The last I knew, Illionois's Id card involved just the occasional random check. The very small fee would barely cover the cost of an NCIC check for felony convictions, arrests and warrants. Firing pins and barrels of autos can be replaced in mere seconds. So the micro stamping is just harrasment/tax.
Why would background checks require gun registration?
- Thread starter Sgt.Murtaugh
- Start date
- Status
AlexanderA
Member
Midwest wrote:
Feinstein's proposal sank under its own weight, and it did so rather quickly. First of all, the ATF already has trouble administering the registration system for the (current) NFA weapons, and they simply don't have the capability to expand this in the way envisioned. They couldn't do it even if you increased their budget tenfold.
Secondly, if you make "assault weapons" non-transferable, you destroy their economic value. This amounts to a 5th Amendment constitutional "taking" for which compensation (fair market value) has to be provided to the owner. As big as the federal budget is, it couldn't afford that big a hit.
Feinstein's proposal sank under its own weight, and it did so rather quickly. First of all, the ATF already has trouble administering the registration system for the (current) NFA weapons, and they simply don't have the capability to expand this in the way envisioned. They couldn't do it even if you increased their budget tenfold.
Secondly, if you make "assault weapons" non-transferable, you destroy their economic value. This amounts to a 5th Amendment constitutional "taking" for which compensation (fair market value) has to be provided to the owner. As big as the federal budget is, it couldn't afford that big a hit.
gc70
Member
AlexanderA said:
The 5th Amendment states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Property declared contraband is not taken for public use and is not subject to compensation. See here the first example I found on Google, although the most glaring example would be Prohibition.
Universal carding requirements for alcohol sales don't require a database of liquor bottles. I mean, they'd be a lot more effective if they did, and we could bust more people selling/giving liquor to underage college kids if they did, but nevertheless, we don't require a serial number on every bottle and a database thereof.
UBCs don't necessarily require registration. One doesn't flow from the other. And UBCs without registration, while they certainly wouldn't be a silver bullet against gun crime (they probably wouldn't have any effect), wouldn't really hurt.
I'd be interested to see what would happen if pro-2A groups publicly offered to trade UBCs without registration for something we want. National CCW reciprocity, or an abolition of may-issue policies instead of shall-issue policies. The other says says we want a compromise? Let's make them put their money where their mouth is and offer to agree to UBCs without registration but only if they agree to something we want.
UBCs don't necessarily require registration. One doesn't flow from the other. And UBCs without registration, while they certainly wouldn't be a silver bullet against gun crime (they probably wouldn't have any effect), wouldn't really hurt.
I'd be interested to see what would happen if pro-2A groups publicly offered to trade UBCs without registration for something we want. National CCW reciprocity, or an abolition of may-issue policies instead of shall-issue policies. The other says says we want a compromise? Let's make them put their money where their mouth is and offer to agree to UBCs without registration but only if they agree to something we want.
Deanimator
Member
They wouldn't... if you never planned to ENFORCE the law.
Otherwise, it's UTTERLY unenforceable.
The VAST majority of my gun purchases have been private party purchases.
How on EARTH would the government EVER know those transfers took place WITHOUT registration?
"Universal background checks" are a scam, and even a five year old could see it.
Deanimator
Member
You only need to look at Obamacare to see what would happen.
"Mandates", etc. written into LAW are only suggestions. The law is whatever they SAY it as at any given instant.
My suggestion is that any such "compromise" be signed in Munich. Maybe they can even use the pen(s) that Chamberlain and Hitler used...
CoalTrain49
Member
To add to this, The actual record of the NIC's check doesn't even have to be maintained for more than 24 hours. The info on the form can instantly populate a database, the database can be queried, the information sorted and stored in a GIS. The original transmitted data is then deleted from the database as the law requires. Data in a GIS has associated data called metadata. Source of the data is part of the metadata. If that field is left blank or disguised the source becomes a mystery. It only resides in someones brain and only has value to the people that put it there. I've worked in Gov't for awhile and have some experience with these things. As you say, if the gov't wants to convince everyone that they are trying to solve the problem with valid data, the data has to be made available for everyone to analyse. Otherwise it's just a hidden agenda. Edward Snowden is stage center on this topic right now. Personally, I don't mind the gov't collecting my personal data, they're going to do it anyway, I just want to have a say in what data they collect and how they use it. If that data points to a rational solution and some type of legislation then we can all decide if that has merit. No hidden agendas.
