A new take on so-called UBCs

[Hypnogator]

I’ve given some considerable thought to the issue of so-called “Universal Background Checks.” While no responsible person wants to see firearms in the hands of an Adam Lanza, Jerrod Loughner, or similar deranged psychopath, neither do we wish to see our firearms listed in some Federal database, or be subject to prosecution for loaning a gun to a hunting buddy or giving one as a present to a family member. I’ve been kicking around an “outside-the-box” idea that, by using the carrot rather than the stick, would enable us to assure ourselves that we were transferring firearms only to those eligible to receive them. Bear with me, and please read the entire post. I’m certainly receptive to feedback, especially in the form of constructive criticism.

First of all, the ATF form 4473 will be eliminated. Firearms dealers will no longer be responsible for running background checks on you every time you purchase a gun. Instead, you may run a background check on yourself, at your leisure, from any Internet-connected computer or smart phone. You would have to enter your full ID data, plus read through a list of prohibitions like the questions that are on the 4473. If you passed the background check, you would be issued a unique alphanumeric ID# that would be valid for, say, 90 days. This number, and your ID data, would be on a PDF file, which you could print out in however many copies you wished. For convenience, it might also contain blanks for the make, model, caliber, serial number, and additional descriptive data for the firearm you wish to purchase. This would be for you to fill in at the time of purchase, and would not be furnished to the gov’t.

To purchase a firearm or firearms, you would present this form to the seller. The seller could then call a toll-free number and enter the ID number from your form. The seller would then be informed that that number was valid, and provide your ID data. You would then show your ID to the seller to confirm you are the one who received a clean background check, and the transaction(s) would proceed. The firearm’s ID data would be entered onto the form, and both you and seller would sign the form. The seller would then retain the form, with a copy going to you, if you wished to have one, and would act as a bill of sale for the firearm. A dealer would retain the form as a record of sale.

A dealer would be required to check your ID number, just as (s)he is now required to do a background check. A private seller would not. There would be no criminal penalty for a private seller not checking the ID#, or not asking to see one. However, firearms sellers who can prove that they checked the buyer’s eligibility by producing a copy of the bill of sale would be statutorily absolved of any criminal or civil liability for selling the firearm, or for any misuse of the firearm by the buyer.

The ID# would be valid for the purchase of any number of firearms during the validity period. Upon its expiration, within three working days, the ID data associated with that number would be required to be purged from gov’t records. The only data the gov’t would retain would be the ID# and the dates it was valid.

An individual could get an ID# as often as (s)he wished. While there would be no requirement for a seller to ask for and check the buyer’s ID#, the fact that the law provides legal protection to the seller would be a strong incentive, especially since plaintiffs’ attorneys would be quick to seize upon the fact that failure to check the buyer’s ID# could easily be construed as negligence, with consequential civil liability.

You wouldn’t have to swear to a bunch of statements like on the Form 4473, but if you are, say, an illegal alien, you can still be charged with unlawful possession; just not the “stacked” charge of perjury.

In short, gives anyone the ability to check a buyer's background, provides relief from liability for selling to a buyer who misuses the firearm, and the gov't has no permanent record of who purchased a firearm, and has no record at all of the number or types of firearms the buyer purchased.

Ideas?

 

[DT Guy]

No.

There are enough regulations to control firearms; 'layering' law upon law accomplishes nothing, and infringes on my rights.

No.

Larry

 

[MErl]

The problem is that any type of card like that very quickly becomes a defacto license. You have a gun, where is your buyer ID?

The bolded part of absolving seller of responsibility instantly makes it required, it implies that the seller is responsible if they do not perform the check. There would be lawsuits with a good chance of winning because the seller could have done the check. They did not even take the trivial time to make a single phone call. As it is now they are safe because a private seller cannot run a check.

I don't see what this is actually trying to help? Is it supposed to be better than a UBC? If so I'm not even sure about that given it will become a gun license.

 

[Riceman98]

How would this keep guns out of people like Adam Lanza hands? Adam Lanza stole his mothers gun. Most of these deranged people either steal or legally buy their guns. UBC will not stop either.

