A new take on so-called UBCs

[JRH6856]

Is there a law that prevents the ID# issuer from sharing the gathered info with a 3rd party?

We are all a "person of interest"

There may be a law that prohibits sharing, but there is no law that can prevent it. There are laws that prohibit NSA from collecting much of the info it has on file, but obviously the laws don't prevent it.

 

[Sniper66]

Nice try Hypnogater. I appreciate your thoughtful effort, but, frankly, trying to make UBCs acceptable is like trying to pick up a turd from the clean end.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Is there a law that prevents the ID# issuer from sharing the gathered info with a 3rd party?

I haven't heard of any except the Hipaa law regarding medical records. The state routinely shares information with LE agencies if they are investigating someone. They even use photo matching software to see if your DL photo matches fugitives at large.

I'm one of these people who have given up on my privacy after I watched the Frontline special on the NSA after 9/11. I had a pretty good look at being a "person of interest" when I tried to board a flight in 2002. I couldn't get a boarding pass and I missed my flight because of something the airline didn't like about my passport and DL. For about 2 years I was delayed trying to board.

I'm pretty sure your records are being used in ways you never imagined by more people than you think. I'm retired so I don't care too much anymore about people trying to use my personal info against me. When I was working I kept things locked up as much as I could. I had several email accounts and used one as a backup for all my mail because I knew my employer was reading my mail. It came in handy a couple of times to refute some false assertions by my supervisor. He finally learned I had more info. than he did.

I wouldn't have any problem having my CPP on my DL. It's going to come up on the screen when the LEO runs my plates anyway.

 

[DT Guy]

It would, however, be visible to every clerk who asks for your ID....and so would your address. I'd rethink that one.


Larry

 

[JRH6856]

It would, however, be visible to every clerk who asks for your ID....and so would your address. I'd rethink that one.


Larry

Not necessarily. The CPP would not have to be visible. It could be magnetically encoded so it would only be readable by an LEO scanning it. OTOH, the BC code would be visible so it could be seen by private parites.

 

[jerkface11]

Yup sounds way easier and simpler than keeping dangerous people locked up.

 

[abajaj11]

Here is what I wrote on the opencarry.org site a few days ago. I was responding to a thread about someone who has concerns about the UBC.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?108209-Screwing-up-the-Gun-Registry

His comments

"I expect a nation wide registry of all firearms sometime in the near future. I don't like the idea but I truly expect it to happen.

I believe the law will worded in such a way that if you just bring your weapon, (short gun or long gun) to the DMV for example and you will be given a title to that particular firearm. After a reasonable amount of time any weapons that happen to be found and not registered will be confiscated and the owner will suffer a stiff prison term. For a while a person will still be able to purchase a new firearm and will be able to transfer a firearm, but only by going to the DMV to record the transfer. Most people being law abiding citizens will register their firearms. Then when the government is ready they will take what they want. At that point only the government and criminals will have weapons.

Again I don't like the idea, but I am afraid this is what is in the future."

My Comments :

"I think you are correct and on the mark. I have some thoughts I'd like to share after spending time studying their tactics...

They are pushing like hell to get UBC passed. Ask yourself why is this? Why is Bloomberg spending tons of money for his Mom's group to take their bus tours from State Capitol to State Capitol pitching their UBC. Why is Gabby also making tours to the legislatures from state to state? Why is UBC so important to these people? Because Universal Background Checks are one step toward registration and then confiscation.

IF UBC passes nationwide. They could make a ruling after that UBC becomes law that all firearms in private hands will have to go through UBC regardless if it will be sold or not or it cannot be sold later on.

At first the owner will have a choice, if the firearm doesn't go through UBC. Then the owner cannot will it to heirs or sell it at a later date. They will have a cutoff date or amnesty. The owner dies the gun gets forfeited to the government.

However gun owners who get their firearms passed through UBC will be allowed later on to sell the firearm or pass it to heirs. See? Each firearm will be issued a registration card as "proof that it went through the UBC".


(Think that is farfetched? Dianne Feinstein proposed exactly that in 2012 right after Newtown. On a bill she was working on from a year before that!)

They are going to pitch this steaming pile to the public as a way "to protect gun owners" from accusations that the firearms they own are contraband. The registration card title "will be proof that the owner complied with the new law and is able to keep their firearms" (that have registration card certificates).

Then they will change the law to declare that all firearms that never went through the UBC is now totally contraband and must be forfeited to the government. Even if the owner is still alive...now that earlier exemption is gone. Now it will be that you cannot possess or own that firearm without that 'title of registration card' even if you have no plans to sell it later on or leave it to heirs.

Then they will change the law again that gun owners must have a personal firearms license in order to hold a registration certificate for a firearm. Now we will have the licensing of owners as well. And then they will tighten restrictions along the way as to who can get licensed.

Then at a later date, the government will declare that several classes of firearms will have to be forfeited to the government. (Probably after some staged 'false-flag' shooting event bought on by the overuse of SSRI 'medications'). They will use those personal firearms licenses to go after the gun owners and the registration certificate titles to track down the firearms.

And how would they 'confiscate' personal property? They would do it the same way the IRS does it already. They will use the same legal tactics and forfeiture laws used by the IRS. Everyone knows that the IRS can confiscate cars, houses, bank accounts, garnish wages and seize every kind of property one can think of.

And no...I am not talking some tin foil harebrained scheme. I have studied their tactics for years. This is why Gabby, Bloomberg and company are making their bus tours from State Capitol to State Capitol pitching their UBC. It is the first step to gun registration and the ultimate end to our freedoms............ "



.

Seems like some republicans may be looking to cave on the "gun show loophole" and may be OK with requiring federally mandated NIC checks for ALL sales, even those private FTF sales in states.

Here IMHO is why this is a really bad idea:

1. There is no Gun show loophole. The exact same state and federal laws hold IN a gun show as outside it. Closing the "gun show loophole" means basically mandating at the federal level that all sales of firearms HAVE to go through NIC checks (Form 4473).

2. Think about how a federally mandated background check on ALL firearms will be implemented. Right now, only firearms sold through FFL dealers have to pass a NICs (Form 4473) test in all states, and in some states the state laws mandate that all transfers have to be through an FFL dealer. The feds regulate the FFL dealers and do not keep records of transactions, but the FFL dealers have to. If an FFL dealer goes out of business, those records go to ATF for storage, and are never lost. Now imagine extending this requirement to ALL buyers and sellers of firearms. Well this is impossible.

So the feds will say, well let us just require all states to do what california, for example, does already. All transfers must go through an FFL. But what to do about the millions of unregistered guns in the USA? How do the feds know who owns them? If they don't know who owns them, how will they verify that ALL guns are being sold after a NICS check? Well, the FEDs will come back and say: "We cannot implement your new law unless you allow us to register all firearms". So the inevitable next step to mandating background check on ALL firearm sales will be a demand to Congress that all firearms be registered, without which the law will be impossible to enforce.

Registration is a VERY bad idea. Registration will not prevent a crime since a legal gun may be stolen and used by a criminal (like in the Newtown case) and of course a criminal will never register an illegitimate gun they may already own.
So, the only reason for registration is keeping tabs on legal gun owners, and if needed, confiscation of firearms.

Since the 2A was written to provide a well regulated (trained) populace that could be stronger than any standing army that a tyrant could raise, the LAST thing the armed populace wants is for potential tyrants to know who has what firearm. That is why this insidious "background checks for all sales" bill MUST be resisted. it will open the door to registration in a year or two.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Midwest]

B]Registration is a VERY bad idea.[/B] Registration will not prevent a crime since a legal gun may be stolen and used by a criminal (like in the Newtown case) and of course a criminal will never register an illegitimate gun they may already own.

So, the only reason for registration is keeping tabs on legal gun owners, and if needed, confiscation of firearms.

Since the 2A was written to provide a well regulated (trained) populace that could be stronger than any standing army that a tyrant could raise, the LAST thing the armed populace wants is for potential tyrants to know who has what firearm.

That is why this insidious "background checks for all sales" bill MUST be resisted. it will open the door to registration in a year or two.
Just my 2 cents.

Exactly! 100 % on the money

Registration is what led to this below in Australia. I want everyone to copy and print up this notice and the next time someone mentions "Universal Background Checks". Give them a copy of the notice!

 

[PAULREVERE]

No "check" or "license" should be required for a constitutional,God given right. Absolutely no way to UBC.

 

[freyasman]

No.

 

[CoalTrain49]

It would, however, be visible to every clerk who asks for your ID....and so would your address. I'd rethink that one.

