Bring on the Universal Background Checks

[Ryanxia]

I was just thinking about this this morning after reading about the circus in Connecticut.
They're looking at registering magazines as well as guns. Postage would probably break you, but can you imagine everytime you "misplace" a mag or gun. To be in compliance you have to report those losses to the state immediately. I 'spose if you'd happen to "refind' the mag or gun, after you notify Big Brother you'd be required to notify them again and hope that you don't lose that one mag or gun, or another one (again requireing state notification) while your notifications were crossing in the mail. Then...well, you get the idea.

An excellent point. Valid of another thread for those unfortunate enough to be in that situation already.

 

[barnbwt]

Just like most DDoS's, you'd be hurting the wrong people

The purpose of the exercise is to get big slug of transfers through without a NICS check being conducted. Obviously, it's an odds game as to whether or not you'd be one of the lucky ones that get approved within the window, but the futility of the system is loudly demonstrated regardless. Yes, all gun owners would be affected, and yes, all FFLs doing sales would be affected. Who said winning back rights came without sacrifice (if you can even call it that) and without dragging along some unwilling dead-weight.

There is really no reason this tactic can't be used now. We saw how devastated the background check system in Colorado became after Aurora and Newtown. If that becomes a regular occurance, it becomes awfully easy to argue "a right delayed is a right denied." And even easier to argue for dismantling the program if thousands of transfers go through unchecked every month, while the program becomes more expensive each month.

Further restrictions on the checks (making owners pay for it (CO) or limiting the number of transfers a month) would be revealed as obvious plots to limit access to the "universal" check system and prevent gun-ownership.

**This strategy is only useful if the intention is to change the NICS status quo. I think only universal BGCs would be a sufficient cause for kicking the hornet's nest, since it is as likely to backfire (restriction of BGCs) as to result in success. Just another arrow to keep in the quiver "just in case"

TCB

 

[Bill_Rights]

This civil disobedience defeats gun registry

I like OP Ryanxia's idea to flood the system with transfer requests requiring background checks, but for several different reasons:

1) We can flood the system with firearm UBC requests, but not actually transfer the firearm. Or go ahead and transfer it. Makes no difference. This is what happens anyway when we loan a person one of our firearms for an indeterminate period of time. At some time later, we have the gun back and it is as if the firearm never moved. So why bother actually moving it? THE POINT IS: The government has no idea where a given firearm is at any particular point in time. Or who is in possession of the firearm. THIS IS HIGHLY DESIRABLE.

2) We file firearm UBC requests for our grandmothers, elderly uncles, children, neices and nephews, friends and neighbors, anyone who will permit it. Since we're not actually giving possession of the firearm to them (or we may give it to them for a second, a minute, an hour or forever), we can transfer the same firearm to dozens of people. Simultaneously, or in so rapid time sequence that no one really knows where the firearm is. THIS IS HIGHLY DESIRABLE.

3) Since there are well over 100 million guns in the USA, distributed over maybe 50 million owners, we can do the above type "transfers" and UBCs so many times that basically the entire adult population of the USA has been UBC'd. Out of the 315 million Americans, there are maybe 200 million adults. The 50 million of us with guns can get most of the other 150 million UBC'd in a matter of months. THIS IS HIGHLY DESIRABLE, because the danger of a UBC system becoming a universal gun registry is much ameliorated if basically every person is in the registry.

4) The point is not to disable the UBC system by overloading it (though that has a certain devilish appeal ). The point is to render the UBC system meaningless since basically every person will be UBC'd and to render it impotent as a database for tracking of firearms. In other words, UBC cannot be used to construct a firearm registry. THIS IS HIGHLY DESIRABLE.

The FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE is that firearm possession must be anonymous in order for firearms to serve their primary constitutional purpose, which is to discourage governmental tyranny by one's own government.

 

[JRH6856]

^^^ You really haven't thought this through have you?

If we have UBCs, the request will be considered proof of transfer. Your little schemes may not let the govt. know where a gun is, but the trail of UBCs will let them know who should have the gun. And if they do not have it, they will be in violation. THIS IS NOT HIGHLY DESIRABLE.

It is highly likely that what you have just described is intent to defraud the US Government. That is probably NOT a HIGHLY DESIRABLE thing to do.

 

[Bill_Rights]

I refer, for example, to the several posters above mentioning loaning friends a firearm for single trips to the range, single weekend trips and the like. In that case, I would want to go ahead and have all my friends, family, etc. UBC'd in advance of the actual transfer (it would be illegal to give them the gun before that, right?) so I could loan them any of my guns at any time.

