Quantcast

Why we need to fight any proposed UBC bills

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Ryanxia, Aug 9, 2019.

  1. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,585
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    Most of us should know the facts on the "Universal Background Checks" by now, but I see more comments lately about wanting to compromise and accept a UBC under certain conditions. It cannot be overstated how important keeping transfers of firearms out of the government's tight grasp is for our liberties and security. A few points below either as a reminder or something some people might overlook.
    (Note: Some of this taken from this article here: https://reason.com/2015/10/08/4-reasons-universal-background-checks-ar )

    Here are some major problems with requiring background checks for private gun transfers as a policy, as opposed to a political stunt:

    1. Expanding the background check requirement makes no sense as a response to mass shootings (even though that is how it has been presented), because the perpetrators of these crimes, typically either have actually passed background checks or could do so because they do not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records.

    2. Expanding the background check requirement makes little sense as a response to more common forms of gun violence, since criminals with felony records can always obtain weapons on the black market, through buyers with clean records, making their own, or by theft.

    3. Removed. (See AlexanderA's reply that I agree with).

    4. Expanding the background check requirement is not the same as actually compelling people to perform background checks for private gun transfers. Many gun owners will balk at the inconvenience and expense of finding and paying a licensed dealer who is willing to facilitate a transaction. In Oregon, which expanded its background-check requirement in 2015, some local law enforcement officials have publicly stated they do not plan to enforce the new rule, either because they do not have the resources or because they view it as an unconstitutional intrusion. The Oregonian notes that "there is no centralized registry of guns in Oregon…that could be used to track a gun found in a criminal's possession." The federal government has no such registry either, so how can it possibly hope to track transfers and make sure background checks are performed? Even with hefty criminal penalties, widespread noncompliance is a certainty.
    Consider: Does the theoretical prospect of a 10-year prison sentence deter gun owners from smoking pot or pot smokers from owning guns?

    5. Universal Background Checks apply to temporary transfers as well. Loaning a buddy multiple handguns to go to the range to let his wife try different options before her next purchase will require a multiple handgun sale form in both directions and lots of FFL fees.

    6. UBC bills usually don't recognize non-traditional families as family members meaning an illegal transfer of a firearm is likely to occur countless times without parties even being aware.

    7. Many towns have only one (if any) FFL that is quite a drive away and will require multiple trips and a hefty transfer fee (some having stated that if UBC becomes law their transfer fees will increase to $125 per firearm). And if you work during the times that those FFL's are open what are you to do then? Drive an hour away (twice) so you can lend your cousin your granddad's old .22 rifle to go plinking with?

    8. Last but not least, Universal Background Checks only work with registration (something that is supposed to be already illegal in the 1986 FOPA). And what comes after registration? Confiscation.
    Remember folks, the #1 cause of unnatural death in history is Democide, death by one's own government.

    Sorry for the long post, thanks to those who take the time to read it. We need to dig our heels in and push this garbage back once more. Together.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2019
  2. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,585
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    I forgot to mention the fact that it restricts American citizens age 18-20 from owning handguns (have to be 21 through an FFL but only 18 in a private sale).
     
    qwert65 likes this.
  3. Fyrstyk

    Fyrstyk Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Location:
    Central CT
    Instead of a Universal Back Ground Check for gun purchases, why not just a background check, Like the no-fly list? No reference as to the reason for the back ground check, just a check for criminal record and psychiatric issues. I would go along with a 5-day response time instead of the current 3-day as a compromise.
     
  4. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,585
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    The current background check system is already 5 business days if there is a delay and no response. Since you referenced the no-fly list, there are multiple cases where people (sometimes even children under 10) are listed on the no-fly list and they've spent months/years trying to get their kids off this list (which they aren't even told why they are on them). And those who are wrongfully/mistakenly denied on the NICS background check spend the same months/years trying to get that untangled, all-the-while being denied their Constitutionally protected Right. The government has never been efficient in what they do, which is fine, until it effectively infringes on my Right.

    Imagine having to pay a fee and go through a background check before we were allowed to type our conversations and share knowledge on forums and other online areas? Or to write a book or news article? Why not send a written transcript for government approval of how you intend to raise your children? After all if you have nothing to hide it shouldn't be a problem..

    We've come so far from an actual free society, and it incrementally continues. Most of us that take the "no compromise" stance is because we know it is just one more increment for them, they will not stop until guns are registered (through UBC) then banned outright.
     
