Firearm Loophole Prevention

[Torian]

LemmyCaution,

I fail to see why you are driving this issue so hard on a pro 2nd amendment forum. ANYTHING that infringes on my right to own, bear, buy, or sell firearms, is something that we will always fight. This is giving up ground to the enemy.

You seem content to trust that POTUS, and various other federal agencies involved with the enforcement of this law, once passed, would not violate our trust, and that they would respect our privacy and our rights.

I believe trust is earned, and not given.

In the last few years year, we've seen the claimed ignorance and arrogance that the heads of these federal agencies have when called before Congress. These are federal appointees who feel they are not answerable to Congress, but have complete discretion to enforce laws as they interpret them. Congress, the only body that is authorized to make laws, is becoming increasingly marginalized by this behavior.

We are not mouth-breathers or conspiracy theorists because we feel this way. I find your attitude pretty condescending. If you are such a fan of the process, I suggest you do your part to support it by moving to a state that requires you to pay a fee and submit to a background check every time you buy ammo.

 

[silvermane_1]

i'm against any kind of UBC, if some individual was to cause havoc/illegal acts with firearm, that individual isn't going to bother with procuring a firearm legally anyways.

 

[LemmyCaution]

LemmyCaution,

I fail to see why you are driving this issue so hard on a pro 2nd amendment forum. ANYTHING that infringes on my right to own, bear, buy, or sell firearms, is something that we will always fight. This is giving up ground to the enemy.

As I've said several times already, I am against background checks.

I am driving this issue so hard because I believe not only that the UBC=registration argument is a poor one, but that it also undermines the effort against UBC by making the RKBA movement look like illogical, extremist ding dongs, because the amount of slippery slope necessary for this fever dream to come true strains credibility.

The better argument against UBC as proposed via Manchin-Toomey is that it inherently disenfranchises everyone who does not meet the identification and proof of address requirements of the 4473 form, as used at FFLs. Under this regime, persons without a fixed address completely lose the right to obtain a firearm. And often, these people are the ones in the most hostile environments with the greatest need for armed self defense- the poor. And given that the poor are a demographic that largely votes Democratic, we drive a wedge in the issue that makes it a bipartisan one.

That's it, in a nutshell.

 

[Old Fuff]

When Universal Background Checks = Universal #4473 forms, ultimate registration becomes quite possible when you consider today’s high-speed computers and multiple databases that are available to the government.

Gun control advocates and other supporters of UBC’s quickly skip over this point during discussions of the issue, and the fact that all of the proposals that have been under consideration in Washington include mandatory FFL (and therefore #4473 forms) involvement as a condition of making what were private, intrastate, transfers between individuals.

Also a U.S. Justice Department “White Paper” on this issue clearly stated “registration is a necessary element in any successful UBC program.”

See post #16 in this thread.

When you frame the issue in terms of Universal #4473 forms a lot of support for UBC’s disappears.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I am driving this issue so hard because I believe not only that the UBC=registration argument is a poor one, but that it also undermines the effort against UBC by making the RKBA movement look like illogical, extremist ding dongs, because the amount of slippery slope necessary for this fever dream to come true strains credibility.

People that don't want to believe Schumer-Toomey-Manchin was about registration can explain one thing for me. The bill said that if you had a qualifying CHL, you were exempt from the NICS check. No background check would be conducted because they already knew you were not a prohibited person.

The same bill also said it was illegal to sell a firearm to a CHL unless it went through an FFL. So if there is not going to be any NICS check, what purpose does it serve to force CHLs to buy through an FFL?

Universal background checks that are designed around the current 1968 system are registration. There is no two ways about it. It may be a decentralized registration; but it is assuredly registration.

Sen. Tom Coburn's bill attempts to do away with the recordkeeping requirements that make it registration; but all that is going to do is kick the can down the road. In less than a year, the antis will be crying about the lack of record keeping requirements making prosecutions difficult.

Private ownership of firearms is not a loophole; but an express part of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The history of gun control has shown that, when and where implemented in accordance to the wish of its advocates, New York City under its implementation of the Sullivan Act, the D.C. and Chicago bans, the 19 May 1986 freeze of the NFA Registry to new civilian machine gun entries, Massachusetts, New Jersey and California, gun control has been carried out in the mode of the Moral Panicks over Satanic Ritual Abuse in the 1980s and the Seduction of the Innocents over comic books in the 1950s. Gun control is a crusade based on blind faith in apriori assumptions that cannot be tested.

The current regime pushing gun control has its roots in Chicago politics. And the belief that a crisis real or fabricated is an opportunity that can be used to do things that otherwise would not stand up to the normal legislative process.

The constant lie that 40% of gun sales are at gun shows without background checks makes me doubt the bona fides of the advocates.
The 40% non dealer gun acquistions (from the NSPOF survey) breaks down to:
19% gifts among familky or friends
13% sales of used guns by private owners
5% inheritances
3% swaps and trades of used guns by private owners

When asked where guns were bought, of the NSPOF survey sample, 4% bought at gun shows and flea markets combined. Most states have a mix of dealer sales w.BG check and privates sales at gun shows, some states only allow licensed dealers to set up at gun shows. But a portion of 4% cannot be 40%. Also locally ATF crackdowns have meant few if any private sellers set up at local fleamarkets.

As long as UBC is pushed panick mode with distorted stats I will doubt the bona fides and intentions of the advocates.

I also have enough "street experience" from the 1950s and 1960s to know that criminals acquire guns outside the legal system in the first place, without having to look up the 1980s NIJ "Armed and Considered Dangerous" or the late 1990s BJS State and Federal Inmate surveys to know that.

To me the fact that the gun control push is based on the NSPOF survey of ordinary owners, rather than on any of the felon surveys, is proof to me that the proposed laws are aimed at the ordinary citizen, not at the criminal.

My opinion on this is shaded by the fact that the Tennessee state constitution protects the right of the citizens of this state to keep and bear arms, and restricts the power of the legislature to regulation with a view to prevent crime. And several gun laws have been abolished or replaced--such as the fifteen day waiting period, application for permission to purchase with CLEO sign off, or discretionary carry permit systems--when the laws were seen as unduly restricting the RKBA without impacting crime.

 

[Praxidike]

The history of gun control has shown that, when and where implemented in accordance to the wish of its advocates, New York City under its implementation of the Sullivan Act, the D.C. and Chicago bans, the 19 May 1986 freeze of the NFA Registry to new civilian machine gun entries, Massachusetts, New Jersey and California, gun control has been carried out in the mode of the Moral Panicks over Satanic Ritual Abuse in the 1980s and the Seduction of the Innocents over comic books in the 1950s. Gun control is a crusade based on blind faith in apriori assumptions that cannot be tested.

The current regime pushing gun control has its roots in Chicago politics. And the belief that a crisis real or fabricated is an opportunity that can be used to do things that otherwise would not stand up to the normal legislative process.

The constant lie that 40% of gun sales are at gun shows without background checks makes me doubt the bona fides of the advocates.
The 40% non dealer gun acquistions (from the NSPOF survey) breaks down to:
19% gifts among familky or friends
13% sales of used guns by private owners
5% inheritances
3% swaps and trades of used guns by private owners

When asked where guns were bought, of the NSPOF survey sample, 4% bought at gun shows and flea markets combined. Most states have a mix of dealer sales w.BG check and privates sales at gun shows, some states only allow licensed dealers to set up at gun shows. But a portion of 4% cannot be 40%. Also locally ATF crackdowns have meant few if any private sellers set up at local fleamarkets.

As long as UBC is pushed panick mode with distorted stats I will doubt the bona fides and intentions of the advocates.

I also have enough "street experience" from the 1950s and 1960s to know that criminals acquire guns outside the legal system in the first place, without having to look up the 1980s NIJ "Armed and Considered Dangerous" or the late 1990s BJS State and Federal Inmate surveys to know that.

To me the fact that the gun control push is based on the NSPOF survey of ordinary owners, rather than on any of the felon surveys, is proof to me that the proposed laws are aimed at the ordinary citizen, not at the criminal.

My opinion on this is shaded by the fact that the Tennessee state constitution protects the right of the citizens of this state to keep and bear arms, and restricts the power of the legislature to regulation with a view to prevent crime. And several gun laws have been abolished or replaced--such as the fifteen day waiting period, application for permission to purchase with CLEO sign off, or discretionary carry permit systems--when the laws were seen as unduly restricting the RKBA without impacting crime.

Honestly, they want all guns banned, and have even said so. The main person behind the prior Gun Control Bill and the one that was just defeated has openly stated that if she could get the votes, she'd have all guns taken. Now you (LemmyCaution) expect me to believe and trust and you act as if I'm way off in seeing this as a Trojan Horse? They hate guns, they see them as not being needed, they do not have the votes to have them banned, so they're grabbing them in a round about way.

Go to other forums, national news sites, and popular political blogs. You'll hear from the progun control crowed that we're all are sick, we do not care about the lives of American people and children, we're all a danger to society, we're all compensating for our manhood, we're all cowards, want to keep gun in the hands of criminals, that we have a weapon of mass destruction and they and the government should know where these weapons are at all times and who's in position of them. They should all have to be registered just like cars and pets are...

After hearing how this people (politicians included) think about us and after they outright stated that their agenda is to have all guns banned, we'd have to be complete and utter idiots not to clearly see that they're not trying to just keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but rather, they're trying to get us to walk a step father to having an outright ban.

 

[Twiki357]

A universal background check would presumably be required to be done by an FFL utilizing a 4473. The 4473 includes all of the information on the buyer (Section A), the seller (Section B), and the firearm (Section C). Under the UBC premise, if a firearm is traced to a FTF seller, that seller could be in violation if he can't prove that a UBC was performed on the purchaser. This could lead to every person who ever sells a firearm to maintain sales record that a UBC was performed on the buyer as a CYA. With the increased use of electronic 4473's and "Bound books" a registry of LLC sales/transfers since 1968 becomes easier by the day. Granted, it would be no way complete, but all it would take is an executive order and/or an arbitrary rule by the ATF for all the 4473 data to be submitted.... Oh, that's illegal? Just like the four border states reporting multiple sales. And I wouldn't count on SCOTUS to throw it out. By the time that "Could" happen, the damage would have been done.

 

[Hacker15E]

the SCOTUS is the penultimate arbiter of the limits of those powers, as far as the Constitution is concerned.

Penultimate means "second to last" -- so who is the final arbiter if it is not the SCOTUS?

 

[Hanzo581]

Background checks for private sales is just about the only gun control law I actually don't have a problem with. It makes zero sense to me that if I buy an AR-15 from a gun shop I have to be checked and fill out paperwork but if I buy it out of a guys trunk in the parking lot of the gun shop I'm good to go.

Plus, the new process would give business to gun shops in transfer/paperwork fees.

 

[AKElroy]

Background checks for private sales is just about the only gun control law I actually don't have a problem with. It makes zero sense to me that if I buy an AR-15 from a gun shop I have to be checked and fill out paperwork but if I buy it out of a guys trunk in the parking lot of the gun shop I'm good to go.

Plus, the new process would give business to gun shops in transfer/paperwork fees.

I don't have a problem with background checks either. I have a problem with a law requiring them.

 

[Hanzo581]

I don't have a problem with background checks either. I have a problem with a law requiring them.

If there wasn't a law requiring them, what would be the point? People wouldn't go out of their way to do something that wasn't required of them.

 

[abajaj11]

This topic has been discussed EXTENSIVELY in another thread.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=694810&highlight=gun+show+loophole

Of course, UBC would require registration. How would the government be able to monitor that the law of performing a UBC and the individual keeping records of the sale was followed, if they did not KNOW that a sale had even taken place.

In order to know a sale has even taken place, they need to know who owns what....before and after the sale. That is registration.

Besides, if you read the other thread, it indicates clearly that our Attorney General, Mr. Holder, agrees with this, and has declared in memos that the ONLY way to enforce or monitor UBC would be to have national registration!

 

[Colonel]

As such, it is mostly unenforceable

Sounds like it'll go gangbusters as a useful tool against violent criminals!

 

[AKElroy]

If there wasn't a law requiring them, what would be the point? People wouldn't go out of their way to do something that wasn't required of them.

Why single out guns?

Why not run a BC for all the dangers of life? Hands and feet take far more lives each year than rifles and assault weapons; shouldn't we require parents to undergo a BC before giving birth?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

A great article from Reason explaining why gun owners should oppose "reasonable" background checks: http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/18/why-second-amendment-supporters-are-righ

Though the history there is probably not news to most of the people at THR, it is clearly something a few people here could stand to read

 

[HOOfan_1]

Hey guess what Lemmy...gun control is a slippery slope. There is no amount of imagination or extremism needed to see that UBC can lead to registration, no amount of stretching needed to see that on the national level gun control on the net is getting more restrictive, not less. No imagination is needed to see the broad interpretations of the law that the ATF goes by.

 

[AKElroy]

The notion that we can "temper our arguments" or in any way moderate our message in such a way as to convince antis into all of the sudden supporting our cause is ludicrous. This silliness is based on the flawed belief that they are well intentioned and ill informed, and need only be educated with the right words.

For the rank and file anti follower, this is not the case at all. This is a half-court shot for the win. This is sport for them, and people are not talked out of supporting their team. The teams are set, and one side will win. I can guarantee it will not be the side that sits down, moderates its core argument, and surrenders by pursuing messaging that some think they will appreciate as being more civil.

Our anti rulers are in an even less moveable position with regard to gun rights, they view them as a threat to power, and they are frankly tired of having it hanging over their head. They are not moderating that view, regardless how we frame the argument.

We have had our fill of "moderate" voices. John McCain. Mitt Romney. They lost because they failed to lead with a message that a plurality would follow. In contrast, an idealistic young man from Chicago voices loudly his far-left views, and wins twice in a country where nearly 60% oppose his policies.

