Why Universal Background Checks Are Bad for Gun Owners

[jerkface11]

They've already announced the next "loophole" they want to close. That being passing the background check by default if there's no response after 3 days.

 

[danez71]

I apologize if I took your comments out of context or caused you to feel you were being portrayed unfairly. It may be a cognitive thing on my part as after you clarified your position, I still don't see the difference; but I trust your statement adequately cleared up any misunderstanding about your position I may have inadvertently caused.

Suffice it to say, I still disagree with you on the substance.

Fair enough. I didnt believe you were being malicious.

What part of the "substance"?

I'm not here to argue... I'm open to being convinced.

I dont support the UBC in any of the ways it's been proposed.

And copied from my post above:

We must do more than say " some one will figure out a way around it so therefore we must get rid of it all together "

If we dont, we lose because we did give up on fighting against UBCs by using the most lame strategy that has already failed.



We must take the reigns of this issue and steer it before the Govt finishes steering it for us.

What part do you disagree with and why?

Again.... Im not her to argue and I have an open mind.

 

[JSH1]

What exactly are we getting? Oh yeah they've offered nothing.

You don't know what you can get unless you sit down at the table.

 

[Partizanai]

Their true purpose.....

Universal Background Checks are no more than a continuation of
the "Feds" attempts towards the elimination of private weapon ownership
in America. This is in part why they constantly attack the entire premise of
legal & just "States Rights".
The "Feds" fear an armed population beyond belief. Our private weapons
ownership guard our freedoms from the extreme "Liberal-Socialists" in
Washington. Everyday they slowly grow closer to their true desire; an
America that is Communist and controlled by a small political elite.
I have lived in the suburbs of Washington, DC for sixty years now. These
changes are like a slow growing Cancer. I am not an alarmist but, I see
the reality of where we are headed.
Such lists can (and one day will be) used to hunt down legal firearms
owners with the sole purpose to confiscate our only protection from these
Cowards.
May GOD Bless America!!!!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

What part of the "substance"?

Based on the earlier thread and your clarification here, it was my impression you believe that a compromise can be reached on UBCs that is beneficial to gunowners without overhauling the 1968 recordkeeping system. For the reasons I've already explained, I don't think that is true.

I dont support the UBC in any of the ways it's been proposed.

Then it is unlikely you ever will - because the people on the other side aren't dealing in good faith, haven't been dealing in good faith for decades, and aren't going to suddenly start dealing in good faith. They had a chance to cut a deal with Tom Coburn - an NRA and GOA A+ rated Senator whose pro-gun credentials were unimpeachable. That deal would have covered every single sale anywhere in the U.S. - instead they chose to cover less transfers in return for more recordkeeping and kck Coburn out of the coalition. If you could come up with a UBC that didn't offer a step to registration, they would oppose it as if you were offering to drop machineguns from a helicopter over an elementary school playground.

You don't know what you can get unless you sit down at the table.

Again, several Senators with solid pro-2A credentials sat down to the table in 2013. The results speak for themselves. The other side would rather register the purchases of CHLs instead of seeing a universal background check that made it easier to buy a gun.

 

[jerkface11]

You don't know what you can get unless you sit down at the table.

You said we would get something out of it but the fact is there is no evidence this is true. You're simply hoping that they will give something up. In the past the only "compromise" they've gone for is to simply ask for a little less.

 

[Deanimator]

Without registration, so-called "universal" background checks are utterly meaningless.

Universal background checks = universal registration.

If anybody doesn't have a problem with registration, tell the class how Chicago enforced it's handgun BAN.

 

[Deanimator]

You don't know what you can get unless you sit down at the table.

I know what I can get from a rattlesnake: BIT.

There isn't one IOTA of reason to believe that after decades of pathological lying, anti-gunners can be trusted as far as I can throw Rosie O'Donnell and a box car full of bags of hammers.

Any "deal" with anti-gunners is on a par with the so-called "deal" with Iran.

 

[Deanimator]

We as gun owners should be at least as bent out of shape about UBC laws as the left is about Voter ID laws!

Funny you should mention that. If voter ID laws are racist and intended to "suppress" the Black vote, what are gun owner ID laws, ESPECIALLY given the well known history of racially motivated and targeted Jim Crow gun control laws?

 

[Deanimator]

What exactly are we getting? Oh yeah they've offered nothing.

That's completely unfair. They've offered us the equivalent of being worked ALMOST to death in a salt mine building V-2s, THEN being gassed.

