Universal Background Checks

[Shadow 7D]

You are missing a HUGE issue with it
In order to make this effective,

ALL GUN WOULD HAVE TO BE KNOWN
So, in order to know who has guns, and where they are going...
it would either be with registration, or a HUGE step to registration
so, sure compromise
what happens next year when registration is on the books cause they had to 'FIX' the hole in the new law?

 

[mdauben]

I admit, this is one potential "anti-gun" idea currently being pushed that I have a hard time working up any opposition to, other than on the grounds of slipperly slope, "no new laws at all" thinking.

Criminals don't get back ground checks; they don't buy guns legally so back ground checks are pointless.

Yeah, if someone really wants a gun they can probably find a way to get one. Background checks do make it at least a little harder for criminals and mentally unstable individuals to get one. I've heard more than one story from various FFLs about such people getting denied during store checks, so the current system is already doing some good when such people try to buy guns through normal channels.

Not to mention the fact that it is de facto registration, which could ultimately lead to actual registration, would could lead to confiscation.

This seems more like scare mongering than actual fact, unless new laws allowing actual central record keeping are incorporated into the currently pending bills. Currently we are already having background checks for all sales run through a FFL anyway so if they are somehow keeping track (which by law they are not allowed to do) we are already hosed. I know every gun I have ever bought went through an FFL and I would venture to guess there is not a large percentage of gun owners who have never bought a gun through an FFL. If they are going to use background checks to identify and track gun ownership, they already have most of us.

Why impose more limitations on law abiding citizens?

The current NICS check run through FFLs is a relativly trivial inconvenience. Depending on how its implemented, it does not have to be much worse for private transactions.

Again, I'm not necessarily in favor of such expansion to the current laws on background checks, and I'm not sure how much good expanding it will do, but it just seems there are much more important issues that we have to fight against than this one.

 

[HighExpert]

I wonder why they need another background check on me each time I buy a handgun when I have a CCW. They have already done a much more extensive background check on me than would be required to buy the gun so why not just verify my CCW is still valid and let it go at that?

 

[hogshead]

Mdauben Read through this entire post. If you cant see the reasons against a ubc then you are probably a liberal so there is no use to try to explain it to you any further, I am not trying to be mean or hateful.Its just the truth.

 

[JRH6856]

HighExpert, I don't know where you live, but ATF will accept that in many states. It may depend on what the states' requirements are for issuing a CCW.

Here is an idea:

The BATF should accept a CCW/CHL as proof of qualification in lieu of a NICS check.

For those states the do not have permits, and for those persons who do not have them in states that do issue permits. Why not allow volunatary back ground checks prior to purchase? Example:

Texas issues both drivers licenses and picture IDs. Allow anyone to go to a DPS license office and request a NICS check. If the check is clear, place a G code on the license or ID and record the fact that the license/ID is so coded. The person can then display this to any seller as proof of NICS OK.

If a person with such a coded license/ID is ajudicated ineligible for firearms ownership, he/she must surrender the coded ID in exchange for an uncoded one.

Anyone without a CCW/CHL or coded ID would have to go to an FFL for a NICS check.

 

[gc70]

The laws that make up the background check system are not being enforced by the government. The latest year for which the Justice Department has released a report (that I could find) was 2008; the report shows the government's stark failure to enforce the law.

5,813,249 background checks (page 4)
70,725 denials - people who are not supposed to be able to have guns (page 4)
147 cases referred for prosecution by ATF (page 7)
43 cases resulting in guilty pleas or verdicts (page 8)

If the current laws are ineffective, first try enforcing those laws. Expanding unenforced laws makes no sense at all.

 

[Old Fuff]

Texas issues both drivers licenses and picture IDs. Allow anyone to go to a DPS license office and request a NICS check.

They may make some kind of background check, but it is not a NICS check. That can only be done by an FFL dealer, destributor or manufacturer - and then only when transfering a firearm to a non-licensed person. Any other use can result in a $10,000 fine.

