Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Dean Weingarten, Jan 23, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dean Weingarten

    Dean Weingarten Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    423
    Florida - -(Ammoland.com)- Imagine a grandfather who wants to give a family shotgun to his 12-year-old grandson having to do a background check on his grandson before giving him the shotgun.

    Or a friend having to do a background check on his lifetime best buddy before lending him a hunting rifle.

    Or, if your mother had a prowler at her home, having to do a background check on your own Mom before you could give her one of your guns for protection.

    That’s what “universal background checks” do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners.

    Universal background checks are background checks on EVERY transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, and loan of a firearm between any and all individuals.

    All background checks must be conducted through a federally licensed dealer. (costing hard earned cash) Universal background checks have nothing to do with gun shows – they are about you.

    It is ALREADY a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms and ammunition without having federal firearm dealers license.
    It is ALREADY a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check – that’s all dealers, everywhere, including at retail stores, gun shows, flea markets or anywhere else.
    Further, it is ALREADY a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should have known is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm.

    The penalty for selling a gun to a person who is a criminal, mentally ill, mentally incompetent, alcohol abuser or drug abuser is 10-year federal felony. That’s now, today, with no changes to the law.

    It is even a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm.

    Even so, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice, more than 72,000 people were turned down on a gun purchase in 2010 because they didn’t pass the background check. Yet, only 44 of those cases were prosecuted.
    On Thursday, January 10, 2013, in the White House meeting of President Obama’s Gun Agenda Task Force, Vice President Joe Biden answered that question, telling NRA’s Director of Federal Affairs, James Baker, that the Obama administration didn’t have time to prosecute people for lying on the federal background check form.

    If the Obama Administration currently doesn’t have the time or manpower to prosecute those who lie on background check forms, then why do they want more background checks, more paperwork and more forms? It’s backdoor gun registration.

    Universal background check system legislation that we have previously seen, allows the government to keep a computerized government registry of gun owners.

    In addition to the absurdity of having to do background checks on people you know are not criminals, would you like to pay up to $100 or more just to give your grandson a shotgun or lend a hunting rifle to your best friend or give your Mom a gun for protection?

    Transfer fees alone could run from $50 up. Firearms dealers, like other businesses, charge as much as they can get away with. Background check fees for a federally mandated program can be any amount they decide.

    The Obama administration’s gun ban agenda and universal background check system are unconstitutional regulatory schemes to gut the Second Amendment. These proposals which mandate the government collection of data on lawful gun buyers and sellers amount to universal gun registration and gun owner licensing.

    This agenda focuses on peaceable citizens, not violent criminals who obtain guns on the black-market to carry out unspeakable crimes already prohibited under federal and state laws. Instead of stopping crime and eliminating criminal conduct, they are creating more criminals – they are targeting you.

    That’s why NRA Members and the nation’s 100 million firearms owners will stand in solidarity and fight against these misguided and diabolical proposals that have nothing whatsoever to do with curbing criminal violence but everything to do with stripping us of our guaranteed civil rights and our freedom.

    Marion P. Hammer is past President of the National Rifle Association and is Executive Director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida


    Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/01/universal-background-checks-absolutely-not/#ixzz2IpPp1FnT
     
  2. Dentite

    Dentite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    762
    Thanks for sharing
     
  3. Skribs

    Skribs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,807
    Location:
    Lakewood, Washington
    The big problem with any of this, is that if the law isn't enforced, what is it doing?

    The criminals don't care about the law, they care even less about those that aren't enforced. Law abiding citizens care. Explain to me again how gun control stops crime without affecting us?
     
  4. Dean Weingarten

    Dean Weingarten Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    423
    The law delegitimizes the ownership of firearms over time:

    “There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” Ayn Rand

    Once they have made guns illegal to posess without them being registered, then they keep narrowing the requirements to legally possess them. 50 years from now, your grandkids will turn in grandpa's AR or AK or 1911 for an extra food ration.
     
  5. rdhood

    rdhood Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    943
    Biden is correct, and it is because the NICS DATABASE CANNOT BE TRUSTED!


