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.
danez71 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You asked what I wanted, and I answered. Actually, I want a root-and-branch revision of all the federal gun laws with each provision being justified as to need. (Like zero-based budgeting.) Turn the clock back to 1934. What we have now is a mindless accretion.

Why can't we have a blue-ribbon commission with both the pro- and anti- sides represented, but with a preponderance of technical experts? They could take a year to study the issues, listen to lots of witnesses, and come up with a plan that's better than current law. Then Congress could consider it. Yeah, I know that's hopelessly naive. But if the NRA proposed this, it would completely rattle the antis. They wouldn't know what to make of it.
danez71 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Why would they if we're not participants in any sort of dialogue? From their point of view, it comes down to brute political force, and if that's the case, they think they can get their maximalist demands (Australian-style confiscation).
 
Walt622 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The right is described in the 2nd Amendment, and the Supreme Court has severely restricted the application of the 2nd Amendment. (I don't like what they've done, but there it is.) The fact is that the right to guns is not absolute.
 
I think it would be beneficial to, at least, seperate the two things (BGC & Registration/Tracking) in the public discourse.

By that I mean start fighting registration/tracking as a separate issue instead of leaving it as an inevitable result of a background check. Someone smarter than me can suggest ways to do it, but it must be disjointed.

There are people that want to take all guns they are a small group and they can accomplish it by persuading people in the middle.

In that context, like it or not, bg checks themselves are a weak position to defend. Im not saying give it away. Keep defending but...

Tracking/Registration is a much stronger position to defend. It's much more important as well.
 
Last edited:
If I understand the technology correctly, a blockchain system could be used to maintain a registry of prohibited persons. Such a system is not centrally managed, but is secure and resistant to unauthorized alterations. It is also available to everyone.

Selling a gun? Check the system, pull a report, and if the person clears, go ahead with the sale. Put a paper copy of the report in your filing cabinet. Do away with Form 4473 and all that goes with it, but require everyone to do a check.

Perfect? Certainly not. But it's probably better than what we have, and we'd be tracking prohibited persons, not guns.

Gun traces would probably work better than they do today if transfers from manufacturers to dealers were available to the ATF. If a gun is used in a crime, ATF can ask the dealer to produce the record of their background check. That leads to the first purchaser. If the first purchaser has sold the gun, then ATF can ask for a look at the check that he ran.

This complies with the philosophy that was agreed to when NICS was established. There is a record, but the people who sold firearms hold the record and the government can access it when it needs to.
 
AlexanderA said:
Why would they if we're not participants in any sort of dialogue?
Click to expand...

For the same reasons they do with other things....

It's dialog by public announcement. Both sides do it in order to make a perception they want to the general public.

They've publicly said they want UBC woth a proposal that includes registration.

Why don't they publicly say UBC with out registration?

Because they, and their constituents, expect it to include registration and they don't want anything less or even portray anything less.
 
I would also suggest that they don't mention the registration part because it is a lot less popular.

I also imagine, that the groups that are funding the anti gun movement want the registration more than the BGC, and that they pair them together intentionally.
 
denton said:
Selling a gun? Check the system, pull a report, and if the person clears, go ahead with the sale. Put a paper copy of the report in your filing cabinet. Do away with Form 4473 and all that goes with it, but require everyone to do a check
Click to expand...

And their is the (...a) problem if you don’t have to keep proof you did the check many people simply want do it, and it want be able to prove they didn’t do it.
If they do require proof people would inevitably be getting punished for losing a piece of paper, or accidentally throwing out the wrong file, what about a house fire, the paperwork you’ll need to keep you out of legal trouble just went up in ashes.
 
AlexanderA said:
Only when the odds are against us, and only when we can get something in return. This is no reason to brand me a Quisling.
Click to expand...
I don't know what a "Quisling" is.

You continue to say we are going to lose so we need to compromise. That is giving in for no reason. Running scared as it were. It's the same argument the antis use. We never get anything in return, so stop with that silliness.
 
This is what I would accept, though I respect why people might have issue with it:

I don't think there should be any requirement to do "proof" that you did a check. It should be illegal to require that. If it must be illegal to sell without a check, it should be up to the government to prove you are guilty not up to you to prove you are innocent.

You go in to a shop, you get a check, if you clear, and they sell you a gun (or not) with no records. Why should there be one? You are a law abiding citizen.

You selling your own gun to a stranger, you guys meet at the shop, he gets a check, you sell him the gun. No record required. Gun shops can make a little money off this but they also offer a safe place to complete the transaction.

Yes criminals can break this like any law, but to be honest I think most people selling a gun to a stranger would not sell it to them if they knew they were a gang member or something. So a system like this, even if only the law abiding people would follow, would still make it harder for criminals.