 

[Partizanai]

Sitting down with who?

I do not see where we as American's should give an inch to the people
who would summarily disarm us (if they could....) The more documentation
and "records" that the "Feds" have on each one of us- erodes our freedoms.
Who are we even talking about here? Those who would kill the unborn, steal
our weapons, support gay marriage/rights and countless other number of
sick and twisted pursuits. That's who.....
P

 

[SuperNaut]

You don't know what you can get unless you sit down at the table.

Ah, the "Mystery Box!"

 

[TwinReverb]

1. You start off by stating the 1968 was rumored to be inspired by the Nazi firearms law. You're wrong, first, because it was the Weimar government who implemented that law in pre-WW2 Germany. Second, you say "rumored": you're spreading fear on purpose to bolster your argument.

2. Then you say "the system above". You never used the word system or told us what system you're referring to, so we have to assume NICS (below).

3. You don't list all of the other percentages from 2010.

4. You say some were referred to the ATF for further investigation "even though" a prohibited person lying on a form is a federal crime. That's not a logical "even though" clause. Maybe "because" or put all that in parenthesis.

5. You say "actual violations of the law." You forgot to mention what percentage or stats of cases turned over to the ATF were just someone filling out the form wrong, and what happened to all others, but then you immediately try to draw the conclusion that they're rarely investigated. And you don't allow any other reasons (that the ATF is too busy, or that they are sort of "forgiving" some of them by silently denying but not pursuing those who applied, etc). Not enough information to draw a good conclusion.

6. Have you ever considered that the main point of a background check would be to deny someone a firearm? That there doesn't really need to be any other action? Your logic is similar to complaining that there isn't a cop on every street corner with a radar gun (to re-word your logic to show you how it's flawed, "so currently we do little or nothing to stop people from speeding").

7. Then you say "we do absolutely nothing to stop criminals we do catch". Didn't you just say 62 cases in 2010 got prosecuted? That might be low, but it's not "absolutely nothing".

8. Then you say that the 26.5% of those investigated in 2010 (after you said we do nothing) were investigated by a federal law enforcement agency. Do we do absolutely nohing or not? You're contradicting yourself.

9. Then you say "it will fail." When did you get the power to know the future?

10. Then you say "the only way ... is to register all privately owned weapons." Again, do you know the future? Maybe you should say things like "maybe" or "some think" or "we suppose" or "I guess", not state them as absolute fact by your word choice.

I am not in favor of NICS because it's a de facto gun registry. However, I am in favor of a way to quick check someone without having to input make and model of gun (NICS keeps search records). All a person working at a gun store should have to input is driver's license number or social security number, and in return they get a red or green screen (approved or denied) and the person's name and address for fact checking.

I am not a fan of records keeping requirements.

And I am in favor of prosecuting those who try to fraudulently get a hold of firearms. The rate at which felons repeat their crimes over a six year period is a staggering 77% last I checked. Basically, you can bet that a felon WILL be in trouble with law enforcement again and usually win. It's that bad, and that's pretty sad when you can bet someone $20 that a felon who made it into the paper will be in the paper again and know you're probably going to win.

 

[gripper]

Again, my problem with this is the expanded ( and ever expanding) definition of " prohibited person". I also repeat my earlier statement from other posts that such a term applied to someone NOT in custody/ on probation/ parole is anti- Constitutional on the surface. We should NOT be arguing over how many of our rights we should abrogate to appear " reasonable ". The opposition never has to even be factual, never mind reasonable.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Well, we sure have some people in this thread doing a good job appearing to be rational, reasonable, and polite in supporting their opinion.

The first example being post #11 with the oblique reference to someone they disagree with behaving like the Nazis.

Lord Teapot - yes, record keeping is essential, keep up the good work citizen.
Guten Tag

Now we have post #35 making a direct reference to opponents behaving like Nazis.

That's completely unfair. They've offered us the equivalent of being worked ALMOST to death in a salt mine building V-2s, THEN being gassed.

This type of rhetoric is not good P.R. for supporting our defense of the RKBA. Please stop.

 

[Midwest]

Here is my take

IF UBC passes nationwide. Whats to stop them later on to make a ruling after that all firearms in private hands will have to go through UBC regardless if it will be sold or not or it cannot be sold later on.

Well how would THAT happen? Well there will be a series of high profile cases of people be charged with evading the UBC (think on the same lines as evading taxes) and will have to prove that they acquired their firearms before the Universal Background Check.

