Quantcast

Why we need to fight any proposed UBC bills

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

  1. Basura Blanca

    Basura Blanca Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    243
    This is a good point.
    Policy makers aren't interested in reading novels about why this, that and the other are flawed. Those trying to gauge public opinion are only interested in the binary; a simple oppose/support. Contacting lawmakers to say you support something but with a bunch of caveats is only going to be read as support. Period.

    We all need to be careful with what we're communicating along official lines.
     
  2. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,585
    Location:
    'MURICA!
     
  3. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,585
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    Our neighboring State runs their pistol 4473's through the State police and while I'm not sure the exact criteria, parking tickets and the like can be a denial factor.
     
  4. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,835
    Location:
    Virginia
    Excellent point! The ultimate Catch-22 will be when the antigunners get the mental health profession to agree that the mere desire to own a gun is itself evidence of some mental defect. Then, as soon as you apply to buy a gun, you will be denied as "mentally disqualified." Don't laugh. It's not for nothing that gun owners are being labeled gun "nuts."
     
  5. IJ1981

    IJ1981 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2019
    Messages:
    77
    22,000 gun control laws and counting since 1911's New York Sullivan law. Has any of these done a bit of good since criminals ignore them all?

    I don't believe so. Scrap them all.
     
  6. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,623
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    I'm not seeing anyone from my current state of residence checking in.

    Just so people are informed, in Washington state two separate egregious (and complex) pieces of legislation became law through our initiative process. In December 2014, we saw I-591 become law (essentially outlawing private transfers) and this past July 1 came I-1639, which rendered those under 21 banned from purchasing semiautomatic rifles (including such rifles as the Ruger 10-22) and dictated a waiting period of no less than 10 (business!) days to pick up any semiautomatic rifle. But wait, there's more: every state resident (including military and law enforcement) now must take a training course prior to purchasing a semiautomatic rifle. And separately, this past July, CPL holders no longer have the benefit of same-day transfer for handguns -- it's 10 business days from date of purchase.

    And now -- we have registration of semiautomatic rifles (along with a new fee for every purchase, currently $18.00) because you do go on a list; there's a new form that the state does keep. And did I mention that you have to sign away HIPAA rights when purchasing a semiautomatic rifle now? Yep, you give authorization for them to check your medical and mental health records.

    So yeah, some of you might sit back thinking UBCs aren't so bad, and every firearm transaction going through an FFL ain't so bad ... but I can tell you from our bitter experience that, yes, it is so bad.

    Look to my state, and you'll see into the future. Your call as to what your response is gonna be now -- before it happens to everyone everywhere.
     
    hps1, Ryanxia, DoubleMag and 3 others like this.
  7. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,728
    I just wanted to repost this. Although astonishing, it's sadly true.
     
    taliv, Ryanxia, DoubleMag and 2 others like this.
  8. obiwan1

    obiwan1 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Messages:
    522
    Location:
    Miami, Fl.
    AKE ACTION

    1) Write President Trump, Senate Leader McConnell, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Graham, and other key leaders .

    2) Call Senate Leader McConnell and your state’s U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 (Senate switchboard) and tell them to OPPOSE “red flag” laws and federal gun control

    3) Call President Trump at 202-456-1111 (White House comment line) and tell him to OPPOSE and VETO federal gun control and “red flag” laws

    4) Multiply your impact by asking others to help you STOP “red flag” confiscation laws through email, text messaging, social media
     
  9. Buzznrose

    Buzznrose Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    859
    Location:
    SA, TX
    I wasn’t attacking your previous post, Brother. I get that folks who live in restrictive states don’t always consider or even remember that some states on our nation actually allow their citizens to but guns immediately.

    Take care,
     
  10. jmr40

    jmr40 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    13,238
    Location:
    Georgia
    Done right I have no problem with UBC. It is coming, we can either dictate the terms or have them shoved down our throats. I blame the NRA, and most gun owners for burying their heads in the sand and ignoring the problem. Instead of simply reacting to every incident and opposing every single piece of legislation we should have been proactive and took the lead to push laws to keep guns out of the hands of those who don't need them. In retrospect virtually every one of these mass shooters should have never been allowed to touch a gun, any gun.

    I'm tired of a handful of people giving the vast majority of gun owners a bad name. Years ago it is us, and the NRA who should have stepped up and pushed through laws that could have actually worked and at the same time guaranteed that responsible gun owners rights were preserved. Laws could have been written that would have prohibited certain people from owning guns, and at the same time guaranteeing that those who are responsible wouldn't be limited as to the type, ammo capacity or the ability to carry.

