Universal Background Checks Suck

Something I don't see mentioned much is the current three day period or the proposed ten day period's effect on gun shows. I've been delayed 5 out of 6 times. Very much of that and bye bye gun shows. If I go on Satuyrday, the gun show is long gone by Tuesday. Not to mention it was 130 miles away. To me it almost amounts to a complete ban on purchasing. There's nothing at Wally World that I would want to buy. It's rare that I find anything at the LGS I want to buy.

I read the article. I think the author had a bit too much coffee. There are some legitimate concerns, but this is really a stretch.

I don't see mentioned much is the current three day period or the proposed ten day period's effect on gun shows.

Click to expand...

There are ways around this. In many states if you have a carry permit you skip the background check. You already have to go through a much tougher background check to get the permit. You've already had a waiting period of longer than 3 or 10 days while the background check was being done.

This could also be used to make FTF transactions easier even with UBC's. As long as I'm selling to someone with a carry permit I know they have already had the background check.

I'm betting that a national implementation of UBC will lead to rather brisk business in the "black market".

But..... Nobody has signed, implemented UBCs.

Or did I miss something in my daily Wall Street Journal, and other news channel?

A couple of —-speeches (CO2 clouds)—- about UBC to look “tough”, which:
1) raises money,
2) keeps Bidens radical faction somewhat satisfied, and people act as if it’s practically....a done deal”.
——Inauguration Day was How many days ago?

Sistema1927 said:

A good article, showing exactly why UBC's are a very bad idea:
https://www.shootingwire.com/features/3f5d260a-8f89-41e0-a6c0-c929433f271d

(I checked to see if this was already posted. Also, there is a thread in "Legal" that addresses UBC's, but this doesn't seem to fit the rigid criteria for discussion there.)

Click to expand...

UBC will not remove those who are selling black market guns.

Look let private citizens sell a few guns a year privately. Go after those who are selling hundreds of guns.

In the article, it claims that it would be illegal to let his friend hold a gun that he legally owns (he claims that would be a "transfer" under the law). I don't believe that's true in Colorado. I'm pretty sure that others can hold and shoot your firearm in your presence without it being considered a transfer.

So I wonder if it is spelled out clearly in proposed federal legislation? If so, I also wonder if FFLs would be exempt. If not, range rentals will be tricky, and so will handling a firearm prior to purchase. "Could I take a closer look at that Ruger BH please?" "Why yes sir. Let's go do a quick background check and then I'll pull it out of the case for you."

unspellable said:

Something I don't see mentioned much is the current three day period or the proposed ten day period's effect on gun shows. I've been delayed 5 out of 6 times.

Click to expand...

There isn't a 3-day (or 10-day) waiting period. Normally, approvals take a few minutes. Delays (such as in your case) are unusual. The 3-day (or proposed 10-day) period is a safe harbor, after which a "delay," by default, is turned into an "approval." Be glad there is such a safe harbor. A draconian approach (which I'm sure the antigunners are considering) would automatically turn delays into denials after 3 (or 10) days.

What you need to do is figure out why you are being delayed. Perhaps the same name as a known felon? I believe there's a mechanism for clearing this up ahead of time.

I UBC's were a quick and free go/no-go check available to do over the phone or even with an app by private parties 24/7, and if there was no Form 4473 filled out with no record kept by the ATF/FBI/ABC/XYZ, then sure I'd be open to UBC's in a trade for something like pulling suppressors off the NFA list.

That's a dream though. I think the best we can hope for, IF a UBC law passes, is poor verbiage like in the article on what a transfer actually is. That seems like it'd be the most sure way to have it struck down by the Supreme Court when a wife is arrested because she shot her husband's firearm at the range.

Definition of transfer of NFA firearm.
Section 9.1 Definition of “transfer.” The term “transfer” is broadly defined by the NFA to include “selling, assigning, pledging, leasing, loaning, giving away, or otherwise disposing of” an NFA firearm.165 The lawful transfer of an NFA firearm generally requires the filing of an appropriate transfer form with ATF, payment of any transfer tax imposed, approval of the form by ATF, and registration of the firearm to the transferee in the NFRTR. Approval must be obtained before a transfer may be made. See Section 9.5 for a discussion of certain NFA transactions not considered by ATF to be “transfers.”

The above applies to NFA firearms. Notice the qualifying language “otherwise disposing of” which implies that the transferor will no longer possess the firearm. Handing a gun to someone doe not imply disposing of the gun. While non NFA controlled weapons might be governed by a different definition I cannot find it. The writer of the article seems to equate holding with possession. I think that is wrong.

The FBI is going to have to really fund the NICS system if UBC were put in place. Just a year ago in May NICS had 20,000 background checks per hour.

So-called "universal background checks" are INTENDED TO FAIL, since they CANNOT work WITHOUT REGISTRATION.

Registration has NO purpose beyond facilitation of future CONFISCATION.

That was true 100 years ago. It was true 10 minutes ago.

Sistema1927 said:

States with UBC's (in one form or another, and I may have missed some):

New Mexico
Colorado
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Maryland
Nevada
New York
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Washington

What do you mean by "nobody has signed, implemented UBCs"?

Click to expand...

Pretty sure Illinois should be on that list.

Notice how they're all "blue" states?

The link below I s to a list of all states and their background check laws.

https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html

N9NWO said:

The FBI is going to have to really fund the NICS system if UBC were put in place. Just a year ago in May NICS had 20,000 background checks per hour.

Click to expand...

