosecutions and criminal trials.

So currently, we do absolutely nothing to stop the criminals we do catch violating the law from obtaining firearms. This is the system that some think should be expanded to cover all private sales. Some influential Second Amendment advocates (such as Alan Gottlieb of Second Amendment Foundation and CCRKBA fame) have even argued that gun owners should surrender on UBCs now while they can still get a good deal - Gottlieb's idea of a good deal being the 2013 Schumer-Toomey-Manchin bill opposed by the NRA.

WHY UBCs ARE BAD FOR GUN OWNERS:
======================================

There are two major problems with expanding background checks to cover transfers between private parties: privacy and enforcement.

The 2013 Schumer-Toomey-Manchin bill included a telling piece of legalese that explained exactly what the goal of UBCs are ultimately. The bill expressly exempted Concealed Handgun Licensees from having to go through a NICS check - because after all, if the purpose is to make sure that a person is OK to buy a gun, a CHL does that just fine. Yet, the same bill still required that even though there would be no NICS check, a private transfer to a CHL still had to go through an FFL and have a Form 4473 filled out. So, we aren't even going to run the guy's name through the system to verify that nothing is changed; but we are going to record what gun he purchased.

And that right there is one of the major threats to privacy posed by expanding UBCs - because the Form 4473 is tied to the NICS check under the current system of laws, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with verifying whether the person is prohibited, expansion of UBCs is de-facto registration - albeit, a backwards, 1933-style, decentralized registration.

The second major threat is enforcement. Currently, no federal agency has the resources necessary to investigate even the 72,000 denials generated just at the federal level - let alone the 80,000 additional state denials. As you can see, ATF investigated only 4,732 denials in 2010 - and even after they had discarded over 60,000 denials as unworthy of further investigation, they still ended up with 26.5% of their investigations being innocent, non-prohibited people who were not only wrongly denied a right to purchase a firearm; but then were investigated by a federal law enforcement agency for attempting to do so. Expanding that very broken system, when we already make no attempt to enforce it, is going to fail.

Even worse, it will fail in a very predictable manner. There are about 300 million firearms in the United States that have not been tracked past the point of first sale. Prosecuting someone for selling one of those without a UBC would be extremely difficult unless prosecutors can prove the transaction happened AFTER UBCs became law. Within five years, you are guaranteed to have a media worthy shooting incident where the firearm used will fall into this category. At that point, it will become obvious that under the 1968 GCA recordkeeping system - the only way to prove the crime (that you weren't going to enforce and haven't been enforcing) is to register all privately owned weapons.

Other obvious avenues for gun control will be to remove the 1933-style paper forms in favor of computerized, central registration - thus removing all of the obstacles to identifying and confiscating firearms on a mass level.

And of course, like every form of bureaucracy, once the paperwork on owning a firearm becomes burdensome enough, you will have fewer and fewer people who choose to legally own a firearm. They will either hide their firearms ownership (and quiet their anti-gun control political activity accordingly to avoid undue attention) or they will simply not become firearm owners. Over time, gun owners will simply cease to be an effective political force as their numbers dwindle. You need look no further than the National Firearms Act to see this principal in action.

Q&A
======================================

Discussing this issue with different people at various times, I've come across various objections/questions - which I will address here:

Quote:

Fighting UBC's, as has been noted, doesn't portray the Pro gun side well. We look like we want to hide in the shadows and sell guns like dope dealers.
There are plenty of valid, legitimate reasons to oppose expanding a background check system to 300 million private citizens when we don't even enforce violations of it on the roughly 70,000 FFLs using it right now. That is a brief, factual argument that resonates and doesn't require an in-depth knowledge of gun laws to understand. Further, you have to fight on UBCs; because if you aren't willing to fight UBCs because "it looks bad" what are you going to say when they shoot up a school with a gun that nobody can prove was sold illegally after UBCs pass?

Quote:
We don't gain any more Pro 2A supporters by fighting UBC's. If you think otherwise, please explain how... I'm open to hearing it and would like to believe it; but I don't see how we do.
You certainly aren't going to expand gun ownership by making the paperwork necessary to own one legally more expansive and burdensome. Even if you think that registration of guns, gun owners and background checks for everyone is just fine and dandy - you've got to acknowledge that trying to extend a paper forms system first developed in 1933 to a population of 300 million people in the 21st century is going to make the DMV look like a joy and center of excellence in government. That isn't going to bring more gun owners into the fold.

Look at the statistics above - out of the 4,732 cases that ATF did bother to investigate, 509 of them (26.5%) had not even broken the law. You go to buy a gun at the gun store. The gun store runs a check and you are denied. You don't even make an effort to appeal (which think about that for a second - that could be as many as 26,000 new gun owners a year who are being deterred from their legal right to own a firearm just by the existing system). Despite that, you then find a Federal Agent at your door telling you that you are being investigated for a federal crime punishable by up to ten years in prison. That's what we have RIGHT NOW. Does that sound like a system that encourages future gun ownership? What happens when that system expands to every single private transfer.

Quote:
There isn't a chance in heck that the recordkeeping outlined 1969 GCA will be destroyed. Is there any meaningful litigation or piece of proposed legislation even attempting that?
The current recordkeeping system HAS to be destroyed if you really believe that surrendering on UBCs is the best thing for gun owners to do. It has no connection to actually verifying whether someone is a prohibited person. It has basically two values: A) as an enforcment tool for a crime that is rarely investigate and even more rarely prosecuted (<100 per year) B) knowing who owns what guns.