    But I fear it is too late for that. We may dodge a big bullet for now, but it is only a matter of time until the political power is on the side of those who want gun laws far more restrictive than any of us want. And when they are in power they will shove laws down out throats that none of us want. We missed our chance to dictate the terms.
     
    AlexanderA likes this.
  11. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,835
    Location:
    Virginia
    What our Governor is planning here in Virginia would make what happened in Washington State look like child's play.
     
    P5 Guy likes this.
  12. rdnktrkr

    rdnktrkr Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2014
    Messages:
    599
    Location:
    Atlanta GA
    Instead of creating new laws what about inforcing ones already on the books like when filling out the 4473 if you knowingly falsify answers, felons having firearms and people selling firearms to known felons.
    I know the recent shootings the firearms were legally purchased but everyday there is multiple cases on the news where felons are caught with firearms.
     
  13. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,483
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Whom do you think the REAL targets are?

    It's NOT criminals.

    It's YOU.

    These laws are aimed at making sure you stop, or never become a gun owner.
     
    Ryanxia, P5 Guy, DoubleMag and 4 others like this.
  14. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,185
    Location:
    WNY
    Donald says he can get Mitch and Wayne on board for background checks.
     
  15. DeepSouth

    DeepSouth Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,644
    Location:
    Heart of Dixie
    Someone posted this here back in 2015, I wish I could remember who so I could give credit, it’s great so here it is





    .
    .
    .
    .
    First, here is a brief essay explaining how the existing background check system works for non-NFA firearms. This system is a result of the 1968 Gun Control Act, which in turn is rumored to have been inspired by the Nazi Firearms Law.

    As you'll see, the system above is not a background check system and does not actually do anything to verify that the purchaser is legally allowed to purchase firearms. At best, the paper form provides evidence as to whether the purchaser lied during his purchase of a firearm; but does nothing to verify that the purchaser was not a prohibited person.

    The job of determining whether a person is a prohibited person is done by the National Instant Check System. The 1994 Brady Act proposed a requirement for a background check on firearms purchasers to be conducted during a 5 day waiting period. However, during the debate, an amendment was proposed to replace the 5 day waiting period with the National Instant Check System (side note: Portions of the Brady Act relating to background checks were later struck down by the Supreme Court in Printz v. United States.) The NICS system became operational in 1998.

    Currently, NICS checks are only required (at the national level) when sales are made from a Federal Firearms Licensee (a gun dealer), regardless of whether that gun dealer is at a gun show, his own house, or a business. Private sales (or other transfers such as loans of firearms, gifts, etc.) do not require a NICS check unless the firearm is shipped interstate (simplified version, there are exceptions). Additionally, some states have stricter requirements that extend even to private sales.

    Initially, NICS was limited to only FFLs. The concern was that unscrupulous people might use the system to conduct their own background checks on neighbors and acquaintances if the system were accessible by anyone. As a result, access to NICS is still relatively controlled. However, because NICS is conducted primarily through FFLs for privacy reasons, every NICS check also generates a Form 4473 under the recordkeeping requirements under the 1968 Gun Control Act.

    EXISTING PROBLEMS WITH NICS
    ==========================

    In 2010, NICS denied about 153,000 purchases (73,000 Federal and about 80,000 through State agencies) making a grand total of 2.1 million denials since NICS became operational). The most common reason for denial was a felony conviction (47%). Fugitive from Justice was the second most common reason (19%). Of the 153,000 denials - around 12,000 were appealed and later reversed.

    Of those 153,000 purchases, only 4,732 were referred by FBI to ATF for further investigation (even though a prohibited person lying on a Form 4473 - which would be a part of the NICS process - is a Federal crime punishable by up to ten years in prison). Of the cases referred to ATF for investigation, fully 26.5% of them (509 cases) turned out to be a person who was not prohibited from purchasing firearms. Of the remaining cases, ATF confiscated the firearm in 1,164 cases (same source) and prosecuted only 62 cases in 2010.

    So, one thing we immediately notice with the current background check system is that even with incomplete record reporting from many states (currently seven states don't report people who are prohibited for reasons of mental illness at all), actual violations of the law in prohibited persons attempting to purchase firearms are rarely investigated. On those rare occasions where they are investigated, usually nothing more is done than to take the gun they know about. In a very tiny minority of cases, there are actual prosecutions and criminal trials.