 

[Jim K]

All purchasers of a firearm from a licensed dealer must fill out a Federal form. Up to last year, MD handgun purchasers also had to fill out a more extensive form with many of the same questions, and wait up to a month for state police approval. Then last year, MD passed a new requirement, that any purchaser of a modern handgun had to be fingerprinted, show a state photo ID, and answer the same personal questions to obtain a Handgun Qualification License. That, one would think, would be instead of the old form. Not so. The HQL is IN ADDITION TO filling out the form and and the waiting period and is IN ADDITION TO the Federal 4473 Form. So one thing does not eliminate the others, it is piled onto the others.

That is what would happen to Hypnogator's proposal. And anyone who believes the Feds ever destroy any records (except those subpoenaed by Congress) is not in the real world. Bureaucratic power depends on information, no matter how obtained, and no government is ever going to deny itself as much information as it can get, by any means, legal or not.

Jim

 

[bainter1212]

This isn't gun registration, but buyer registration. It means that .gov would know who owns guns, but have no idea how many or what type.
It IS better than gun registration, but it still opens the door for confiscation (it would make it much more difficult though).

I like your thinking OP. I would rather have your proposal in place here in CA than what we currently have. However, nationwide this would make the situation in some states more restrictive.
So far it has been much easier for us 2A advocates to let the states make their own laws. These state legislatures are surprisingly ignorant when it comes to Constitutional law......better to let them shoot themselves in the foot, judicially that is.
Nevertheless, thank you for sharing your idea. It gives us all something to ponder.

 

[Midwest]

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............ "



.

 

[Old Fuff]

Ya know, here in Arizona we do well without all of the ever increasing red tape. Blood isn't running in the streets either.

Most of the above proposals are aimed at law-abiding gun owners who are seldom a source of trouble. Those that are, most likely are not going to play by the rules and are unlikely to be caught until after the act.

It is rather like collecting all of the teetotalers in a community and making them take the pledge in an effort to curtail drunk driving.

Last but not least, the main proponents insisting on UBC laws are unlikely to buy into any proposal that doesn't require an FFL to broker all (what used to be) private sales. They really don't care about a mostly useless background check. What they want is universal 4473 forms and the information they contain. The name of their game is, "Control, and we want it."

Trying to come up with "reasonable alternatives" will ultimately go nowhere. They won't be interested, and most of us that have woke up and smelled the coffee won't either.

 

[vamo]

I've given a bit of thought to something similiar a big issue would be is there is nothing to stop a friend, neighbor, acquaintance or whoever from running a check on you with a little personal info just because they're curious. Sure they couldn't get any detailed info, but getting back a denial means you're either insane or a felon.

But I think that's beside the point. The hard truth we don't want to accept is sometimes these situations are not preventable. In a country of so many people there will always be bad apples who slip through the cracks until it is too late.

 

[vamo]

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.

Midwest I agree completely that the strategy of the other side is to take whatever small victory they can get on the way to a much more restrictive system that even those living in NY and Cali today would not recognize. However, I think you're over simplifying; each step does require congress to pass a new law. They can't just go from UBC to registration through executive actions or the courts.

But I agree with your main point allowing them to take step one lets them get started on step 2.

 

[barnbwt]

What guarantee is there the self-help check would be only used for guns; its sole lawful purpose? There's a reason only FFLs and LEOs have access to the NICS system, and it's because some aspects of a person's identity have no business being available to those without a need to know. Also, if the details of the firearm are not recorded along with the sale, exactly how does the seller get immunity for providing a gun to the transferee? Remember that personal relationships last years, and a person's prohibited status can change; how to prove the gun you sold him years before his felony conviction was not a recent unlicensed sale, while he makes a deal to testify against you for giving him the gun two days before the murder?

Tracking sales alone is in reality just an inefficient means of tracking the item+possessor (read: registration); they both have the same goal and are therefore identical for all intents and purposes. The objection most have to registration is that the government cannot be trusted to know who has what guns; by extension that means they have no need to know who has guns, or which guns are being sold. It does not matter if knowing either of those things makes someone's job easier or more effective, the potential for abuse is not worth the risk.

Where I am going next is going to sound like deflection, which is why I will try to describe the train of thought that brought me to my conclusion;

UBC's are being pursued because they seem most attainable to the gun-laws crowd. They seem most attainable because they elicit the least negative reaction from both pro-gun folks and the noncommittal public at large. They do not illicit a strong response because the details of a background check scheme are beneath the study of short attention spans, because the effects of the proposals are not as immediately apparent as more ham-fisted initiatives like outright bans, and because the proposals come with assurances they will a)identify prohibited persons reliably, b)prevent legal gun sales to prohibited persons (yes, that's an oxymoronic statement), and c)not burden gun owners, even though the system itself in any capacity is a burden we will be expected to shoulder. Even the OP's 'reasonable' system sounds a heck of a lot more obnoxious than a bill or record of sale retained by either party, in-person check of a driver's license/CHL permit, or even NICS instant background check in an FFL office.

