Why the NRA is against UBC

The Senate just voted to move the UBC Bill forward.

The thing that these legislators don't talk about with the UBCs is the cost and inconvenience to the consumer. It means trips to a gun shop, paying the gunshop (FFL dealer) for a background check, and then turning the gun over. I suspect the dealer will probably have to log the firearm into their book as a transfer which further adds to the paper trail and documentation on private transfers.

Click to expand...

Absolutely true. The FFL is not going to do this for free, expect $50.00 per background check.

And, just like the TSA list, these databases are full of errors. I heard one database, used to check for immigration status, a 10% error rate is standard.

To make it more fun, I predict you won't be able to see your record and you won't be able to get it corrected. Once broke, always broke, its your misfortune.

The FFL is not going to do this for free, expect $50.00 per background check.

Click to expand...

Schumer's bill calls for the AG to set the maximum fee that can be charged for a transfer. He wouldn't set it that high, would he?

> I believe the NRA is against UBC's because they are not
> effective in controlling or impacting crime.

I don't think so. A Universal Background Check would certainly impact crime; at the stroke of a pen it would turn a vast number of previously law-abiding citizens into criminals. Which would be a windfall for the corrections industry, police statistics, and so forth. There's lots of money to be made in crime, whether you're committing it or enforcing it.

Schumer's bill calls for the AG to set the maximum fee that can be charged for a transfer.

Click to expand...

And how do they enforce this on FFL holders? What's to keep them from simply refusing to process private party transfers if they don't get as much money as they think they should?

^^^probably not a thing. But some FFL holders currently charge nothing. The one I usually use only charges $10.00.

If he set it too low, I suppose an FFL could offer transfers only with purchase. Like, "we'll do a transfer for free if you purchase this special (overpriced) item. "

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/opinion/donohue-background-checks/index.html
John J. Donohue, "Why the NRA fights background checks", CNN, 10 Apr 2013


This editorial reminds me of John J. Donohue's claim in Fordham Law Review that one of the consequences of the Right-To-Carry "more guns, less crime" theory (John Lott & David Mustard 1997) was Tim McVeigh blowing up the Murrah Building in 1995. His middle initial should by "H." for hyperbolic.

John J. Donohue is the author of the ONLY analyses of the John Lott "more guns, less crime" hypothesis that claims an increase in crime; he published these when he was a law professor at Stanford in the student-edited Stanford law review, and at the ALER where he is co-editor. Nope, no conflict of interest there. And he has attacked the NRC panel's analysis of his hybrid model that produces a spike in crime when applied to a hypothetical data set created by the NRC panel to show an steady decrease in crime.

Anyway, on the BS NRA and the gun industry want to sell guns to criminals:

There are 80 million gun owners in America.

The FBI lists about 430,000 gun crimes per year. ATF NIBIN database of crime scene ballistics evidence show that multiple gun crimes can be traced to one gun and presumably one criminal. The number of gun criminals is a fraction of gun owners.

The criminal gun market is too small to be a serious concern for the mainstream gun industry; the law-abiding gun owner is the real market for guns. And that market is more likely to be hunters, recreational shooters, gun collectors: less than half of gun owners list self-defense as their primary reason to own a gun, and even fewer list self-defense as their only reason.

The Bureau of Justice Statisics survey of state inmates gave these as sources of guns possessed by state inmates (possessed not necessarily used):

13.9% Retail Sources:
8.3% Retail store
3.8% Pawnshop
1.0% Flea market
0.7% Gun show

39.6% Friends or family:
12.8% Purchase or trade
18.5% Rent or borrow
8.3% Other

39.2% Street/illegal source:
9.9% Theft or burglary
20.8% Drug dealer/street
8.4% Fence/black market

The gun possessing criminals were actually 18% of state inmates.

The more narrowly focussed NIJ Felon Survey "Armed and Considered Dangerous" that targeted crimes while armed found that the majority of armed crime offenders obtained guns from street sources (including drug dealers, fences dealing in stolen goods, and other dealers in contraband). About a fourth expected a fellow criminal ("friend") to loan them a gun, one eighth expected to steal a gun themslves. Leaving about an eighth having a lover, relative or non-criminal friend do a "straw purchase" from a legal source.

The criminal gun market is dominated by a loose cloud of fences, drug dealers, smugglers, friends and family of criminals, and involves mostly used or stolen guns. There is simply no money in the crime gun market to attract big time operators. It is like bootlegging of alcohol before the Prohibition Amendment and the Volstead Act.

The idea there is an economic motive for NRA or the gun industry to seek out the criminal market is absurd.

The FFL is not going to do this for free, expect $50.00 per background check

Click to expand...

Or even higher fees from FFL's for compliance. This is another backdoor TAX that increases the cost of legally buying a firearm. More money for the Feds, more control, and less rights for the law abiding.

Lautenberg has already said that they are going to try to add his magazine ban to the Bill.

Amerikans are stupid, the Obama political machine knows this, and they exploited our collective stupidity to absolute perfection.

Click to expand...

Been saying this since 2008 and it's only gotten worse. 2012 should have convinced even the most casual observer.

Pilot said:

Or even higher fees from FFL's for compliance. This is another backdoor TAX that increases the cost of legally buying a firearm. More money for the Feds, more control, and less rights for the law abiding.

Click to expand...

It is NOT a tax in any form. It is a fee for service charged by a business with an FFL. The money does not go to the government, it goes to the business' bottom line.

FWIW, The Toomey-Manchin amendment prohibits the govt. from requiring or collecting any fee for running a NICS check.

Horrible article.

One reason why I don't always watch CNN news to begin with.

Background check?

My guns are not illegal. I am not illegal.