    I was listed as a felon in the NICS system! I had to jump through hoops for a year to get it fixed. If the federal government started prosecuting everyone who failed NICS, then they would run into a fair number of database errors. Can you imagine the firestorm of controversy when the Feds start arresting/prosecuting innocent citizens because their frickin database was WRONG? Can you imagine hundreds of thousands of false arrest/imprisonment lawsuits... for big $$$... against the feds due to simple clerical errors at the local/state level (the error in my record was put there when some data entry personnel transfered paper court documents to the state database... which got transferred to the federal database).

    Sure, they would catch a fair number of unauthorized persons. But hundreds of thousands of innocent, law abiding citizens would be harmed for millions of dollars in damages and a HUGE blow to the credibility of the NICS system. As of now, they simply deny the sale and let the citizen initiate and work to clear things up. Many folks simply give up due to the cost and time associated with clearing their name (leaving the database "broken". Those that do follow up and clear their names doesn't cost the Feds anything at all, and makes their database more correct. In either case, though, a gun never got to a felon and it cost the Feds nothing. In the event that they started prosecutions, they would incur great cost and horrible publicity even with a 1% false failure rate. They cannot risk that.
     
  6. Tcruse

    Tcruse Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2011
    Messages:
    535
    Not only are there issues with the accuracy of the database, but also some grey area cases that may very well be subject to the actual wording on legal documents. In my CCW class there was a question about a 30 year old case when the person was 15, that required several exchanges of paperwork to clear up. In that case it turned out to not be something that stopped the person from getting CCW/buying a gun but was denied on first pass. He probably would have been OK to answer N to the question but could have been accused of false statements should it have gone the other way. Could be very expensive for both sides to be too picky in gray areas.
     
  7. bri

    bri Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    544
    Location:
    Mound, MN
    Why?

    Unless you're currently unable to purchase through an FFL, an improved background check system wouldn't hinder you in any way, in the future either.

    Edit:

    Hypothetically, if something like this were to be presented in Congress and had any hope of passing, it would need to contain enough concessions to have any hope of passing. Possibly including exemptions for family members, public access to the system, etc.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2013
  8. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,058
    Location:
    Virginia
    I think you're preaching to the converted. Meanwhile, the drive for "universal background checks" is gathering steam, even among our erstwhile friends. If we don't come up with some plausible counterproposals, and soon, we're going to be left in the dust on this. It does no good to bay at the moon.
     
  9. goon

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,251
    I wouldn't shed tears if background checks were more widespread and able to be done (or required to be done) by the average guy. No record other than a check was run - it could be for a Mini-14 or a single shot .22 but that information isn't kept.

    But at this point, they have decided not to work with gun owners. I say we give them nothing. Make them force the issue and expend political capital for everything they want, including background checks.
     
  10. Dean Weingarten

    Dean Weingarten Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    423
    It is all smoke and mirrors. They call it "Universal Background Checks" but it is really a big step to Universal Gun Registration.

    None of this would have stopped any of the recent shootings, so why are we even looking at it?

    Simple, it is what they think they can get at this time.
     
  11. TNBilly

    TNBilly Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2011
    Messages:
    220
    Location:
    East Tennessee
    Mr. Weingarten.. my thanks for many of your spot on thoughts! This keeps coming up HERE IMO because like most issues are 90% "spin", this one being no difference. Sometimes if not too many times I get the feeling many of the posters here are not supporters of the 2nd amendment, not really. Not surprising I guess but wearing not the less.
     
  12. Skribs

    Skribs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,807
    Location:
    Lakewood, Washington
    As long as the gun was sold on form 4473 prior to the law going into effect, they can't prove I sold the gun after it went into effect.
     
  13. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,415
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    As I've mentioned. This is the case in MA and to my knowledge the cheapest transfer fee is $50.00. Now say a friend wants to sell me his beat up single shot 12 gauge for $25. Now I have to pay twice the price just in fees to go through the government?
     