Last edited:
Carl N. Brown
Member
It usually is not saved after 24 hours, for purchases that appear to be "for personal use". An unemployed person driving up in a rust bucket car and paying $7,000 for a .50 Barrett's from a paper bag of stacks of $20s will often get flagged (straw purchase). Practically anyone buying two or more of the same thing may be flagged as buying for resale (dealing without a license) and not for personal use.
They could enforce it exactly the same way they enforce liquor carding laws. Periodic stings with undercover officers trying to buy to see if sellers comply. It doesn't prevent 100% of crime (nothing does), but it's not true that you need a registry to have some sort of enforcement mechanism. There are other ways.
Godwin's Law? I'm talking about getting some things we really want (CHL state-to-state reciprocity, or a change of may-issue statutes to shall-issue) in exchange for non-registry UBCs, which are minimally effective but don't hurt us. I'm not talking about genocide here. Nazi analogies aren't needed.
Many potential sellers favor a UBC system that they think would allow them to pick up a telephone, make a call, and be told to go ahead or stop. What they don't understand is this is not what's being proposed.
Without exception, the UBC bills under consideration REQUIRE THAT MOST PRIVATE SALES WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE THROUGH A FEDERALLY LICENSED DEALER! The exception (if they're is one) is for inter-family transfers.
When this is done a lot more then a simple background check is involved. The dealer has to list both the name and address of the seller, as well as the buyer, along with a description of the firearm, in their Bound Book. Then the buyer has to fill out a #4473 form, and finely after that the dealer calls in to make a background check.
What the gun control advocates really want is not a background check, but a system that results in universal #4473 forms.
We are now living under a government that has the means to monitor and collect without a warrant, ditigal phone calls and e-mails made by everyone in the country. Does anyone actually think that sometime in the future they wouldn't pick up those #4473 forms to make a database of who has what?
Without exception, the UBC bills under consideration REQUIRE THAT MOST PRIVATE SALES WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE THROUGH A FEDERALLY LICENSED DEALER! The exception (if they're is one) is for inter-family transfers.
When this is done a lot more then a simple background check is involved. The dealer has to list both the name and address of the seller, as well as the buyer, along with a description of the firearm, in their Bound Book. Then the buyer has to fill out a #4473 form, and finely after that the dealer calls in to make a background check.
What the gun control advocates really want is not a background check, but a system that results in universal #4473 forms.
We are now living under a government that has the means to monitor and collect without a warrant, ditigal phone calls and e-mails made by everyone in the country. Does anyone actually think that sometime in the future they wouldn't pick up those #4473 forms to make a database of who has what?
Universal carding requirements for alcohol sales don't require a database of liquor bottles. I mean, they'd be a lot more effective if they did, and we could bust more people selling/giving liquor to underage college kids if they did, but nevertheless, we don't require a serial number on every bottle and a database thereof.
UBCs don't necessarily require registration. One doesn't flow from the other. And UBCs without registration, while they certainly wouldn't be a silver bullet against gun crime (they probably wouldn't have any effect), wouldn't really hurt.[/quote]
Currently, IDs are checked, not scanned and/or recorded. In order to get into a bar, you have to flash a little card that's already been given to you that proves you are over 21 (usually a drivers license).
With UBCs, you would have to contact the government to verify that the seller is worthy of owning a firearm (already a problem with the supposed freedom in this country). What's to keep the government from keeping track of that information? As mentioned earlier, in order to enforce this law, they would have to keep track.
The other option is a license system, which would be more like purchasing alcohol. If you have a government-issued gun-buyers card, you can buy any firearm you want to, as long as you flash that card at checkout. The problem with this system is now the government would have a list of people issued gun-buyers cards and could easily go about confiscating from there.
The fact is, there is no enforceable way to handle UBCs without the potential for registration and then confiscation. Most people who support UBCs probably don't think that would happen, but those who are really pushing the issue are determined on an incremental approach to disarming America. They want us to look like Britain and Australia.
As far as "compromise" goes, I believe we've already compromised far too much. The 2A is clear. Anything less than total freedom regarding 2A is an infringement on our basic rights, and has been an infringement on our rights for far too long.