Well, how can they prove they acquired the firearm before UBC? They can't prove that they acquired the firearm before the UBC. Well now the anti's will demonstrate that the current UBC is not good enough and the UBC 'loophole' needs to be closed. Some solution needs to 'happen' and you can bet they have a 'solution'.

Enter the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" . The anti's will come with some 'good sounding' name like this and say it 'will protect firearm owners rights' from being charged with evasion of the UBC.

All personally owned firearms from now on will have to go through UBC regardless OR it cannot be sold or transferred later on. And there will be an amnesty time period in which this is accomplished. To make this palatable, there would be no FFL fee to get your personally owned firearms "protected' under the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" database.

All a firearms owner has to do is to simply bring all their personally owned firearms to their FFL, get the firearms registered in the new "Firearms Protection Act" database and get a card that is tied to the firearm. There will be an amnesty will be offered for six months and it won't cost the owner nothing. Each firearm will get a registration card and you can use this as "proof" that your firearm is registered and can be used as a valid defense against accusations of 'evading the UBC'.

Now every firearm registered under the "Firearm Owners Protection Act" can easily be sold, transferred or willed to a heir and free of suspicions of evading UBC.

Of course if you don't want to register the firearm in the national database and get a card to prove you are the owner. You are not required to. But then owner cannot will it to heirs or sell it at a later date. If the owner dies the gun gets forfeited to the government. And since you don't have a card proving you are the owner, you could still be liable for evading UBC.

However gun owners who get their firearms passed through UBC will be allowed later on to sell the firearm or pass it to heirs. See? Because every firearm will be issued a registration card as "proof that it went through the UBC".

Then at some predetermined point they will change the law to declare that all firearms that never went through the UBC is now totally contraband and must be forfeited to the government.

And now, even if the owner is still alive...now that earlier 'exemption' is gone. Now it will be that you cannot possess or own that firearm without that "Firearm Owners Protection Act" card even if you have no plans to sell it later on or leave it to heirs.

Then once they pass that. What will stop them to change the law again and require that gun owners must have a personal firearms license in order to hold a registration certificate for a firearm? Now we will have the licensing of owners as well. And then they will tighten restrictions along the way as to who can get licensed.

Then at a later date, the government will declare that several classes of firearms are now outlawed and will have to be forfeited to the government. (Probably after some staged 'false-flag' shooting event bought on by the overuse of SSRI 'medications'). Then they will use those personal firearms licenses to go after the gun owners and the registration certificate titles to track down the firearms.

And how would they 'confiscate' personal property? They would do it the same way the IRS does it already. They will use the same legal tactics and forfeiture laws used by the IRS. Everyone knows that the IRS can confiscate cars, houses, bank accounts, garnish wages and seize every kind of property one can think of. They will make "Evasion of the UBC" a felony.

And no...I am not talking some tin foil harebrained scheme. I have studied their tactics for years. This is why Gabby, Bloomberg and company have made their bus tours from State Capitol to State Capitol pitching their UBC. And they have been successful! Colorado, Washington State and now Oregon. You think they will stop there? UBC is the first step that will lead directly to gun registration and the ultimate end to our firearms rights.

So lets recap

1.UBC

2. Prove that firearm was acquired before UBC. (Impossible)

3. "Solution to #2" "Optionally" make all firearms in ones possession go through UBC and get a registration certificate for each firearm that 'proves' you own it. Six Month amnesty and no cost to the owner. Those who don't register their firearms through the UBC may hold on to the firearm, but cannot pass the firearm to heirs or transfer it to anyone. If the owner dies, it gets forfeited to the government. But there is no requirement to register....yet.

4. They will change the law again and make every firearms owner require a firearms license in order to hold registration certificates. And now declare that all unregistered firearms (even if the owner is still alive) will have to be forfeited to the government. The earlier exemption is gone.

5. Since all firearm owners are now licensed and each firearm in their possession has a registration certificate. The government decides to declare certain classes of firearms illegal and must be forfeited to the government. (Think Australia). Since owners are now licensed and guns have registration certificate, owners and guns are easy to track down.

Let me be clear, I DO NOT want any of the above to happen. I do not want any form of UBC. I wrote this to illustrate to show how they can turn a UBC into gun registration and we must prevent that from happening!.
.

 

[larryh1108]

It's not that difficult.

UBC>Registration>Confiscation

Once a UBC is in place, it would be easy to "add" make/model/serial# to the input (with a new law sure to come after the next knee jerk reaction).