An idealistic voice WINS. We moderate, we lose. This is not an intellectual exercise, and these people are not sitting across from us willing to have an honest debate. We are their enemy, and our defeat is the only acceptable outcome for them. We can only motivate LIKE MINDED people with a PRINCIPLED STAND. We cannot turn antis or change their minds. We can only turn out our base in opposition.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Penultimate means "second to last" -- so who is the final arbiter if it is not the SCOTUS?

Know that ye are the people, your throne is above the king! The final authority is the citizen. That is the whole point of the Constitution. We the people cede specified authority to the government to act in our behalf. Most of the "loopholes" I hear being discussed are simply authority not granted to the government that those in government want to obtain sub rosa.

 

[Mitlov]

I have to show an ID every single time I buy alcohol (i.e., checking that I'm legally allowed to purchase it), yet the federal government does not have a registry of which scotches and cognacs I have in my liquor cabinet. So I'd agree with LemmyCaution that a registry is not the inevitable result of background checks.

This is not an intellectual exercise, and these people are not sitting across from us willing to have an honest debate. We are their enemy, and our defeat is the only acceptable outcome for them. We can only motivate LIKE MINDED people with a PRINCIPLED STAND. We cannot turn antis or change their minds. We can only turn out our base in opposition.

I'm friends with quite a few "antis" and the way you portray them is simply inaccurate. It's a straw man. There's not this monolith of people who hate freedom and love oppression. They're generally good people who generally (1) have limited or no experience with firearms and thus fear them, (2) have a strong emotional reaction to stories about firearms violence, and (3) erroneously believe that the best way to reduce firearms violence (something we all want) is to add restrictions to firearms ownership. Both sides in American politics love to demean the other side as "hating freedom" or "hating America," but 99% of the time, you've got well-meaning people on both sides who disagree on what the constitution means or disagree as to what policy choices will have the best outcome.

Winning any political debate in America means winning over fence-sitters as converts via calm logic and compassion for their viewpoint (even if it's misguided), not alienating them with "you're either with me 100% or you're against me" rhetoric.

 

[bikemutt]

Buying liquor, a consumable, and comparing that to buying a gun is a non sequitur argument. Try imagining car sales without registration; the state can't.

 

[Mitlov]

Buying liquor, a consumable, and comparing that to buying a gun is a non sequitur argument. Try imagining car sales without registration; the state can't.

Just because the government has chosen to use registration for motor vehicles doesn't mean that any universal background check scheme leads to a registry. Regardless of the consumables-versus-machinery issue, alcohol proves that you can have universal background checks without a registry being created. Some have argued that a registry is the inevitable result of UBC, but that's simply not accurate. It's one possible result but not the only possible result.

 

[Black Butte]

The bottom line is background checks create a "paper trail" tying transferees to guns, irregardless of whether a registry is created or not. For example, with the "good guy card" suggested in post 5, the transferer would likely want to see and keep a record of the card to prove he complied with the law if called on to do so in the future. This record links the purchaser to the gun. Second-Amendment advocates don't want anything linking them to a firearm acquisition, which is why they oppose universal background checks.

 

[AKElroy]

friends with quite a few "antis" and the way you portray them is simply inaccurate. It's a straw man. There's not this monolith of people who hate freedom and love oppression. They're generally good people who generally (1) have limited or no experience with firearms and thus fear them, (2) have a strong emotional reaction to stories about firearms violence, and (3) erroneously believe that the best way to reduce firearms violence (something we all want) is to add restrictions to firearms ownership. Both sides in American politics love to demean the other side as "hating freedom" or "hating America," but 99% of the time, you've got well-meaning people on both sides who disagree on what the constitution means or disagree as to what policy choices will have the best outcome.

You are making the very generalizations you accuse me of. I never said they hate freedom, love oppression or hate America. I said they support their side. Period. It is not just this issue. They defend their ground on numerous other issues of which gun control is a part. They are as close to a monolithic block as can exist on this earth. I too am friends with many of these folks, we have spirited debate, and at the end of the day they want to win, and they want my side to lose politically. For the most part, they do not equate that loss as anything other than a political one. We do.

 

[AKElroy]

but 99% of the time, you've got well-meaning people on both sides who disagree on what the constitution means or disagree as to what policy choices will have the best outcome

It is no where near 99%. 10%, tops. Your experience may vary. I think most folks on our side look for the best possible motives in the opposition, but I firmly believe they are far less likely to reciprocate. We are viewed as socially backward, uneducated Neanderthals that have no place participating in public discourse, and must be defeated and silenced. Hell, we've got folks IN THIS THREAD wired that way. I spend a lot of time in Austin, and campus thought may well be influencing my view. Even so, I still think our opponents are far less tolerant of us than we are of them.

I call it like I experience it.