  14. jim in Anchorage

    jim in Anchorage Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,824
    Amazes me how gun owners like you don't think this to the end game. If I, a non FFL sell a gun to my buddy also a non FFL and we don't do a background check how can anyone know the transaction happened UNLESS ALL GUNS ARE REGISTERED?
     
    medalguy likes this.
  15. RX-79G

    RX-79G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,808
    We have decided not to work with them, which is entirely different.

    IF the wind is blowing in the direction of UBCs, we could certainly take control of the situation and end up with a wonderfully easy and toothless UBC system, but we are frankly too stupid to take this tactic and will let our enemies write the law.
     
  16. RX-79G

    RX-79G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,808
    They wouldn't, unless your friend used the gun in a crime and it was traced back to you.

    What your saying is the equivalent of "why have stop signs if there isn't a traffic camera or cop at every intersection". Most of our laws assume that people are going to do right when no one is monitoring them and that they will only be investigated if some other crime (like an accident) occurred.

    Is homicide a stupid law since there is no way of monitoring every person?
     
  17. jim in Anchorage

    jim in Anchorage Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,824
    And how would they trace it back to me unless it was put in a regestery? Do you honestly think anti gun polititions are just going to say gun owners are good guys and put this on a honor system?
     
  18. RX-79G

    RX-79G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,808
    The same way they trace guns, drugs, stolen merchandise now. Do you think every time the police recover stolen goods they just give up because it isn't already in a database?

    The basis of criminal laws is not that you must have universal monitoring or ubiquitous law enforcement for the laws to be enforceable. I don't know where gun people get this idea. And when we make that argument it is like saying "If you don't create a registry, I'm definitely going to become a criminal and ignore the UBC." That's a crazy argument to make about lawful gun owners.
     
  19. jim in Anchorage

    jim in Anchorage Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,824
    Again you seem to think they will not create a registry, and will be happy to trust gun owners on the honor system.
    "We created UBC. and detect non compliance(doesn't matter if there is or not) so we must pass a registry". You really think they will settle for just UBC?
    If so you really haven't been paying attention.
     
  20. RX-79G

    RX-79G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,808
    I don't know who "they" is, and I don't think you do either. I think there are lots of different "them" and some of them are only concerned about felons and the insane getting guns easily. Molifying that group may be preferable to pushing 'them' into bed with the Brady types.

    If a UBC was put forward that only recorded sales, but not gun information, it would do what a UBC is supposed to do: Keep law abiding gun owners from inadvertently selling guns to prohibited persons. That is the sole purpose of a UBC, and if conservative law makers insisted on no gun information being recorded for it to pass, then that's the way it would pass. No registry possible.

    However, if conservatives refuse to have anything to do with the writing of the law, and it manages to pass anyway, then you have the possibility of data being recorded that could be used for a registry.


    Personally, I don't advocate for UBCs, but I think it is dangerous and foolhardy to pretend it can't happen and that pro-gun people should not have a say in the drafting of such a law. And I think it is equally foolhardy to not understand both sides of the debate so our objections can't just be waved away as uninformed.
     
  21. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,738
    Location:
    CAAZ
    I agree that it would be nice to have a way to check out a buyer. That's the reason I've only sold to close friends or let a FFL deal with it as a trade-in (even when I was living in AZ)


    The issues Jim in Anchorage, and others, has brought up, and others, are just loop-holes to the Anti's.


    Even if UBC was passed with out registration, lets not forget that any gun you buy through an FFL after it passed will have to be sold through an FFL.

    The end game to UBC is registration. There is no doubt in my mind. Its the start to end the 4473 registry loop hole.



    The thing is, neither does any good. I have searched and can't find a single story in CA that their registry has prevented any crimes .... nor solved any crimes.

    Even if a law is passed forcing gun owners to report a stolen gun, as CA now has, with-in 'X' number of day, the clock starts from when you 'knew or reasonably should have known' the gun was stolen.

    So, non-prohibitive BG#1 gives BG#2 a gun (assuming BG#2 doesn't acquire a stolen gun himself). BG#2 uses it in a crime and gets caught. Police go to BG#1 and he says "That's not my gun... I keep it locked up secure in my garage...let me show you.... HOLY SMOKES! Ive been ROBBED. Good thing you cops are here cause Id like to file a police report for my stolen gun."
     
