The heart of the universal background check issue

[esheato]

Here it is...in plain writing.

Obama Gun Control Likely To Be Broken Into Pieces By Senate

At issue is record-keeping. Currently, when a background check is administered for a firearm purchase, the record of the check is destroyed, but the record of the sale is kept, usually by the retailer. Under a bill that expands background checks to include private purchases, the question becomes what to do about the sales record.

Democrats insist the record must be kept. Without it, the purpose of expanding background checks becomes moot, they argued. There would be no way to show or prove that a transaction took place. In addition, it would make a federal trafficking statute toothless, making it impossible to charge someone for the straw purchase of guns on behalf of those prohibited from owning them.

Regardless of what they say or tell us, explain to me how that wouldn't result in a massive database of who owns what.

 

[deadin]

Democrats insist the record must be kept. Without it, the purpose of expanding background checks becomes moot, they argued.

And they are 100% correct. Without sales records the whole exercise is a waste of time and money. Even with records there would be no way to 100% track guns already in circulation unless they require that all guns currently held privately be registered..... (Pardon me, that's a dirty word... How about "recorded")

 

[Samir]

explain to me how that wouldn't result in a massive database of who owns what.

The sales records could be maintained by the sellers (private or dealer). That way there's no searchable database, but there is a chain of ownership if a court produces a warrant.

 

[dbp]

The sales records could be maintained by the sellers (private or dealer). That way there's no searchable database, but there is a chain of ownership if a court produces a warrant.

So, I sell a gun to an individual and am expected to keep a record of the transaction. A year later I get a request from a court to produce the record. What happens if I have lost the record, or it is destroyed in a fire, flood, etc.? Will I then be considered in contempt of court, or worse?

 

[Samir]

I don't know, I just made that up.

Seriously, I would assume there would be some incentive in place to get you to file it in a safe place.

Even without penalties, I'd keep it because that's my "get out of criminal investigation" card.

 

[Samir]

Actually I think it's important that pro-freedom people offer solutions to problems like this. If we leave it up to gun grabbers to come up with solutions, we know what it's going to look like.

And being on the defensive, and answering everything with "No", isn't serving us very well.

 

[deadin]

A year later I get a request from a court to produce the record.

How would a court even know you have the record if you have the only copy??

 

[Samir]

How would a court even know you have the record if you have the only copy??

Because the person/dealer who sold it to you had the form with your name on it.

 

[deadin]

How would they trace it to the dealer unless it were a new gun that he got from a manufacturer or distributor? If he obtained it from a private party, their name will be in his book but the previous owner more than likely won't know where he got it, etc. etc. At some point the chain of possession will be broken unless they can get to every gun existing in the country and all of the previous owners know who they got it from and who they sold it to. Not much of a chance of that happening.:banghead: (even if it were the law.)

 

[Deanimator]

And being on the defensive, and answering everything with "No", isn't serving us very well.

I think that if you ask a Canadian, Brit or Australian they'll tell you that bending over and grabbing your ankles serves you a lot worse.

NO, I REFUSE.

 

[Samir]

How would they trace it to the dealer unless it were a new gun that he got from a manufacturer or distributor? ... At some point the chain of possession will be broken ...

True. How about each time a gun goes through a dealer, the dealer files a form that says "I have it". Yes, it's true that this would create a database, and to be a dealer you'd have to give up some anonymity. I'd actually like to hear from some dealers how they feel about this. But every time a gun goes through a dealer, LE gets a starting point from which they can trace ownership from there.

It's true that some (a lot) of existing guns would never become part of this system, and therefore it's not a complete solution. But 1) it would be more effective than what we have now, and 2) it protects gun owner's rights better than any other proposal I've heard of.

And it still wouldn't build a searchable database that would allow the feds to track firearm owners. The actual "database" if you will, would be widely distributed, and would be in the hands of gun owners and gun dealers. These are people I would trust with this information.

 

[Samir]

NO, I REFUSE.

Good answer. I think that was the answer they gave in CA, MA, NY, and .. goodness, the list is growing.

 

[ccsniper]

Seriously, I would assume there would be some incentive in place to get you to file it in a safe place.

NOT incentives, PENALTIES. They will make it a criminal offence to not have the record.

And being on the defensive, and answering everything with "No", isn't serving us very well.

Yes it is. Cause if we said yes to one thing then they will kill us with a thousand paper cuts. They will keep asking till we give in again and again till they have exactly what they want, our slavery.

 

[ccsniper]

Good answer. I think that was the answer they gave in CA, MA, NY, and .. goodness, the list is growing.

No, they answer they gave there was exactly what you are saying. They gave into little laws over and over again. The people in those states have been turned into slaves by their own votes.

 

[Samir]

NOT incentives, PENALTIES.

Yes, I thought that was obvious. It would be like getting pulled over and not having your vehicle registration. I've been driving for 40 years and have managed never to lose my registration. I think I could hold on to a firearm bill of sale.

if we said yes to one thing then they will kill us with a thousand paper cuts. They will keep asking till we give in again and again till they have exactly what they want, our slavery.

