The heart of the universal background check issue

[Samir]

I guess I was away for awhile, huh?

What information do you propose that this "form" contain and with who or where does he file it?

When I said "I have it", I means the dealer's name, and it means information about the firearm. That would be sent in to whatever state/fed agency collects the info. This info basically says that on that date, that firearm was owned by this dealer. That's it. No more.

All they would have to do is pull the "name" records from the various FFL's and, viola, instant confiscation list.

Yes, this would be a flaw in the system. Although I'd like to hear more about how "they" (can you define this?) can go to all gun dealers and grab their records, assuming some of these records are in a safe, some are in safe deposit boxes, some are kept at the homes of the dealers, some are scanned and encrypted into computer files, and I can't tell you where the others are because the dealers wouldn't tell me. Do you see where this is going?

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

No, no, this does not affect what you have. It only affects when you sell any of them. And at that point all you have to do is create a bill of sale, and keep it in a safe place. No cost or extra driving involved.

 

[Old Fuff]

If you read the bills the Democrats have (and have always had) the answer on how the records on private sales will be kept. It's simple (to them).

Make it so all private sales must be conducted through an FFL. The dealer will log the gun(s) into a bound book with the names of the buyer and seller. Then the buyer will have to fill out a #4473 form. All of this will be kept by the dealer until it is picked up later to be entered into a central database.


Anyone who can't see what they are up to is blind. The background check isn't important. The records are. :banghead:

 

[Samir]

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.

I haven't mentioned anything about background checks. But I'll go read the thread and get back.

 

[Torian]

Samir: a Federal Agent (ATF) can already go into any dealer or FFL (at any reasonable time) and demand to see any and all paperwork required for lawful firearm sales. For this reason, I've known many a FFL who have just given up conducting transfers out of their homes.

Simply requiring dealers to maintain additional information on buyers doesn't make the information any less accessible. If your argument rests on knowing precise methodology of obtaining the information they are required to have on file, then your argument is weak sauce.

"Hello Mr. Smith, this is Agent Brown from the ATF, and I'm conducting a unscheduled inspection of your premises. Please direct me to your federally mandated repository of information on all gun transfers you've conducted over the last 90 days".

It's that simple.

Maintaining a indefinite record within a federal agency of what is already a LAWFUL sale between two law-abiding individuals is unwarranted. There will be no compromise on this from me.

 

[Samir]

If you read the bills the Democrats have ... Make it so all private sales must be conducted through an FFL.

Thank you so much for separating me from the Democrats! I think those proposals are stupid too.

 

[Sport45]

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.

But who's going to hold on to it when you're gone? Are your children going to be responsible for record keeping of guns you sold years before?

 

[Samir]

...

Torian, thank you for a straightforward, constructive post. It seems a rare find here. I am new at a lot of this (you can probably tell), and I'm just trying to understand what it's all about.

a LAWFUL sale between two law-abiding individuals

Yes, if I list a gun for sale in the classifieds, and someone shows up with cash, I assume this to be a lawful sale between two law-abiding individuals. But what if I'm wrong, and the buyer uses that gun in a crime. If I can keep that from happening, or help locate the perpetrator, I am happy to help. Not to give up my rights, but to help. Are there really so few people who agree with this?

 

[Torian]

Samir,

Your mistake is thinking that it is YOUR JOB to ensure that the buyer uses the weapon in a lawful manner. While you have some "due diligence" at the point of sale, it doesn't go beyond that. For example, I would not be interested in meeting some gang-banger on the corner of a Chicago street engage in a private sale of a M4. Using a little common-sense is warranted, but this is more about integrity on the part of the seller.

If you sell a car to someone, and they decide to go out drinking, and end up getting in an accident that causes a fatality, do you really think that is your responsibility?

The latest absurdity from the democratic party that sellers of lawful firearms are somehow liable for the buyers illegal activity is a laughable concept that doesn't pass the smell test in any court of law.

 

[316SS]

I haven't mentioned anything about background checks

Check the title of the thread. The discussion of collection of personal information about gun purchasers is in the context of proposed "universal background check" legislation. Try to keep
up.

 

[Samir]

But who's going to hold on to it when you're gone? Are your children going to be responsible for record keeping of guns you sold years before?

Excellent question. My spur-of-the-moment proposal is anything but bulletproof (pun intended), but I'm sure there are answers depending on where the guns go. Simple answer is selling them to a dealer where the chain of ownership resets, or whoever inherits them, voluntarily submits the information to a local dealer.

 

[Samir]

Your mistake is thinking that it is YOUR JOB to ensure that the buyer uses the weapon in a lawful manner.

That's not what I meant. I have 2 jobs in this proposal. 1) fill in a bill of sale, and 2) when LE says "I have a warrant to see the bill of sale for firearm XYZ", that I allow my lawyer to turn it over.