My address is already on my DL. I don't let anyone scan my DL. The only people that need to see my DL is LE, FFL and maybe my bank. I've never had anyone even ask to scan it and if they do it's a no.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I believe a background check is being confused with gun registration. Gun registration should not be a part of a background check. A background check should deal only with a persons criminal and possibly their medical records to insure that they are not prohibited to purchase or own a firearm. I'm not sure why everyone keeps tying these two together because they are totally two separate issues. You can run a BC without firearm information if it is set up that way. They do that here all the time to issue a CPP. I know because I've had one for 20+ years and it has been renewed many times. A FFL/NICS is not involved in that BC. They probably go to the NSA for that.

The NICS is also a BC. On that form they ask for the SN of the firearm but they shouldn't. By law they are supposed to purge the entire record of that check in 3 days. Do they, I have no idea, but by law they are supposed to. If the law were superseded in congress with a new one it should be void of any SN information. The ATF already has a record of where the firearm was shipped because the mfg has to log it out and the FFL has to log it in and out. He has to keep a record of who he transferred the gun to. That's where the registry is if there is one. That's why the ATF keeps trying to scan the logs using the pretext that they are investigating someone. BS, they are trying to build a gun registry and many FFL's let them do it.

The fed and state are two different gov't entities and operate under different sets of statutes. Here the state AG sets the rules for a business license and if you want to do business as an FFL you are required to have the purchaser register the handgun. Bingo, they have a registry and that can be shared with the ATF or any other LEA.

Again, a BC doesn't have to be and shouldn't be a registry. If the AG crowd wants a UBC then I say let them have one but before it happens they scrap the old NICS form and require only personal information on that check, not firearm information. And while they are writing the new legislation there should be attached language that deals specifically with property rights of gun owners like what is found here in WA I-591. It is unlawful for any government agency to confiscate guns or other firearms from citizens without due process.

 

[abajaj11]

I believe a background check is being confused with gun registration. Gun registration should not be a part of a background check. A background check should deal only with a persons criminal and possibly their medical records to insure that they are not prohibited to purchase or own a firearm. I'm not sure why everyone keeps tying these two together because they are totally two separate issues. You can run a BC without firearm information if it is set up that way. They do that here all the time to issue a CPP. I know because I've had one for 20+ years and it has been renewed many times. A FFL/NICS is not involved in that BC. They probably go to the NSA for that.

The NICS is also a BC. On that form they ask for the SN of the firearm but they shouldn't. By law they are supposed to purge the entire record of that check in 3 days. Do they, I have no idea, but by law they are supposed to. If the law were superseded in congress with a new one it should be void of any SN information. The ATF already has a record of where the firearm was shipped because the mfg has to log it out and the FFL has to log it in and out. He has to keep a record of who he transferred the gun to. That's where the registry is if there is one. That's why the ATF keeps trying to scan the logs using the pretext that they are investigating someone. BS, they are trying to build a gun registry and many FFL's let them do it.

The fed and state are two different gov't entities and operate under different sets of statutes. Here the state AG sets the rules for a business license and if you want to do business as an FFL you are required to have the purchaser register the handgun. Bingo, they have a registry and that can be shared with the ATF or any other LEA.

Again, a BC doesn't have to be and shouldn't be a registry. If the AG crowd wants a UBC then I say let them have one but before it happens they scrap the old NICS form and require only personal information on that check, not firearm information. And while they are writing the new legislation there should be attached language that deals specifically with property rights of gun owners like what is found here in WA I-591. It is unlawful for any government agency to confiscate guns or other firearms from citizens without due process.

How can the government have a mandated background check for EVERY firearm sale and then not be able to monitor if the law is being followed? That is like saying we have a federal speed limit but then there is no way to actually clock the speed of cars on the road.

Suppose you had 5 guns. You sold one to your neighbour. Without a background check. How would the Feds know you did that and broke the Universal Background Check (UBC) Law? They would have NO WAY OF KNOWING it because they did not know you had that gun in the first place.

Congress cannot pass a law and then deny the Executive branch the ability to monitor if the law is being followed or broken. The only way to monitor the UBC law with any degree of effectiveness is to have a database of who owns what firearms, so if it is sold and shows up somewhere else, the Feds can know if UBC was followed or not.

All POTUS and Attorney general Holder are eagerly waiting for, IMHO, is one little bone from Congress...just one little "reasonable, common-sense" UBC law....then they are off running...it will happen so quickly that it will take our breath away... I give it 2-3 years before confiscations are routine and we have been effectively disarmed..