The appeal to gun owners for UBCs stems from the fear that we may sell someone a gun that they will use in a crime. More practically, that the sale will somehow carry legal or civil liability back to our person. The question that should be asked, is whether there should be a need for such liability, or if it is simply a misplaced "guilt trip" perpetrated on the innocent? If I make a sale in good faith, with assurance from the buyer that he is a lawful recipient and has no criminal intent for the weapon, I fail to see why I should be liable if he later snaps and kills his girlfriend, or is secretly an illegal gun-runner, or lied convincingly on a bill of sale (verbal is a legal contract in many places) about his status as a prohibited person. Those circumstances, while lamentable or regrettable, are not within my power to control, nor due to lack of my observation at the time of sale. Any guilt I might feel over how things might have gone differently had I refused the sale, should be between me and God, not me and the state, nor me and the thrice-removed victim's survivors.

Since there is no need for the seller to retain liability for the buyer's actions with their firearm so long as they are assured (by some logical legal standard like 'reasonable') the sale is legit and have no reason to doubt the buyer's motives, there should be protection for them. That's what the state is there for, after all; to protect us from unwarranted attacks by others, physical or legal.

Since the current measures don't do enough to stop illegal gun sales, and instead just move them from gun stores to back alleys and burglaries, a new scheme added to or replacing the current one had better function on a different principle entirely if it is to be more effective, and I just don't see how it's any different than the current one's. We say it's illegal for a felon to buy from a store (or anywhere) and then try to determine whether buyers are felons --so the felons simply buy from sources that won't be audited like FFL holders. I don't see how a voluntary system that everyone can access changes that dynamic.

Instead of passing background check requirements, why don't we pass immunity laws protecting private sellers of firearms (or anything) from suit or prosecution so long as;
-They were assured of the legality of the sale by the buyer as a condition of the sale ("the gun is for me, I can legally possess it")
-A record of the sale was kept by the seller or buyer, with any discrepancy going to whichever party is the legal possessor (I'm not too crazy on this one since it could place the buyer/seller in a tight spot, but for a bill of sale scribbled on a napkin. However, a 6 month private record retention period requirement for immunity for sellers would not be that big an expectation in practice, and would thwart intentional negligence of record-keeping that could be reasonably expected of sellers)
-Sellers can only be prosecuted or sued in spite the first two conditions being met if more than one of their sales within some timeframe is determined to have been in error (intentional or no). I do not favor letting negligent or risky gun dealers operate on the margins of legality by turning a blind eye to their business partners, so having two of your recent sales linked back to you by punks at crime scenes should be sufficient cause for the state or victims to raise the question of whether you should have known better than to make the sales you did.
-Some sort of penalty for suit or prosecution being leveled on a seller in violation of the last point, to discourage frivolous baseless suits by Brady organizations against every private seller nationwide who's buyer ultimately did wrong

In such a circumstance, a seller who makes proper inquiry of his buyer regarding the nature/purpose of the sale has no need to fear reprisal for what might then transpire beyond his control. Personal guilt does not, and should not, necessarily equate to legal liability. You can lament you ever sold someone a shotgun he killed himself with, but you should hold no legal liability for his actions so long as you had no reason to expect them. At some point, we do have to trust in our own judgment, and each other's judgment. The law should reflect this reality, as well.

There is then no need for mandatory background checks; the lying prohibited possessors may be punished, the enabling straw buyers prosecuted, blind-eyed sellers sued for damages, and the honest sellers have no worries about a good-faith sale bringing them trouble.

The fatal flaw in this system is that it relies upon the legal system to actually pursue action against the people doing the lying, enabling, and negligent behavior --as opposed to the threat of unjust prosecution coercing the law-abiding into undergoing invasive background checks, registering with abusive bureaucracies, and generally policing ourselves in lieu of the proper authorities to the point of paranoia. Can we really expect our modern justice systems to target illegal behavior while all other activity is allowed to proceed without scrutiny? The lack of omniscience will make cops'/prosecutors' jobs harder, after all

TCB

 

[JRH6856]

barnbwt, how does your proposed legislation produce the overall result of fewer guns in the hands of private individuals? That is the real purpose of all our gun control laws, regardless of how they are presented. If a proposed law doesn't show promise of achieving that result, there will never be enough support from the antis to pass it.

