Bring on the Universal Background Checks

[gc70]

Have you changed your view so that you now believe that the law would NOT require a UBC when the firearm was transferred back into your possession?

 

[JRH6856]

All BCs are done by FFLs. They must do the check before transferring a firearm out of their inventory. Once you transfer to firearm to an FFL, he can't transfer it back to you without a BC. Temporary transfers are exempt. No FFL is involved. No BC is required for either the initial transfer or the return as long as the required conditions are met.

 

[gc70]

Can you point to any language in the bill that would attach a 'return' privilege to the exemptions while other temporary transfers not subject to the exemptions would require background checks in both directions?

ADDED: I do agree that the exemptions for shooting ranges, competitions, and hunting are written broadly enough to cover transfers by both the person originally transferring a gun and the person returning the gun. However, the exemption for the home ("the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor") is so narrowly written that it only applies to transfers in one direction.

 

[JRH6856]

However, the exemption for the home ("the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor") is so narrowly written that it only applies to transfers in one direction.

I don't see how you can interpret it that way. The bill clearly requires the return as a condition of the exemption.

A transfer in 1 direction is a permanent transfer. A temporary transfer must have two directions or it would not be temporary. And as long as the stated conditions are met including the return of the firearm within 7 days, the transfer is exempt both ways.

 

[gc70]

JRH6856: You appear to agree that a temporary transfer involves movement in two directions and each of those two movements represents a separate section (t)(1) transfer that requires a background check. However, I think you are arguing that both of the section (t)(1) transfers that make up a temporary transfer would be bundled together to satisfy the conditions of the section (t)(2)(C) 'at home' exemption.

My argument is that a literal reading of the language of the 'at home' the exemption does not make sense. I believe that the bill is so badly written that the outgoing movement (transfer) can meet all of the specific conditions of the exemption, but that the return movement (transfer) can not do so. The only way I can see for the exemption to make sense is (as I think you argue) to not recognize the return movement as a section (t)(1) transfer that would have to separately meet the exemption's conditions - and I do not see that type of specific language in the exemption.

 

[JRH6856]

JRH6856: You appear to agree that a temporary transfer involves movement in two directions and each of those two movements represents a separate section (t)(1) transfer that requires a background check. However, I think you are arguing that both of the section (t)(1) transfers that make up a temporary transfer would be bundled together to satisfy the conditions of the section (t)(2)(C) 'at home' exemption.

No, I do not agree with any of that.

Paragraph (t)(1) requires a background check for all sales and transfers. Paragraph 2 then exempts certain transfers from the requirements of Paragraph (1).

Per Paragraph 2 (C) Temporary transfers are exempt from the (t)(1) requirement of a background check. They are exempt because they are a single transaction that is self cancelling as long as the stipulated conditions are adhered to, not two (t)(1) transactions each of which would require a BC.

My argument is that a literal reading of the language of the 'at home' the exemption does not make sense. I believe that the bill is so badly written that the outgoing movement (transfer) can meet all of the specific conditions of the exemption, but that the return movement (transfer) can not do so. The only way I can see for the exemption to make sense is (as I think you argue) to not recognize the return movement as a section (t)(1) transfer that would have to separately meet the exemption's conditions - and I do not see that type of specific language in the exemption.

I'm sorry, but with a literal understanding of the definition of the word "temporary" the language of the exemption make perfect sense to me.

 

[gc70]

No, I do not agree with any of that.

What were you expressing below?

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.

Is that not a description of a requirement for UBCs for both movements in a temporary transfer?

 

[JRH6856]

The required (t)(1)transfers, obviously not the exempt temporary transfers since I was referring to what the law requires, not what it exempts.

 

[gc70]

Do you believe the bill requires two UBCs for the two changes in possession that make up a temporary transfer that is not part of an exemption?

 

[JRH6856]

Find me an example of a temporary transfer that is not exempted. I can't find one in the bill.

 

[gc70]

Example: You are out plinking with a friend on some rural property and you loan your friend a gun for a month.

 

[JRH6856]

Example: You are out plinking with a friend on some rural property and you loan your friend a gun for a month.

This does not meet any of the conditions for exemption, therefore IMO it is not a temporary transfer. Would require two background checks.

If you and your friend were on a month long hunting trip together, the transfer might be exempt if other conditions were met. Such as, for example: your friend never took your gun on property where hunting was not legal.

 

[wild cat mccane]

gun right "thumpers" do know that automatic weapons are controlled well right?

Cause of law.

 

[gc70]

This does not meet any of the conditions for exemption, therefore IMO it is not a temporary transfer.

I see; it is not a 'temporary transfer' but a 'transfer' that is temporary.

 

[JRH6856]

I see; it is not a 'temporary transfer' but a 'transfer' that is temporary.