I am drawing a distinction and separation between the gun and the person possessing it. The FFL transfer system appears to operate on the fiction that a piece of paper somehow joins a particular gun to a particular person forever. This has never been true. Just because a government legislator or bureaucrat thinks so or says so does not make it true. I, for one, am NOT about to do extra work to make their fiction come true.

There is a further separation between the "owner" or original purchaser of a firearm and the person actually possessing, carrying, transporting or storing it at any given time. I intentionally want to maximize this separation, blur it, mix it up and generally obscure it as much as possible. And change it dynamically over time to make sure the actual location of any particular gun in untracable.

The principle is: If a government or a criminal does not know where a gun is, it could be anywhere. In particular, it could be HERE NOW. Or not. THIS IS DESIRABLE. As a deterent, as an "armed society being a polite society".

 

[bigric]

Oh, if this ridiculous law was ever put into place they would find out very quickly how complicated it would be to implement. Its a laughable idea. Think about all of the manpower, paper and resources it would take to do this.

I'd love to think you're right, but look at health care paperwork. It takes additional office staff just to deal with it, and that gets figured into the cost of care there...

 

[JRH6856]

I would want to go ahead and have all my friends, family, etc. UBC'd in advance of the actual transfer (it would be illegal to give them the gun before that, right?) so I could loan them any of my guns at any time.

You may want to do that, but why do you think the law would allow it? The purpose of the UBC is to establish eligibility at the time of the transfer, not at some time prior to the transfer. The law (at least the current proposals I have seen) would require a UBC for each transfer at the time of transfer. And the law would require a UBC when the firearm was transferred back into your possession. But it would not require a UBC for transfers between immediate family members or at the range.

What the current law requires of both you and FFLs has little to do with what future laws may require. Before you start hatching schemes to defeat a law, it is best to know what the law requires. Otherwise, it is just fantasy chasing fiction.

 

[redhook]

DDOS, all the way. Make them allow some delayed transfers go through without a check after the allotted days. Everyone just buy your guns on the first of the month, as an intermittent show of solidarity.

TCB

It'll end up like the DROS system has been here in California, indefinite delay without reason. There are people who have been delayed for over 4 months right now.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[gc70]

Part of the value of discussing novel ideas is that they force us to think of things in different ways than we normally would; in this case, what is wrong with the temporary transfer provisions of S.649.

The purpose of the UBC is to establish eligibility at the time of the transfer, not at some time prior to the transfer.

Reading S.649 precisely, it only says you can't transfer a firearm UNLESS a dealer has done a background check.

... it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s).

While it may be implied, there is no language in the bill that specifically requires the transfer to occur at the same time as the background check. That ambiguity then raises the question of the period of time a background check would be valid, which is not addressed at all in the bill.

I have been hammering one of my Senators (a fence-sitter facing tough re-elections prospects) with examples of the ridiculous outcomes of the provisions of S.649. My next email will raise this issue, both of the silly results of transfers being required to be simultaneous with background check or the totally unanswered question of how long a background check is valid. While I suspect my Senator might like to vote for UBCs, flaws in the bill may give her the cover she needs to vote against the bill.

 

[gc70]

The law (at least the current proposals I have seen) would require a UBC for each transfer at the time of transfer. And the law would require a UBC when the firearm was transferred back into your possession.

This points up another flaw in S.649. A friend comes to your house and you let him check out one of your guns. There is an exemption for that temporary transfer because you are doing the transferring in your house. But there is no exemption for your friend to transfer your gun back to you without a background check.

 

[JRH6856]

Reading S.649 precisely, it only says you can't transfer a firearm UNLESS a dealer has done a background check.

"... it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). "​

While it may be implied, there is no language in the bill that specifically requires the transfer to occur at the same time as the background check. That ambiguity then raises the question of the period of time a background check would be valid, which is not addressed at all in the bill.

There is no ambiguity at all. When a dealer takes possession of a firearm, it is logged in his bound book. Once the dealer has taken possession of a firearm, he can't transfer it to anyone other than another FFL holder without running a background check on them. That would include the person he received it from. So it would appear the law does more than imply that the background check take place at the time of the transfer, it in fact requires it of the dealer.