 

[AlexanderA]

I've been thinking along the same lines as the OP. I believe this would be an improvement over the current system (for FFL's), and also addresses sales by unlicensed individuals. It's similar to the proposal by Sen. Coburn, which was put foward as an alternative to UBC's.

However, in this polarized climate, it's not going anywhere.The gun issue has become binary: either you're for us, or you're against us. As long as gun owners are winning, they see no reason to go along with such a plan. If the tide turns and gun owners start to lose, it will be too late for such a plan to save them.

There's also enormous negative symbolic importance in throwing the gun controllers such a bone. It concedes the premise that, indeed, background checks would prevent crimes. There are too many guns in this country for such a half-hearted proposal to have much effect on the ultimate goal of reducing crime and mass shootings.

 

[CoalTrain49]

In WA we already have a state required form to fill out asking for license # and the SN of the firearm to be purchased. So in effect we have handgun and people registration already. There is nothing anywhere that says that this info can't be shared with the fed. There is also nothing anywhere that says that states can't enact their own registries and build their own databases for both license holders and handguns being sold by dealers. If your state legislators want to do that they will and the fed isn't going to stop them.

So where does that leave the average gun buyer? Rolled up in a pile on the side of the road leading to both people and firearm registration.

Your idea is a still a background check through a fed database, the only difference is you ran the check on yourself and had it in hand when you purchased. As others have stated, a UBC will change nothing as far as mass murder with a firearm is concerned. I agree that a UBC is the next stop for all firearms purchases, even private sales. Your idea about people registration instead of firearm registration is good however. There are too many guns in this country to think that any kind of firearm registration will have any effect whatsoever.

The hurdle is states rights. They will do whatever the he!! they want to do and the 2A or the courts are not going to stand in their way. You just saw this in CO. The district courts will decide to let the states and cities regulate for more control in most cases.

I say leave it alone at the fed level and fight it at the state level.

 

[EndTheMadness]

The Federal GFSA

I found this forum googling "student guns on campus" and found the following closed thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/i.../t-119091.html, joined this forum and skipped the intro, so ... hello I am a grandma and worry a lot about my grand kids. There was a gun threat at one of their schools last month. Nice to meet you. I hope that will suffice.

When I tried to post a response to the above stated thread, I got this warning: "Please be aware that it has been 3407 days since the last post was made in this thread. "

Seeing that, I suppose I might be a tad off topic here, but here goes.

From what I have read to date, it appears that PA and NH still allow individuals over 18 to carry handguns. If however any student carries one on a College campus, and it gets discovered, they will be expelled for a minimum of one year, unless they are complying with a College administered and supervised program which permits them on a case by case basis. So far, I can not find any campus with such a program in any State. Maybe there are. But it is not public information.

Due to the Gun Free School Act (GFSA) of 1994, the school would lose its Federal Funding, including Student Aid programs I presume, if they did not expel a student for a minimum of one year if the student was in violation of this Federal regulation:

"The current GFSA, effective January 8, 2002, requires that states receiving certain federal funds have laws requiring local educational agencies to adopt a policy that expels students for a minimum period of one year for bringing a firearm to school or possessing a firearm at school. “School” is defined as “any setting that is under the control and supervision of the local educational agency for the purpose of student activities approved and authorized by the local educational agency.”

For certain, I have likely read some outdated information, somewhere before posting this. So, please correct me where I am wrong.

Included in my reading is this: http://smartgunlaws.org/guns-in-schools-policy-summary/

All studies cited indicate conclusions that arming your college student will put them at a much greater punitive risk, than any chance that carrying a handgun would make them (or their classmates) any safer.

Situational awareness, and common sense are their best defense, according to the published studies. Times are truly more dangerous than ever. These are things I never even considered when I was in College. For example, today I would never walk across an open quad. I would take the long way around the corridors along the buildings. Take a couple minutes longer, get more exercise, and stay close to cover.

More violence occurs off campus for the 18 to 21 age student than on campus. But only the on campus shootings make the news. Gee, I wonder why?

