Why would background checks require gun registration?

[Sgt.Murtaugh]

could someone explain this to me? Why would universal background checks require people to register their guns?

 

[Skribs]

How else do you enforce UBCs?

 

[tomrkba]

It's not that the background check requires registration; it's that the check itself is a form of registration that includes the type, make and serial number of the gun.

The data flows to a database on the far end. The check is performed. Is the data removed? How do we verify that it was removed? How do we verify that the person's name and associated data are not added to a database somewhere indicating that they did a check in the first place? In a country where the NSA illegally spies on all electronic communications, including credit card transactions, it's not difficult to figure out that a $1,500 charge is a likely the purchase of a gun. Visa and other credit cards include a merchant code in the transaction and they have a merchant code for gun stores. If the NSA is willing to illegally access your map data on your phone, why would they suddenly find it immoral to track gun purchase data?

 

[9mmfan]

I think the general idea is that records that are not supposed to be being kept from the paperwork/phone call are and will be, creating a de facto registration.

There was a post either here or on TFL from an FFL that, during a BATFE audit, had agents attempting to scan the 4473s from his bound book. He refused to allow them to do so, and received repeated visits from said agents. Statements were made that he inferred to be threatening, though in the end he refused to allow them to scan the records.

Edited to add: What these guys posted whilst I was composing mine.

 

[toivo]

Because without registration, it would be really difficult to enforce.

SCENARIO A (NO REGISTRATION):
Q: "Where did you get this gun?"
A: "I bought it from my friend."
Q: "Was it a legal transfer with a background check?"
A: "Yup."
Q: "OK."

SCENARIO B (WITH REGISTRATION):
Q: "Where did you get this gun?"
A: "I bought it from my friend."
Q: "Was it a legal transfer with a background check?"
A: "Yup."
Q: "OK. I'll just run the serial number and see when ownership was transferred. Wait a minute -- it says this gun is still registered to Joe Blow. Turn around and put your hands behind your back ..."

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Why would universal background checks require people to register their guns?

It's not that it does on the surface of the matter.
It's just that it will inevitably lead to registration. And registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation.
It is the snowball effect that we're trying to head off.

There are people on this site who have gotten calls from police officers or visits when a gun they purchased was used in a crime (they had sold it). They were found via the 4473 they filled out when the purchase was made.
How is that not registration?

 

[plmitch]

Interesting ideas here........

 

[tomrkba]

There are people on this site who have gotten calls from police officers or visits when a gun they purchased was used in a crime. They were found via the 4473 they filled out when the purchase was made.
How is that not registration?

The government claims that it is somehow not registration, despite the fact that the merchant is required to maintain it for a certain number of years. All they have to do is call the manufacturer and find out where the SN was shipped to. They follow the chain to the store and find the form. But, either way, I am certain they're maintaining the records for the gun background checks. The NSA violates our privacy with impunity; this is no different and there is no legal penalty for anyone involved.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

IIRC, a recent Justice Dept report stated that UBC will be ineffective and unenforceable without universal gun registration. After all how will the government know who owns which gun and when that gun changes hands?

Here's how gun control works: When UBC predictably fails to reduce gun violence then gun control advocates will then call for registration of guns. Then when registration fails to have any appreciable effect anti-gunners will demand confiscation of guns they don't like (like "assault weapons" or "semiautomatic weapons") while at the same time claiming that it doesn't violate the second amendment because there are other kinds of guns you can still own.

 

[Midwest]

And at what point can one "prove' a firearm actually went through a UBC ?

With a UBC, are they going to give a receipt to every person to 'prove' it went through a UBC?

Suppose they issue an moratorium that says no firearms after a certain date can go through a UBC unless it already has been through a UBC before the "amnesty date"? What we end up is with something like the NFA Hughes amendment where everything has to be registered by a certain date or it can't be transferred?

Suppose they retroactively declare firearms that never went through the UBC illegal contraband? How would they accomplish this unless they there were some kind of registration system?

How can you successfully mount a legal defense where the government claims that your firearm never went through UBC? Unless said firearm was registered and/or you have 'proof' that it went through UBC which still equates it to being registered.

What if they decide the best way to administer UBC is to add all firearms to the NFA? Feinstein already talked about adding certain kind of rifles to the NFA. This is what I think they have in mind. They showed their card when DiFi made that statement.

 

[Potatohead]

The government claims that it is somehow not registration, despite the fact that the merchant is required to maintain it for a certain number of years. All they have to do is call the manufacturer and find out where the SN was shipped to.

That's what Ive always figured too. We already have registration do we not? Maybe not if you buy from friends, family, or the street I guess..? I dont know how that works, Ive only bought from my LGS but I always read or hear, "they traced the gun back to John Doe through the SN".

 

[Arkansas Paul]

^ It does sometimes happen but don't let things you see on television shows influence your opinions. They have to have the actual gun or at least the serial number. They can't pick up a bullet off the street and trace it to a gun, then a person.

 

[Sgt.Murtaugh]

got it. thanks guys.

so as it stands now, regular transfers and new gun purchases are actually registering a firearm to your name, correct?

