Quantcast

Universal Background Check = Universal Registration.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Deanimator, Jan 14, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    11,995
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    I couldn't have put it better myself. "universal background checks" without "universal registration" are an utter nullity.

    https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amend...ntrol-unenforceable-without-firearm-registry/

    This is meant to fail so that it can be "fixed" with registration, which will facilitate bans and confiscation.

    There's a reason why supporters of racially invidious gun controls and their fellow traveler "gun owners" won't tell you how Chicago implemented it's handgun BAN.
     
  2. Texas10mm

    Texas10mm Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,408
    I've said the exact same thing on this forum in the past 10 days.
     
    DoubleMag, Jinx0760 and Sovblocgunfan like this.
  3. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    11,995
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    I've been saying it literally for years.

    It's so obvious, that any denial is pure deceit.
     
  4. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    3,968
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    Universal Background Check = Universal Registration.

    I wouldn't go quite that far because they're two separate things but they do need each other.

    People who live in states that have a UBC (11 so far) know they don't work without registration. If a state is listed as a POC state by the ATF they already have registration by the state. OR has a UBC and a registration, so does WA. There may be others but I don't know which ones. The POC status with the ATF insures that a state has registration because the background check will be done by the state and the records are kept. The fed can't keep them but the state can.

    Registration requires funding. WA can't keep up with their pistol registration (a year or so behind) because the legislature won't fund it. I doubt there will ever be a federal mandate for a nat'l registration. It would be like the wall. Hardly anyone wants it and even if they did somebody has to pay for it.

    There are 21 states with POC or partial POC status. All that has to happen there is those states have to pass a UBC (if they don't already have one) and you have registration/UBC. And why would congress do anything with a UBC without registration? The states are doing it for them. The ingredients are already there to cook up a lot more UBC registration without congress doing anything.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2019
    Jinx0760 likes this.
  5. George P

    George P Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2018
    Messages:
    2,702
    It sure won't stop the criminals
     
  6. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,866
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    From the article:
    Instead, the Democrats keep talking of how their bill will “prevent” or reduce “gun violence.”
    Yes, the Democrats keep talking of how the bill will prevent or reduce gun violence, yet do not, and can not, explain exactly how "gun violence" will be reduced or prevented by forcing law abiding citizens to undergo background checks to purchase or sell firearms.

    What is tragically funny almost is that there is no way to know for certain or measure that an act of "gun violence" has actually been prevented unless the subject is interdicted in the act of committing a crime with a firearm. To state that UBCs will reduce "gun violence" does not explain the overall decrease in crimes involving firearms over the past years in places where background checks have not been required for private sales.

    It's not about preventing or reducing "gun violence." It's solely about creating a national gun registry, and it's pathetic that the Democrats continue to frame their efforts otherwise. Some would say hypocritical.
     
  7. I6turbo

    I6turbo Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,232
    Only some would say it? I guess you're right, though -- there are the ignorant, the oblivious, and the liars who wouldn't say it.
     
    Sistema1927 and Jinx0760 like this.
  8. PapaG

    PapaG Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    3,134
    Location:
    Il
    Illinois has their version of ubc. Required of dealers, at gun shows, and for individual ptp sales. The penalty for failing to do the last is, I think, minor. Registration, not per se. If you all are thinking critically, there is a de facto registration whenever you purchase from a dealer in the form of the 4473. While they don't get submitted they are available to the authorities at any time. Watch, or ask someone like me who has watched, an agent perform an atf compliance check. A week doesn't go by, also, without having to go through a firearms trace. Manufacturer to jobber/distributor, to dealer to first buyer. It is there. It just isn't quite like personal registration.
     
    JTHunter likes this.
  9. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,492
    Location:
    Virginia
    By repeating the line that "UBC's are ineffective without registration," we preclude ourselves from designing a UBC system without registration. In other words, our negotiating position is weakened, assuming that the other side has enough political power to force through a UBC system in one form or another (and it sure looks like we're soon reaching that point). Who says that UBC's have to be100% effective, anyway? An airtight system is impossible, as we all know. The theory behind UBC's is to make casual misuse a little more inconvenient, not to deter hardened criminals.

    UBC's are window dressing for the soccer moms, with or without registration. I don't care what it is, it's totally unenforceable. Even in states with UBC's, they're probably being widely ignored. In reality it's all voluntary. Why not set up a frankly voluntary system, like the one we have here in Virginia? In Virginia, the State Police are required to set up a booth at every gun show, where private sellers can get background checks of their buyers. Hardly anyone uses this facility, but that's beside the point. We can say that we have background checks available.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2019
    kmw1954, CoalTrain49 and shoobe01 like this.
  10. jmr40

    jmr40 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    11,958
    Location:
    Georgia
    Unless every single gun you've ever bought was done face to face with no 4473 involved you are already in the system. They may not know exactly WHICH guns you own, but someone in an alphabet agency knows you are a gun owner. I don't see a huge difference.
     
    ravenn and mdauben like this.
  11. George P

    George P Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2018
    Messages:
    2,702
    As you said it yourself; they do not know which guns you may or may not still own. Half of my guns have been sold over the years, all FTF to someone else. Over a third of my guns now have been bought the same way; I prefer it that way.
     
