Why would background checks require gun registration?

[AlexanderA]

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.

Not necessarily. There are all sorts of ways to structure backgound checks.

The Coburn plan, for example, would have sellers log in to a secure web site, input the buyer's name and other identifying information, and get an immediate "proceed" or "do not proceed" response, with a unique transaction number. No information about the gun(s) would be disclosed.

There could be prescreening, in which the prospective buyers would log on to the web site and get a printable certificate that they would show to sellers who would just verify that it was legitimate.

The system could even be voluntary, with the incentive for using it being immunity from liability if the buyer later misuses a gun.

Now, I have to admit that in today's toxic, polarized environment such ideas won't get very far.

 

[torqem]

History proves that if you give wannabe tyrants and inch, they will shove a mile of double edged sword ykw.

 

[aeriedad]

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?

Suppose Gangster Jones wants to buy a couple Hi-Points from Gangster Smith. Will they meet at the LGS to make sure their transaction does not offend the UBC law? That is, if someone doesn't record make, model and S/N, how can a UBC be enforced?

 

[JustinJ]

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

Okay, but tons of people do use autos to commit crimes. That's like saying security cameras don't catch all thefts so are useless.

*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.

It's called building a case. The shell leads them back to a suspect. They then investigate further...check for an alibi, check for blood residue in car or on shoes, fingerprints, witnesses, etc. If more evidence is found they then charge the suspect and all the pieces of evidence are used to build a case.

 

[Midwest]

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?

NJ has been doing this since 1966 for long guns including BB gun rifles. It is called a COE.

http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/sp-634.pdf

And in NJ, Handguns need a separate purchase permit for each handgun and the police get a copy of each pistol transaction. This includes BB pistols and black powder pistols.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

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.

I believe the micro stamp is on the firing pin, thus imprinted on the primer when fired.

There is also a print on the breech face, you COULD end up with multiple imprints from that, but only one that would match the primer.

Not that I think microstamping is useful, seems like a pretty useless idea, but I do like understanding the technology correctly.

 

[Midwest]

Not necessarily. There are all sorts of ways to structure backgound checks.

The Coburn plan, for example, would have sellers log in to a secure web site, input the buyer's name and other identifying information, and get an immediate "proceed" or "do not proceed" response, with a unique transaction number. No information about the gun(s) would be disclosed.

There could be prescreening, in which the prospective buyers would log on to the web site and get a printable certificate that they would show to sellers who would just verify that it was legitimate.

The system could even be voluntary, with the incentive for using it being immunity from liability if the buyer later misuses a gun.

Now, I have to admit that in today's toxic, polarized environment such ideas won't get very far.

Pre-screening reminds me way too much of Illinois' FIOD and NJ and MA FID card schemes where people are required to go through a 3 month long intrusive and invasive criminal and mental health background checks with fingerprints, photos, 3 to 4 character references (including one from your employer in some areas), pay a hefty fee just to get the 'card' in order to go through another yet another background check (NICS) again. "Pre-screening" is ripe for abuse and should be avoided at all costs.

 

[Apachedriver]

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?

Well, if we lived in a nation of mature, clear thinking, law-abiding adults than it could be that simple.

Here's my idealistic view: Everyone gets issued a card at birth. Call it a 2A Card or whatever. That card shows that you're clear to buy firearms by default because its your Constitutional right. No checks or anything. You walk in the store, flash your card, pay and walk out.
Now, if you become a convicted criminal, you get your card punched. As long as your card is punched, you're not legally allowed to purchase firearms, OR, in some cases, you get to purchase but now you (the criminal) have to register your firearms every time.

Seems to me the restrictions should be on the bad guys, not everyone else IF the point is to track and curb future crimes. I mean, all a BC proves is that you haven't done anything to bar you from purchasing up to that point. What's to say you aren't going to do something illegal in the future?

But then again, UBC's, just like every other gun control measure, are about population control not crime prevention, safety, or security.

 

[Jim Watson]

As the backer of the stringent Washington State background check proposal said, "It's just a start." No matter how superficially reasonable any plan sounds, the antis will use it as a building block for greater repression.

 

[barnbwt]

"Why would background checks require gun registration?"
Because why wouldn't they? The concept of the background checkers dutifully performing their task while retaining none of the identifying information needed to make it possible (and enforceable) is logically possible, but realistically unbelievable. And that's ignoring the fact that UBC's would hardly be the end of all this. Once implemented, the drums would immediately being pounding for registration, because why wouldn't they?

As is frequently cited (only somewhat erroneously); registration has always led to confiscation. Are there any examples of universal background checks not leading to a registration scheme? I wouldn't count Canada; they tried their best to implement registration, but were too incompetent/unenthusiastic to go about it effectively.

TCB

 

[MagnumDweeb]

The sooner we go Neville Chamberlain on this the sooner they'll go Adolf Hitler on something else. Compromise buys us nothing but emboldened enemies. Let them come, let us politic, let us see the wolves in sheep's clothing so we know who not to vote for.

Every penny they pour into the fight is one they will likely have to match. The fiercer our resolve the more likely they'll look for something else easier to desecrate the Constitution about. And should they turn their backs, we should strike for more restoration of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[CoalTrain49]

To date it is against federal law to keep the records for more than 24 hours. Until 2004 they were kept for 90 days. The records classified as denied are kept indefinitely. The registry is not theoretically with the fed, but if you read the law it allows the BATF to inspect the books kept by the FFL. All of that information is there permanently. So there is a registry of sorts, just not in a database that can be searched.

If you know about computers you would know that the data that is transferred during a NICS check could be routed to any number of places without a trace. That could be a foreign country. I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying it's possible.

So you really don't know for sure what happens to it. The fed hasn't really been forthcoming with information about perceived illegal activities of late, citing executive privilege.

 

[danez71]

Okay, but tons of people do use autos to commit crimes. That's like saying security cameras don't catch all thefts so are useless.



It's called building a case. The shell leads them back to a suspect. They then investigate further...check for an alibi, check for blood residue in car or on shoes, fingerprints, witnesses, etc. If more evidence is found they then charge the suspect and all the pieces of evidence are used to build a case.

I understand that

Did you read the multitude of posts before yours that show how weak of a case it could be (not saying "will be") with out even trying to defeat the microstamp?

They're touting it as if its the greatest crime solving tool since fingerprints when in reality its not even as good as ballistics tests to see if the bullet came from a particular gun which has been around for decades.

 

[Warp]

I'd love to see how people felt about their brass being picked up at the range if they had a microstamped firearm.

 

[Edster12]

To date it is against federal law to keep the records for more than 24 hours. Until 2004 they were kept for 90 days. The records classified as denied are kept indefinitely. The registry is not theoretically with the fed,

And when was the last time a Federal Agency or a Quasi Federal agencies was prosecuted for breaking Federal Law.

If you honestly believe the government doesn't already have a owner data base built and populated with guns and owners names--I have a bridge I need to sell!!

 

[AlexanderA]

Midwest wrote:

Pre-screening reminds me way too much of Illinois' FIOD and NJ and MA FID card schemes where people are required to go through a 3 month long intrusive and invasive criminal and mental health background checks with fingerprints, photos, 3 to 4 character references (including one from your employer in some areas), pay a hefty fee just to get the 'card' in order to go through another yet another background check (NICS) again. "Pre-screening" is ripe for abuse and should be avoided at all costs.

The kind of "pre-screening" I'm talking about would be an alternative to a seller "instant check" if the buyer wasn't comfortable giving the seller his personal information. It wouldn't be a "license to buy" and the results would available online, free, and instantly.

I have to admit that I was more amenable to "reasonable compromises" (provided we got something in return) until the antis dropped their masks with their "assault weapon" bans and absurd magazine limitations in New York, Connecticut, and Colorado. Now, as for many others here, this has become an existential issue for me and I tend to be in the "no compromise" camp.

 

[larryh1108]

Keep in mind, that the info on the firearm is not included in the transmission. Yes, it is kept on the FFL's premise but that does not mean the info goes off to some giant computer offshore somewhere.

Sure, I have no doubt that every NICS check is sitting on a hard drive somewhere but without the gun information sitting in the same pile, it means nothing more than you wanted to purchase a gun. Yes, if there was a complete chain from the mfg to you it could, eventually, be traced to you but if somewhere along the line it was a private sale with no paperwork or it's been "a while" then the chain is broken and makes it nearly untraceable.

Yes, there are many states that have full registration. CT, for one, always registered every handgun sale, even private party. Starting this year, long gun sales are now registered the same way. In NYS, you cannot have a pistol unless it is specifically listed on your permit. I don't know if the SAFE Act (barf) now includes long guns. Ammo is also being restricted. In CT, you need to be registered (approved by the state and given a permit) to purchase ammo. You don't need to have a pistol permit but if you don't you need a permit to purchase ammo. If you have the pistol permit it also doubles as a permit to purchase ammo. I cannot travel 20 mins to MA to buy ammo. They won't sell it to me. When I went to NYS and tried to buy ammo, they refused to sell it to me although I've been told on here that it's not the law, just the policy of the stores. NJ, CA, IL, etc., all have restrictions on who can buy ammo. In these states, if you think that you have not been "registered" then you are fooling yourselves.

 

[CoalTrain49]

And when was the last time a Federal Agency or a Quasi Federal agencies was prosecuted for breaking Federal Law.

If you honestly believe the government doesn't already have a owner data base built and populated with guns and owners names--I have a bridge I need to sell!!

Read my post again.

I simply stated what the law was. I didn't say what the gov't actually did with the data. For all I know it could be on the moon and a bunch of martians are keeping it so they know who vaporize.

 

[Midwest]

I have to admit that I was more amenable to "reasonable compromises" (provided we got something in return) until the antis dropped their masks with their "assault weapon" bans and absurd magazine limitations in New York, Connecticut, and Colorado. Now, as for many others here, this has become an existential issue for me and I tend to be in the "no compromise" camp.

Right, and lets not forget how the anti's also showed their card when Feinstein was ranting about taking a certain class of rifles and putting them under the NFA.

Please .....read.....the whole article........she said she has been working on this bill for a year. "On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.”

Notice that she was working on this before Sandy Hook and Aurora.


http://www.nraila.org/legislation/f...ein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx

"Requires owners of existing "assault weapons" to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government. "



Stop for a second and re-read the last paragraph and let it soak in...............


One more time....


"However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government."


.





.

 

[goon]

Now, I have to admit that in today's toxic, polarized environment such ideas won't get very far.

That's sad because many of us would love a system where we could run a background check during a private sale. I'd support that in half a second. I've suggested it myself.

But as you say, rational ideas don't seem to get anywhere these days.

I believe the micro stamp is on the firing pin, thus imprinted on the primer when fired.

That's just as easy to solve. Take the firing pin out, three passes over a stone, replace the firing pin. You could make it a felony with an eleven million year sentence to alter a firing pin... and criminals would still do it. And get away with it.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here though.

 

[vamo]

Not necessarily. There are all sorts of ways to structure backgound checks.

The Coburn plan, for example, would have sellers log in to a secure web site, input the buyer's name and other identifying information, and get an immediate "proceed" or "do not proceed" response, with a unique transaction number. No information about the gun(s) would be disclosed.

There could be prescreening, in which the prospective buyers would log on to the web site and get a printable certificate that they would show to sellers who would just verify that it was legitimate.

The system could even be voluntary, with the incentive for using it being immunity from liability if the buyer later misuses a gun.

Now, I have to admit that in today's toxic, polarized environment such ideas won't get very far.

This idea sounds good on paper but it is not without flaws. Seems like if you leave it up to the buyer then it opens up the possibility of forgery, but if you let sellers do it then its easy to conceive how a system like this could be abused, to BG check people without permission.

And to answer the OP background checks aren't registration, but they're pretty tough to enforce in private transfers without registration.

 

[barnbwt]

"If you know about computers you would know that the data that is transferred during a NICS check could be routed to any number of places without a trace. That could be a foreign country. I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying it's possible."

I'm sure it resides with the Top Secret branch of the federal government. Seriously; why wouldn't the FISA court rule that data related to arms caching by potential terrorists is subject to storage and review at a later date? The law? We have secret judges issuing secret rulings with secret implications we aren't even allowed to ask about. I'm not pinning my hopes on some forgotten old legislation saying Congress can't do "X."

I'm sure it's all very legal --in the most strict interpretation of word. I'm also certain it's already happened. But, so long as the registry they've built remains hidden and illegitimate, it's authority and repercussions are somewhat limited, whereas a fully open and voluntary system can actually be used for policy.

TCB

 

[Warp]

That's sad because many of us would love a system where we could run a background check during a private sale. I'd support that in half a second. I've suggested it myself.

But as you say, rational ideas don't seem to get anywhere these days.

I don't want my tax dollars paying for that.

 

[bikemutt]

That's sad because many of us would love a system where we could run a background check during a private sale. I'd support that in half a second. I've suggested it myself.

But as you say, rational ideas don't seem to get anywhere these days.



That's just as easy to solve. Take the firing pin out, three passes over a stone, replace the firing pin. You could make it a felony with an eleven million year sentence to alter a firing pin... and criminals would still do it. And get away with it.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here though.

Take a look at all the perps in the latest mass shootings, all of them passed a BC (except Sandy Hook), look closely at them. There is no way I would have sold a gun to anyone looking that crazy. Profiling? maybe, common sense? yes.

Substituting quantitative judgement (BC) for qualitative judgement is a risky move.

Mandated by law, it's an insult to law-abiding Americans.

 

[2bfree]

Here in Washington State, all had guns that go through an FFL the information is sent to the Dept of Licensing, a defacto registration. If UBC check were required here, ALL hand guns would then be registered.
No Thanks !
Have to add, the department of licensing just asked for another 400,000 because they are 9 months behind entering the data into their data base and need to hire more people.