What is now proposed in Washington is to make all private sales go through an FFL (including fees and a #4473 form). Only after the form has been compleated and signed can the dealer call into NICS for a background check.

No one is contemplating letting individual non-licensed sellers and buyers be able to make their own background checks.

 

[Ryanxia]

In MA this is already law and the dealers charge a minimum of $50 per transfer.

Want to lend a buddy a hunting rifle? $50/3 hour background check (average time at the shops here now {except for my LGS}) to lend it to him for the weekend then the same thing to get it back.

Also, if it's mandatory to go through a dealer, why not charge $500 to transfer a firearm? It's the only way they're going to legally sell/trade/give it. And that one honest FFL that charges nothing or $20 will soon be overwhelmed and have to / want to raise his prices.

And as has been stated it equals registration. Plus that pesky little Second Amendment that says "shall not be infringed". Well if I want to buy a single shot .22 from my buddy and the government won't allow that, that's infringement.

 

[Old Fuff]

The whole thread is meaningless. We do not need any background checks

But an awful lot of legislators see it as an easy out that most voters support, and they want to "do something." Many of our members support the idea, because of a mistaken idea that it will let individual (non licensed) sellers or buyers make they're own background checks. They are in for an unwelcome suprise, and in November 2014 some legislators may get one too.

 

[JRH6856]

Ok, yes, the TxDPS check is not a NICS check. I used the term to indicate that a new law could make a state background check an accepted equivalent to NICS.

And yes, the push in DC is to have all sales go through an FFL. Since, as you say, an awful lot of lawmakers feel they have to do something, I'm suggesting this might be a more acceptable alternative something.

 

[JRH6856]

Muad Dib, what you may be even more shocked to learn is that no is forced to be here.

 

[abajaj11]

I admit, this is one potential "anti-gun" idea currently being pushed that I have a hard time working up any opposition to, other than on the grounds of slipperly slope, "no new laws at all" thinking.


Yeah, if someone really wants a gun they can probably find a way to get one. Background checks do make it at least a little harder for criminals and mentally unstable individuals to get one. I've heard more than one story from various FFLs about such people getting denied during store checks, so the current system is already doing some good when such people try to buy guns through normal channels.


This seems more like scare mongering than actual fact, unless new laws allowing actual central record keeping are incorporated into the currently pending bills. Currently we are already having background checks for all sales run through a FFL anyway so if they are somehow keeping track (which by law they are not allowed to do) we are already hosed. I know every gun I have ever bought went through an FFL and I would venture to guess there is not a large percentage of gun owners who have never bought a gun through an FFL. If they are going to use background checks to identify and track gun ownership, they already have most of us.


The current NICS check run through FFLs is a relativly trivial inconvenience. Depending on how its implemented, it does not have to be much worse for private transactions.

Again, I'm not necessarily in favor of such expansion to the current laws on background checks, and I'm not sure how much good expanding it will do, but it just seems there are much more important issues that we have to fight against than this one.

There is a Critical difference between ALLOWING ANYONE to make a NICS check, and MANDATING THAT EVERYONE make a NICS check.

Allowing anyone to make a NICs check is a good thing. We can all do that right now...simply use an FFL if you want to sell a gun. It will cost you $10-20 extra, but you will have your NICS check on the buyer.

MANDATING that everyone make a NICS check is a pathway to registration, since the only way to monitor if this law is being followed would be to find out who owns what in advance. If a NICS check were mandated, POTUS and Mr. Holder will run with it and issue all sorts of executive orders and rulings that will result in de facto registration, in my opinion.

We need to be careful, IMHO, to distinguish between ALLOWING anyone who wants to be able do a NICs check (GOOD), and MANDATING that ALL sales and transfers MUST go through a NICS check (BAD).

 

[zorro45]

Muad Dib,
While we do have a few trolls, I myself have made quite a few posts which just might border on not being quite ""High Road" and to my surprise I have not experienced any heavy handed moderator activity! Much less than what I have to put up with in my workplace. I think we have even had quite a bit of dialogue with people who are pretty much antis (I think doing prep for testimony before Congress or some such thing) and they have been treated pretty respectfully at least for the first five or ten back-and-forth postings.

 

[gc70]

They may make some kind of background check, but it is not a NICS check. That can only be done by an FFL dealer, destributor or manufacturer - and then only when transfering a firearm to a non-licensed person.

I believe MicroTecniqs was suggesting a state "endorsement" resulting from a voluntary background check. Such activity would seem to be consistent 28 CFR § 25.6(j)(1).

(j) Access to the NICS Index for purposes unrelated to NICS background checks required by the Brady Act. Access to the NICS Index for purposes unrelated to NICS background checks pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(t) shall be limited to uses for the purpose of:
(1) Providing information to Federal, state, or local criminal justice agencies in connection with the issuance of a firearm-related or explosives-related permit or license, including permits or licenses to possess, acquire, or transfer a firearm, or to carry a concealed firearm, or to import, manufacture, deal in, or purchase explosives;

 

[JRH6856]

Muad Dib, I think I see your point.

I do think that moderators should not edit any member's post. If it is unacceptable in its entirity, delete it and inform the poster why.it was done. If the posting has worth ask the poster to repost the inoffensive parts. But online forums are communities, and the members know each other only by reading what each other posts, The words, tone, and ideas expressed and the civility displayed or withheld are the only things we have by which to know each other. What you post and how informs my impression of you. Since you post it, I can assume it is how you want to present yourself. To have that presentation modified by a third party denies all of us the opportunity to form an honest opinion of each other. Instead of being ourselves, seen for who we are, we become images of how the moderators want us to be seen.

 

[Bubbles]

5,813,249 background checks (page 4)
70,725 denials - people who are not supposed to be able to have guns (page 4)
147 cases referred for prosecution by ATF (page 7)
43 cases resulting in guilty pleas or verdicts (page 8)

A NICS denial does not necessarily mean that the transferee is a prohibited person. I've had two customers get denials, both successfully appealed.

 

[mdauben]

Mdauben Read through this entire post. If you cant see the reasons against a ubc then you are probably a liberal so there is no use to try to explain it to you any further, I am not trying to be mean or hateful.Its just the truth.

Yes, I am vehemently opposed to banning so-called "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines, I am opposed to registration, I am opposed to shutting down on-line sales of ammo or guns, I support "shall issue" concealed carry, castle doctrine and stand your ground, I think Obama is the wost thing to happen to this country in the last 50 years, but because I don't think this one issue is that important (not that I support it) I must be a liberal.

You are an amazing judge of character.

 

[lonestarag]

So for the compromisers ... how about asking for some rights back in return? Get back unregulated suppressors in exchange for gun show loophole. Or get back post-86 NFA guns in exchange for UBC? Bring something to the party for the rest of us....

 

[grahluk]

In reading all the for/against arguments here I'm not convinced that a UBC is an infringement of anyone's right. Why is such a requirement for an individual sale onerous but a dealer sale not? Is anyone suggesting that a dealer NICS check is an infringement of your right? Why the inconsistency? It would make sense to either have all transfers and sales require a check or none. This is a prime example of how the laws we have on the books are a patchwork of ineffectiveness. Some here state that a fee to the FFL for making the check could result in it being prohibitive to make a sale. How is it not prohibitive for them to do so on their own sales? Obviously they do not charge for that service in making a sale so the act of doing so does not eat into the overhead of running a shop. Performing that service for private sales should only incur the cost of a sales associate's time and use of the system. The fee could be reasonably low and anyone abusing that would also likely be turning off customers to that dealer for their future sales. I don't think dealers would object to this at all. Most are supportive of the shooting community and they would also get people in their door who may buy other merchandise while there for the transfer. Those claiming that a UBC is a few meters further down the slippery slope of confiscation may be claiming that any clarification, modification, or enforcement of present regulations is intolerable. I'm not buying it. We are not above laws that regulate who may have firearms but are above laws that prohibit firearms themselves. The rub is being vigilant that the first effort does not cross over into the second. Registration and confiscation are real concerns. They have been enacted not only in historical examples of totalitarian regimes but here as well. NYC created it's own AWB grandfathering and requiring registration of existent owner then later enacted confiscation. I think in light of Heller & McDonald those sort of efforts would be difficult to enact now. The fact now is that most grabbers' most ambitious efforts heel up before the spectre of depriving citizens of their property. The Fienstein national bill and the recent Cuomo state bill omitted such things despite both their initial rhetoric as they know it would get an immediate court challenge that they don't feel confident about. I say let confiscation battles be fought on their own merit and not roll the idea of consistent background checks into ideas that they are tendrils of confiscation.