I'm not taking responsibility for anything the buyer does with it.

 

[Samir]

Check the title of the thread. ... Try to keep
up.

Thank you for pointing that out. But all I said was that I didn't mention it, meaning I wasn't prepared to talk about it. And yes, it's not easy, but I'm trying to keep up!

 

[316SS]

Samir,

I have not seen a single proposal for new requirements for record-keeping related to private transfers, because those transfers don't fall within the much more restrictive regulatory framework of FFLs. All the proposed legislation starts with eliminating private transfers and go from there.

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.

Understand that most folks who think that private firearm ownership is our last greatest hope for lasting liberty don't trust the government with the information they already collect about gun owners. Offering up more information will generally be viewed as a non-starter.

 

[Samir]

Samir, I have not seen a single proposal for new requirements for record-keeping related to private transfers, because those transfers don't fall within the much more restrictive regulatory framework of FFLs. All the proposed legislation starts with eliminating private transfers and go from there.

I'm happy to help shoot those proposals down.

Understand that most folks who think that private firearm ownership is our last greatest hope for lasting liberty don't trust the government with the information they already collect about gun owners.

I haven't done a very good job of saying it, so I'll say it here: I agree with you 100%

Offering up more information will generally be viewed as a non-starter.

I guess I was thinking of this proposal in place of systems that are currently in effect. So my hope was in the end we would be offering less information.

 

[RPRNY]

The strategy of focusing on how to keep guns from the hands of deranged people is spot on. It takes a page from the gun owner discrimination advocate playbook to use against them. They claim this is their concern, not infringing on the "reasonable right of the people to keep and not-so-much-bear shotguns". So, while we know their true agenda is t o exploit public place shootings to diminish the social acceptability of gun ownership and chip away at the Second Amendment until they can either act unconstitutionally or eventually even seek its amendment / nullification, one way to dissipate their energy is to take them at their word and engage them in a "real discussion" about how to keep guns out of the hands of the.mentally ill. Because doing so will put a very nasty taste in their mouths.

While they would like to have very detailed records of all the rednecks, religion & gun clingers, angry white men and misogynists that they would like to portray all gun owners as, they will jump out of their Liberal skins when the discussion moves to better public records about mental health status, faster means of adjudicating a person mentally ill and ineligible for gun ownership, and trans - jurisdictional sharing of information about mental health diagnoses. You will be able to see them visibly recoil when the discussion turns to mechanisms for achieving what they say they want to. Half of them will turn it into an appropriations discussion for mental health funding. Then what? Either they have to be more intellectually and publicly honest about what they really want - exploitation of mass shootings to achieve violation of the Constitution - or they have to mumble incoherently and shuffle back to the drawing board. Politics is all about momentum. They want to exploit the Newtown tragedy to push their gun owner discrimination agenda. Victory in politics is about managing momentum. Tie them up in a discussion (which is what they say they want) about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and their momentum will wither.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[316SS]

I guess I was thinking of this proposal in place of systems that are currently in effect. So my hope was in the end we would be offering less information.

I applaud your goal, but it seems that your plan is based on the assumption that this is a good faith negotiation. I submit to you, on the basis of their own actions and statements, that the enemies of liberty aim to take ALL privately owned guns, and what they can't take now they will try to take later. Therefore, we are not in a negotiation but rather a struggle for all the marbles. A struggle in which we can afford no more concessions.

​

...

It's been said that you should never argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. Can't we counter their lies with truth, their emotion with rationality, and their anger with calm determination?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There are several problems with universal background checks:

1. Every proposal on the table now seeks to use a minor variant of the system set up by the 1968 GCA. As long as this is the base system used, you will either have a UBC that accomplishes nothing and cannot be prosecuted or you will have registration of lawful firearms owners.

2. Of the last 4 major mass shootings, UBCs prevented zero of these shootings. Had Cho been in the NICS database, it might have prevented VA Tech. 3 of the 4 shooters went through NICS and passed the check. Ostensibly, the purpose of UBC is to prevent such mass shootings; but historically, it has failed completely in that task - so why is it being touted as the main answer?

3. The Feds currently don't prosecute even 0.1% of NICS denials. Lying on a 4473 is a federal felony. If the Feds prosecute UBCs the same way they do now, then UBCs will continue to be toothless and ineffective.

It seems to me that proponents of gun control seem to be batting 100% at proposing solutions that we know will not stop or even mitigate mass shootings but that increase the burdens of legally owning a firearm for sport or recreation and enable things like confiscation. Just in the last two months, multiple state legislatures have proposed confiscation. WA proposed warrantless inspections of gunowner homes. Newspaper columnists have suggested NRA members should be murdered for defending their civil rights. Yet now we are discussing giving these same people a list of the firearms we own?