My main concern against arming my college bound granddaughter is that she would not be able to guarantee the security of a weapon. For crying out loud, she even had her clarinet stolen. An inexpensive student clarinet! While she was in high school. How on Earth could she secure a handgun? She could not. Then, I would be the one going to prison if the stolen weapon was later used in a crime.

I will still take her to the gun range, and hopefully she will overcome her reluctance to develop her skill with a handgun. She really likes long guns, and is a better shot than I am. But there are a lot of factors going into using a handgun. Psychologically, she knows that they are only used in a close-in gun fight. I think the thought of ever aiming a handgun at another human being appalls her. Plus, they are just harder to aim, make a lot of noise, and shake you to your bones when firing. She would rather be doing yoga.

Conclusion: don't say anything to her about where to apply for college based on concerns for safety. The Federal GFSA ensures less disincentive for non-students to bring weapons on campus. How comforting!

What we really need is Federal law like California Evidence Code 1024 which protects everyone from ethical, criminal, civil and professional liability for reporting dangerous persons to law enforcement.

Obviously that didn't stop the shootings in Santa Barbara. There were plenty of people who could have reported the shooter ahead of time. But laws like California Evidence Code 1024, if enforced, would do more to prevent school shootings than anything else I can think of.

Then, the blame would lie with people and professionals who knew the shooters before hand. In the Santa Barbara case, it was the shooter's father, his high school teachers and school psychologist. And as far as I know, nothing is being done to hold them accountable. Why not press that issue?

 

[MedWheeler]

Old Fuff, it doesn't matter how you all are doing in Arizona.

This is Federal crap. When it comes down the pike, it comes all the way down the pike.

Don't think for a moment you're safe in AZ. They don't care how it's working. We've been saying the same thing in Florida ever since the 1987 predictions of "streets awash in the blood of innocents as Old-West-style gunslingers shoot it out over everything from girls to parking spaces." (I distinctly remember firsthand all that media frenzy!)
They care about control, not about "saving the children."

 

[DT Guy]

EndTheMadness:

There was a gun threat at one of their schools last month.

Sounds scary-what did the gun do?

My main concern against arming my college bound granddaughter is that she would not be able to guarantee the security of a weapon. For crying out loud, she even had her clarinet stolen. An inexpensive student clarinet! While she was in high school. How on Earth could she secure a handgun? She could not.

And my youngest is one year older, and an Army Ranger. Guess it's hard to generalize about what young people are capable of at any given age...

What we really need is Federal law like California Evidence Code 1024 which protects everyone from ethical, criminal, civil and professional liability for reporting dangerous persons to law enforcement.

Obviously that didn't stop the shootings in Santa Barbara. There were plenty of people who could have reported the shooter ahead of time. But laws like California Evidence Code 1024, if enforced, would do more to prevent school shootings than anything else I can think of.

Then, the blame would lie with people and professionals who knew the shooters before hand.

Can you not see the potential-no, really, the REQUIREMENT-for abuse in this sort of system? No liability for reporting someone as 'dangerous' is a license to harass and intimidate, just as orders of protection can be. And if a professional risks liability for NOT preventing a shooting, just how many of them will be willing to 'certify' that someone is not a threat? My guess is very, very few.

I think your reasoning is a bit simplistic, to be honest. Also, I have to ask, 'end what madness'?


Larry

 

[Spats McGee]

I, for one, have gone as far as I am willing to go on the road to "being reasonable" in terms of gun control. In my lifetime, and even before, it's been one hurdle after another being placed between the American citizen and private gun ownership. The AWB expired, and some hurdles have been stricken by courts after years of litigation. Aside from those, though, hurdles are rarely taken down. I will no longer try to appease anti-gun people. History tells me that's a losing proposition.

 

[Twiki357]

EndTheMadness: “What we really need is Federal law like California Evidence Code 1024 which protects everyone from ethical, criminal, civil and professional liability for reporting dangerous persons to law enforcement.”

ABSOLUTELY NOT! I’m not surprised that California would have such a law; Can you say Nazi Germany? That’s the exact approach that Hitler took.

-------

MedWheeler, It could be interesting in the event of a Federal registration (Guns and/or owners) for Arizona based on “States Rights.” I can’t speak for other states, but Arizona law specifically prohibits any kind of gun registration or release of CCW information other for a criminal investigation. The only ownership information here in Arizona is the 4473 for an FFL transaction.

As for the OP’s approach, like others have said, anything is just one more step toward registration eventually followed by confiscation. Think Great Britten and Australia.

 

[oneounceload]

We need criminal control, not gun control.

 

[CoalTrain49]

We need criminal control, not gun control.

I don't think more criminal control will be enough and certainly more gun control isn't the answer. That leaves people control. The state knows I carry because I have a permit. Personally I would rather the gov't keep track of me and leave my guns out of their databases.

I think the real problem here isn't background checks and permits to carry but requirements that guns be the focal point of control instead of the individual. A gun registration is far more onerous than a background check or a permit requirement. There can only be one reason for a gun registration. That would be so the gov't knows where to find the gun. CA even wants to fingerprint the gun.

I would gladly subject myself to any background check and even pay for the privilege to carry a gun concealed ( I already do that) if they would just leave my gun out of it. We are eventually going to end up with UBC's, all of us. So it's now time to cut a deal and demand the end to any type of gun registration. I mean none period. If you are submitting information for a UBC the SN of the gun should not be on that form. A model and make should be enough. That's how you change the background check.

Of course your state may see things differently but at least they aren't sticking their nose in the business of all of the other states.

 

[DT Guy]

There is no 'dealing' with the grabbers; if we give up on UBC's in return for something, they will continue to go after that something. Think of all the times they've asked for 'just one more thing', but it never is, and never will be.

Every single proponent of any gun control should be treated as someone who wants a complete ban on firearms, because, deep down, that's what the vast majority of them want.

Larry

 

[MedWheeler]

Twiki357 writes:

It could be interesting in the event of a Federal registration (Guns and/or owners) for Arizona based on “States Rights.” I can’t speak for other states, but Arizona law specifically prohibits any kind of gun registration or release of CCW information other for a criminal investigation. The only ownership information here in Arizona is the 4473 for an FFL transaction.

Indeed it could be. Just follow the issue between the feds and Colorado (and an increasing number of other states) regarding marijuana.

Regarding your last line: that's true in many states, including mine.

 

[CoalTrain49]

The fact is we have to deal with the anti-gun (AG) crowd. That is the OP's main objective and it should be our main objective. Just saying we aren't going to deal with them doesn't offer the voting public anything but what the AG crowd puts in front of them.

We need to get a few things defined here before it's too late. We have two separate issues here. One of them is gun control and the other is the control of people who have or want guns or people control. The 1994 AWB is gun control. The GCA of 1968, although labeled as gun control, is primarily people control being a personal background check.

Gun control doesn't work. Statistically that has been shown. The fed 1994 AWB is gone and the AG crowd failed to get it back. People are beginning to wake up to that fact and rejecting gun control. The AG crowd is spending lots of money on it because that's their holy grail but it's like spending money to get all the cars off the road or all the liquor banned. I hope they spend a lot more money on it.

That leaves people control. That's what we need to talk about and define here. A UBC should be 100% people control and shouldn't be about gun control. We already have lots of people control and as the population increases we will have more of it. One of the reasons so many states have concealed carry (some got it recently) is because it's less gun control and more people control.

When I apply for a CPP there is nothing on the form about the firearm. A UBC should be the same way when you purchase. That needs to be changed and we are at a juncture here where it can be. Polls have shown that there is strong support for a UBC and I'm not making that up. I'm not voting for it but we may get one here in Nov. I don't fear getting a background check (I get 2 or 3 a year) but I do fear having every one of my guns registered in a fed or state database. Very few criminals have been convicted by a handguns SN paired with a name in database. I believe they call that circumstantial evidence and it's very weak circumstantial evidence at that. I'm not even going to get started on the real abuse that can come from a gun registration. Gun registration is pure 100% undiluted gun control.

Lets take the gun control part out of any UBC right now before the AG crowd has any chance to turn it into something else.

 

[bigfatdave]

No.

Absolutely no more gun control.

We should be working to neuter the ATF and DOJ, not finding new programs for them so stack up and abuse.

I am a free citizen - one of "the people"
My right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

That natural, individual right is affirmed and enumerated in the constitution. It doesn't come from the constitution, it isn't a privilege I go to my the central bureaucracy with my hat in hand to ask for.

There are classes of prohibited persons. I think they're over-reach as it is, but the Feral Government doesn't bother to enforce anyway. Stop allowing prohibited persons to be unsupervised in public, or at least don't issue them normal ID, for the love of FSM.
That, coupled with an armed citizenry, would reduce violent crime simply by making it unappealingly dangerous.