Background check for all sales passes advances out of committee, exceptions for illegal immigrants

[LRDGCO]

Both the Internet and gun shows are venues where unregulated / unlicensed gun buyers and sellers can conveniently find each other. (In previous times, you could add newspaper classified ads to this list.) Being outside the FFL system, such transactions cannot be monitored to the extent the gun controllers would like. That's why they call these things "loopholes." Their presumption is that every gun transaction must be recorded. That's not the reality in this country (yet).

Ok.Thanks for explaining that. As is often the case with the Left, their dishonesty is confusing. There is no "internet sales loophole". They are dishonestly referring to use of the internet to exchange information that may lead to a non-internet sale that, in some jurisdictions, may not be subject to a background check.

UBC legislation will pass. Maybe not this year. Maybe not next. But it will. I'd prefer to get something for it. Like HPA. "Just Say No" will get nothing.

 

[jonnyc]

What about long-term leases where you pay for it all up front?

 

[AlexanderA]

What about long-term leases where you pay for it all up front?

The gun laws are concerned with "transfers of possession" and not "transfers of title." For example, if you lease a gun (does anybody do this?), and that lease entitles you to take it off the dealer's premises, then a Form 4473 must be filled out and NICS clearance obtained. (I don't think any dealer in his right mind would enter into such a transaction.)

 

[Deanimator]

UBC legislation will pass. Maybe not this year. Maybe not next. But it will. I'd prefer to get something for it. Like HPA. "Just Say No" will get nothing.

The only thing you're going to get in exchange for more racially invidious gun control is more racially invidious gun control.

Anything else is a delusion.

 

[MedWheeler]

The headline for the OP is misleading. I was expecting to read an article about how citizens and lawful permanent residents would be subject to mandatory background checks, but illegal immigrants would not be.

All I saw was a demand that a proposed requirement that immigration-enforcement officials be notified when an illegal immigrant fails a background check be stricken from the bill.

So, it's more a thread on illegal immigration enforcement than on mandatory background checks.

(If someone checks "yes" on the 4473 about being a user of unlawful drugs, do DEA agents drop from the roof and swarm in?)

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I would be willing to submit do Universal background checks if they would agree to prosecute every convicted felon that fails one.

Having said that I'm sorry but I do believe that somebody who's in this country illegally attempting to purchase a firearm is an item of concern. I'm sorry but I think that's a big deal and I think it should be followed up on

 

[AlexanderA]

There are two distinct screening systems -- the Form 4473, and the NICS. Remember that we had the Form 4473 long before we had NICS. The questionaire on the Form 4473 was more or less on the honor system, and the possibility of being prosecuted for perjury was the only thing that gave it teeth. Today, the Form 4473 is merely an adjunct to the NICS check. It's an easy way for the buyer to be identified, and for the dealer to have a record of the transaction. Therefore, prosecuting lies on the Form 4473 would be a waste of enforcement resources. If the NICS check precludes the sale (to a disqualified person), then the whole purpose of the system has been accomplished. It wouldn't make any difference if the Form 4473 was abolished entirely.

 

[jonnyc]

"if you lease a gun (does anybody do this?)"

Not that I know of. Just gave me a chuckle when I thought about it.

 

[LRDGCO]

The only thing you're going to get in exchange for more racially invidious gun control is more racially invidious gun control.

Anything else is a delusion.

Oh, your purity is soooooo virtuous and inspiring! Adorable.

Blinded by your virtue, I guess, I am unable to understand what UBC legislation has to do with race, other than your invidious, and unrelated, post on the subject.

UBC legislation will pass in Congress. Anything else is a delusion.

Getting something in return is better than not. Today, the numbers are such that HPA might be sellable.

 

[Texas10mm]

I remember reading a statistic a couple years back the most prohibited persons don't buy their guns at gun shows. They either get a relative to do a straw purchase for them or they just buy them from the Dopeman and all the universal background checks in the world aren't going to change that.

I'm surprised nobody has brought this up in this discussion but my biggest problem with the whole concept of universal background checks is it they won't work unless guns are registered.

There are an awful lot of guns in this country that have changed hands multiple times legally without a background check. If you catch a criminal with a gun like that you can't go back to the person they bought it from because there's no record of it.

You mark my words, if Universal Background Checks are passed. The next thing they'll go for is a national registration.

And that REALLY WIILL BE the end of the Second Amendment

Registration will lead to confiscation. That's the end goal of the Left.

 

[Deanimator]

Oh, your purity is soooooo virtuous and inspiring! Adorable.

Blinded by your virtue, I guess, I am unable to understand what UBC legislation has to do with race, other than your invidious, and unrelated, post on the subject.

UBC legislation will pass in Congress. Anything else is a delusion.

Getting something in return is better than not. Today, the numbers are such that HPA might be sellable.

1. The history of gun control in North America is the history of violent White supremacism and the efforts of its proponents to create for themselves a "safe working environment".
2. The only thing you're going to get in return for racially invidious gun control is MORE racially invidious gun control. That's all gun owners have EVER gotten for more racially invidious gun control.

I know that proponents of sham "universal background checks" believe that gun owners were born yesterday, but what TIME yesterday?

Gun control is a grift. The intended marks know that now.

Gun owners can't stop the grifters and their fellow travelers from trying the swindle but the conmen can't make us fall for it anymore.

Racially invidious gun controls are the equivalent of a Nigerian "404" scam. Nobody falls for that garbage anymore.

NO, I REFUSE.

 

[GEM]

We are going off the rails again. The current proposed law isn't demanding registration, unless I read it incorrectly. An extension of the current system to where you have to go to some gun store to run a check on the buyer isn't registration, unless you think the current system is registration. This is what is says. So aim your remarks at this as compared to some of the simple running around with your hair on fire comments. You need to say focused. If you have an argument for a nongun person as to why an extension of the current system is bad such that it would convince the nongun person - make it. Motivated reasoning makes what you think self-evident and you can't see the attractiveness of this proposal. Have some self-insight, if possible.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text

SECTION 1. Short title.


This Act may be cited as the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019”.

SEC. 2. Purpose.

The purpose of this Act is to utilize the current background checks process in the United States to ensure individuals prohibited from gun possession are not able to obtain firearms.

SEC. 3. Firearms transfers.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by striking subsection (s);

(2) by redesignating subsection (t) as subsection (s); and

(3) by inserting after subsection (s), as redesignated, the following:

“(t) (1) (A) It shall be unlawful for any person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not so licensed, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s).

“(B) Upon taking possession of a firearm under subparagraph (A), a licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the inventory of the licensee to the unlicensed transferee.

“(C) If a transfer of a firearm described in subparagraph (A) will not be completed for any reason after a licensee takes possession of the firearm (including because the transfer of the firearm to, or receipt of the firearm by, the transferee would violate this chapter), the return of the firearm to the transferor by the licensee shall not constitute the transfer of a firearm for purposes of this chapter.

“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—

“(A) a law enforcement agency or any law enforcement officer, armed private security professional, or member of the armed forces, to the extent the officer, professional, or member is acting within the course and scope of employment and official duties;

“(B) a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren;

“(C) a transfer to an executor, administrator, trustee, or personal representative of an estate or a trust that occurs by operation of law upon the death of another person;

“(D) a temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm;

section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

“(F) a temporary transfer if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law, and the transfer takes place and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively—

“(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting;

“(ii) while reasonably necessary for the purposes of hunting, trapping, or fishing, if the transferor—

“(I) has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the firearm in a place where it is illegal; and

“(II) has reason to believe that the transferee will comply with all licensing and permit requirements for such hunting, trapping, or fishing; or

“(iii) while in the presence of the transferor.

“(3) (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.

“(B) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision requiring licensees to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1).

“(C) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision requiring persons not licensed under this chapter to keep records of background checks or firearms transfers.

“(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1).

“(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to transfer possession of, or title to, a firearm to another person who is not so licensed unless the importer, manufacturer, or dealer has provided such other person with a notice of the prohibition under paragraph (1), and such other person has certified that such other person has been provided with this notice on a form prescribed by the Attorney General.”.

SEC. 4. Technical and conforming amendments.

(a) Section 922.—Section 922(y)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking “, (g)(5)(B), and (s)(3)(B)(v)(II)” and inserting “and (g)(5)(B)”.

18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by striking “subsection 922(t)” each place it appears and inserting “subsection (s) or (t) of section 922”.

SEC. 5. Rule of construction.

Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to—


(1) authorize the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a national firearms registry; or

(2) interfere with the authority of a State, under section 927 of title 18, United States Code, to enact a law on the same subject matter as this Act.

SEC. 6. Effective date.

The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

 

[10mm Mike]

We are going off the rails again. The current proposed law isn't demanding registration, unless I read it incorrectly. An extension of the current system to where you have to go to some gun store to run a check on the buyer isn't registration, unless you think the current system is registration. This is what is says. So aim your remarks at this as compared to some of the simple running around with your hair on fire comments. You need to say focused. If you have an argument for a nongun person as to why an extension of the current system is bad such that it would convince the nongun person - make it. Motivated reasoning makes what you think self-evident and you can't see the attractiveness of this proposal. Have some self-insight, if possible.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text

Simple. Its NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS if I decide to sell my own damn property, or buy someone else's property, or if we trade our property. Further, I don't need ANYONE'S PERMISSION, especially the governments, to make said transaction with another private citizen. It doesn't matter what that property is. Our right to privacy and to be left the hell alone supersedes any other concerns.

Edited to add my favorite quote from fellow member Deanimator: NO, I REFUSE.

 

[Tommygunn]

Oh, your purity is soooooo virtuous and inspiring! Adorable.

Blinded by your virtue, I guess, I am unable to understand what UBC legislation has to do with race, other than your invidious, and unrelated, post on the subject.

UBC legislation will pass in Congress. Anything else is a delusion.

Getting something in return is better than not. Today, the numbers are such that HPA might be sellable.

UBC >>>registration>>>>CONFISCATION.
Yes...you can have registration without confiscation. But do you really think it will stop with registration given current politics, with clueless agenda-driven politicians like Cal. Representative Eric Swalwell suggesting the use of NUCLEAR WEAPONS against people resisting his gun confiscation scheme?
You're the one who has the crystal ball, apparently. A UBC is possible, IMHO, but I don't see it as a given. But since your crystal ball appears to give you an absolutely clear, undistorted view into the future, surpassing anything Nostradamus conjured up, perhaps you could predict which side will win Civil War 2.0 which will break out when confiscation starts? ? ? ?

 

[Deanimator]

We are going off the rails again. The current proposed law isn't demanding registration, unless I read it incorrectly. An extension of the current system to where you have to go to some gun store to run a check on the buyer isn't registration, unless you think the current system is registration. This is what is says. So aim your remarks at this as compared to some of the simple running around with your hair on fire comments. You need to say focused. If you have an argument for a nongun person as to why an extension of the current system is bad such that it would convince the nongun person - make it. Motivated reasoning makes what you think self-evident and you can't see the attractiveness of this proposal. Have some self-insight, if possible.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text

It is utterly meaningless WITHOUT registration.

When it fails to prevent some sort of unlawful transfer, that will be pointed out and used as a justification for REGISTRATION... which is the intent going in.

It's MEANT to fail.

I refuse to pretend otherwise. I certainly refuse to take the word of those whose ultimate (and oft stated) goal is ELIMINATION of widespread civilian ownership of firearms. There isn't one iota of honesty on the other side... except when they openly declare their intent to take my guns... and kill me to do so if necessary.

Grifters gonna grift. That doesn't mean I have to fall for it.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Sad the Dems want to attack the 2nd Amendment yet refuses to protect us from Illegal immigrants!

 

[LRDGCO]

UBC >>>registration>>>>CONFISCATION.
Yes...you can have registration without confiscation. But do you really think it will stop with registration given current politics, with clueless agenda-driven politicians like Cal. Representative Eric Swalwell suggesting the use of NUCLEAR WEAPONS against people resisting his gun confiscation scheme?
You're the one who has the crystal ball, apparently. A UBC is possible, IMHO, but I don't see it as a given. But since your crystal ball appears to give you an absolutely clear, undistorted view into the future, surpassing anything Nostradamus conjured up, perhaps you could predict which side will win Civil War 2.0 which will break out when confiscation starts? ? ? ?

No crystal ball required. An understanding of math and the current political situation would even get you there.

 

[Deanimator]

No crystal ball required. An understanding of math and the current political situation would even get you there.

Those who plan for defeat usually achieve it.