    So currently, we do absolutely nothing to stop the criminals we do catch violating the law from obtaining firearms. This is the system that some think should be expanded to cover all private sales. Some influential Second Amendment advocates (such as Alan Gottlieb of Second Amendment Foundation and CCRKBA fame) have even argued that gun owners should surrender on UBCs now while they can still get a good deal - Gottlieb's idea of a good deal being the 2013 Schumer-Toomey-Manchin bill opposed by the NRA.

    WHY UBCs ARE BAD FOR GUN OWNERS:
    ======================================

    There are two major problems with expanding background checks to cover transfers between private parties: privacy and enforcement.

    The 2013 Schumer-Toomey-Manchin bill included a telling piece of legalese that explained exactly what the goal of UBCs are ultimately. The bill expressly exempted Concealed Handgun Licensees from having to go through a NICS check - because after all, if the purpose is to make sure that a person is OK to buy a gun, a CHL does that just fine. Yet, the same bill still required that even though there would be no NICS check, a private transfer to a CHL still had to go through an FFL and have a Form 4473 filled out. So, we aren't even going to run the guy's name through the system to verify that nothing is changed; but we are going to record what gun he purchased.

    And that right there is one of the major threats to privacy posed by expanding UBCs - because the Form 4473 is tied to the NICS check under the current system of laws, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with verifying whether the person is prohibited, expansion of UBCs is de-facto registration - albeit, a backwards, 1933-style, decentralized registration.

    The second major threat is enforcement. Currently, no federal agency has the resources necessary to investigate even the 72,000 denials generated just at the federal level - let alone the 80,000 additional state denials. As you can see, ATF investigated only 4,732 denials in 2010 - and even after they had discarded over 60,000 denials as unworthy of further investigation, they still ended up with 26.5% of their investigations being innocent, non-prohibited people who were not only wrongly denied a right to purchase a firearm; but then were investigated by a federal law enforcement agency for attempting to do so. Expanding that very broken system, when we already make no attempt to enforce it, is going to fail.

    Even worse, it will fail in a very predictable manner. There are about 300 million firearms in the United States that have not been tracked past the point of first sale. Prosecuting someone for selling one of those without a UBC would be extremely difficult unless prosecutors can prove the transaction happened AFTER UBCs became law. Within five years, you are guaranteed to have a media worthy shooting incident where the firearm used will fall into this category. At that point, it will become obvious that under the 1968 GCA recordkeeping system - the only way to prove the crime (that you weren't going to enforce and haven't been enforcing) is to register all privately owned weapons.

    Other obvious avenues for gun control will be to remove the 1933-style paper forms in favor of computerized, central registration - thus removing all of the obstacles to identifying and confiscating firearms on a mass level.

    And of course, like every form of bureaucracy, once the paperwork on owning a firearm becomes burdensome enough, you will have fewer and fewer people who choose to legally own a firearm. They will either hide their firearms ownership (and quiet their anti-gun control political activity accordingly to avoid undue attention) or they will simply not become firearm owners. Over time, gun owners will simply cease to be an effective political force as their numbers dwindle. You need look no further than the National Firearms Act to see this principal in action.

    Q&A
    ======================================

    Discussing this issue with different people at various times, I've come across various objections/questions - which I will address here:

    Quote:

    Fighting UBC's, as has been noted, doesn't portray the Pro gun side well. We look like we want to hide in the shadows and sell guns like dope dealers.
    There are plenty of valid, legitimate reasons to oppose expanding a background check system to 300 million private citizens when we don't even enforce violations of it on the roughly 70,000 FFLs using it right now. That is a brief, factual argument that resonates and doesn't require an in-depth knowledge of gun laws to understand. Further, you have to fight on UBCs; because if you aren't willing to fight UBCs because "it looks bad" what are you going to say when they shoot up a school with a gun that nobody can prove was sold illegally after UBCs pass?

    Quote:
    We don't gain any more Pro 2A supporters by fighting UBC's. If you think otherwise, please explain how... I'm open to hearing it and would like to believe it; but I don't see how we do.
    You certainly aren't going to expand gun ownership by making the paperwork necessary to own one legally more expansive and burdensome. Even if you think that registration of guns, gun owners and background checks for everyone is just fine and dandy - you've got to acknowledge that trying to extend a paper forms system first developed in 1933 to a population of 300 million people in the 21st century is going to make the DMV look like a joy and center of excellence in government. That isn't going to bring more gun owners into the fold.

