‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not

[RX-79G]

I don't follow you. If there is no record or proof I sold a gun, how can I be held liable?
Honestly if you're that worried about it insist on going though a FFL. for all your private transactions. No need for a law.
As far as a federal law overwriting a more restrictive state law, I cannot think of a single instance of that.
I believe the burden is on the state, not the defendant, to prove I had reason to believe I was selling to a prohibited person.

We already covered that. The LE can investigate who owned a serialized firearm by starting with the FFL and work forward. They do that all the time.

It appears that I have to remind everyone again that I am not in favor of a UBC on its merits. I'm saying that a UBC we control is VASTLY superior to the kind inflicted on us. It could be cheap (because the law says it will be), avoid data collection, take place without supervision anywhere, supersede restrictive state UBCs and co-opt the gun banners by stealing their base.

If you believe President Trump will be working closely with a GOP controlled Congress to install 2A loving Supreme Court, please ignore the discussion.

 

[barnbwt]

"I'm sure there is nothing that you'd find interesting, but I would point out that the NICS was an upgrade in convenience for most gun buyers from the previous patchwork of systems."
Eforms was also a step up in convenience for NFA buyers. Somehow making it easy for more people to outright register their weapons still wasn't good enough, it had to also be a colossal pain in the rear.

"I really can't have a discussion with you about funding a self service background check system if you keep adding a registry to it, since I'm specifically talking about a system that has no registry. You're talking about something else."
Please do explain how you enforce a UBC without a registry that records who/what of every transaction, and if not, how an unenforceable UBC law is of any use whatsoever. Explain how a system with no registry is able to call up personal details that would disqualify. Explain how such a system would not be abused for non-gun purposes (job application, duh-hoy!)

I get the distinct impression that an ATF ad-campaign urging people to voluntarily go to the local FFL & shell out 20$ for the pleasure of being told your cousin is (still) a legal buyer would be about as effective as the 'unregistered' background check schemes I've seen floated ("oh, they'll delete every transaction" --sure they'll destroy evidence of the transaction, sure)

TCB

 

[jim in Anchorage]

I'm sure there is nothing that you'd find interesting, but I would point out that the NICS was an upgrade in convenience for most gun buyers from the previous patchwork of systems.

I really can't have a discussion with you about funding a self service background check system if you keep adding a registry to it, since I'm specifically talking about a system that has no registry. You're talking about something else.

No you're not talking about a registry. But as I and others are trying to point out it is a foregone conclusion to a UBC. A UBC. is simply unenforceable without it.

 

[RX-79G]

Barnbwt, to quote, highlight the section you want to quote and a blue flag will appear saying "Reply". Click that flag.

 

[RX-79G]

Please do explain how you enforce a UBC without a registry that records who/what of every transaction, and if not, how an unenforceable UBC law is of any use whatsoever. Explain how a system with no registry is able to call up personal details that would disqualify. Explain how such a system would not be abused for non-gun purposes (job application, duh-hoy!)

I already explained that laws in the US don't normally required an iron clad enforcement system. Every stop light doesn't have cameras. I don't know where this idea comes from.

Our laws are enforced through investigation by LE, And LE tracks FTF purchases all the time.

 

[barnbwt]

"The LE can investigate who owned a serialized firearm by starting with the FFL and work forward. They do that all the time."
I recall a study that found the average age of most guns found at crime scenes was like ten years, and many owners, most of the most recent ones obviously illegal and indeterminable. They get traded around rapidly at that point, making a trace upon recovery of dubious utility most times. Awful lot of them were stolen as the mechanism by which they jumped out of legality. UBCs do not impact any of this. BTW, the way a trace works is investigators ping the manufacturer who keeps complete records of distribution, follow down to the first FFL, then 'Acquire Form 4473' to determine the first buyer, and at that point it's word of mouth. Like practically everything shown on CSI, it's not nearly as relevant in the vast majority of cases as the immediate evidence at the scene & witness testimony.

At some point, chasing serial numbers is very much like chasing micro stamped brass; more confusing and wasteful than productive.

"I'm saying that a UBC we control is VASTLY superior to the kind inflicted on us."
Explain what keeps the anti's from offering "commonsense" amendments that make the process onerous or expensive. If we have such an overwhelming majority as to control the debate, why are we even having this debate & not instead repealing the NFA (for example)? Exactly how does passing UBC's on 'our terms' end the discussion once and for all, settling the issue so it cannot be raised again on less 'favorable' terms? How does our pursuing 'moderate' UBC's not *force* the anti's to adopt an even more radical position on UBC's?

TCB

 

[JSH1]

One positive aspect of passing UBCs now is that we could get something for it. (Suppressors as regular accessories, elimination of stupid rules on minimum barrel lengths, nationwide concealed carry, etc) As states pass UBCs one by one that leverage goes away until we get to a tipping point and they pass at the Federal level and we get nothing.

 

[RX-79G]

Explain what keeps the anti's from offering "commonsense" amendments that make the process onerous or expensive.

Because a bipartisan law that will pass is more attractive to Democrats than a highly restrictive law that might fail and cause them to lose their constituency at the next election.

If you truly believe every Democrat wants to ban all guns and every Republican congressman wants to repeal all gun control, then this conversation isn't going to make any sense to you. But politicians are expedient people who spend half their time fundraising and trying to appear re-electable.

UBCs do not impact any of this.

I didn't say that they did. That's your idea. What I said was that a law does not need to be and should not be perfectly enforceable because most sellers are not interested in committing a crime. They do not need the coercion of perfect enforcement isn't necessary to get law abiding sellers to do their half of a UBC. A UBC has nothing to do with criminal sellers, just criminal buyers.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Because a bipartisan law that will pass is more attractive to Democrats than a highly restrictive law that might fail and cause them to lose their constituency at the next election.

If you truly believe every Democrat wants to ban all guns and every Republican congressman wants to repeal all gun control, then this conversation isn't going to make any sense to you. But politicians are expedient people who spend half their time fundraising and trying to appear re-electable.


I didn't say that they did. That's your idea. What I said was that a law does not need to be and should not be perfectly enforceable because most sellers are not interested in committing a crime. They do not need the coercion of perfect enforcement isn't necessary to get law abiding sellers to do their half of a UBC. A UBC has nothing to do with criminal sellers, just criminal buyers.

Again if you wish to handle all your private gun transactions through a FFL. do it.
No need for a law.
And you never responded to my question do I as a private seller have to be a expert on fake ID.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

One positive aspect of passing UBCs now is that we could get something for it. (Suppressors as regular accessories, elimination of stupid rules on minimum barrel lengths, nationwide concealed carry, etc) As states pass UBCs one by one that leverage goes away until we get to a tipping point and they pass at the Federal level and we get nothing.

I don't think passing a UBC. is going to be a horse trade.

 

[barnbwt]

"Because a bipartisan law that will pass is more attractive to Democrats than a highly restrictive law that might fail and cause them to lose their constituency at the next election."
Ah, like the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994...right? They sure learned their lesson on that one, or not. Or Obamacare, for that matter. No, they are getting more brazen at steamrolling the opposition, if anything (both sides, just Republicans aren't in as good a position to do so)

"If you truly believe every Democrat wants to ban all guns and every Republican congressman wants to repeal all gun control, then this conversation isn't going to make any sense to you. But politicians are expedient people who spend half their time fundraising and trying to appear re-electable."
I truly believe that if the issue is to be finally settled, as you claim is the goal with all this strategy, it will end with either all or nothing. We existed for centuries with few if any federal controls on civilian firearms, there are other nations who existed for centuries with few if any provisions for civilian firearms. Anything in the middle is an inherently unstable situation that is progressing to one logical conclusion or the other.