Check out this link:
http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/doj-memo-outlaw-and-confiscate-all-guns

To summarize, the ONLY way to monitor if a universal background check is being performed is by knowing who owns what. If the government does not know who owns what, then how will they know that a sale even took place?
Knowing who owns what is registration. . That is why you will see the anti-2Aers push this again and again.

 

[Apuuli]

Speeding laws are only enforced when the breaking of them is observed. My car is not equipped with a monitoring system that tells the highway patrol my driving speed all the time, ergo speeding laws are unenforceable, at least with that line of thought.

It would be easy enough to set up sting operations to catch some people in the act of selling without a BC. EVERY instance of a law being broken does not have to lead to an arrest for the law to be enforced by catching SOME people breaking the laws.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Suppose you had 5 guns. You sold one to your neighbour. Without a background check. How would the Feds know you did that and broke the Universal Background Check (UBC) Law? They would have NO WAY OF KNOWING it because they did not know you had that gun in the first place.

They would know if my neighbor told the police I sold it to him to do a plea bargain after he shot someone with it.

I run all my sales through a FFL for that reason.

I want substantiated proof that I sold that gun and it was not in my possession after a certain date.

You do it however you want but I know what attorneys fees are these days.

 

[Spats McGee]

Smart people don't sell guns without going through a BC anyway. $25 is cheap insurance. A good attorney is $300 an hour. Your call.

I disagree. Using a BC and being smart are two entirely separate issues. Smart people comply with the law, but the law doesn't require a BC unless an FFL is making the transfer.

I agree with other posters that pointed out that UBC's are largely unenforceable without registration. If UBCs ever become law, the next step will be registration, and it will follow closely on the heels of the UBCs. History tells us that the anti-gun folks will consider UBCs "a good first step."

 

[Midwest]

Congress cannot pass a law and then deny the Executive branch the ability to monitor if the law is being followed or broken. The only way to monitor the UBC law with any degree of effectiveness is to have a database of who owns what firearms, so if it is sold and shows up somewhere else, the Feds can know if UBC was followed or not.


All POTUS and Attorney general Holder are eagerly waiting for, IMHO, is one little bone from Congress...just one little "reasonable, common-sense" UBC law....then they are off running...it will happen so quickly that it will take our breath away... I give it 2-3 years before confiscations are routine and we have been effectively disarmed..


To summarize, the ONLY way to monitor if a universal background check is being performed is by knowing who owns what. If the government does not know who owns what, then how will they know that a sale even took place?
Knowing who owns what is registration. . That is why you will see the anti-2Aers push this again and again.

I am pretty much in agreement with you. I give it 5 to 10 years for the total confiscation part.

I think before this year is out, UBC will pass and signed into law early next year (especially if people sit on their butt and stay home and don't vote in November).

I think the roundups/confiscations would be in five years after UBC gets signed into law because they are going to make it seem that "there has to be a way to protect gun owners to prove that there latest firearms actually went through the UBC" < see that is the key right there.

So they will introduce legislation saying that in order to avoid being blamed for having a firearm that didn't go through UBC after a certain date.

Some sort of registration of the firearm will be needed 'prove' that the owner DID transfer it through UBC. (Or how else can it work????)

They will make it look like they are there to protect the gun owner by issuing a registration card as "proof" ... In order "to protect the gun owner" from being accused of having a weapon that didn't go through the UBC after the law goes into effect.

So once this is established after a year or so, then they will pass another law saying that all firearms will have to go through the UBC regardless if they are sold or not. And after a certain date, the firearm will be contraband. Which means it can no longer be transferred, sold, or used in any manner.

More steps

Then in order to be possess a UBC firearm, they will pass licensing of gun owners. The UBC registration firearm numbers will be tied to the gun owners license.

Then they will have an increasing list of conditions and restrictions on who can hold a license.

From this point on all they would have to do is to outlaw a whole class of weapons and declare them contraband. Surrender them to the government for a few $$$ or face 10 years in jail just like what they did in Australia.

Universal Background Checks are the main path toward firearms registration and eventual confiscation in this country. Don't ever let it happen. If UBC goes through we are toast, we lost the battle.

If we let UBC pass, we are no longer a free nation.

If UBC passes we have essentially pissed on the grave of every soldier, every man and woman who died fighting to keep our country free.

.

