Bring on the Universal Background Checks

[gc70]

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

I have been trying to convey two points: the language of a law must be evaluated consistently, and; the home exemption in S.649 is not well written.

Consistency:

The first step in evaluating whether a background check is required is to determine whether there is a 'transfer' (a defined term). A change in ownership or title goes in one direction and results in one 'transfer.' A change in possession without a change in ownership or title involves movements in at least two directions (because an owner eventually wants the gun back), each of which is a separate 'transfer.' If this understanding is correct, it must be applied consistently throughout the law.

The second step is to determine whether a 'transfer' meets specified conditions to remove the requirement for a background check. Sections (t)(2)(A) and (t)(2)(B) list conditions for removing the background check requirement for transfers involving a change of ownership or title. Sections (t)(2)(C) and (t)(2)(D) list conditions for removing the background check requirement for transfers involving changes in possession without a change in ownership or title. Each 'transfer' is tested separately against the conditions to remove the requirement for a background check; there is no guidance in the bill to tie certain transfers together and only test one of the related transfers against the conditions.

Writing:

Section (t)(2)(D) lists conditions for transfers of possession without transfers of title in connection with hunting or sporting purposes. Each separate 'transfer' can meet the conditions on its own; in fact, as far as I can tell, if an outgoing 'transfer' meets the conditions, the related return 'transfer' will always meet the conditions.

Section (t)(2)(C) lists conditions for transfers of possession without transfers of title at home. The conditions are written in such a way that an outgoing 'transfer' can meet the conditions, but the related return 'transfer' can only meet the conditions if both (or all) parties to the transfers live in the same house. Either this section fails as a general exemption for transfers in a person's home because visitors could never meet the conditions to return the gun OR this section is only meant to be an exemption for transfers between people who live in the same house, which is far from obvious on the surface.

Another example of poor writing is in the section (t)(3)(A) definition of a 'transfer' as including "return from pawn." Pawnbrokers dealing in guns are required to be licensed dealers. Since this bill only deals with transfers in which both parties are unlicensed, it could never apply to a transfer involving a licensed pawnbroker. Of course, I may be too harsh in my assessment and there may be a need for a law to require background checks for the customers of pawnbrokers who are unlicensed and already illegally dealing in guns.

 

[JRH6856]

^^^Well, I will agree that it may be poorly written in some areas, but IMO, not fatally so. If passed, the courts will look for the sense of the law and IMO, that is easily found even with the flaws that are there. And I do agree about the pawnbrokers which we haven't even discussed. I still disagree with your reading of the requirements for temporary transfers in home, and as I have already explained how I read it I won't do so again.

But also, IMO, it is really a moot point. As I pointed out in post #72, the bill is fatally flawed in that the law is unenforceable without national registration of all firearms and it is not going to pass with that requirement. It may pass the Senate without a registry requirement, but will almost certainly die in committee in the House.

 

[Deer_Freak]

Let's put our efforts into defeating the UBC before it is a law. Kill the monster before it hatches.

 

[gc70]

JRH6856: That's cool; we can agree to disagree on the home transfers.

I agree that background checks have limited enforceability without registration. But Schumer is clearly focused on passing a law to produce records now and collecting those records into a registry could be the work of future legislation.

A background check bill will probably not be passed in this session of Congress. However, the White House is signaling willingness to accept nearly anything that can be called a gun control bill and there are reports of yet unseen Republican alternative bills being drafted, so I would not rule out the possibility of something being passed.

 

[Ryanxia]

Let's put our efforts into defeating the UBC before it is a law. Kill the monster before it hatches.

Hear hear!

Write your reps (again) and let them know you expect them to OPPOSE universal background checks.

 

[JRH6856]

I would not rule out the possibility of something being passed.

Neither would I. It's won't be over until it's over and it's never over. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.