"One positive aspect of passing UBCs now is that we could get something for it. (Suppressors as regular accessories, elimination of stupid rules on minimum barrel lengths, nationwide concealed carry, etc)"
Cool; let's let the anti's make the pitch with their hat in hand, for a change. Oh wait, the only reason we're entertaining breaking bread with them is because we're terrified they're about to be in charge again! Do you really think they aren't similarly aware, and salivating at the chance to go after us after ten straight years of humiliation? Why would they give us anything? When have they ever given us anything? We have compromised so many times, given so much up, even when we had a seat at the table, and all it gets us is more unassailable statute, and more bad legal precedent. The last 'good' gun law passed at the federal level was FOPA, and the machinegun ban is coming home to roost in the form of assault weapons bans affecting semi-autos at large.

There is definitely a give and take in politics, and there will be too on the gun issue. But we need to be playing for keeps, because the other side most certainly is (contrary to RX's assurances, everywhere that Democrat anti-gunners spearheading the national pushes have been given free reign, guns were effectively banned, and it is only in the last few decades after a couple big if short-lived SCOTUS wins that places like DC, Chicago, and Detroit regained even a semblance of a RKBA). That means finding areas where we can stake a claim, and reinforce it. As I suggested, more thorough controls & oversight of the kinds of data the feds can gather on us is a good area. But in the end, most of it needs to be repeals --not rewrites-- of the statutes that have piled up. We already have a dedicated amendment to the constitution 'settling' this issue once and for all, and even that nuclear option wasn't enough. Only way to settle it in the end is to so discredit the gun control movement that every last one of their measures is repealed (similar to what ultimately happened to the Prohibitionists, once the big flagship measure is defeated, the rest soon follow) and the idea of federal gun control laws are once again labeled as fringe kook policy incompatible with our system.

 

[Old Dog]

As a resident of a state that's had UBCs foisted upon us for almost two years now, I can tell you that I-594 pretty much killed off probably 90% of private sales of firearms in our state. We had a thriving private sale/trade market going, pretty much self-regulated; I'd say most sellers wanted to see a valid CPL (proof of a background check) as cursory due diligence to prevent from knowingly selling to a prohibited person. This pretty much worked for everybody, and almost all recovered crime guns in our state proved to have been stolen, not procured through private sales, the "gun show loophole" or straw purchases.

Have UBCs in our state prevented any "gun crime?" Impossible to know, and likely not. After almost two years, we are finally seeing our first prosecution for a violation of I-594 because some assclown sold a Phoenix Arms HP-22 to a teenager who used it commit a murder (three crimes there, under-age possessor, under the age to legally carry a concealed firearm so no license, and then that pesky homicide rap).

So after living with UBCs for a bit now, what I know is this: it costs legal sellers and buyers a lot of extra money and time (typically $35 - $75 at one's local FFL and an hour or so) to sell or buy through a private sale. Have the UBCs in Washington state prevented any crimes?

 

[barnbwt]

"What I said was that a law does not need to be and should not be perfectly enforceable because most sellers are not interested in committing a crime."
So, the purpose of this law is to force the law-abiding (who are law-abiding i.e. not part of the crime problem) to undergo additional restrictions/expense (you ARE aware there is exactly one FFL in DC who charges like 100$ per gun, right?) simply so they can prove to anti-gun bigots who see them as primitive brutes that they are law-abiding and not part of the crime problem.

Feel free to explain how this is anything more significant than so-called 'virtue signaling' without any productive result. Even the anti-gunners know it's worthless, which is why they immediately demand more proof from us of just how law-abiding we are. Until you end up with gun control schemes so confusing & convoluted that it becomes downright dangerous to obey the law*, in addition to the expense & difficulty. It's all about discouraging the undesirable behavior, and controlling it where possible (which is to say among the law-abiding)

TCB

*Have you ever built or assembled a firearm, RX?

 

[LoonWulf]

Here in hawaii we have a dumbed down variation of UBC, any firearms transfer has to be accompanied by a permit. To get your ORIGINAL permit there is a background check.
Long guns the permit must be renewed once a year, each handgun requires a specific permit. Honestly i havent had much of an issue with it.
The wait on handgun permits is usually 2 weeks.
You can keep your long gun permit active for indefinitely as long as you renew a couple weeks before it expires.