That would be a give & get offer. Because gun purchases that are tracked would stop being tracked.

I know this is a pipe dream though, opposing sides do not discusses things these days. Everyone lives in a box and only hears one side. I think anti gun people even more so because they know less about the topic. As the laws are being offered now I vote a big NO to anyone that supports UBC. I just wish those that appose that law would make it more clear why, and also fight harder against tracking laws that are currently enforced.
 
Last edited:
I've often wondered what the difference between a Universal Background Check and the current 4473 that is in place right now.
 
I too am curious about using blockchain technology to vet potential buyers.

As someone that is in the process of thinning out my number of guns, I'd really like to know that the person I am selling too is a legal owner. I work for a company that does regular background checks, so I've been lucky in that I've been able to sell everything to colleagues, so I know they are legal.

1.) I don't see how to enforce universal background checks without registration.

2.) it puts a burden on the seller to prove they did the BC. Gunstores and other FFLs are already setup with paperwork, filing etc. Joe Blow is not going to be squared away with the record keeping, filling forms correctly, etc.. Its going to force people to go through gunstores. In areas like the one I am, there is one gun store in the county. The next closest is over an hour away in a different county, so the gunstores are going to be able to charge what they want. If I want to sell a $100 gun, it won't be difficult for the transaction cost to exceed the value of the item.
 
DeepSouth said:
And their is the (...a) problem if you don’t have to keep proof you did the check many people simply want do it, and it want be able to prove they didn’t do it.
If they do require proof people would inevitably be getting punished for losing a piece of paper, or accidentally throwing out the wrong file, what about a house fire, the paperwork you’ll need to keep you out of legal trouble just went up in ashes.
Click to expand...

That is a good question. I think the simple answer is that your query is recorded in the blockchain, and only you can access it. If the government can show a need to know who purchased your firearm, then you can open the file and answer their request. A database of all gun transfers would exist, which should satisfy the left, but the government could only access on a need to know basis. That would satisfy me.

You'd get massive resistance from the government because they just about can't abide a system that is not under their control. Watching that play out would involve large quantities of soda and popcorn.

Edited to add:

My adult daughter just popped in, and we were talking about this. Her objection, which is a good one, is that she once worked in the funds transfer business and saw a horrible example of how it can go astray. There is a secret credit card blacklist. Any bank can put you on it. Once you're on it, it's really, really hard to get off, and it messes up your life. So how would we prevent entries that shouldn't be there, and how would we ensure that corrections are entered?
 
Last edited:
AlexanderA said:
No, I have consistently said that we should get something in exchange for any concessions that we make.
Click to expand...
...which you know either will never be given or will be revoked farther down the line. Of course that which was imposed premised on those "concessions" will be forever set in stone...
 
Kaybee said:
Everyone lives in a box and only hears one side.
Click to expand...
You could not be more wrong.

I've been listening VERY closely to the anti-gun cult since the mid-1960s.

That's why I thoroughly mistrust them every bit as much as I mistrust militant islamists.

They have ONLY one goal and they will tell ANY lie to achieve it. Fortunately in their ignorance, they tell really stupid, obvious lies.
 
denton said:
That is a good question. I think the simple answer is that your query is recorded in the blockchain, and only you can access it. If the government can show a need to know who purchased your firearm, then you can open the file and answer their request. A database of all gun transfers would exist, which should satisfy the left, but the government could only access on a need to know basis. That would satisfy me.
Click to expand...

The obvious problem to that is the millions of people (mostly older) that simply don’t do technology. Heck, I’m not even yet 40 and I don’t know what a block chain is, nor do I care. And your suggestion is for me to trust and use it as a requirement for selling a gun.

It’s a good question because their is no good answer. :uhoh:
 
UBC is not enforceable without registration.

The first time after the passage of UBC that someone circumvents it, the same old anti-freedom crowd will be calling for registration in order to make the system work.

So, kiddies, listen up: Universal Background Checks lead to registration, registration leads to confiscation, confiscation leads to slavery.

Be free men and say NO!
 
Tommygunn said:
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!:what::uhoh:
Click to expand...

And that is why I left NY (upstate) and have refused all jobs in blue states. I have a friend with an NFA and a select fire weapon that just moved to a good job in Seattle ... waiting to hear how it works out ...
 
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?
Click to expand...

Sistema1927 said:
UBC is not enforceable without registration.
Click to expand...

That really is this entire thread, from the original question to the only real answer.
In order for a law to matter it has to be enforced, and with out tracking (read registration) mandatory background checks can’t be enforced..
 
Alex,
Please go read the history of gun control in America and show us all instances were we got something in exchange for giving up our rights. I am not aware of a single instance but maybe you can find some.

Not picking, really, if you are so set on giving up please do the research. Maybe some will go along with you if you can show several historical references.
 
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