    Look at the statistics above - out of the 4,732 cases that ATF did bother to investigate, 509 of them (26.5%) had not even broken the law. You go to buy a gun at the gun store. The gun store runs a check and you are denied. You don't even make an effort to appeal (which think about that for a second - that could be as many as 26,000 new gun owners a year who are being deterred from their legal right to own a firearm just by the existing system). Despite that, you then find a Federal Agent at your door telling you that you are being investigated for a federal crime punishable by up to ten years in prison. That's what we have RIGHT NOW. Does that sound like a system that encourages future gun ownership? What happens when that system expands to every single private transfer.

    Quote:
    There isn't a chance in heck that the recordkeeping outlined 1969 GCA will be destroyed. Is there any meaningful litigation or piece of proposed legislation even attempting that?
    The current recordkeeping system HAS to be destroyed if you really believe that surrendering on UBCs is the best thing for gun owners to do. It has no connection to actually verifying whether someone is a prohibited person. It has basically two values: A) as an enforcment tool for a crime that is rarely investigate and even more rarely prosecuted (<100 per year) B) knowing who owns what guns.

    The current recordkeeping system is entirely unnecessary in determining who is actually a prohibited person and worse, it stifles the development of more forward thinking systems that could remove the ban on interstate transfers of firearms between private parties and better protect gun owner privacy.

    Senator Tom Coburn proposed a UBC along these lines in 2013. After Newtown, Coburn actively worked with Schumer, Manchin and Kirk to develop a "compromise" that would extend UBCs to ALL SALES. Coburn actually covered more sales/transfers than Schumer-Toomey-Manchin would and did away with lots of meaningless paperwork that affects gun owners as well as establish the seed of an alternate system to the 1968 GCA. Schumer, Manchin and Kirk refused to accept that language and instead went after Pat Toomey to be their stooge. Coburn proposed his bill as an alternate to Schumer-Toomey-Manchin in 2013; and even after Reid promised from the Senate floor that all bills would be heard, Coburn's bill never got a vote or was even brought up for consideration (again choosing to push a bill that favored more recordkeeping and fewer checks over a bill that expanded checks to everyone and reduced recordkeeping).

    Coburn's bill was flawed in that it still relies on the 1968 GCA recordkeeping as its underlying basis (even though it streamlined a lot of those records) and it still has the same problems with non-enforcement creating opportunities for worse gun control; but it shows some innovative thinking on privacy as well as showing how gun ownership can be less burdensome on the paperwork side.

    At the end of the day, if your fear is that like Gottlieb, you'll lose political power and be forced to accept a worse deal than what you can get now, I don't see how accepting a deal that is a clear step towards an even worse gun control law right now is going to benefit you when you lose political power in the future. And accepting any kind of expansion of UBCs based on the 1968 GCA recordkeeping is going to be worse
    .
    .
    .
     
  16. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,483
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    These bills are DESIGNED to fail.

    The proponents KNOW that without registration, they're unenforceable.

    When they're widely ignored, the next push will be for REGISTRATION in order to make them enforceable.

    The next step after that is CONFISCATION.
     
  17. Howland

    Howland Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages:
    32
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    1. I don't agree with them. If someone cannot be trusted with a gun, they cannot be trusted without a custodian. How about we reserve lifetime forfieture for crimes that carry potential lifetime forfieture of liberty? Yeah, there are some areas where a rapist serves less than two years on average. For an average killer it might be five. Responsibility for that injustice rests squarely with the legislatures.

    2. The disqualification criteria aren't engraved on stone tablets brought down from the mount, they are creeping. The last change added any domestic "incident" - retroactively despite the Constitutional prohibition on ex posto facto laws. But they just do not care. Does anyone want to wager that there are no divorce attorneys who routinely make that allegation for every single female client they represent? Sure they do. Because it works. And there is zero downside if they are proven wrong. And the reality is, facing that charge, the burden of proof is on the defendant. There are plenty of convictions based on the uncorroborated, unsubstantiated accusation with zero evidence in support. I do mean zero.

    3. There is a book out titled Three Felonies a Day where the author argues that the average person commits three felonies every day without even knowing. Between feds and states, there are around fifty thousand new laws every year, yet I'll wager money the average member here can't list five off the top of their head. Most statutes in the criminal code are felonies and you could replace 95% with a single statute criminalizing failure to display sufficient deference and obedience to our lords and masters of the public servant sector. The Queen in Wonderland would be jealous.

    3. Then there is Lavrentiy Beria, former head of the NKVD, the precursor to the KGB, who said "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime." Look what the left is trying to do to anyone that stands up to their march forward in history, or even simply disagree. They are the reincarnation of the Red Guards of Mao.

    4. I could picture any single current Democrat candidate (and fully half the Republicans who secretly dream) of simply making sure nobody is there to answer the phone. If a majority of each chamber is Democrat or Quisling, they will just leave it out of the budget.