 

[CoalTrain49]

It would be easy enough to set up sting operations to catch some people in the act of selling without a BC. EVERY instance of a law being broken does not have to lead to an arrest for the law to be enforced by catching SOME people breaking the laws.

Always somebody trying to fly under the radar. I guess that's why attorneys drive Mercedes.

 

[happygeek]

The GCA of 1968, although labeled as gun control, is primarily people control being a personal background check.

You seem to be confusing the 68 GCA with the 94 Brady Law.

I find it odd that these discussions always seem to leave out the question of whether background checks actually reduce the homicide rate ... (http://mcrkba.org/LudwigCookJAMA.pdf)

 

[CoalTrain49]

You seem to be confusing the 68 GCA with the 94 Brady Law.

Yep, I got it wrong. I also know that a UBC won't do anything to change the homicide rate but I think a lot of people underestimate how popular a UBC is. I guess we'll find out how popular it is here in WA. in Nov. I could be wrong but I think we're going to get one shoved down our throats.

 

[happygeek]

I'm not trying to nitpick, honest

I bring it up in order to point out that the 68 GCA wasn't about background checks, those wouldn't come until 26 years later.

Which leads me to wonder what the GCA was about ...

 

[abajaj11]

Speeding laws are only enforced when the breaking of them is observed. My car is not equipped with a monitoring system that tells the highway patrol my driving speed all the time, ergo speeding laws are unenforceable, at least with that line of thought.

It would be easy enough to set up sting operations to catch some people in the act of selling without a BC. EVERY instance of a law being broken does not have to lead to an arrest for the law to be enforced by catching SOME people breaking the laws.

As per a memo from our Attorney General himself, UBCs will necessitate firearm registration.
Check out this link:
http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/doj-memo-outlaw-and-confiscate-all-guns

 

[short barrel]

State police and highway patrol agencies make their own rules, which then become law, concerning what is legal and illegal about a motor vehicle's condition of safety. Here in VA, an "inspection manual" issued to troopers and inspection stations state those legalities. If a motorist is stopped and his vehicle is found to not be in compliance with the manual, he is charged and must pay a fine or contest the charge in court.

That is an AGENCY making laws. The ATF is the same way regarding guns. They make the laws. They create the forms and set the parameters of what is legal or not. Gun transfer laws are created by the ATF.

In my view, such stuff as that going on in any gov't agency is crap, crap, crap. Depending what political entity is in power, the rules are changed.

Another thing: Felons cannot own a firearm. That law in my view is a violation of the 2nd. If a man writes a bad check big enough to be a felony, his conviction prohibits him from having a gun.

My point is all of the gun restrictions are bogus crap that needs removed from the books. I say any person has the right to own a gun. Even the insane. Even the violent criminal who has been convicted of the most heinous of gun related murders. To change that right is to change the 2nd.

Now, let that settle. When you see the insanity of that, you might be able to see that gov't gun control is necessary and good. If anyone desiring a gun could just go and buy it from a gun dealer, what's the point of having dealers? Why not let them be sold at the local grocer. Just pick one out and pay for it at the counter. We need gun control. Even the NRA and the dumbest of our citizens understand that.

It's like a person disturbed at a traffic ticket. He thereafter hates cops and interference with his "right" to drive his car however he pleases. Without detailed and specific laws, we would have chaos. The 2nd promises no infringement on having guns, but good grief, we MUST have infringement.

 

[happygeek]

If anyone desiring a gun could just go and buy it from a gun dealer, what's the point of having dealers? Why not let them be sold at the local grocer. Just pick one out and pay for it at the counter.

You mean like how it was prior to 1968? (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html)

It's like a person disturbed at a traffic ticket. He thereafter hates cops and interference with his "right" to drive his car however he pleases. Without detailed and specific laws, we would have chaos. The 2nd promises no infringement on having guns, but good grief, we MUST have infringement.

Huh?

When you find the part of the 2A that says you can operate a gun however you please let me know.

 

[jerkface11]

Now, let that settle. When you see the insanity of that, you might be able to see that gov't gun control is necessary and good. If anyone desiring a gun could just go and buy it from a gun dealer, what's the point of having dealers? Why not let them be sold at the local grocer. Just pick one out and pay for it at the counter. We need gun control. Even the NRA and the dumbest of our citizens understand that.

You do realize we went the better part of 200 years with that EXACT system. I think you owe me an apology.