 

[JRH6856]

You see, people have few twinges of conscience while dispensing with someone elses rights, especially if they've convinced themselves that they are immune to the same thing happening to them.

And this will be our downfall, not just as gun owners, but as a free country.

First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

— Martin Niemöller​

 

[Batty67]

Of all the various talk, attempts, and outright attacks on the second amendment, I'm mostly fine with requiring background checks for all firearm transfers that are not immediate family. But that's about it.

 

[Lost Sheep]

In reading all the for/against arguments here I'm not convinced that a UBC is an infringement of anyone's right. Why is such a requirement for an individual sale onerous but a dealer sale not? Is anyone suggesting that a dealer NICS check is an infringement of your right? Why the inconsistency? It would make sense to either have all transfers and sales require a check or none. This is a prime example of how the laws we have on the books are a patchwork of ineffectiveness. Some here state that a fee to the FFL for making the check could result in it being prohibitive to make a sale. How is it not prohibitive for them to do so on their own sales? Obviously they do not charge for that service in making a sale so the act of doing so does not eat into the overhead of running a shop. Performing that service for private sales should only incur the cost of a sales associate's time and use of the system. The fee could be reasonably low and anyone abusing that would also likely be turning off customers to that dealer for their future sales. I don't think dealers would object to this at all. Most are supportive of the shooting community and they would also get people in their door who may buy other merchandise while there for the transfer. Those claiming that a UBC is a few meters further down the slippery slope of confiscation may be claiming that any clarification, modification, or enforcement of present regulations is intolerable. I'm not buying it. We are not above laws that regulate who may have firearms but are above laws that prohibit firearms themselves. The rub is being vigilant that the first effort does not cross over into the second. Registration and confiscation are real concerns. They have been enacted not only in historical examples of totalitarian regimes but here as well. NYC created it's own AWB grandfathering and requiring registration of existent owner then later enacted confiscation. I think in light of Heller & McDonald those sort of efforts would be difficult to enact now. The fact now is that most grabbers' most ambitious efforts heel up before the spectre of depriving citizens of their property. The Fienstein national bill and the recent Cuomo state bill omitted such things despite both their initial rhetoric as they know it would get an immediate court challenge that they don't feel confident about. I say let confiscation battles be fought on their own merit and not roll the idea of consistent background checks into ideas that they are tendrils of confiscation.

Yes, you have identified the "rub".

And pointed out an example in our own country (where "It could never happen here" is an ideal not too far from reality, but still, not quaranteed without eternal vigilance), the example being NYC. By the way, I am a West-coaster so am not familiar with the history. Could you send me (by PM or in the thread, either way) some pointers where I could research the matter, please?

Universal background checks is virtually unenforceable without ancillary laws potentially even more intrusive of privacy than registration. Making the UBC enforceable would enable tracking of all who have guns, which makes it easier to go for confiscation (first, under the guise of just getting the transfers which were not UBCed).

It provides a slippery slope which is demonstrably dangerous without VERY STRONG safeguards. (See my thread "In support of a National FOID") where I received a good education. I thought I outlined a good system of safeguards in the original post. I'm still sorting out the issues.