Sounds like we're jumping to unnecessary conclusions. What they want is "a searchable database that can be used to track gun owners". We all know that. But I will never be willing to give them that. I am willing to help LE investigate firearm crimes that give us all a bad name.

 

[Samir]

No, they answer they gave there was exactly what you are saying.

No, it was the anti-gun folks that kept proposing gun restrictions. The answers from the pro-freedom people like us was variations of "NO, I REFUSE". The voters had those 2 choices to choose from. I really think it's in our best interest to offer a better answer.

 

[Tcruse]

The background check will most likely be conducted by an FFL. That FFL will keep the sales record as part of their "fee" to call in the information to NCIS and to "certify the buyer" as qualified. The transfer-sales record will be recorded by the FFL even if the party has a CCW and the NCIS call is not made. The private seller will only be required to provide the identity of the FFL that did the transfer and may never have the personal information of the buyer. So, if a gun is used in a crime, the trail will go from dealer to purchaser to dealer ... until the trail ends on the owner. For all practical purposes it makes every transfer like an out of state sale.
My personal opinion is just say "NO" to any new laws.

 

[deadin]

the dealer files a form that says "I have it".

What information do you propose that this "form" contain and with who or where does he file it? If he just keeps it to himself, how will any "searcher" even know to go to him? If he files it with the government and it doesn't contain serials, etc. how are the searchers going to tell it apart from the myriad other forms that say "I've got it!"? If it does contain serials and is filed with the Gvmt., it is registration. All they would have to do is pull the "name" records from the various FFL's and, viola, instant confiscation list.

I currently have around 45 firearms. Only three of them were purchased new from a dealer and therefor can be traced directly to me. I have, maybe, another 10 or so that I bought used from dealers. (That I'm not even sure I can remember when or where.) I have no idea where they came from and I'm sure the dealer only knows where he got them and no further back. The remainder were private purchases. I have no records of where they came from and many that I have had for a while I have no memory of where they came from.

So the suggestion is that I haul all 45 of these guns into my friendly local dealer and he, out of the goodness of his heart will create, what in effect will be "Licenses" for all of them, keep all of these records in his shop and send some kind of notice to someone that he has them.
Other than the fact that my closest dealer is about 50 miles away, is not necessarily friendly, has a business to run and more than likely will not be willing to do all of the paperwork for the paltry $10 or $15 being mentioned, I don't think so.

 

[316SS]

I really think it's in our best interest to offer a better answer.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=703719&

As has been discussed in the above thread, only a tiny fraction of people who fail background checks under the existing system are prosecuted.

How can that fact be reconciled with the stated claim of reducing crime and preventing prohibited persons from gaining access to guns? Answer: it cannot. The only rational conclusion is that those proposing an even more onerous system of background checks aren't really concerned with crime.

I have a better answer: If you can't be trusted with a gun, you can't be trusted with a car, a lighter, a kitchen knife, etc., and you should be locked away for the duration. Placing the burden on law abiding gun owners is no solution at all.

NO, I REFUSE.

 

[dbp]

Yes, I thought that was obvious. It would be like getting pulled over and not having your vehicle registration. I've been driving for 40 years and have managed never to lose my registration. I think I could hold on to a firearm bill of sale.

Good for you. I'm not willing to bet the consequences on it. Besides, there is no reason I should have to. I agree to just say NO!

 

[Sam1911]

It's true that some (a lot) of existing guns would never become part of this system, and therefore it's not a complete solution.

A complete SOLUTION? That's the saving grace for us all. It is NOT known how many guns there are, or who has them. That's PRECISELY how it should be. Chains of custody need to be broken at every opportunity.

That's part of what makes us free and part of what KEEPS us free. I'm disinclined to offer any more "solutions" to gun tracking, thankyouverymuch.

 

[beatledog7]

You want the gov't to know where you are every minute? Where your children are? Where your motor vehicle is?

No, you don't. So why should it know where the guns are?

 

[Samir]

...

I'm guessing you're talking about the way the current system(s) work, or you're interpreting my proposal to mean an FFL for every transaction. No, FTF certainly fits in the proposal I made.

I did understand your answer of NO. I think we've heard that already on this thread, but it is noted. Doesn't solve any problems, or keep the antis at bay, but it's noted.

 

[Deanimator]

No, it was the anti-gun folks that kept proposing gun restrictions.

Call me eccentric, but that's what ANTI-GUN FOLKS do.

What do you call "pro-gun folks" who propose "gun restrictions"?

"Anti-gun folks".

NO, I REFUSE.

 

[Deanimator]

Doesn't solve any problems, or keep the antis at bay, but it's noted.

It solves the problem of avoiding abject, fawning submission.

It's keeping them at bay here in Ohio.

I find it interesting to see "pro-gun folks" so eager to give up that they'd have surrendered to the Japanese AFTER Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

NO, I REFUSE.