Changed my mind on universal background checks

[mack]

I've changed my mind on universal background checks and now think we should push for them without registration and the requirement that all background check information be destroyed after 24 hours except that a background check was run for the individual selling/gifting/transferring a gun or guns with no information kept on the buyer or recipient or the gun or guns transferred. One background check for any number of guns no requirement to specify gun or guns transferred.

Then a person could legally decide to gift/sell one gun and effectively all their guns would legally be off paper, no way to know if they all were sold or gifted in one transaction or not.

Got any guns? Hmmmm, did I sell or gift them all from that one recorded transfer I made in the government database to that now anonymous person who passed the background check? I hope I remember, let me think. I know we would all answer honestly and support such a system.

 

[Sistema1927]

Background checks don't stop criminals. Don't fall for "feel good" measures that infringe rights.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

You could very easily do it with a cryptographic hash system without much trouble. Except an agency would never create an all-encompassing background check system to prove buyers aren't criminals, only to permanently delete all that nice, juicy, free data.

Fox guarding the hen house and all that jazz. We're supposed to just "trust them".

 

[JohnKSa]

Allowing universal background checks will lead to registration laws because without them, as you point out, it's nearly impossible to prove that an illegal transaction took place.

The anti-gunners will not let that state of affairs continue long. They will (correctly) point out that the universal background check law is unenforceable and push for registration to make the UBC law workable.

 

[Alaska444]

Allowing universal background checks will lead to registration laws because without them, as you point out, it's nearly impossible to prove that an illegal transaction took place.

The anti-gunners will not let that state of affairs continue long. They will (correctly) point out that the universal background check law is unenforceable and push for registration to make the UBC law workable.

+1, UBC is the battle cry. Unfortunately, it is often seen as the compromise we can "make" with the anti's. It is instead their game plan.

 

[AlexanderA]

People here seem to forget that it's in gun owners' own self-interest to try to prevent unsuitable individuals -- those likely to commit crimes -- from getting guns. Remember, it's massacres such as that in Sandy Hook that lead to draconian gun laws. If we can prevent a massacre, we protect our gun rights. The difficult part is setting up a system that weeds out the unsuitable individuals but doesn't trample on the rights of the responsible and law-abiding. That's the area in which we need to have a constructive dialogue.

 

[xXxplosive]

IMO............worthless.......enforce the thousands of laws that are on the books already.........we don't need any new ones.

 

[Alaska444]

People here seem to forget that it's in gun owners' own self-interest to try to prevent unsuitable individuals -- those likely to commit crimes -- from getting guns. Remember, it's massacres such as that in Sandy Hook that lead to draconian gun laws. If we can prevent a massacre, we protect our gun rights. The difficult part is setting up a system that weeds out the unsuitable individuals but doesn't trample on the rights of the responsible and law-abiding. That's the area in which we need to have a constructive dialogue.

Sorry, but Sandy Hook was from a creep that stole his mother's lawfully acquired guns. How would UBC have prevented that mass shooting?

 

[SuperNaut]

No.

Now is not the time for concessions, now is the time to push for full realization of what has been laid out in the Heller and MacDonald decisions.

The battle cry should be "Midterms" and "Rollback." Say it with me now:

Mid Terms! Mid Terms! Mid Terms!

Roll Back! Roll Back! Roll Back!

 

[Solo]

Sorry, but Sandy Hook was from a creep that stole his mother's lawfully acquired guns. How would UBC have prevented that mass shooting?

Well, if we defined letting a family member temporarily possess your gun as a "transfer" and require a background check for it, it would have stopped this madman from obtaining the weapon. That's just common sense, according to politicians.

 

[gunnutery]

Alexander, are you suggesting that UBCs are the factor that will prevent mass shootings?

To the OP, sandy hook, the reason for our woes, is the exact case for why UBCs won't work. BGs can just kill gunowners or burgle their houses. The sandy hook killer couldve killed his mother with anything in the house to get the guns, she just happened to leave them accessable.

 

[Ed N.]

Let's extend the wisdom of UBCs to other parts of the BoR.

For example, consider the 1A. A free press is necessary in this country to ensure an informed electorate. Freedom of the press and the RTKBA are both important to keeping a check on the government and preserving liberty. Unfortunately, a great deal of damage is done by erroneous and irresponsible reporting. Mangled facts, distorted accounts, and flat-out falsehoods have a devastating impact on the electoral process.

Therefore, it makes sense to regulate those who are allowed to write and publish the news. To be a reporter should require a thorough background investigation and state-approved training. We need strict control over the types of stories printed, and to ensure balance, we need to prohibit any reporter from writing more than one story a month.

And what of the readers? Doesn't society have a stake in how the news is read, interpreted, and discussed? Aren't we obligated to keep complicated issues away from those who can't understand them, or act properly upon the information? Shouldn't a person have to go through a background check before purchasing a newspaper from a federally licensed (something else we should add) news dealer?

If we're not willing to put such obstacles in the way of 1A rights, we shouldn't be so quick to put them in the way of the 2A either.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

No concessions.

 

[Njal Thorgeirsson]

I think the risk is somewhat small that it could lead to registration.

At the same time, I see absolutely no way it could be enforced, or any way it could prevent crime. I see no use in it.

So from my perspective, there is no gain, and a tiny bit of risk. But any risk with no gain is NEVER a good deal. Therefore I see no reason to support it. But that is just my personal opinion.

And because it can't be enforced, it could only give the anti's fuel for their ultimate goal of registration and the measures that would follow. I have no interest in supporting that.

 

[Deanimator]

The sham "universal background check" is COMPLETELY unenforceable without REGISTRATION.