    Ignition Override and IJ1981 like this.
  5. SilentStalker

    SilentStalker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,572
    Location:
    Somewhere in the U.S., London, or Australia
    Yes, we need to fight it. But it is clear most wont. I just had someone on this forum saying one or two of my comments could be construed as enough for red flag intervention by simply saying that we more or less need to fight any such legislation. Totally taking my words in a context not intended. That just proves my point at how dangerous this is and how spineless people actually are. With people like that it seems as if the battle is already lost. I’m afraid the only real way to fight it is for more people to run for office. That takes a lot of time, money and resources and may very well come too late not to mention I’m don’t think many people have any idea of how to actually run. And that’s assuming the system is not rigged.
     
  6. SilentStalker

    SilentStalker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,572
    Location:
    Somewhere in the U.S., London, or Australia
    This! This should be sent to everyone in the upper echelons of government!!!
     
  7. Buzznrose

    Buzznrose Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    859
    Location:
    SA, TX
    What is this “current 3-day” you are talking about? Is it your state imposed waiting period?

    If so, sounds like you are willing to give up a couple more days. But I can walk into a store and buy a gun and walk out in about 20 minutes. So do you think that’s reasonable for me?
     
    shinerjohn, G.E. Lee and .308 Norma like this.
  8. Texas10mm

    Texas10mm Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,071
    Location:
    Not DFW
    If you want to confuse people then tell them that voting should be subject to the same restrictions as buying a firearm.

    After all, being armed is a Right.
     
  9. bikerdoc

    bikerdoc Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    24,380
    Location:
    Southern Virginia
    Don't preach to the choir call and email your reps and senators.
     
  10. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,585
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    While YOU may be on the same page, many people on this forum are not (based on recent comments I've read) so this thread was mostly for them. Because many people aren't aware of the issues.
    And don't worry, I always hammer out the emails to my reps when it comes to gun issues. :D
     
  11. SSN Vet

    SSN Vet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,145
    Location:
    The Dark Side of the Moon
    From my vantage point, it's simple. UBC is defacto registration. Registration is the necessary first step to confiscation. Done.

    Why not open up the NICS check to non-FFLs? Many want to know their not conducting a private sale to a criminal, but can't ascertain whether or not the person is one. Make if voluntary and they'll likely get very high compliance.
     
  12. SilentStalker

    SilentStalker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,572
    Location:
    Somewhere in the U.S., London, or Australia
    So, when you write your reps, did you include all of this? It’s a lot to take in. I mean I can support everything I say with facts and data posted from reputable sources, some our own government. But, I wonder if they actually take the time to read what we send?
     
  13. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,585
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    Following the Sandy Hook shooting, I proposed something like this as well. A NICS system that an individual can call without giving information about the firearm and get a pass or fail. As you said, many people would willingly use it, but that doesn't fit their goal which is registration, not public safety.
    Also following Sandy Hook, at our local gun shop the owner had to repeatedly hit redial on the NICS line until he was able to get through, then he'd process a dozen forms, hang up, come out and give the thumbs up and be handed a new stack of forms to call in, and start hitting redial again until he got through. If there was a nation wide background check, they couldn't possibly keep up without hiring hundreds of new call center employees, which I'm sure they wouldn't do. They don't care if it would take hours to process a background check.

    No compromises for me.
     
    shinerjohn likes this.
  14. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,833
    Location:
    Virginia
    This is not a good argument. Whether we agree with them or not, the disqualification criteria have already been decided. What you are saying is that the current system of private (non-background-check) transfers facilitates disqualified people in getting guns. That's exactly what the antigunners are saying!
     
    Charlie Horse, Texas10mm and Ryanxia like this.
  15. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,585
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    Since I send them multiple messages (some on specific bills, some more general) I use different talking points. Since they aren't in session right now below is a general one I sent them (even though all of my reps are fairly anti-gun but they aren't completely anti-gun, they can feel pressure and resist sometimes).

    Maine rejected a background check bill in 2016, the people have spoken that we do NOT want new restrictions on our Rights. These background check bills being discussed would not have stopped the recent shootings that occurred (far away from Maine). Forcing law abiding Mainers to travel long distances and pay hefty transfer fees to transfer their grandfather's old .22 rifle to their cousin is NOT a solution to violent crime that occurs thousands of miles away. Instead, focus on cracking down on felons that are caught trafficking stolen firearms, drug dealers that are the source of acquiring many stolen firearms and mental health.