Once there is registration, confiscation is easy to implement. (see Germany, Australia, etc.)

No good would come out of a UBC system. We have enough (too much) government interference in place now with not enough follow thru on the present law breakers.

 

[jerkface11]

This type of rhetoric is not good P.R. for supporting our defense of the RKBA. Please stop.

LOL but supporting gun control is defending the RKBA right?

 

[danez71]

Based on the earlier thread and your clarification here, it was my impression you believe that a compromise can be reached on UBCs that is beneficial to gunowners without overhauling the 1968 recordkeeping system. For the reasons I've already explained, I don't think that is true.



Then it is unlikely you ever will - because the people on the other side aren't dealing in good faith, haven't been dealing in good faith for decades, and aren't going to suddenly start dealing in good faith. They had a chance to cut a deal with Tom Coburn - an NRA and GOA A+ rated Senator whose pro-gun credentials were unimpeachable. That deal would have covered every single sale anywhere in the U.S. - instead they chose to cover less transfers in return for more recordkeeping and kck Coburn out of the coalition. If you could come up with a UBC that didn't offer a step to registration, they would oppose it as if you were offering to drop machineguns from a helicopter over an elementary school playground.



Again, several Senators with solid pro-2A credentials sat down to the table in 2013. The results speak for themselves. The other side would rather register the purchases of CHLs instead of seeing a universal background check that made it easier to buy a gun.

Ok,.. then were mostly on the same page.

I don't support them because I haven't seen anything better than what we have now. By 'better' I mean more effective with out screwing over the honest people.

As you pointed out so well, we don't even enforce the laws we have now.

In honesty, I wasn't up on the details of the Coburn proposal.


I certainly agree we have enough laws (too many). Ive said for a long time that if I were ever President I would use my Executive Powers to make a rule that for every new law, 2 others have to be removed. We don't need more duplicative overlapping laws.


I agree with most everything you said.

My 'beef' as they say is:

We must do more than say " Some one will figure out a way around the UBC so therefore we must completely get rid of BCs and all record keeping"


To the vast majority of people, its equivalent to saying "Some thieves get past locked doors so we must get rid of locks on doors."


What the answer is.... I don't know exactly.

But its not caving into UBCs.... and its not repeating what the vast majority feel is nonsensical argument of "Some crooks get away with their crimes so therefore we must abolish all laws".

That strategy will fail and it will be our own fault.

 

[Nom de Forum]

LOL but supporting gun control is defending the RKBA right?

I does not appear you have the perspicacity to see the distinction between supporting gun control and attempting to influence gun control to make it as benign as possible while working on issues that are more effective in protecting the RKBA.

 

[Deanimator]

This type of rhetoric is not good P.R. for supporting our defense of the RKBA. Please stop.

Actually, it's an accurate portrayal of their tactics, honesty, and in some cases racial attitudes, such the elderly cleaner I once encountered in a Lakewood, Ohio McDonalds.

In response to his berating me for wearing an NRA ball cap, during which he stated that the NRA should be "banned", I replied that the last time organizations started getting "banned", we misplaced 6,000,000 Jews somewhere. He responded that he "wasn't so sure that was such a BAD thing". Scratch an anti-gunner, find a Nazi.

And as you already know, you're not the arbiter of what "good p.r." is. I have little doubt that British and Australian gun owners agreed with you... until they were no longer "gun owners".

 

[Deanimator]

I does not appear you have the perspicacity to see the distinction between supporting gun control and attempting to influence gun control to make it as benign as possible while working on issues that are more effective in protecting the RKBA.

That's kind of like that "benign" slavery and genocide people were working toward between 1933 and 1945, right?

 

[Deanimator]

Once a UBC is in place, it would be easy to "add" make/model/serial# to the input (with a new law sure to come after the next knee jerk reaction).

It's even easier than that.

How did Chicago enforce its handgun BAN?

Hint: It's hard to register without registration FORMS...

 

[jerkface11]

I does not appear you have the perspicacity to see the distinction between supporting gun control and attempting to influence gun control to make it as benign as possible while working on issues that are more effective in protecting the RKBA.

You're attempting to convince us to go along with "universal" background checks. That hardly helps our cause.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Actually, it's an accurate portrayal of their tactics, honesty, and in some cases racial attitudes, .....

Regardless if it is "an accurate portrayal" or not, it does not matter. That kind of rhetoric is not productive and often damaging in convincing the undecided to support our cause. Please stop.