Why pass a law, which by its very nature is UNENFORCEABLE?

Any such law must INEVITABLY either be ignored, repealed or followed by REGISTRATION.

One MORE time:

NO, I REFUSE.

 

[CBT_ENG]

I do agree that universal background checks will not prevent a criminal from obtaining a firearm. The reason I may agree to a universal background check would be to protect myself from selling a firearm to a felon or wife beater. Example, if I bring a gun to sell at a gun show who is to say that guy walking the aisles offers to buy your gun is not a felon. There is no way to know unless you go through a dealer. If there was a system in which a buyer gets a background approval with a approval code and then the seller can check the approval code with a phone call or internet check. This way there is no need for firearm info.

 

[Mousegun]

How could you possibly trust the government to destroy the record in 24 hours or not keep information on the buyer? Once they have it, there is no way to really tell what they will do with it.

I too have changed my mind on background checks.

NONE

 

[Deanimator]

That's the area in which we need to have a constructive dialogue.

There is no more room for "constructive dialogue" with anti-gunners than there was between Juergen Stroop and the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.

The other side's goal is maximalist and alterable only with regard to time table. The path may deviate minimally, but the destination is ALWAYS the same, the ELIMINATION of widespread citizen firearms ownership.

NO, I REFUSE.

 

[Solo]

For example, consider the 1A. A free press is necessary in this country to ensure an informed electorate. Freedom of the press and the RTKBA are both important to keeping a check on the government and preserving liberty. Unfortunately, a great deal of damage is done by erroneous and irresponsible reporting. Mangled facts, distorted accounts, and flat-out falsehoods have a devastating impact on the electoral process.

Therefore, it makes sense to regulate those who are allowed to write and publish the news. To be a reporter should require a thorough background investigation and state-approved training. We need strict control over the types of stories printed, and to ensure balance, we need to prohibit any reporter from writing more than one story a month.

Agreed. I would further argue that we would need a government department concerned with ensuring the "truthiness" of what is reported. A Ministry of Truth, if you will.

 

[Fremmer]

Can you please explain how your background checks would have stopped any of these school shootings?

 

[AlexanderA]

Sorry, but Sandy Hook was from a creep that stole his mother's lawfully acquired guns. How would UBC have prevented that mass shooting?

It wouldn't have in that case, but there's no reason to assume that it also wouldn't have in other cases. The fallacy is in thinking that we're talking about an airtight system (which is impossible, in any case). The truth is that you work the percentages, and make a massacre less likely. Also, you never hear about the cases where a massacre was prevented -- only about the cases where the system failed. We need to reduce the incidence of system failures, while recognizing that there will always be system failures.

 

[PCCUSNRET]

I do agree that universal background checks will not prevent a criminal from obtaining a firearm. The reason I may agree to a universal background check would be to protect myself from selling a firearm to a felon or wife beater. Example, if I bring a gun to sell at a gun show who is to say that guy walking the aisles offers to buy your gun is not a felon. There is no way to know unless you go through a dealer. If there was a system in which a buyer gets a background approval with a approval code and then the seller can check the approval code with a phone call or internet check. This way there is no need for firearm info.

Why should it be your responsibility to ensure the buyer is authorize to purchase a firearm. That's like saying we shouldn't sell a knife to someone without a background check since they might use it for malicious purposes. The person buying the gun is the one that should be responsible for meeting all of the requirements to legally purchase the gun. We already have the option of going through an FFL if we're concerned, but I sure don't believe it should be made mandatory. If I sell to a buyer without using an FFL I have the buyer complete a Bill of Sale with a statement on it that they verify they are legally permitted to purchase the firearm and I verify their driver's license.

 

[browneu]

I do agree that universal background checks will not prevent a criminal from obtaining a firearm. The reason I may agree to a universal background check would be to protect myself from selling a firearm to a felon or wife beater. Example, if I bring a gun to sell at a gun show who is to say that guy walking the aisles offers to buy your gun is not a felon. There is no way to know unless you go through a dealer. If there was a system in which a buyer gets a background approval with a approval code and then the seller can check the approval code with a phone call or internet check. This way there is no need for firearm info.

Why does suspicion have to be at a gun show. Either you trust the person to represent themselves honestly or you don't.

Couldn't you just pay a dealer to process the transfer for you now?

I see nothing changing with UBC. Remember the felon who set a house on fire then shot first responders? UBC wouldn't have stopped that since he had someone perform a straw purchase for him.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Solo]

It wouldn't have in that case, but there's no reason to assume that it also wouldn't have in other cases. The fallacy is in thinking that we're talking about an airtight system (which is impossible, in any case). The truth is that you work the percentages, and make a massacre less likely. Also, you never hear about the cases where a massacre was prevented -- only about the cases where the system failed. We need to reduce the incidence of system failures, while recognizing that there will always be system failures.

How do you know when you've reduced the incidence of system failures when you are measuring a statistically unpredictable event?

 

[Millwright]

AA,

There's no way to prevent any "registration/permission scheme from being corrupted by government. So we're forced into a "point of infraction" defense scenario, or acceptance of being rendered completely defenseless in face of any threat.

One reason "government" - particularly its liberal/elite/leftist espousers - are so adamant in their anti self-defense stance is growing need highlights the culmination of their past failures in "social engineering" ! Their long-standing pogrom of political divisiveness created a large body of disaffected/dependent/disfunctional and asocial individuals seeing the larger body of citzenry as " prey". IOW, having bred this partiularly voracious species of crocodile, they want to feed them to the beast, rather than themselves. >MW