The current recordkeeping system is entirely unnecessary in determining who is actually a prohibited person and worse, it stifles the development of more forward thinking systems that could remove the ban on interstate transfers of firearms between private parties and better protect gun owner privacy.

Senator Tom Coburn proposed a UBC along these lines in 2013. After Newtown, Coburn actively worked with Schumer, Manchin and Kirk to develop a "compromise" that would extend UBCs to ALL SALES. Coburn actually covered more sales/transfers than Schumer-Toomey-Manchin would and did away with lots of meaningless paperwork that affects gun owners as well as establish the seed of an alternate system to the 1968 GCA. Schumer, Manchin and Kirk refused to accept that language and instead went after Pat Toomey to be their stooge. Coburn proposed his bill as an alternate to Schumer-Toomey-Manchin in 2013; and even after Reid promised from the Senate floor that all bills would be heard, Coburn's bill never got a vote or was even brought up for consideration (again choosing to push a bill that favored more recordkeeping and fewer checks over a bill that expanded checks to everyone and reduced recordkeeping).

Coburn's bill was flawed in that it still relies on the 1968 GCA recordkeeping as its underlying basis (even though it streamlined a lot of those records) and it still has the same problems with non-enforcement creating opportunities for worse gun control; but it shows some innovative thinking on privacy as well as showing how gun ownership can be less burdensome on the paperwork side.

At the end of the day, if your fear is that like Gottlieb, you'll lose political power and be forced to accept a worse deal than what you can get now, I don't see how accepting a deal that is a clear step towards an even worse gun control law right now is going to benefit you when you lose political power in the future. And accepting any kind of expansion of UBCs based on the 1968 GCA recordkeeping is going to be worse.

Tommygunn said:

The one problem I see with any kind of UBC plan isn't whether or not it can be used to effect a register-then-confiscate scenario, it's that it will not work.

Click to expand...

No "gun control" will work.There are simply too many guns in this country for it to work. I've been saying this consistently. So in the larger sense, you are absolutely right.

Americans are a little naive.They think that any problem can be solved by laws. So, laws have been, and will be, passed to regulate guns. The question is, do we want a say on what laws will be passed, or do we want to let the laws be passed with no input from our side whatsoever? Make no mistake -- we are fighting a rear-guard action, and some bad things are coming. (I see it clearly in my home state of Virginia.)

The antis are not going to succeed in taking the guns. They may succeed in driving them underground, and making violators of gun owners. I'd rather see it not come to that.

AlexanderA said:

My #1 item would be the repeal of the Hughes Amendment. I've mentioned this numerous times. And taking suppressors and SBR's out of the NFA. (That's what I call a "compromise" because my maximalist position would be to repeal the NFA entirely.)

Click to expand...

To expect they'll give up any if that for a UBC system that doesn't register guns is not being the realist you keep claiming to be.


I'll ask again,
If nonregistering UBC is such a great idea that we should support please explain why they haven't offered it to us?

From quite a few posts back. Caught my eye

The "alternative" to slavery was FREEDOM, not "slavery lite".

Kinda reminds me of a historical account from over 3000 years ago. Pharoah times. See, all the people were starving soooo, The Gov offered the only solution which ultimately ended up in slav...

Opps I gotta go JUST READ MY SIG LINE IT SAYS ALL

Why do we have to “give” anything? In this country guns are a right, not a bargaining chip! This is one of the major things that set the US apart from the rest of the world.

DeepSouth,

Thank you for posting that detailed essay.

I do disagree with it on several points, one of which I will get to here (I've got to go to work soon.)

The argument that NICS is flawed because so few violations are discovered or prosecuted is wrong. It's akin to an employer saying "This safety equipment is worthless, look how few accidents we've had!" Or if you like sport analogies, the best cornerback in the NFL will have very few interceptions because he's so good the opponent won't throw to his side of the field.
NICS could be an effective deterrent without having large numbers of prosecutions for violations.

Off to work!

Dan

AlexanderA said:

This is exactly why I don't want registration. The kind of UBC plan that I am proposing is a way to avoid registration! If the antigunners reject such a plan, then the onus will be on them for not being reasonable.

Click to expand...

No... they'll just say the plans so full of loopholes that it's disingenuous of the pro gun people to even propose.

And that makes us look bad.

AlexanderA said:

Remember that we are playing to the general public, not to pro-gun activists. The general public does not want registration but is OK with UBC's.

Click to expand...

Got anything to support that? .... I don't believe that for a second.

I think that just about all anti gunners that want UBC also expects registration to be part of it.

And that represents a sizable portion of the general population.

....and why do they expect registration as part of UBC? Because with out it, it's a toothless tiger and "it won't help the police track guns and take criminals off the street to protect children".


Thier constituents expect registration as part of UBC.

AlexanderA said:

No "gun control" will work.

Click to expand...

Good point, I agree.

SilentStalker said:

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.

Click to expand...

You might consider exactly what information is transmitted to FBI/NICS when a 4473 is called in.
No Manufacturer
No Model number
No Serial Number
No Caliber information

Kinda hard to track anything without that information, isn't it?
The NICS check (as admitted by the ATF) only tracks to the first person the firearm is transferred to and doesn't go beyond that, Federally.