UBCs don't necessarily require registration. One doesn't flow from the other. And UBCs without registration, while they certainly wouldn't be a silver bullet against gun crime (they probably wouldn't have any effect), wouldn't really hurt.[/quote]
Currently, IDs are checked, not scanned and/or recorded. In order to get into a bar, you have to flash a little card that's already been given to you that proves you are over 21 (usually a drivers license).
With UBCs, you would have to contact the government to verify that the seller is worthy of owning a firearm (already a problem with the supposed freedom in this country). What's to keep the government from keeping track of that information? As mentioned earlier, in order to enforce this law, they would have to keep track.
The other option is a license system, which would be more like purchasing alcohol. If you have a government-issued gun-buyers card, you can buy any firearm you want to, as long as you flash that card at checkout. The problem with this system is now the government would have a list of people issued gun-buyers cards and could easily go about confiscating from there.
The fact is, there is no enforceable way to handle UBCs without the potential for registration and then confiscation. Most people who support UBCs probably don't think that would happen, but those who are really pushing the issue are determined on an incremental approach to disarming America. They want us to look like Britain and Australia.
As far as "compromise" goes, I believe we've already compromised far too much. The 2A is clear. Anything less than total freedom regarding 2A is an infringement on our basic rights, and has been an infringement on our rights for far too long.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Tell that to the more than ten thousand folk per year that are NICS denied and subsequently approved upon completion of a non-trivial approval process (and the likely tens of thousands of folk who don't even bother to appeal the fact that the Government has stripped them of a basic natural right that's supposed to be protected by the U.S. Constitution).
Folk ought not address the value of a UBC until they examine the NICS statistics and correlation of NICS value relative to altering violent crime or any other societal benefit. The value of a NICS check is to enforce the GCA 1968 definition of a prohibited person. That's it. But what correlation exists between that 'prohibited person' definition and the incidence of gun crimes?
None.
CoalTrain49
Member
Nice idea but the fed has no authority over CCW so a national CCW is a dream. Only the state can determine how CCW is applied. As an interpretation of the fed constitution if it doesn't directly address an issue like CCW then the state has the authority to interpret their constitution on the legalities of CCW. Congress would have to pass it and you know their record lately. Even it it did pass every state would sue the fed and I guarantee it would not be upheld in the supreme court.
Why don't they enforce the way they enforce immigration laws? You see that they are against regular citizens who they tax and regulate into submission and some gun owners want more of it. Gun owners have to remember that Sarah Brady pushed for and got background checks. Illegals, gangs and parasites never get harassed
CoalTrain49
Member
That may be all they have about the gun but you missed one very important item, your drivers license number. Now they have a whole pile of information about you including.......a photo of you with a big smile on your face. In WA. they can connect that to the serial number of the gun through another form we have to fill out.
If you are interested here is how and where it works.
http://smartgunlaws.org/retention-of-sales-background-check-records-policy-summary/
These will become the databases that everyone fears and not the UBC. Your state at some point will make sure they have a record of the sale, the SN of the firearm, and your personal information. The fed does not have the resources to collect this information but the state does. Once the state has the information it will be shared with the fed. They will have it. Focus on your state legislation, not the fed gov't.
Last edited:
gc70
Member
We need to put aside the belief that our opponents' main interest in universal background checks is to prevent prohibited persons from getting guns. Our opponents want universal background checks so that all firearms transactions are documented by records that are readily accessible by the government.
Our opponents have repeatedly demonstrated their true focus on universal transaction records.
Last year, Senator Coburn offered a proposal to bring Republican support for a recordless UBC law ... and Senator Shumer flatly rejected it, specifically because it did not produce transaction records that would be under government control.
Background check requirements at a dealer can be met either through a call to NICS or, in many states, by showing a concealed carry permit. Last year's UBC bills called for all private transactions to go through FFLs, not to check a person's background -that could be done by seeing a person's concealed carry permit- but to ensure the production and retention of transaction records.
If all firearms transactions are ever recorded, it would be a trivial step to require the currently-distributed records to be gathered in a central registry.
Our opponents have repeatedly demonstrated their true focus on universal transaction records.
Last year, Senator Coburn offered a proposal to bring Republican support for a recordless UBC law ... and Senator Shumer flatly rejected it, specifically because it did not produce transaction records that would be under government control.