 

[MErl]

It does depends on what registration means to you whether we have it now. A specific gun can be searched in the 4473 trace database but not a specific person or type of gun.*

As to the OP, needed for enforcement.

* however I believe that ATF is skirting the law and compiling a database that could be searched by person. It could even be done legally so long as an independent private company handled the database.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Its pretty darn close.

 

[Apachedriver]

got it. thanks guys.

so as it stands now, regular transfers and new gun purchases are actually registering a firearm to your name, correct?

No, not directly. When the BC is conducted, it's only to prove that you are legal to purchase a firearm at that particular point in time. The 4473 is supposed to be a record of you being cleared to buy it. Since it also specifies the firearm you purchased, by default, it becomes a registration of sorts but that's not its purpose. That's why everyone gets up in arms when the ATF comes around wanting to blanket copy 4473s.

 

[danez71]

With a UBC, are they going to give a receipt to every person to 'prove' it went through a UBC?

Yes. That's exactly what they do. CA has been doing it for decades with handguns and now have included rifles too.

They can't pick up a bullet off the street and trace it to a gun, then a person.

If the microstamping becomes reality, that's almost exactly what they'll do. They'll pick up a shell (not bullet) which will have the serial# stamped on it and trace it back to the person.

Lets say it work perfect as design. The flaws still are (among many other things):
*Revolvers wont be dropping shells on the ground.

*There's no proof that the bullet in the dead guy came from the shell on the ground. (Ballistic testing on the bullet may link it back to a barrel but unless they have the gun its still a dead end.)

*The shell on the ground traced back to a gun then traced back to a person still doesn't prove the person pulled the trigger.

 

[torqem]

Anybody with a lick of sense, selling to a known criminal, is going to drill out the serial number. Likewise, any criminal with a lick is going to do that before setting out to commit crimes while having that gun, or even while keeping it in his stuff. Preppers and others will do the same before they bury that "just in case" gun. Millions will do so if some sort of generic gun law passes. Possession of such an altered gun is considered "prima facie " evidence that its possessor is the one who "defaced" it and that's a 5 year Fed Felony. If the micro stamping is done like the serial number on a frame, no you CANNOT just file it off. The imprint of the stamping is much more deeply impressed into the base metal than is detectable by the eye. Magnafluxing and xray examination can both "bring it back". You'd have to buy a "spare" barrel, or Tig weld out the microstamping, and welding on barrels, especially in the chamber area, is likely to cause a fracture upon firing.

 

[pj777]

^
Just to add on to the Microstamping faults, it's also a measure that can easily be removed with a file

 

[Apachedriver]

^
Just to add on to the Microstamping faults, it's also a measure that can easily be removed with a file

That almost sounds like the shell microstamping is a calculated failure in order to get back to bullet microstamp registration.

 

[JustinJ]

If private transactions required background checks the ability to enforce the law would be quite limited without a registry. Essentially, sting operations and people dropping dimes would be the only means to catch violators. I suppose they could require that private sellers maintain records of gun sale transactions sort of like FFL's today.

There is no registry today because there is no federal database which they can search to determine if Billy Bob owns a gun and what guns he owns. Yes, they can trace guns back to the original purchaser from an FFL, if within a certain amount of time, but that's not really registration. Some states do have real registration though.

 

[berettaprofessor]

In a country where the NSA illegally spies on all electronic communications, including credit card transactions, it's not difficult to figure out that a $1,500 charge is a likely the purchase of a gun. Visa and other credit cards include a merchant code in the transaction and they have a merchant code for gun stores. If the NSA is willing to illegally access your map data on your phone, why would they suddenly find it immoral to track gun purchase data?

Oh...bleep...I hadn't thought about it, but you just know that this is already happening....what easier monitor of potential terrorist activity would there be if I had unlimited computing power at my command?

 

[goon]

*The shell on the ground traced back to a gun then traced back to a person still doesn't prove the person pulled the trigger.

Correct. The empty casing on the ground only proves that the criminal was smart enough to go buy some once fired brass at a gun show, then toss a couple casings down at the scene of the crime to confuse police.

Or what would they do with a casing that had been fired through a few different guns as reloads? If it's got three or four microstamps, that's going to be a tough case to make in court.

Or what about when the owner gets smart and takes some kind of abrasive to the inside of the slide to remove the stamp? Or replaces it with a different slide?

All microstamping would do is create more intelligent criminals.

 

[Sgt.Murtaugh]

No, not directly. When the BC is conducted, it's only to prove that you are legal to purchase a firearm at that particular point in time. The 4473 is supposed to be a record of you being cleared to buy it. Since it also specifies the firearm you purchased, by default, it becomes a registration of sorts but that's not its purpose. That's why everyone gets up in arms when the ATF comes around wanting to blanket copy 4473s.

so then why couldn't a private seller to private buyer transfer be the same thing? a form that simply verifies if the recipient is eligible to purchase a gun. why would the specific gun info have to carry over with it?

 

[Potatohead]

Since it also specifies the firearm you purchased, by default, it becomes a registration of sorts but that's not its purpose

In my mind, the purpose doesn't matter- no matter what it's dressed as, it still look like registration to me.