  12. ATLDave

    ATLDave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    6,960
    That the UBC is intended to create, in and of itself, a total and leak-proof registry is very obvious because of the obvious alternative that is not offered: Allowing private transactions to proceed based upon showing evidence (such as a CCW permit) of legality on the part of the purchaser/transferee without going through an FFL. We have a fairly active private sales market here in Georgia, and most sellers ask to see a CCW (even though it is not currently required) as proof that they are not transferring to a prohibited person. Just enshrine that practice in law and you have universal background checks (as the CCW functions as a check) without creating a de facto registry.

    This is pretty obviously the way to prevent unintentional or willfully-blind transfers to prohibited persons. It will not, of course, stop the black market any more than a medical marijuana ID card requirement ends other sales of that drug. But it would serve every background-checking function of the FFL requirement, without creating a permanent paper trail which can later be converted to electronic format and a functional registry by simple legal fiat.

    Of course, the name and address of the owner of every AR or other "bad gun" is the end goal, so this other method is of no interest.
     
  13. GBExpat

    GBExpat Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    5,294
    Location:
    Rural, far beyond the beltway, Northern Virginia,
    DUH! :)
     
    Demi-human likes this.
  14. Demi-human

    Demi-human Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,682
    Location:
    The Haymarsh, MI
  15. reddog81

    reddog81 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    779
    Location:
    Iowa
    With the current system they can track a gun back to where it was sold and then review the 4473's to figure out who purchased the gun and then follow that trail to either the current owner or a dead end. There's a HUGE difference between the current system and what they want to use the UBC's for. In the Anti's ideal world you would be able to determine who owns what with a simple 30 second query. The 2 scenarios are so far apart it's like comparing apples to automobiles.
     
    Texas10mm and Demi-human like this.
  16. ATLDave

    ATLDave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    6,960
    The difference is that, if you are in a non-UBC state, all the feds know is that at some point you owned the particular guns shown in the records. Right now, you could tell them that you subsequently sold any particular gun without confessing to a crime. With UBC, you either still own the gun or you are an illegal gun dealer.

    If the day ever comes when they "flip the switch" and start tracking down every semi-auto rifle, the distinction above may be very significant in terms of levels of compliance with instructions to turn in the guns.
     
  17. P5 Guy

    P5 Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,385
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area
    How many NICS background checks that come in negative are ever prosecuted?
     
    Sistema1927, ontarget and Deanimator like this.
  18. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    11,995
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    You must have missed the point of "UNIVERSAL background checks". The idea is to BAN individual face to face transactions.
     
  19. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    11,995
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    The VAST majority of my firearms have been purchased in face to face transactions.
     
  20. George P

    George P Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2018
    Messages:
    2,702
    In their IDEAL world, none of this would be necessary because there would be no law-abiding citizen ownership of guns.
     
    Deanimator, I6turbo, Twiki357 and 3 others like this.
  21. ATLDave

    ATLDave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    6,960
    Sure. I was responding to jmr40's point that the existing 4473's mark you as a gun owner (just as CCW permit does). That's all true. But, where private sales are allowed, knowing that one once purchased a given gun is not the same thing as knowing its current whereabouts.
     
    HuckFinn likes this.
  22. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    11,995
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    A "universal background check" system WITHOUT registration is as meaningless as a speed limit without traffic cops and speed guns. It's literally IMPOSSIBLE to enforce.


    The people pushing for them in the knowledge that without registration they are an utter NULLITY.

    The proponents KNOW that without registration, they are IMPOSSIBLE to enforce. They WANT it to fail so that it can be "fixed" with registration.

    Tell everyone how Chicago implemented its handgun BAN. I DARE you.
     
    I6turbo, ontarget and Texas10mm like this.
  23. ATLDave

    ATLDave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    6,960
    If the UBC is truly universal, they don't need some separate "registration" except for dealing with sold-before-UBC firearms. The UBC isn't prelude to a registry - it IS the registry. If there are no private sales, and every FFL transfer gets documented, then the registry is just all the 4473 information.

    The registry may have a lousy user interface at first, but technological advancements have made the ingestion and indexing of vast sums of data pretty easy compared to even 10 years ago.
     
    Sistema1927 and I6turbo like this.
  24. PapaG

    PapaG Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    3,134
    Location:
    Il
    No, I did not miss the point. What I said, and still say, is that in Illinois we have the closest thing to that. You, legally, cannot sell to another individual without submitting their FOID number and birthdate to the Illinois State Police (which therefore makes a record of a transaction), get a transaction number (which you have to keep), and wait (supposed to) the required waiting period. If that isn't universal, what with checks being required at gun shows and for dealer purchase, what is? Let's not be contentious. I read the article and understand that their goal is that everyone should have to go through a dealer but we are as close to their goal as anyone out there. Do I like it? NO. Do I follow it? Yes. Too much invested in the collection to risk a big hit for a minor infraction.
     
  25. Texas10mm

    Texas10mm Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,408
    BOHICA.
     
    Casefull, Sistema1927 and Deanimator like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice