‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not

Status
Not open for further replies.
It doesn't need to go though a FFL? And how do you think it would be done?
How do you run a background check on your new employee or babysitter? With a computer.

Your FFL isn't doing anything but filling out a form and making a phone call to satisfy laws related to interstate commerce. FFLs don't have anything necessarily to do with in state gun sales, and a new law doesn't need to use them or anyone else. Citizens interact directly with the check system.
 
How do you run a background check on your new employee or babysitter? With a computer.

Your FFL isn't doing anything but filling out a form and making a phone call to satisfy laws related to interstate commerce. FFLs don't have anything necessarily to do with in state gun sales, and a new law doesn't need to use them or anyone else. Citizens interact directly with the check system.

^^Basically this. As I just noted in post #25 above, any citizen should be able to access a UBC anytime, without cost, via Internet or phone. Heck, via smartphone app. "Want a background check? There's an app for that !"

Frankly, could such a measure could resolve interstate transfer issues as well ... want to buy a firearm while traveling out of state - whip out the smartphone, do an instant UBC check, complete the transaction, and go on your merry way...

"Common sense" means using modern technology to make things easy. "Strict scrutiny" means the government needs to take the least restrictive means to meet the most narrowly defined gov't interest. Combining the two concepts in a useful way means that the FFL would have less of a role, not more...

Yeah, I know things would not work out that way, and the proponents of UBC are hardly being upfront with their real motives and objectives. But if they open the door by proposing UBC, the pro-2A legislators should charge in with creative uses of UBC that would actually reinforce and even expand the rights of gun owners.
 
Frankly, could such a measure could resolve interstate transfer issues as well ... want to buy a firearm while traveling out of state - whip out the smartphone, do an instant UBC check, complete the transaction, and go on your merry way...
It could, but that would take re-writing the GCA, since you can't buy a handgun out of state even through an FFL. That would make the whole thing harder to pass.
 
Why would it have to go through an FFL? All that's being discussed is a background check, and people do that all the time already without going to a physical location. It's a frankly odd assumption that a UBC would have to go through an FFL or anyone else. It just needs to be done.

Lets be realistic, OK?

You said yourself that our side is too stupid to get involved and write it to the effect youre suggesting. Even if they did, thre is nothing suggesting at all that is what would get passed. History has shown we wont do that... and what will get passed will require a FFL.

It's a "frankly odd assumption" on your part to assume anything different, particularly when it contradicts your statement that we're too stupid to write ourselves.


For this to be accurate and true, no homicide could have ever come after a felon or someone with a block on buying through an FFL bought a gun off Armslist from a legit seller. You seem to be almost suggesting that the greatest majority of people advertising private gun sales would happily sell their gun to a criminal.

No. Bull malarkey. This is what you quoted out... of context.

The thing is, neither does any good. I have searched and can't find a single story in CA that their registry has prevented any crimes .... nor solved any crimes.

Its factually true that I cant find a single story regardless of your qualifiers you want to insert.

If you want to make a point... go find the stories in CA that their UBC and registry solved crimes rather than misconstrue what I said.



We know that many guns used by criminals are purchased from other criminals, but many people who commit murder with a firearm have no criminal connections and rely on legitimate gun sellers to get the guns they use.

.....And we also know that many people that murder never had a criminal record in the past so UBC wouldn't make squat difference.

.... and we also know that more people are murdered by feet and fists, per the FBI, than all long guns combined. Maybe we should start a DNA registry by your logic?


They are very costly and highly ineffective. I believe you have agreed to that in that last UBC/Registry thread.
 
Even if they did, thre is nothing suggesting at all that is what would get passed.
Do you really thing a Republican backed "gun control" bill couldn't get enough moderate Dem support to pass? The appearance of action and bipartisanship is more useful to win re-elections than laws that accomplish hidden agendas.

They are very costly and highly ineffective. I believe you have agreed to that in that last UBC/Registry thread.
Registries are costly. Background checks are nearly free. The Federal background check system is already in place, the only thing needed is the interface.


No. Bull malarkey.
Really, I'm not interested in whether anybody and prove or disprove that a UBC would be ineffective. All anyone has to do to support the "need" for a UBC is site cases where a prohibited person bought a gun in a private sale by lying. That does happen, the buyer is "prohibited" for a reason and seller's have no resources to be able to know one way or the other. Is any of that really up for debate?

What you're arguing isn't really against UBCs, but against any sort of gun control or prohibited persons. Which is a fine argument, but not one that you can effectively use to address concerns about the current system.
 
I don't know who "they" is, and I don't think you do either. I think there are lots of different "them" and some of them are only concerned about felons and the insane getting guns easily.
Everybody knows exactly who "they" are. They are the ones really pushing this.

It's the appetizer.
It's the camel's nose under the tent.
It's the Sudetenland.

It is to registration what Obamacare is to single payer.

It's MEANT to fail.

And just as Gruber thinks the victims of Obamacare are "stupid", the proponents of sham "universal background checks" think every bit as much that gun owners are stupid and will fall for this game of three card monte.

NO, I REFUSE.
 
It could, but that would take re-writing the GCA, since you can't buy a handgun out of state even through an FFL. That would make the whole thing harder to pass.

Hmmm ... well how about that. Making the thing harder to pass is exactly what should happen, if the thing does not both protect and expand second amendment rights.
 
Hmmm ... well how about that. Making the thing harder to pass is exactly what should happen, if the thing does not both protect and expand second amendment rights.
I doubt anything can "expand" our rights. But being proactive can protect them better than the alternative.

If anyone has a viable plan for getting laws off the books, I'm for it. But 8 years of last Republican controlled government didn't even get any Executive orders removed.
 
The BGC is selective nonsense. The purchaser can check he is not a U.S. citizen and he will be cleared to purchase a handgun. This happens every day in America.
An American citizens BGC can be held up over unpaid parking tickets. This is our Country? What!!:eek:
 
Did I say they should not? I do think an American citizen should be accorded the same latitudes.:)
I'm pretty sure that checking 'non citizen' won't get you any extra latitude. It sounded like you were outraged they could buy a gun at all. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
 
How do you run a background check on your new employee or babysitter? With a computer.

Your FFL isn't doing anything but filling out a form and making a phone call to satisfy laws related to interstate commerce. FFLs don't have anything necessarily to do with in state gun sales, and a new law doesn't need to use them or anyone else. Citizens interact directly with the check system.
Well since by you're thoughts we MUST pass a law(I guess you've run up the white flag and are now looking to negotiate better terms-I and many others haven't) you realize you are asking me, a private citizen, not only to do background checks but be a expert in detecting fake ID?
Its a very slippery slope you're getting on and I would fight this to the best of my ability. You're opening up anyone selling a gun to a tremendous amount of crimail and civil liablity. And to what end? So we can show how "reasonable" we are?
I find it remarkable you think this would be the end of it.
 
You're opening up anyone selling a gun to a tremendous amount of crimail and civil liablity.
There is more liability in the current system than in one that has a concrete process to follow.

Well since by you're thoughts we MUST pass a law(I guess you've run up the white flag and are now looking to negotiate better terms-I and many others haven't)
I don't think "we must pass a law", I said "if we're going to end up with one anyway".

There is no "white flag" in doing something proactive. The Maginot Line mentality we have is not a plan. We talk all the time about how we are only going to lose more - it isn't my idea.
 
Last edited:
There is more liability in the current system than in one that has a concrete process to follow.
I'd like you to go into detail on that. I think its safe to to say under UBC I the seller would have to give my name as well as the buyers.
As it is now no one knows I sold a gun.
And I know you think this is all about "compromise" but please don't tell me you think the the sellers name will not be included in the transaction.
 
I'd like you to go into detail on that. I think its safe to to say under UBC I the seller would have to give my name as well as the buyers.
As it is now no one knows I sold a gun.
And I know you think this is all about "compromise" but please don't tell me you think the the sellers name will not be included in the transaction.
From the ATF site:
A person may transfer a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his or her State, provided the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.

This puts an arguable burden on the seller that a prosecutor can take advantage of.

You also seem to be confusing liability with being on record. Not having a record of something you did doesn't remove you liability.
 
Do you really thing a Republican backed "gun control" bill couldn't get enough moderate Dem support to pass? The appearance of action and bipartisanship is more useful to win re-elections than laws that accomplish hidden agendas.

As you already said, the Republicans won't do it so why are even bringin it up?

Registries are costly. Background checks are nearly free. The Federal background check system is already in place, the only thing needed is the interface.

Cost is irrelevant.... how do you know what they'll charge? CA capped it about $35.


Really, I'm not interested in whether anybody and prove or disprove that a UBC would be ineffective.

Well you should be unless you're for more wasted .gov money that we pay for.


That does happen, the buyer is "prohibited" for a reason and seller's have no resources to be able to know one way or the other. Is any of that really up for debate?

Not with me, really. did you read what I wrote. I said it would be nice to have that resource but the reality is that it won't happen.


What you're arguing isn't really against UBCs, but against any sort of gun control or prohibited persons.

Phooey. I'm not doing any such thing.

What you're doing is misconstuing what I've said in order to argue your view.

I have yet to see any UBC/Registry thats been implemented in the US be anymore effective than the registry that Canada scraped for being too costly and ineffective.

Do you have anything to show otherwise?
 
There is more liability in the current system than in one that has a concrete process to follow.


I don't think "we must pass a law", I said "if we're going to end up with one anyway".

There is no "white flag" in doing something proactive. The Maginot Line mentality we have is not a plan. We talk all the time about how we are only going to lose more - it isn't my idea.
So you think the
There is more liability in the current system than in one that has a concrete process to follow.


I don't think "we must pass a law", I said "if we're going to end up with one anyway".

There is no "white flag" in doing something proactive. The Maginot Line mentality we have is not a plan. We talk all the time about how we are only going to lose more - it isn't my idea.
From the ATF site:
A person may transfer a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his or her State, provided the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.

This puts an arguable burden on the seller that a prosecutor can take advantage of.

You also seem to be confusing liability with being on record. Not having a record of something you did doesn't remove you liability.
I don't follow you. If there is no record or proof I sold a gun, how can I be held liable?
Honestly if you're that worried about it insist on going though a FFL. for all your private transactions. No need for a law.
As far as a federal law overwriting a more restrictive state law, I cannot think of a single instance of that.
I believe the burden is on the state, not the defendant, to prove I had reason to believe I was selling to a prohibited person.
 
"This puts an arguable burden on the seller that a prosecutor can take advantage of."
Eh, it's a pretty high bar, that pretty much isn't ever met unless the two parties know each other and their respective legal disability (in which case it's usually more a straw purchase thing going on). The kind of suspicions required for a layman to disqualify someone would generally fall under unacceptable 'profiling' that in any number of plausible/common scenarios are not justifiable disqualifications in the first place (guy with a doo-rag and what appear to be gang-tats paying for his Hi Point in singles can not *reasonably* be assumed to be a prohibited person by those facts alone, and a casual private seller is unlikely to interact with him long enough to glean much more than that). Criminals don't usually announce their intent to strangers when buying, and felons buying on the down low are liable to keep mum on their disability.

So yeah, short of a dedicated BGC or extended interrogation (basically what the 4473 is if you think about it; straw purchasers screw it up frequently and queer the deal) a private seller is unlikely to discover the facts needed to reasonably conclude the buyer is disqualified. At that point I guess, they're free to break off the deal and reap whatever altercation results (a scenario all too plausible when you're talking potential ex-cons & gangbangers with poor impulse control). I don't know about you, but I personally feel that this is a rather undue burden on the seller, both due to the potential consequences, the typical lack of evidence in the interaction to make such a judgement, and because at the end of the day, whatever the buyer does good or bad with the gun, whatever his legal situation, is quite frankly not the responsibility of the seller (the seller is responsible for *selling* the gun to the ex-con, not killing the thug's girlfriend that night). I see even less how it's any responsibility of some random FFL dealer who is neither providing the gun nor facilitating the sale nor vouching for anyone involved.

I guess you can argue the FFL is in the best position to act as gatekeeper since they do this for their own products they sell, but again --we're not talking about products they sell, but a completely independent transaction between individuals that has no bearing at all on the FFL apart from some government-mandate. And yet the FFL will take on significant liability for both allowing a sale (false negative on the BCG or a future crime they can't possibly know about) and blocking a sale (retribution or accusations of prejudice)

At the end of the day, the burden is on the buyer to make sure what he is buying is legal; we're talking law-abiding citizens here, remember, since criminals can easily circumvent the entire process by choosing to forgo the BCG. The crook is the one who ends up with felon in possession charges (ironically dropped most of the time), the seller is practically always off scott-free unless it's a mighty overwhelming case of collusion. The only way to put the burden back on the seller, as is desired because paradoxically it is assumed they obey the law & thus will be a more effective vector for gun control rules, is to require the BGC. The only way to prove the BCG did not occur is to put the gun in the owner's hand at the time of illegal sale/transfer/theft. The only way to do that is through registration.

All so we can put the legal liability on *law abiding* gun owners seeking to *obey the law* so they won't *accidentally* transfer a gun to a known criminal released onto the streets who will *actually* commit the violent crime that is the supposed target of all of this. Known criminals whose 'gun crimes' these schemes seek to prevent are routinely dropped so as to reduce their prison terms as a bargaining measure. The mythical "iron river" sellers providing legal guns directly to criminals knowingly will choose to ignore the BGC and take their chances as they always have, thus mooting the entire BGC scheme that was supposedly enacted to target them.

End result, .gov has a list of who has what guns so they can prosecute otherwise law-abiding gun owners who accidentally violate this law (criminal enterprise won't bother registering the guns prior to sale, obviously), but they probably won't prosecute hardly anyone, because they hardly ever prosecute the felon in possession at the end of the day. Summary; felon still gets guns through illegal channels as they typically do already, all gun transactions now carry new legal liability for those trying to follow the law, government has a registry of firearms & owners that they've always wanted. Say, the only thing that's changed from the status quo is that registry & its enforcement!

TCB
 
Do you have anything to show otherwise?
I'm sure there is nothing that you'd find interesting, but I would point out that the NICS was an upgrade in convenience for most gun buyers from the previous patchwork of systems.

I really can't have a discussion with you about funding a self service background check system if you keep adding a registry to it, since I'm specifically talking about a system that has no registry. You're talking about something else.
 
"I don't think "we must pass a law", I said "if we're going to end up with one anyway".

There is no "white flag" in doing something proactive. The Maginot Line mentality we have is not a plan. We talk all the time about how we are only going to lose more - it isn't my idea."
The Maginot Line is absolutely a plan, if you can defend it. Which we have been. The French failed vs. the Germans because they did not suitably defend alternate routes of attack; our "paranoia" as alert gun owners has been rather effective at heading off most approaches the anti's have used against us ('homeland security' vis a vis the Terror Watch List being a glaring, dangerous exception)

You're suggesting instead we pre-emptively cede ground to our opposition, weakening our own position to resist further advances in the process, for...some reason. I honestly have no idea what reason, though I suspect it is based on poor assumptions (or a hostile position argued dishonestly). Fact is, "proactive measures" by our side is *not* assenting to background checks, but instead re-writing FOPA to not only ban the formation of a federal gun registry, but also the collection of any information (by any number of independent agencies) that could, taken together, form a de facto registry (this would shut down ALL background checks, btw, which again, is illustrative of the real purpose & consequence of this policy goal. Would shut down a bunch of other illegal surveillance activity, too)

Please explain how us assenting to universal background checks (which have absolutely no constitutional basis, by the way; NFA/GCA are supported by the *interstate* commerce clause, not general welfare or public interest or any other such nonsense) weakens the anti's argument in support of outright formal registration that we have to pay a fee for the pleasure of engaging. Because I think we both know that UBCs will not drop gun crime such that the anti's will seek no further restrictions such as registration. Instead, crime will not drop at all, and this failure of their policy will be used as an argument for their new registration policy.

TCB
 
I personally have no problem doing a background check when I sell a gun if I can do it myself and no record is kept. Illinois has required background checks on all gun show sales including private sales and you can make the call yourself. There is a small charge. Haven' tried it lately but when it first went in to effect there was a problem using my cell phone. That being said, it won't stop any criminal from getting a gun. Just another feel good law that will make things more difficult for law abiding people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top