The idea of anyone ever having a master list of gun owners it anathema to me. Anything that makes that closer to a possibility needs scrutiny. Needs it badly.

UBC available to all sellers at no charge and not required by law, but by the conscience of the seller is as far as I would go. After all, we trust current gun owners to not shoot innocent people. Can we not trust them to sell to equally law-abiding people?

Lost Sheep

 

[gc70]

Of all the various talk, attempts, and outright attacks on the second amendment, I'm mostly fine with requiring background checks for all firearm transfers that are not immediate family. But that's about it.

Are you okay with requiring background checks for all transfers or all sales? H.R.21 requires background checks for all transfers, which include "a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title." Do you really want to have to get a background check before you can even hand somebody a gun?

 

[PoPo22]

Without reading 111 previous post, I understand peoples objections to UBC's but I really see no other solution to accidentally selling a gun to someone who shouldn't possess a gun. I can relate to not wanting to violate someones right to privacy and security in their own medical history, but what is the solution? Sure, we will all say (rightfully so) that the criminals will get them anyway, its a fact of life and a criminal lifestyle. Then there are those who will say we need to limit the movie and media industry from publishing all the violence and crap that's in electronic games, movies, magazines, the news, etc, but which constitutional amendment do we trample the most or least in order for a solution to the gun violence.

Yeah, there are those who will spout off the babble about how many people automobiles, doctors, pharmacist, airlines, trains, wars, blah, blah, blah kill as opposed to guns. Yeah its all true, but what is the solution? There are no simple, quick answers and the fact is that people do die unnatural deaths. Its not about "ending" ALL accidental/intentional deaths, its about doing what we can to minimize the horrific mass killings that are not war related to our children. Why can't we go to an "FFL" and pay a small fee to have them run a "UBC" on a potential buyer and if there is no problem, they can simply say there is no restriction against selling the gun. If there is a problem, they could simply say there is a problem and notify authorities that "such and such" person tried to buy a gun, without even mentioning your name. They then know what "felon or mentally unstable" person is trying to buy a gun and address that individual. You really need not ever be brought into the picture. I too am weary of government intervention into our personal lives, but who else is going to make that effort and who else has the responsibility? Good Luck.

 

[JohnBT]

"Why is such a requirement for an individual sale onerous but a dealer sale not?"

A person who chooses to go to a gun store is already there and the background check - if it goes through in a timely manner - isn't too much of a hassle.

Now, let's look at private sales:

- You aren't already at a gun store when you decide to buy or sell a gun face to face and might live 10 or 20 miles away from an FFL. Or more, not everyone lives in an urban area or even in a small town. It's a hassle and an expense for both folks to go to an FFL. Want to sell a gun to your neighbor of 20 years? Want to sell a gun to your 70-year-old uncle? Want to sell a gun to your minister? Want to sell a gun to your old high school buddy you've known for 40 years? The list goes on and on.

A UBC system will result in the same buyer behavior that FFL's encounter: the convicted felon simply gets someone with a clean record to buy the gun. A UBC doesn't solve the problem.


Based on what the City of Richmond did to gun shops and gun owners a few decades ago, I don't trust the motives of anyone who puts the burden of proof on honest people...

The city wanted to drive the gun stores out of the city (and they did too) so they passed a law requiring BOTH buyer and seller to go downtown and get a permit for that one sale. Each and every sale required 2 permits.

This law also applied to private sales within the city limits. Of course, if the buyer and seller drove one block out of town to exchange gun for money the law didn't apply. It only applied to transactions in the city.

The punchline was when the city got involved in opening a large mall with a Galyan's sporting goods store. The store opened and they sold guns. Guess what, when it was pointed out that the law was being violated the city council met and repealed the stupid seller/buyer permit law they'd forgotten about.

In conclusion, I'm against useless laws that the crooks can easily circumvent.

John