    Deanimator likes this.
  22. jim in Anchorage

    jim in Anchorage Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,824
    Your mind set is remarkably trusting. Who are "they"? The people that just want guns out of the hands of "felons and the insane"? Just "common sense" gun laws, right?
    You're going to put you're faith in the Chuck Shumers, H Clinton's, Obama etc to stop at UBCs? You honestly think its not a stepping stone to 100% registraton?
    And we should just work to pass a bad law to avoid a worse one?
    So you gave up?
    Edit: not you 71. I was responding to rx79g
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2016
  23. RX-79G

    RX-79G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,808
    Why would it have to go through an FFL? All that's being discussed is a background check, and people do that all the time already without going to a physical location. It's a frankly odd assumption that a UBC would have to go through an FFL or anyone else. It just needs to be done.

    For this to be accurate and true, no homicide could have ever come after a felon or someone with a block on buying through an FFL bought a gun off Armslist from a legit seller. You seem to be almost suggesting that the greatest majority of people advertising private gun sales would happily sell their gun to a criminal.

    We know that many guns used by criminals are purchased from other criminals, but many people who commit murder with a firearm have no criminal connections and rely on legitimate gun sellers to get the guns they use.
     
  24. wojownik

    wojownik Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,872
    I'm all for "common sense" restrictions ... on the activities of government employees, and those who write the rules enabling the activities of gov't employees.

    I've mused over the idea of tying UBC to mandatory criminal penalties - severe ones - for any government employee that approves, maintains or participates in the creation of a gun registry from information involved in the conduct of the background check, or otherwise stores or uses information pertaining to the UBC for any purpose other than determining the immediate approval of an individual.

    Further, I would like any UBC to repeal the language in the Brady bill that says "(5) Neither a local government nor an employee of the Federal Government or of any State or local government, responsible for providing information to the national instant criminal background check system shall be liable in an action at law for damages .... (B) for preventing such a sale or transfer to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a handgun." Rather, a government employee should be explicitly liable for damages if they prevent what should otherwise have been a lawful sale or transfer.

    A quid pro quo - if UBC is just to keep guns out of the hands of prohibited people, then misuse of - or conspiracy to misuse - any UBC information by a government employee should be at the level of a "high crime or misdemeanor," carrying mandatory sentencing requirements of substantial prison time, civil fines, and permanent disbarment from Federal employment. Because the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right, any limitation to that right like a UBC must be be exceedingly well defined, with substantial penalties for any who would further abridge the right.

    Oh, and with this fantasy solution, UBC should be free to the citizen, deliver an immediate response, be accessible via Internet or phone, and be "shall approve" if UBC does not render a decision within 15 minutes. And a simple method of appealing any unfavorable report by a UBC (simpler than NICS).

    In other words, a UBC must be the least restrictive means of achieving the government interest, and the limitations on the government must be conversely the most restrictive.

    UBC should equally be a measure restricting the ability of the gov't to further encroach on the 2nd Amendment by levying scary penalties on gov't bureaucrats, managers, executives and political appointees. That sort of thing can have quite the chilling effect.

    Just a thought exercise.

    I might give UBC a brief second look if there were such restrictions and limits. Otherwise, not interested.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2016
    RX-79G likes this.
  25. RX-79G

    RX-79G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,808
    Trusting? Hardly. The pro-gun people are "trusting" the anti-gunners to write the gun laws because we won't. I want to subvert that process, where necessary, by writing relatively benign and toothless laws. That takes the power away from the gun banners by satisfying the middle of the road people that "something was done", and gives us the opportunity to control the situation.

    Imagine a gun sale background check that can be performed on a phone or PC, costs $5 or less to do, gives immediate results, can be done anywhere and where the only gun information entered is the number of items sold. And there is no liability to the seller as long as the check is performed. And imagine that this UBC, by law, supersedes all state UBCs, which are all currently more restrictive. How is a UBC that prevents going to your FFL, prevents the gathering of registry data, indemnifies the seller against liability and shuts the worst of the banners up not a net win?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page