Non FFL holders can't make transfers (other than in the excepted cases) nor can they request background checks on anyone. All a non FFL holder can do is transfer their firearm to an FFL dealer. The dealer does the check and makes the (recorded) transfer. I don't think a lot of FFL dealers are going to risk their license by requesting bogus background checks that don't involve transfers.

 

[Ryanxia]

I like OP Ryanxia's idea to flood the system with transfer requests requiring background checks, but for several different reasons:

1) We can flood the system with firearm UBC requests, but not actually transfer the firearm. Or go ahead and transfer it. Makes no difference. This is what happens anyway when we loan a person one of our firearms for an indeterminate period of time. At some time later, we have the gun back and it is as if the firearm never moved. So why bother actually moving it? THE POINT IS: The government has no idea where a given firearm is at any particular point in time. Or who is in possession of the firearm. THIS IS HIGHLY DESIRABLE.

2) We file firearm UBC requests for our grandmothers, elderly uncles, children, neices and nephews, friends and neighbors, anyone who will permit it. Since we're not actually giving possession of the firearm to them (or we may give it to them for a second, a minute, an hour or forever), we can transfer the same firearm to dozens of people. Simultaneously, or in so rapid time sequence that no one really knows where the firearm is. THIS IS HIGHLY DESIRABLE.

3) Since there are well over 100 million guns in the USA, distributed over maybe 50 million owners, we can do the above type "transfers" and UBCs so many times that basically the entire adult population of the USA has been UBC'd. Out of the 315 million Americans, there are maybe 200 million adults. The 50 million of us with guns can get most of the other 150 million UBC'd in a matter of months. THIS IS HIGHLY DESIRABLE, because the danger of a UBC system becoming a universal gun registry is much ameliorated if basically every person is in the registry.

4) The point is not to disable the UBC system by overloading it (though that has a certain devilish appeal ). The point is to render the UBC system meaningless since basically every person will be UBC'd and to render it impotent as a database for tracking of firearms. In other words, UBC cannot be used to construct a firearm registry. THIS IS HIGHLY DESIRABLE.

The FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE is that firearm possession must be anonymous in order for firearms to serve their primary constitutional purpose, which is to discourage governmental tyranny by one's own government.

I think there is some good thinking points in your statement.

Also don't forget folks, the proposed law would require you to do a background check during a private transfer, it does not require YOU to keep paperwork. If the ATF comes asking about a firearm you sold and they track it like they do today to you, they will ask 'do you have the gun?' "nope I sold it". 'To whom?' "I don't recall. I did a transfer but don't recall what gunshop.' Since the serial # is not recorded during NICS check (only in the FFL's paper books) they would have to check every FFL in the state (country if it were a long gun) before they could claim you did not do a background check.

There is no law that requires you to have a good memory (yet).

 

[JRH6856]

Also don't forget folks, the proposed law would require you to do a background check during a private transfer, it does not require YOU to keep paperwork.

No, read my last post (#36). The proposed law requires an FFL do the background check and that you transfer the firearm to the FFL for that purpose. The convenient loss of memory you describe would just be the next loophole they try to close by creating a database of all FFL transfers. (Yes, they would have to repeal current law to do this).

 

[Ryanxia]

No, read my last post (#36). The proposed law requires an FFL do the background check and that you transfer the firearm to the FFL for that purpose. The convenient loss of memory you describe would just be the next loophole they try to close by creating a database of all FFL transfers. (Yes, they would have to repeal current law to do this).

We're on the same page. They would amend that quickly, but as it stands this would work.

 

[JRH6856]

Of course, any sale would need to be a cash transaction or else the name of the other party might be available from bank records or tax returns...

 

[Arkansas Paul]

How will you organize this form of civil obedience so that it has a real impact?

I'll tell you what impact it's going to have. It's going to come back and bite the people who are doing it. They are not going to work any harder than they usually do. There's just going to be a backlog and it's going to take longer to get approval. That 2 minute call is going to turn into a 2-3 day wait because of the log jam of requests. We will end up suffering, not them. They don't care if we don't get our guns, that much is obvious.

 

[Texshooter]

Can't we just stop it before it gets to this?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

One, UBCs as proposed are not like the NICS background checks as now carried out by licensed dealers on new gun buyers. Currently the buyer must clear the background check for the transfer to be made. No permanent record is kept that the person underwent a background check. If they are not in the NICS dataset with a record as a felon, there is no record kept. (Suspected straw purchasers or suspected unlicensed dealers buying for resale do end flagged up on the NICS data base, if there is an ongoing investigation. Ordinarily an individual record of submitting to a BC is not kept.)

