Background checks?

[CoalTrain49]

Having had a FFL prior to the "Clinton-purge", I have a great distrust of the Federal ATFE bureaucracy. However, I would have no problem with a national law that mandated a background check before a firearm sale PROVIDED the agency that provided the background check was OPEN to the General Public, not just FFL dealers. If anyone could access the background check agency for free (or a very small charge)

That sounds like a reasonable proposal on the face of it but one has to understand the underlying reason the ATF and states want full control of this and are not likely to make the check available to the average citizen.

The ATF wants those gun records. So does the state. Many FFL's let the ATF photocopy or scan all of those records annually. If the FBI let everyone have access to the NCIS database they would have no way to capture the metadata that goes with FFL background checks. Most people wouldn't be willing to let you fill out all of the information on a 4473 that is kept by a FFL. Granted, all of that info doesn't go into the NICS check but the dealer keeps it. The dealer has to keep a hard copy database to maintain a legal business.

As was mentioned by Old Fluff the states are in on this registration scheme also. Those are point-of-contact states which OR is one. According to the FBI website there are 20. The NICS data first goes to the state where all of the data is kept. A check of the NCIS database is made by the state but they also run a check with their own database looking for stolen weapons and prohibited people. How do they know a weapon is stolen, well I'll leave you to figure that out.

The fed has laws in place to keep the FBI from building a registry. I don't know if they do or not. I do know that at least 20 states have one though. My state has one. Not only do they check my background, they put my firearm into a registry to keep track of who the owner is.

Because of the registry part of a background check the general public will never be able to run one unless it is set up by the state police and the info is entered in digital format. It would have to be a state run check as the ATF/FBI would never consent to it. A state law that allowed private sales after a check by the state police, and only the state police, would put some FFL dealers out of business. You could expect the dealers to lobby against it. It just isn't in their best interest.

Personally, I would like FFL dealers to be taken out of the business of background checks for private sales. Mostly their fees are too high and they are totally unregulated in that area. Those should all be handled by the state police or any local LE agency for a small fee. UBC's are coming, get it set up correctly. They totally struck out here in WA.

 

[Old Fuff]

Get rid of the NFA and the 1968 GCA and I will consider universal background checks. But those laws have to go first.

Lets say for argument only, that they agree (which is unlikely).

Now anyone can buy all of those controlled firearms and whatever else without extra regulation. But only by having an FFL dealer broker the transaction. This starts a paper trail on your new toy, no matter what it is and from whom you get it.

And then sometime in the (probably near) future someone from the government will come and pick it up, along with any other firearms you have.

Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it...

 

[eldon519]

Well for what it's worth Curator, I don't have a problem with UBC or the present background check system, as long as the fee is modest (granted I think it should be free). In fact I wish they would actually follow up on those who lie on the forms and try to sneak through the system.

Flame away!

 

[tarosean]

Unless you are buying a gun. Then you are presumed to be a criminal, until proven innocent by the background check.

Why would anyone be happy with a system that presumes you are a criminal from the git-go?

unfortunately criminals screw it up for many people.. We live in a day and age were we now have to go to the pharmacy and show ID, to ensure your not purchasing too much pseudoephedrine found in common Allergy/cold meds. Spray paint and other household chemicals now require an age limit. etc. etc. etc.

We wont be able to bury our head in the sand on this one. They are coming out swinging.

 

[dekibg]

I have never understood why any gunowner would think that background checks - any background checks - is a good plan.

One of the great things about this country is that you are "presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty".

Unless you are buying a gun. Then you are presumed to be a criminal, until proven innocent by the background check.

Why would anyone be happy with a system that presumes you are a criminal from the git-go?

what alternative do you propose so criminals don't start buying guns legally as well ?
I know that they don't care about laws and buy them illegally anyway, but how we at least don't allow them to buy guns like the rest of us.
Unless, you believe that "2A is absolut and it says nowhere that felons are restricted"
I have seen those opinions, too.

 

[M-Cameron]

unfortunately criminals screw it up for many people.. We live in a day and age were we now have to go to the pharmacy and show ID, to ensure your not purchasing too much pseudoephedrine found in common Allergy/cold meds. Spray paint and other household chemicals now require an age limit. etc. etc. etc.

We wont be able to bury our head in the sand on this one. They are coming out swinging.

They are coming out swinging ...and your solution is to agree to let them punch you in the face in hopes they won't punch you in the privates.

The solution is to block their punch and swing back.

 

[PJSprog]

... risk based ...
... compliance based ...
... root cause ...