Or decrease funding and watch wait times grow and grow. Their goal is to make it harder to buy guns and decrease gun sales. Anything that accomplishes those goals is seen as a good thing.

I am an avid gun owner/ shooter; I do not want the present process made more difficult but I must say that the present process bothers me not one bit. I do not have a common name, my “proceed” authorization occurs almost instantaneously at all requests. So, my present world of a background check is fine by me and I would like to keep it this way. We shall see.

Locally we had a guy who was arrested at an ordinary traffic stop for having the same name as a wanted federal fugitive. He was released after the FBI informed the local police he was not the guy they were looking for. He had the presence of mind to get a written disposition* of his mistaken identity arrest. Which was a good thing, because there was a permanent record of the arrest but not a permanent record of the final disposition of the arrest. The arrest showed up on firearms background check; then he and the dealer filled out an appeal of the denial including a copy of the disposition; and the sale proceeded. I am not sure if the arrest was ever removed from his record.

The No Fly List, which anti-gunners regularly agitate to have added to the NICS, is full of noms de guerre used by terrorists, such as T. Kennedy, which led to Sen Edward Kennedy being denied to fly until he was advised to book flights using his real first name and not "Ted". Terrorists routinely change their aliases.

States get rewarded for dumping old police and court records into the NICS database. Almost like the goal is the more people deniable the better whether they deserve to be on the prohibited person list or not..


*And I am fairly sure disposition is the word I recalled.
disposition
In legal use the word disposition may have several possible meanings. It may refer to the sentence given to a convicted juvenile defendant, or to the final determination of a matter (such as a case or motion) by a court. ....
Definition of Disposition by Merriam-Webster

Steve S. said:

So, my present world of a background check is fine by me and I would like to keep it this way. We shall see.

Click to expand...

Before we go to suggesting that UBC's are an acceptable social policy, we probably ought to determine if they're actually effective. Erecting rules without making sure that they solve a defined problem is, well, a good way to wind up in a bad way. Simply accepting a rule because it doesn't impinge upon you at the moment doesn't make it a good rule. Even if the process is made relatively painless - if the process doesn't solve a problem, of what value is it? More to the point, when UBCs fail to 'solve the problem of gun violence', where does this discussion go next?

Last that I looked through the DoJ stats, the characterization regarding how criminals obtained their guns did not support an argument that expanded background checks would have any measurable impact on the rate of gun crime (since so few criminals obtained their gun via private sale). I also seem to recall that virtually every 'mass shooter' in recent memory legally obtained their guns, even in the presence of a background check at the time of sale (e.g. the Waco Walmart shooter).

So how does UBCs make the world a better place? What else are setting ourselves up for, when we continue to allow this culture war to define the object as the problem and sidestep the root causes of predatory behavior?

rbernie said:

Before we go to suggesting that UBC's are an acceptable social policy, we probably ought to determine if they're actually effective. Erecting rules without making sure that they solve a defined problem is, well, a good way to wind up in a bad way. ...

Click to expand...

Yeah, but what are the chances that that would occur with the U.S. Congress & Government handling the process?

Sistema1927:

Pardon me. I had only skimmed the first post (never read the link), and had the vague impression that > Joe Biden's EAs and EOs < was the primary topic.

My reading comprehension is normally a bit more careful, patient and links are checked.

Without a doubt they are very bad. I've seen similar general topics on two other websites which imply that Joe will sign an EO on federal UBCs any day now.

—-My comment was only intended to prompt the viewers of THR to not overreact to Bidens threats about a -proposed- Federal type of UBC law.

bassjam said:

I UBC's were a quick and free go/no-go check available to do over the phone or even with an app by private parties 24/7, and if there was no Form 4473 filled out with no record kept by the ATF/FBI/ABC/XYZ, then sure I'd be open to UBC's in a trade for something like pulling suppressors off the NFA list.

That's a dream though. I think the best we can hope for, IF a UBC law passes, is poor verbiage like in the article on what a transfer actually is. That seems like it'd be the most sure way to have it struck down by the Supreme Court when a wife is arrested because she shot her husband's firearm at the range.

Click to expand...

It can be quick, easy, and efficient, but I argue the anti-gunners want it to be a pain. We put men on the moon, we can do all kinds of things with our phones, we can tell devices what to do via voice. You cannot tell me that we can’t have a chip in a drivers license or a program to scan a thumb print and immediately tell a seller whether the potential buyer is a prohibited person or not.

OK, delayed five out of six times. First time in Alabama with an Alabama carry permit in my pocket. At that time the Alabama carry permit did not allow bypassing NICS. This was at a gun show so I never got the revolver I was trying to buy. After five times, I got fed up an went through the process to find out why. !. $10 fee for finger prints. two or thee weeks later I get a letter stating I filled out the wrong form. Sent the right form in. Two or three weeks later I get a letter, they can't read the finger prints. Another $10 fee for prints. two or three weeks later I get a letter, "We only keep the record of the check for 72 hours so we can't say why you were delayed." Never did find out why.
I think the intent of the background check is to simply add rigamarol to acquiring a firearm. Keep adding little bits of complication untill it's a real pain.

P.S. Somebody said it might be because I had a secret clearance so my name and prnts were already in the system. Don't know if I buy that one.

N9NWO said:

The FBI is going to have to really fund the NICS system if UBC were put in place.

Click to expand...

They would have to care and want the system to work. The definition of "work" in this case is different for pro gun folks than anti-gun folks. Especially if all delays turn into denials there is no reason for anti-gunners to make sure the system "works". Increasing the number of denials might be the very definition of working to them.