    5. In Florida they passed a law giving the state 3 or 5 days to complete their check. After that time is up, proceed with sale since the state can't find any reason to prohibit it. What did Florida do? If you guessed create a brand new category of status and put pending sales in indefinite limbo, you would be correct.

    6. What other right must you endure prior restraint until permission is granted, otherwise risk being sent off to a steel and concrete cage for a very long time? Go ahead commies pick one that you like and we'll try that one first. With you.
     
    Stevie-Ray, Ryanxia and P5 Guy like this.
  18. Texas10mm

    Texas10mm Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2018
    Messages:
    3,071
    Location:
    Not DFW

    Links? I haven't heard about the attempted shooting in a Walmart today.

    I know there was a incident in Houston today where two people were shot, but it was an incident involving drugs.
     
  19. SharpDog

    SharpDog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,123
    Location:
    Tennessee
    I guess it was an attempted scaring. Also I said NY but it should have been Houston. IN any case it still stands that if these incidents continue we'll have some changes coming.

    https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?posts/11200792/
     
  20. Safety First

    Safety First Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    818
    Location:
    Middle Georgia area
    Done !!!
     
    DoubleMag and bikerdoc like this.
  21. Safety First

    Safety First Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    818
    Location:
    Middle Georgia area
    Gun grabbers appetite is never ending. They have a tape worm. The more you give them the more they want. They will never be satisfied until America is disarmed and we are subjects rather than citizens.
    It is sickening to see how the the Socialists/elitists have advanced and made headway against our freedoms. They have gamed the system using the very freedoms they work so hard to do away with.
    They must not win
     
    bikerdoc likes this.
  22. jjadurbin

    jjadurbin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    153
    Location:
    Arithzona
    I find all of this disturbing, and confusing, like I thought we already had background checks, and then I can't find a clear explanation of what is meant by RED FLAG. From my minimal understanding, Red Flag could be sparked by any unbalanced individual who calls the authorities on the owner of any firearm to spew nonsense. I'm seeing variations on Red Flag in the media, and under the Red Flag provision of a new law, any new background checks will no longer count for much should some moonbat make a phone call ...that makes no sense. If anything like that happens, the only protection from unbalanced neighbors would be to hide the fact you're a gun owner, like load your truck in secret because you're heading to the range on Saturday? Yikes! I have two moonbat neighbors who would consider anyone who owns MORE THAN ONE GUN to be a horror -- and proof actual -- a TWO GUN OWNER keeps an arsenal and is dangerous and should be watched and I can hear it now. A real dangerous mental case. More than two guns! And I kid you not. This woman told a neighbor she has nightmares about weeds and crabgrass, suggesting that I'm a real degenerate because my yard has both, weeds and grass, and I am not making that up.

    Where can I read an accurate accounting of what this RED FLAG pitch really is?
     
    P5 Guy likes this.
  23. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,585
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    Thank you for that! A good read with interesting points.

    Well said!

    Each "red flag" bill introduced has its own text. There are versions submitted on the Federal and State levels quite frequently. Bloomberg has been pushing it on the State level for the last two years. Both last year AND this year I had to go up to our State capitol (a bit of a drive) to speak out against these bills (and burn a vacation day in the process, luckily I get vacation days, some people that go up there to defend our Rights lose pay for that day). Get on the NRA-ILA's email list for the federal stuff and sometimes they do State level as well. Your State level gun rights group should have a notification system on the individual bills that come down the pipe.

    Thanks everyone for everyone's input and keeping it civil so the thread doesn't get closed. I'm sure there's plenty of threads out there on this subject but I think we've centralized some solid topics regarding UBC's.
     
  24. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,585
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    I disagree. Everyone thought it was coming after the Sandy Hook shooting (including me) but we dug our heels in and pushed back hard and contacted our representatives multiple times and defeated it then. That was 6 years ago. We can do it again.
    Everyone's got to make their own choices. As for me, I will never give in and they will have to shove it down my throat.
     
    DoubleMag and Howland like this.
  25. Casefull

    Casefull Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,502
    Location:
    Sawtooths
    With red flag laws you cannot be a gun owner and speak out politically at the same time. That’s a win-win for the anti-gun left. We can’t even speak our mind on THR without getting in trouble. One of the reasons that people snap in our culture is because of the constant control and push to conform that surrounds their lives in every area of endeavor. This is further compounded by certain groups being allowed to disregard the law.
     
    Stevie-Ray, DoubleMag and Ryanxia like 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