    Sincerely,


    A concerned Mainer and single issue voter.
     
    SharpDog and SilentStalker like this.
  16. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,585
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    You're right. That was an item left in from the original article and I didn't think it through enough. Luckily it's not a point I've ever used in communicating with my congress critters. :)
     
  17. BSA1

    BSA1 member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    7,492
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    As a long time member of THR it is my opinion the forum is overall for more restrictions on gun ownership and the type of guns citizens should be allowed to have. In fact the very name The High Road invokes a snobbish attitude of how the members on it are better than the average gun owner.

    This attitude is not unique just to gun forums. In my gun club there are members that want to reduce the size of the membership by enacting strict rules requiring a high amount of participation and the type of guns that may be used on the range. The ringleader tried to pull this coup when he was the Club President. He wanted to reduce the size of the club to only 45 people and if the member failed to meet his strict requirements they were out regardless of their reason. He wanted to totally ban use of modern firearms and only allow blackpowder and antique firearms.

    The anti-gun forces are well organized and focused on their overall goal. Gun owners in the meantime quarrel among themselves and allow our gun rights to be taken away a slice at a time.
     
  18. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,483
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    1. How do you get onto the "no-fly" list?
    2. How do you get OFF of the "no-fly" list?
    If you know, you're the only one who's not maintaining it.

    Any time I see somebody mention guns and the "no-fly" list in the same paragraph, much less sentence, that tells me they either know nothing about the issues, or have malicious intent.
     
    Texas10mm likes this.
  19. bikerdoc

    bikerdoc Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    24,380
    Location:
    Southern Virginia
    Perhaps some of you misunderstood me.

    No compromises, what part of shall not be infringed do they not understand.
     
  20. Fyrstyk

    Fyrstyk Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2019
    Messages:
    255
    Location:
    Central CT
    I'm sorry I posted my response. It is quite apparent that I am not informed enough to make the comments I did, and for that I apologize. Thanks to all who have posted on this topic, and like one of the posters said, we should all write to our representatives. I have gone that route several times, but my current representatives are so anti-gun my letters and e-mails fall on deaf ears. They don't care about individual rights, just getting re-elected. My state (CT) used to be the gun capital of the country, now the politicians have forced most of the companies out of the state, along with the skilled labor force they employed. I only hope I live long enough to see some of these politicians voted out of office.
     
  21. 12Bravo20

    12Bravo20 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,134
    Location:
    Missouri
    I can see nothing but problems with name based background checks for all of the people that have to use a UPIN to pass the NICS check.

    I have to use my UPIN every time I do a NICS check thanks to my criminal brother stealing my identity/ using my name as an alias. His records pop up when my name is ran.
     
  22. SharpDog

    SharpDog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,123
    Location:
    Tennessee
    So there was another attempted shooting in Walmart today (which was thwarted) and a road rage incident in NY where a semi-auto rifle was used, 2 people killed.

    If these incidents continue ... and it appears they will ... there will be some changes coming.

    I'm NOT ARGUING FOR SUCH CHANGES but just predicting that they will come ... especially if the coming elections go the wrong way

    The best way to fight them is to inform your congressmen, senators and the white house and donate to 2A organizations.

    We might be able to prevent or influence UBC laws, But I think RFLs are a foregone conclusion on the state level.
     
  23. boom boom
    • Contributing Member

    boom boom Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,777
    Location:
    GA
    Very nice summary and well though out objections. Excellent.

    I would add only that no responsible gun owner wants to sell or transfer to a prohibited person so maybe the feds could provide some way through the database to allow individual sellers (as well as FFL's) to consult NICS on a voluntary basis.
     
    SharpDog likes this.
  24. rodinal220

    rodinal220 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,553
    Location:
    USA
    The basic premise from the anti gun crowds side is to slowly increase the classifications of persons "prohibited" from owning a gun. Let them keep having their way and if you get three or more moving violations, no gun for you!! UBC's are one of their ploys to soft sell people, and on its surface looks ok, most do not check the fine print.
     
    Ryanxia, Basura Blanca and SharpDog like this.
  25. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,266
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    Preaching to the choir accomplishes nothing. Write letters to your congress critters.
     
    DoubleMag likes this.
  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