I am an undocumented gun owner. I am married to my guns.

WHY ARE YOU SUCH A BIGOT? Accept my lifestyle. Give me equal rights!

No double standards?

No background checks because it is a ploy.

RiverPerson said:

I don't understand the logic in why manufacturers are afraid to lose profits due to a UBC. if someone isn't going through a background check to purchase a gun, more than likely it is a private sale and none of that money will go to the original manufacturer anyways.

Click to expand...

Because many of the gun makers resort to lick spittle, hoping it will take the heat off of them.

Pilot said:

Or even higher fees from FFL's for compliance. This is another backdoor TAX that increases the cost of legally buying a firearm. More money for the Feds, more control, and less rights for the law abiding.

Lautenberg has already said that they are going to try to add his magazine ban to the Bill.

Click to expand...

We haven't seen nothing yet when it comes to gun/ammo taxes. Remember how small the cigarette tax started at, now in his budget, Obama is proposing a $1.95 federal tax per pack, this will be in addition to state taxes. (and the criminals will quickly move in to sell illegal, uh, undocumented, cigarettes)

The cigarette taxes have set the SOP MO, for like the cigarette taxes, if it doesn't affect non-gun buyers, they could care less. You know, just like we non-smolers reacted when the powers that be went after those evil smokers.

There is no background check required for buying a car, cigs, or alcohol. Should I be required to verify that someone has a valid Driver license or the state make an alcoholic list? What is the difference between a gun and any other private property like a car? People abuse cars all the time.

The lib's want us to fell like we are crazy, criminals

Has any one heard about what is to become of the guns that the gun collecters have. How will they dispose of them. Also what about the CR & R FFl? I have not heard anything about this.

I read the Donohue article. I guess I should no longer be amazed how much hate and untruth the antis can spew.

I harbor no ill will toward gun haters. None of us should. They're not evil, just wrong. But to them, gun owners and NRA members are evil, brutish violence mongers, all of us constantly looking for someone to shoot. And with crap like this article, they manage to get fence riders to believe it.

Schumer's bill calls for the AG to set the maximum fee that can be charged for a transfer.

Click to expand...

And how do they enforce this on FFL holders? What's to keep them from simply refusing to process private party transfers if they don't get as much money as they think they should?

Click to expand...

That's a good question. We're dealing with that in NY right now. Cuomo's ludicrous "SAFE" Act contains a stipulation that an FFL can only charge $10 for a private-sale transfer.

Guess what? FFLs are refusing to do private-sale transfers. Who can blame them? Ten bucks? It's not worth it. I'm lucky because my local guy says he will do it for his current customers as a courtesy, but everybody else can go pound sand.

It's more than an inconvenience; from now on, it's going to be very difficult to do a legal private sale in New York State. I'm sure that's the whole point of this abominable piece of legislation. If it were all about safety, they could set up local offices where you could go for a free NICS check on your private sale. No, this is about harassing and screwing gun owners. And I would hate to see it go national.

RetiredUSNChief said:

Ultimately, regardless of how the law may be written NOW, a UBC WILL become a defacto gun registration database.

All it takes is a subsequent change in the law, even if it would be currently written to say otherwise.

This is also a big factor in why the NRA is against it.

Click to expand...

Exactly

UBC will = registration
registration will = identification
identification will = confiscation

This is exactly how other western style governments disarmed their citizens after an emotional tragedy was used to justify confiscation of all privately owned firearms.

`

beatledog7 said:

I read the Donohue article. I guess I should no longer be amazed how much hate and untruth the antis can spew.

I harbor no ill will toward gun haters. None of us should. They're not evil, just wrong. But to them, gun owners and NRA members are evil, brutish violence mongers, all of us constantly looking for someone to shoot. And with crap like this article, they manage to get fence riders to believe it.

Click to expand...

You may not hate the anti's which is your right, but do not speak for the rest of us.
Also do not assume they are not evil(depends on how you define it) because some have an intent to rid society of guns.
They will use any method or tactic no matter how despicable(such as exploiting grieving parents) to achieve their goals. To them, the end will justify the means to help achieve their Utopian idea of how society should be.

`

Even the NICs checks where people "fail" are not prosecuted.

Click to expand...

I have recently seen this a lot on this forum. Many of those that fail, fail because of some technical mistake for example; typo in the name, gave the wrong SSN, computer error and etc etc. Recently I had a friend get rejected because his name was similar to a felon's. He had to appeal the rejection and it took sometime before they would sell him a gun. So just because someone fails the background check, doesn't mean that they should be prosecuted.

the useless NRA was for the NIC check in the 90's they caved in and started this disaster and they knew if you give the antis an opening they will expand it so they can scare members to collect more money

ccsniper said:

I have recently seen this a lot on this forum. Many of those that fail, fail because of some technical mistake for example; typo in the name, gave the wrong SSN, computer error and etc etc. Recently I had a friend get rejected because his name was similar to a felon's. He had to appeal the rejection and it took sometime before they would sell him a gun. So just because someone fails the background check, doesn't mean that they should be prosecuted.

Click to expand...

Why on earth would anyone give their SSN for a background check. It is only suppose to be used for income tax purposes, and very few goverment agencies or people can demand it. It even says optional on the form, so I would be shocked if most people were so caviler with giving it out.

`

It's more than an inconvenience; from now on, it's going to be very difficult to do a legal private sale in New York State. I'm sure that's the whole point of this abominable piece of legislation. If it were all about safety, they could set up local offices where you could go for a free NICS check on your private sale. No, this is about harassing and screwing gun owners. And I would hate to see it go national.

Click to expand...

It is also about causing aggravation and irritation for FFL holders. So fro the anti perspective it is a win win all around.