Background check requirements at a dealer can be met either through a call to NICS or, in many states, by showing a concealed carry permit. Last year's UBC bills called for all private transactions to go through FFLs, not to check a person's background -that could be done by seeing a person's concealed carry permit- but to ensure the production and retention of transaction records.
If all firearms transactions are ever recorded, it would be a trivial step to require the currently-distributed records to be gathered in a central registry.
Last edited:
Once again... The copy of your DL is stored with the 4473 for verification only. It has nothing to do with a NICS Background Check.
NICS Questions
NAME
Place of Birth
Gender
DOB
SSN (Do not have to Supply)
UPIN
Race
State of Residence
Citizenship
Purpose (Previously mentioned Long, Hand or Other)
CoalTrain49
Member
I stand corrected. Just called my FFL and he just gave me the same info. I'll shut up now.
Mauserguy
Member
My entire life I've been told that we need to compromise our rights. Now look where we are.
Not one step back!
Mauserguy
Not one step back!
Mauserguy
PiratePenguin
Member
I guess it depends on how honest you think the average person is.
Would you sell a gun to someone you knew was a violent felon? I'm going to assume not, since it's a felony with up to a 10 year sentence.
If you were selling to a stranger and you could call in a background check without submitting any details on the firearm, would you? I might just want the added protection of being able to say I did my due diligence.
That said, I've never sold a gun so maybe there's something I don't see yet.
The point of a UBC law is that it invites registration. Without registration, how can you enforce the UBC? Gangster Smith and Gangster Jones won't submit to a UBC, so their transactions will not be hindered by a UBC law.
And no, I would not sell a firearm to someone I know is a violent felon...because it's against the law, and I'm an honest citizen that does not wish to become a felon. Gangster Jones and Gangster Smith are not so limited by such trifles as a UBC law. And anyway, what would be the point of adding a UBC violation to their already illegal possession of firearms?
Last edited:
2bfree
Member
It is not a copy of the NICS kept in Wa, it contains even more info than the NICS.
In Washington, licensed firearm dealers must keep a record of every handgun sold, in a book kept for that purpose.1 A form containing the date of sale, the caliber, make, model and manufacturer’s number of the firearm, the name, address, occupation, and place of birth of the purchaser, and a statement of the purchaser stating that he or she is not ineligible under state law to possess a firearm must be signed by both the purchaser and the person effecting the sale, each in the presence of the other.2 One copy of the form must be sent within six hours by certified mail to the chief of police or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides.3 An additional copy must be sent within seven days to the state director of licensing, while another copy must be retained by the dealer for six years.
In Washington, licensed firearm dealers must keep a record of every handgun sold, in a book kept for that purpose.1 A form containing the date of sale, the caliber, make, model and manufacturer’s number of the firearm, the name, address, occupation, and place of birth of the purchaser, and a statement of the purchaser stating that he or she is not ineligible under state law to possess a firearm must be signed by both the purchaser and the person effecting the sale, each in the presence of the other.2 One copy of the form must be sent within six hours by certified mail to the chief of police or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides.3 An additional copy must be sent within seven days to the state director of licensing, while another copy must be retained by the dealer for six years.
gc70
Member
Whoops, I forgot another big problem with universal background checks in relation to registration.
Registration seeks to associate a specific gun with a specific person.
Our opponents say they want UBCs to ensure that purchases and sales of guns are vetted, but what they really want is to more tightly associate a gun with a person than even registration would.
Notwithstanding public rhetoric, legislative proposals for UBCs are not limited to purchases and sales, but to "transfers" which are defined as both permanent and temporary changes in ownership or possession. Instead of just saying that a particular gun is yours, as registration would do, UBCs as contained in recent bills would preclude other people from even touching your gun without first running to a dealer to get a background check.
Registration seeks to associate a specific gun with a specific person.
Our opponents say they want UBCs to ensure that purchases and sales of guns are vetted, but what they really want is to more tightly associate a gun with a person than even registration would.
Notwithstanding public rhetoric, legislative proposals for UBCs are not limited to purchases and sales, but to "transfers" which are defined as both permanent and temporary changes in ownership or possession. Instead of just saying that a particular gun is yours, as registration would do, UBCs as contained in recent bills would preclude other people from even touching your gun without first running to a dealer to get a background check.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked