More ammo against universal background checks

[sawdeanz]

Pretty detailed article here that says over 500 or 2% of gun sales a day slip through the NCIS check system due to states failing to update criminal databases in time, or FBI being understaffed.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...i-data-show-thousands-beat-background/2208040

Universal background checks are going to be the next wave of state by state gun control targets, so maybe you can show them this article as evidence that UBCs would be yet another burden that doesn't even work when it is used.

Also an interesting look at what goes on the other side when they make the call.

 

[Sunray]

No gun control measure does much of anything but burden the law abiding. Criminals don't care if there's any kind of a check. They don't take cheques.

 

[reddog81]

I'm not trying to be a jerk nor am I for a UBC but one could make the argument that a UBC is necessary in order to "clean up" all the NCIS failures...
Most government "solutions" involve more and more layers of bureaucracy.

 

[Spats McGee]

I'm not trying to be a jerk nor am I for a UBC but one could make the argument that a UBC is necessary in order to "clean up" all the NCIS failures...
Most government "solutions" involve more and more layers of bureaucracy.

We should submit to more infringements of our rights in order to "clean up" the flawed system under which I already have to ask permission for one way of exercising my fundamental, individual, Constitutional right?

No, I'm not buying it. If you think there's a decent argument there, I'm all ears.

 

[reddog81]

I never said it was a good argument. I'm just saying that it would be an argument and the most likely solution proposed by a bureaucrat.
What's the point of NCIS if it doesn't work? I realize there probably is a need to keep guns out of felons hands, but I don't know the best way to do that.
Do you try and force states to comply and submit the data?
Like I said before I'm not trying to be a jerk nor would I propose more requirements that criminals are going to ignore. I'm just trying to play devils advocate here and show that is always 2 sides to every story.

 

[Spats McGee]

Fair enough, reddog81.

 

[garymc]

I wish people would quit calling it ubc and use accurate language such as outlawing private sales or transfers. Ubc would be - here's an 800 number you can call and get a nics up or down (or delay.) No other change in private transfers.

 

[hso]

but one could make the argument that a UBC is necessary in order to "clean up" all the NCIS failures

I think that you were being tongue in cheek, but if you weren't that argument is easily countered by pointing out the NICS checks are background checks and UBC would only produce more of the same failures, not less.

What they're pointing out in the article is that states don't provide the information to go into the UBC database in a timely manner that would flag some buyers when they attempt to buy a firearm. The failure is in states providing information to the system.

 

[reddog81]

Correct the statement was tongue in cheek. And I meant to imply a completed "go/ no go" on every gun purchase. A delayed response which turns into no response is rather silly in my opinion. I am fine with the current system for my personal purchases, but realize the current system is flawed. I have no idea what the best answer would be...

 

[B!ngoFuelUSN]

My position on background checks as they are today is similar to the majority of people on this site. But as I've posted before, we do have a growing mental health problem in the U.S. which accounts for a spike and continued growth of homelessness in our country and also explains some of the more visible gun-related crime.
So let me ask a related question and I'll ask that you suspend disbelief while reading the following:
If a background check could be done anonymously; that is, an automated query done in a bunch of databases regarding felony's, mental health records, actually not much else I can think of, and then when the query is complete and a yes/no is decided, the record of that query, and more importantly who has been queried disappears and cannot be stored or accessed ever. No human would or could be in the loop ensuring privacy, much like the trillions of data transactions and queries that are done across the net every day. So if that were done, would it be more acceptable?
It would seem to eradicate the notion of BATF or others creating a list of gun owners (there would be no list because there would never be any names stored) that many people fear would be used in the future to remove their legally owned firearms. No agency would be alerted of a query unless there was a 'fail' (e.g. the request to purchase is in a database as a felon). The only record that remains would be what exists today, varying state by state. Basically a local/paper record filed at the FFL or gun shop where appropriate. It would be a follow on discussion to see if this should be used for private sales as well. For now I would assume 'no' and that the majority of gun sales (does anyone know? I'm assuming 80% but its just a WAG) are run through a commercial entity which would be required to use this system.
Despite the fact that this could be done (the equivalent is done today with many viruses and other legal commercial software technologies) I accept that it would be too tempting for its implementors to leave a back door to preclude anonymity. That could be solved as well, but I doubt BATF would relinquish some control to enable that. So I'm only asking for people to consider it as a 'thought exercise' rather than something that should actually be considered.
Anyway, just a thought from a techie, gun owner and 2A supporter, and someone who is also trying to find a way to separate out the very few known bad people from purchasing (a) gun(s).
Comments and disagreements are welcomed. Flaming not so much.
B

 

[B!ngoFuelUSN]

I wish people would quit calling it ubc and use accurate language such as outlawing private sales or transfers. Ubc would be - here's an 800 number you can call and get a nics up or down (or delay.) No other change in private transfers.

As I note in my scenario (prior post), that is what I am suggesting. But it can't be a phone call (no humans can be involved so it remains anonymous) and its up to someone other than me whether it should be required for private sales and transfers. As I tried to say, I'd rather stay away from changing those and accept that if we solve the '80' of the '80'/'20' rule, everyone could declare victory.
Again, just a thought experiment.
B

 

[B!ngoFuelUSN]

One more question. How many states are NOT required to keep a record of a gun transaction (purchase/sale) for a fixed and significant period of time? Some states require 20 years, some require infinite time (i.e. until you are no longer in business?), some less. Do most states have such a statute?
B

 

[Midwest]

One more question. How many states are NOT required to keep a record of a gun transaction (purchase/sale) for a fixed and significant period of time? Some states require 20 years, some require infinite time (i.e. until you are no longer in business?), some less. Do most states have such a statute?
B

States that are NOT point of contact do not have or keep records of gun transactions.

Some states that ARE point of contact states DO keep records of certain, or all gun transactions.

The 20 year rule is a Federal One not a state one. It applies to the FFL regardless of what State they are located in. If the FFL remains in business..after 20 years they may destroy the 4473's that are older than 20 years old.
.

 

[B!ngoFuelUSN]

Point of contact? Not sure what that is. Sorry.
B

 

[CoalTrain49]

Stop and think for a minute who is responsible for NICS. It exists because of a federal law (Brady bill) that was enacted in the 90's. So it really is a federal mandate and has nothing to do with a state's responsibility to provide it with current and timely data. I see where they blame the states for not providing accurate and timely information. Maybe the state doesn't have the staff and budget to do everything the fed would like them to do. I'm sure the fed doesn't give them money to hire people to provide data to NICS. Also the FFL license is just that, a federal license. So the fed has a license that is required by federal law to sell firearms and a law that requires the license holder to run a check in a system that doesn't work. It's a wonderful idea but the reality is the fed doesn't have the resources to make it work. Just like a lot of other things they can't make work.

For me 75% of every transaction to NICS has been a delay so I get the firearm by default. The system can't process my name and info in 3 days because I have a very common name.

If a system had any chance of working it would have to be at the state level. Some states run their own BC's as that eliminates transferring data to another bureaucracy. Those programs are funded and work. The Brady bill makes provisions for a state BC. I'm a proponent of an endorsed DL with your BC coded on your DL just like your MC or your organ donor code. If you no longer qualify for a clear BC code that could show up in a scan and a denial of a firearms sale.

I'm not a proponent of any kind of gun registration. In fact if I see anything that even hints of a gun registration I won't vote for it. Background checks are on people and have absolutely nothing to do with gun registration.

A UBC is some grandiose dream that will never work. Who is going to pay for it, a broke fed gov't?

 

[P5 Guy]

What's the point of NCIS if it doesn't work? I realize there probably is a need to keep guns out of felons hands, but I don't know the best way to do that.

Too simplistic? Keep felons hands off guns by keeping felons in prison. We have to decide if convicts are rehabilitatable. Is prison punishment with the side effect of keeping polite society safe from criminals. Or is prison a way to rehabilitate and make model citizens from criminals?

 

[barnbwt]

Studies do show that nearly 100% of serving felons are behind bars

TCB

 

[Kaeto]

If the MSNBC show 'Lockup' is any kind of representative of the prison population's attitudes, I'd vote to never release any of them. I'd vote for mandatory death for the entire lot.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"Point of contact? Not sure what that is. Sorry."


Some states have accepted the responsibility to do the checks themselves.

Some other states have decided to let the FBI do the checks for them.

Strangely, some other states (Wisconsin for example) have the state doing one type of firearm (handguns) while having the FBI do long arms.

So the "point of contact" who the FFL deals with can be the State, or the FBI.



"We have to decide if convicts are rehabilitatable. Is prison punishment with the side effect of keeping polite society safe from criminals."

The vast majority of "criminals" who are incarcerated are there for non-violent drug offenses. There is another huge number of violent criminals in prison as a result of the fact that the drug business is illegal and to be in it, you deal with a lawless bunch as your competition where the rule of law is suspended except for the rules you make and break. This is an artifact of the so-called "war on drugs", which has been a huge social experiment that's not worked out terribly well except for those making a buck from it (which sadly represents an enormous amount of money being paid to an enormous number of people). Rehabilitate the "Criminals"? You really ought to be asking about rehabilitating our attitudes towards what we consider to be crimes requiring punishment, with what's germane to the discussion here being the fact that conviction for these "crimes" results in a lifelong prohibition against firearms ownership. I mean, really.... We have had (have) several US Preidents who have admitted to having smoked pot in their past lives. We give them the football that contains the nuclear release codes, yet if they had been caught smoking a joint 30 years ago and spent a weekend in the pokie, they would be prohibited *for life* from owning a rifle?


Why should you care? Well: If I lined up 1000 of the members here who grew up in the 70's and 80's, my guess is that 900 of them are simply "criminals" who didn't get caught with that roach in the ashtray of the old clunker they drove in their 20's. Go look in the mirror guys. Are you "rehabilitated"?


Don't even get me started on the "domestic violence" side of gun politics.


Willie

.

 

[locnload]

I have always thought that all the reasons used by the politicians to deny gun ownership should also apply to prohibiting a person from serving in elected, or appointed public office. Some States may take it a step further and apply it to drawing a Government paycheck in any capacity. Can't be too careful you know, its "for the children". Ya, that'll happen!

 

[CoalTrain49]

This is an artifact of the so-called "war on drugs", which has been a huge social experiment that's not worked out terribly well except for those making a buck from it (which sadly represents an enormous amount of money being paid to an enormous number of people).

Another example of a federal program that failed. Eric Holder has said as much.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/politics/holder-mandatory-minimums/
Although the driving force behind this is probably more race related than anything (too many black drug dealers in prison) it still highlights the fact that the program is a failure.

Point-of-sale background checks don't work and everyone knows it including the fed gov't. States are about to find that out with any new UBC's they pass. If you want to watch a circus just follow the WA initiative that just passed. It's unfunded and county sheriffs have already said they won't enforce it. They have better things to do with their resources than to bust and prosecute people for transactions of private property where no violent crime has been committed. It's been legal here forever and LEO's know that it isn't a driving force in violent crime. My question is how does a UBC work using NICS, if NICS is a failure without more state UBC's using it. It's obvious to me that the AG crowd is passionate but not extremely smart. This is nothing more than a new war without the resources to implement it.

 

[happygeek]

My question is how does a UBC work using NICS, if NICS is a failure without more state UBC's using it

I'm not sure I understand your question, but the # of people using NICS to run checks doesn't really affect the accuracy and completeness of the information in NICS.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the study Cook & Ludwig (hardly shrills for the NRA) did on whether the Brady Bill lowered the homicide rate:

News article on the study: http://www.dukechronicle.com/articl...inds-brady-act-ineffective-reducing-homicides
Study summary: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10918704
PDF of the study itself: http://www.guncite.com/JAMABradysurvey.pdf

 

[earlthegoat2]

Gun shop I worked at had a delay put on this old guy who wanted to buy a shotgun for hunting. They gave a date for when the guy could come pick it up when and if NICS had not responded yet.

Guy came and picked it up that day. Later that day NICS called and denied him apparently for a felony conviction 20 plus years prior we found out later. We called the guy to notify him of the situation and told that on our end the sale was legit so he could just do whatever he wanted about it. Never heard from that one again. Did the ATF go and confiscate his firearm? Probably not. They probably just did not worry about it.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I'm not sure I understand your question, but the # of people using NICS to run checks doesn't really affect the accuracy and completeness of the information in NICS.

Here in WA everyone who transfers now has to go through NICS. That means more traffic at NICS. They can't respond in a timely manner now so with increased traffic how are they going to check more people? They never check me within the time allowed. I always just wait out the required 5 days and pick the gun up under a delayed status. By law the dealer has to turn the gun over to the buyer unless they are denied. That person could be a felon but NICS doesn't catch it in time just like earlthegoat2 stated. I don't know what the system is looking for or where it has to look but it clearly can't do the search in a reasonable amount of time.

 

[Willie Sutton]

}By law the dealer has to turn the gun over to the buyer unless they are denied. "

Close, but not exactly:

The dealer CAN turn over the gun, but does not HAVE to do so. It's completely discretionary. Locally where I reside summers, several FFL's will not transfer under a "delay" no matter how long it's been.

Willie

.