This is not a good faith negotiation. Assuming it is will buy you a lot of future trouble.

 

[Old Fuff]

While in theory Universal Background Checking may seem to provide a way to keep prohibited persons from obtaining firearms, it doesn't work in practice. You can go so far as to outright outlaw something (alcoholic beverages, controlled substances (drugs) etc.) and all that happened was a highly profitable black market is created.

In the present instances, background checks are only a means to an end, and that that is Universal Registration. Those who are behind it have no intention of letting individual gun owners be the custodian holding the records. Those would remain with the FFL who private sellers would be forced to employ to handle any transfer.

While some here may speculate on alternatives, such speculation is meaningless, because the lawmakers are considering none of their suggestions - for the simple reason that it's not what they want.

In the end the principal issue is control. The government cannot control or confiscate that which they cannot find. The Founding Father's of our country were well aware of that, and what could happen if the government was able to control the possession of arms by The People. It is the specific reason the 2nd. Amendment is in the Constitution.

 

[TNBilly]

^^^^ You got that right.... seems we're getting overrun with 'em lately. Guess that's no surprise either!

We need look no further than Australia or most of Europe for the cause and effect!

 

[Black Butte]

At the heart of the universal-background-check issue is the fact that the Antis want de facto registration and the Constitutionalists do not.

 

[Deanimator]

At the heart of the universal-background-check issue is the fact that the Antis want de facto registration and the Constitutionalists do not.

They would quite literally [temporarily] give up an AWB in order to get registration in ANY form through.

The Obama regime is shot through with thugs from Chicago and they KNOW that the Chicago handgun BAN was implemented by curtailing MANDATORY registration. They BOTH made it a crime to have an unregistered handgun, AND forbade anyone (other than cops and the politically connected) to register a previously unregistered handgun.

This ENTIRE "universal background check" meme is nothing but a scam and a stalking horse for REGISTRATION and all of the things they can do AFTER they get REGISTRATION.

Trying to bargain with pathologically lying sociopaths is the utter height of stupidity.

 

[Ryanxia]

Not sure what's been mentioned so far but a couple things;

If one party of a private transfer has to work during FFL normal business hours they basically are prohibited from making a private transaction. (If FFL is open 8a-7p and seller works 8a-5p and buyer works 3p-11p and there are no other gunshops around, how could you reasonably conduct a private transfer?)

What if I want to lend a buddy a hunting rifle but we can't afford two FFL transaction fees? What if the fees cost more than the value of the gun? (It can happen, I've got a few $20 shotguns).

Aside from what's already been stated about family transactions, government control, registration, etc. none of the above is reasonable.

 

[alsaqr]

The Obama regime is shot through with thugs from Chicago and they KNOW that the Chicago handgun BAN was implemented by curtailing MANDATORY registration. They BOTH made it a crime to have an unregistered handgun, AND forbade anyone (other than cops and the politically connected) to register a previously unregistered handgun.

This ENTIRE "universal background check" meme is nothing but a scam and a stalking horse for REGISTRATION and all of the things they can do AFTER they get REGISTRATION.

Trying to bargain with pathologically lying sociopaths is the utter height of stupidity.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Bubbles]

Samir: a Federal Agent (ATF) can already go into any dealer or FFL (at any reasonable time) and demand to see any and all paperwork required for lawful firearm sales.

Not quite. An Industry Operations Investigator (IOI) can only audit an FFL's books once a year unless the last audit showed that the FFL's record keeping was really bad; my IOI told me one guy she audited couldn't account for the disposition of 1/3 of the guns in his books. He got some extra scrutiny.

We've been through three audits over the past five years. After the one last year we were told it would be at least three years until our next one as they don't have the funding or manpower available to do more inspections than that.

Other than our IOI's audits, any other agent or LE official who wanted to look at our records did so as part of a criminal investigation. They showed up with a subpoena and we only had to produce the 4473's for the person(s) being investigated.

 

[abajaj11]

Please consider calling Tom Coburn's office at 202-224-5754 and saying you are against UBC because it WILL lead to databases.
One thing to tell Coburn's aides is that the lefties will provide a narrow definition of what registration is, and then create all sorts of gun safety databases, all the while claiming it is NOT REGISTRATION.
For example, the lefties can claim that registration is defined as a "federal level database that ties gun owners to their firearms."
Then, they can issue policy directives that mandate that all sellers maintain records of sales and produce them on demand. This is not a federal level database and hence is not registration the way they define it.
and this can go on.....
In a year or so we will have registration, while they will keep saying " We are against registration, but....."
Just like they are saying "We are for 2A, but......."