I think its actually a pretty good system. The pistol permits i think should be yearly as the rifles are, but its easy enough to work with.

 

[barnbwt]

"I can tell you that I-594 pretty much killed off probably 90% of private sales of firearms in our state"
Well clearly those were all illegal sales to felons; why would any law abiding person blink at the opportunity to drive all the way to the local gun store, and shell out 20$ to complete an invasive personal check to prove their virtue of character to the state in order to sell a bolt action?

 

[Old Dog]

"I can tell you that I-594 pretty much killed off probably 90% of private sales of firearms in our state"
Well clearly those were all illegal sales to felons; why would any law abiding person blink at the opportunity to drive all the way to the local gun store, and shell out 20$ to complete an invasive personal check to prove their virtue of character to the state in order to sell a bolt action?

Uh yeah, quite a bit more than $20 these days hereabouts. Seems to average about $40 in the greater Puget Sound region, up to $75 or so if you stroll in with your buyer/seller unannounced. And if you are familiar with the geography of the Puget Sound area, the ferries and the traffic, you know there are no short drives to the local gun shop.

Oh, and yeah, I caught the sarcasm there ...

 

[RX-79G]

And you never responded to my question do I as a private seller have to be a expert on fake ID.

No. The IDs could be scanned.

 

[RX-79G]

So, the purpose of this law is to force the law-abiding (who are law-abiding i.e. not part of the crime problem) to undergo additional restrictions/expense (you ARE aware there is exactly one FFL in DC who charges like 100$ per gun, right?) simply so they can prove to anti-gun bigots who see them as primitive brutes that they are law-abiding and not part of the crime problem.

Correct. Which is why if we write the law it would be $5, not $100 and a check they can do themselves.

You're selling it better than I can, since you keep talking about what happens when you let the antis write the laws.

 

[Deanimator]

One positive aspect of passing UBCs now is that we could get something for it. (Suppressors as regular accessories, elimination of stupid rules on minimum barrel lengths, nationwide concealed carry, etc) As states pass UBCs one by one that leverage goes away until we get to a tipping point and they pass at the Federal level and we get nothing.

Gun owners are not going to get any more for sham "universal background checks" than the Czechs got for the Sudetenland.

1. The other side are the very model of deceit and duplicity.
2. They're not going to concede ANYTHING. Why should they if we SURRENDER without a fight?

This is all about creating a gap in the defenses of the gun owners' rights movement.

The anti-gun cult DESPERATELY wants ANY concession which it can point to as agreement. Thereafter comes the flood.

There is a hard core of fifth columnists working to help them.

 

[Deanimator]

Because a bipartisan law that will pass is more attractive to Democrats than a highly restrictive law that might fail and cause them to lose their constituency at the next election.

You mean like Obamacare?

That's the REAL model. A pig in a poke, deceitfully DESIGNED to fail, paving the way for what they REALLY want.

 

[danez71]

No. The IDs could be scanned.

From this and your other posts in this thread.....

So you're proposing that there is to be UBC computer kiosks set up, independent of FFLs, so people can walk up, swipe their ATM to pay their $5 and then swipe the buyers drivers license or I.D. card and no records will be kept?

And in show of good faith, they also give us something in return, like suppressors?

And I'm supposed to believe that the Anti Dems will support anything similar to this, without amendments, in order to not loose the support of the Anti constituents?

 

[Bang!]

NICS can't keep up now. They surely couldn't keep up if private sales were added to the workload. Make NICS bigger? More government? No.

This stuff of, "give up our rights while we control the process", is still giving up rights.

Here's an idea. Let's use the laws we have now to stop criminals. Instead of making new laws to make more criminals.

These threads are infuriating and I try really hard to pass them by. SMH

 

[Robert]

For some unknown reason we decided to dig up a nearly 4 year old thread to bicker for 3 pages? Nope. We are done here.