The proponents say there has to be a permanent record for the new UBC to work. thatis, not only a database of forbidden persons who should not be allowed to buy a gun--especially felons--but a database of everyone who has been submitted to a UBC everytime. In other words, the current NICS database is of "prohibited persons" who meet the 1968 Gun Control Act of who should not be allowed to buy a gun. What the UBC is, is a databse of everyone who has bought a gun. It is different and will be used for different purposes in the future.

Tie that into the End User Certificate required by the UN Arms Trade Treaty for not only guns but vehicles that have a remote military application (seriously: according to Amnesty International shotguns for deer hunting are equivalent to military combat shotguns, off-road vehicles have military applications, all must be controlled the same for the UN ATT to have any teeth).

Wecome to the Brave New World Order.

No thanks.

 

[Ryanxia]

I'll tell you what impact it's going to have. It's going to come back and bite the people who are doing it. They are not going to work any harder than they usually do. There's just going to be a backlog and it's going to take longer to get approval. That 2 minute call is going to turn into a 2-3 day wait because of the log jam of requests. We will end up suffering, not them. They don't care if we don't get our guns, that much is obvious.

Have you already forgotten what it was like a few months ago when countless people were calling in? They cannot delay you past the 5 days without a denial but still I didn't see it come to this. My initial point was that this large increase in calls, the delays, etc. if they were permanent (from this UBC passing) they would have to expand or risk the Bill being overturned as being unduly restrictive. And if there was a 1000% increase in multiple handgun purchase investigations (most of which were just people borrowing a friend's couple of handguns for a range trip) it would make things immensely difficult for the ATF which could be argued that this new law for law abiding citizens is in fact hurting the effectiveness of enforcements.

Texasshooter - We are trying, for months I and many others have been urging people to contact their congressional representatives (see link in Signature) and oppose this UBC.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

How will you organize this form of civil obedience so that it has a real impact?

Was resistence to Prohibtion organized, or was it spontaneous?

 

[JRH6856]

Was resistence to Prohibtion organized, or was it spontaneous?

Mostly it was inebriated.

 

[gc70]

There is no ambiguity at all. When a dealer takes possession of a firearm, it is logged in his bound book. Once the dealer has taken possession of a firearm, he can't transfer it to anyone other than another FFL holder without running a background check on them.

Let's run with the idea that the transfer must occur at the same time as the background check ... because that creates an absolute impossibility in my previous example.

A friend comes to your house and you let him check out one of your guns. There is an exemption for that temporary transfer because you are doing the transferring in your house. But there is no exemption for your friend to transfer your gun back to you without a background check.

• You transfer a gun to your friend at your house; that is legal because there is an exemption in the bill.
• Your friend cannot transfer the gun back to you without a background check; he is not making the transfer at his house as required to qualify for the exemption.
• Your friend can do a couple of things:
  • You and your friend can go to his house so that the transfer would qualify under the exemption, or;
  • Your friend can go to a dealer to get a background check on you so that he can legally give your gun back to you.
• Either way, when your friend leaves your house to get the background check for the second transfer, he violates the exemption's requirement that the gun must remain in your house, making the initial transfer illegal.

That looks like an absolute Catch-22 to me.

 

[JRH6856]

I see no catch 22. What you are describing is described in the bill as a temporary transfer. Temporary as in "not permanent", implying that you will get it back.

Temporary transfers in your home are excluded if the firearm does not leave your property during the period of the temporary transfer and the transfer last no longer than 7 days.

In other words, a friend comes to visit for a week, you loan him a gun, he keeps it in his room so it never leaves the house and he returns it when he leaves. No UBC is required.

 

[gc70]

I see no catch 22. What you are describing is described in the bill as a temporary transfer. Temporary as in "not permanent", implying that you will get it back.

That may be the implication of the word temporary, but nowhere in the bill does it say anything about 'returning' temporary transfers without background checks. As you said previously:

The law (at least the current proposals I have seen) would require a UBC for each transfer at the time of transfer. And the law would require a UBC when the firearm was transferred back into your possession.

 

[JRH6856]

The bill does say that temporary transfers are exempt from background checks. For the transfer to be temporary, it can't be permanent, and setting 7 day limit on the duration of the transfer means a return is a required part of the transaction that is styled as a temporary transfer.