If you want to call it that, that would be your description, not the law's. Temporary (from the (Latin temporarius, from tempor-, tempus time) means "limited by time"

The bill places time limits on transfers occuring under certain specified conditions (in your home, at ranges or sanctioned events, while legally hunting) which makes them temporary. The transfers must meet all of these conditions including the time limits set in order to be exempt.

Transfers that meet all of the other conditions but exceed the set time limit are not exempt and even though the parties involved may have set a different time limit making a transfer temporary in their eyes, it would not be temporary in the eyes of the law.

 

[barnbwt]

Technically (and not advocating this) transfers that the law is unaware of are also "exempt"

TCB

 

[JRH6856]

Technically (and not advocating this) transfers that the law is unaware of are also "exempt"

TCB

Not by law

 

[leadcounsel]

It would be meaningless, and possibly counterproductive. The new "stats" would show all of the transfers that were previously being done without paperwork.

And the fees would be prohibitive. Here it's $20 and 10% taxes for a transfer.

 

[JRH6856]

fees would be prohibitive

That is quite likely a major point of the whole scheme, "prohibitive" being the key word.

 

[Millwright]

Are you certain this isn't exactly what the new "feddies" want ?

That much more "load" means justification for more agents to exercise oversight. and what else can those (armed) agents do ?

I suggest all gun owners shelve old shiboleths and focus on the "new reality" our enemies are promulgating. We're being "picked to death by chickens" because the "pickers" have taken the time/effort to establish a "flock mentality" where most will willingly follow the "'pecking order" attacking any bird standing out from the crowd. >MW

 

[Millwright]

I will offer this alternative suggestion for comment:

For private firearms sales/exchanges: Establish separate trunk to the NIS
system. All inquiries will be limited to yea/nay approval of the submitted individual to purchase a firearm. NO serials. NO description of the arm. NO information on the seller. NO "paperwork". All data to be expunged after thirty days. >MW

 

[JRH6856]

I will offer this alternative suggestion for comment:

For private firearms sales/exchanges: Establish separate trunk to the NIS
system. All inquiries will be limited to yea/nay approval of the submitted individual to purchase a firearm. NO serials. NO description of the arm. NO information on the seller. NO "paperwork". All data to be expunged after thirty days. >MW

Without records it is unenforceable so why bother at all.

Chucky's proposed bill suffers from a NY perspective. It assumes firearms are titled entities (which registered firearms are). But in states without registries, there is no record of ownership and no title so a change of possession may indicate a change of ownership, or just a temporary loan--no way to tell. So in order to work at all, Chucky's bill requires a national registry of all firearms and leaves it to the Attorney General to design and implement it. This delegates broad and sweeping power to the executive branch, to say the least.

In the past, I have gone halves with friends to buy a gun neither of us could afford. We both owned it equally and each had an equal right to possession. In no way did any transfer of possession between us constitute a change of ownership except under the old common-law assumption that possession equals 9/10th the law. Chucky's bill has no provision for transfers involving this type of ownership and I doubt a national registry would recognize it either.

 

[gc70]

I see; it is not a 'temporary transfer' but a 'transfer' that is temporary.

If you want to call it that, that would be your description, not the law's.

Read the bill again. You give the phrase 'temporary transfer' a special and distinct meaning different from a 'transfer' that is temporary. The bill defines the term 'transfer' in section (t)(3)(A). The bill does not define the phrase 'temporary transfer.' That phrase describes a characteristic of a 'transfer' using the adjective temporary.

S.649 is fairly straightforward.

• Is there a 'transfer' as defined in section (t)(3)(A)? If not, stop here; if so, keep reading.
• Are both parties to the 'transfer' unlicensed? If not, stop here; if so, a background check is required, but keep reading.
• Does the 'transfer' involve certain characteristics (parties involved, location, etc)? If not, a background check is still required; if so, a background check is not required.

 

[JRH6856]

gc70, read (t)(2)(C)-(D). Whatever point you are trying to make, it escapes me.

 

[UhKlem]

UBC is designed to fail

It took 72 posts for an independent thinker to point out the folly in UBCs. Without registration (some form of titled property). UBC among private parties is unenforceable. It is designed to fail because it is a stalking horse for universal registration. Gub doesn't care if it makes criminals out of voluntary exchange. Those latent and uncountable criminals will be the excuse for universal registration when the private party loophole is later exposed the next time some metro gamer goes off his meds. Must...have...registration...That will be enforceable. After registration the handcuffs are out and clicking. Get caught without ze paperz and the offense will be detectable and punishable. Until then it crashes by design. Fight it now or fight it a step closer to tyranny, the design is already obvious.

I expect a lot of anti-gun libs found with unregistered zip guns to get turned into the tip lines. In a seeker-rich environment, chaff is your friend.