You speak like a fellow Quality professional, hso. Perhaps a simple 5 Whys will get us to the root cause?

I believe most gun owners would go along with this provision.

Not even close. Nice try, though.

 

[oneounceload]

I own a lot of other things that could easily be considered dangerous and a weapon from knives to chain saws, axes, etc. I can go to any farm/feed supply and hardware store and buy all the ingredients to make an IED - and I can sell any or all of those items at a garage sale or on Craigs List with zero issues or even a raised eyebrow by the most ardent anti-gunner; why should I not have the right to also buy or sell a piece of legal property (gun) between two private parties without the nanny state recording and watching every move?

 

[M-Cameron]

It's kind of alarming how many gun owners are willing to roll over and beg for mercy at the first mention of Gun restrictions.

Hillary goes off on her little tirade and people start groveling..."oh ok, you can do xxxx, but please don't touch yyyy".

Goodness, grow a backbone and stand up for yourself.

Rather than trying to "negotiate"...try sending $20 to the NRA. Try writing your reps.

 

[dekibg]

I have to say something very possibly inappropriate here:
most of people I met in person ( gun ranges/ gun shows) or seen on Youtube videos that promise that nobody will "take their guns away", brag how they are "packing every day", should really start with some CARDIO to begin with, and then gradually, one day, maybe, they will be able to "save the world" ( and themselves).
I apologize, but it is true.
My physique falls to category mentioned above, too, just so you know. I am on the same boat with those people.

 

[Sam1911]

I have to say something very possibly inappropriate here:
most of people I met in person ( gun ranges/ gun shows) or seen on Youtube videos that promise that nobody will "take their guns away", brag how they are "packing every day", should really start with some CARDIO to begin with, and then gradually, one day, maybe, they will be able to "save the world" ( and themselves).
I apologize, but it is true.

You should apologize only for saying something so completely off of the topic we're discussing.

 

[2ifbyC]

Starting with the RKBA amendment, I view UBC as another infringement.

UBC is urged every time a mass killing occurs as a panacea for reducing gun related deaths even when the perpetrator purchased the firearm(s) legally.

Are we to believe that expanding background checks will reduce the likelihood of a criminal obtaining a gun? Never underestimate the resourcefulness of the human mind. Laws are only effective when all people obey them.

Now is not the time to submit to more gun control laws; we have given more than enough. Obama touts GB and Australia as role models for effective gun control but conveniently leaves out their means - confiscation.

Enforce the laws that are on the books and deliver harsh penalties for those that commit gun related crimes. The law abiding gun owner should not be the bearer of revengeful laws.

 

[tarosean]

and your solution is to agree to let them punch you in the face in hopes they won't punch you in the privates.

You got that from what I wrote? You're some kind of special...

 

[BSA1]

Get rid of the NFA and the 1968 GCA and I will consider universal background checks. But those laws have to go first.

If I was anti-2A I would go for this proposal in a heartbeat. Once you give me control of who passes background checks it would not matter what you want to buy as I will only approve the people I approve of like wealthy donors to my political party.

UBC is about people control.

Heck even a FUDD should be able to grasp this.




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just call me Elmer.

 

[jerkface11]

Without the GCA of 68 there aren't ffls and there isn't a list of prohibited persons.

 

[CoalTrain49]

What is the law in your state regarding private sales. If you can make a private sale without a NICS and just want some assurance that the buyer has no criminal record, restraining orders or court adjudicated mental health issues try asking your local sheriff if they will run a check for you. Some will do it for a small fee. Of course a lot of people won't show up and produce the ID required but it's just a thought if you are concerned about it. Collectors are usually BC and permit oblivious.

 

[Deanimator]

I agree totally that registration is the goal,but we are not getting that message to the general public.

I put it out EVERY chance I get, especially in the local online newspaper comment section.

 

[jerkface11]

Registration isn't the goal confiscation is.

 

[buck460XVR]

Registration isn't the goal confiscation is.

......but most folks claim registration will make confiscation easier for big brother. First one, then the other. I don't think you will see either in our lifetime, not at the Federal level anyway.

 

[CoalTrain49]

......but most folks claim registration will make confiscation easier for big brother. First one, then the other. I don't think you will see either in our lifetime, not at the Federal level anyway.

I have to agree with that.

I am not a proponent of background checks. I voted against one here in this state and will not vote for any candidate that proposes one. There is a reality to this however. The majority of voters think they are harmless and are a solution to the problem. Also the media's preoccupation with them virtually assures that we will see more of them cropping up state by state. Confiscation? Well that is a 4A stand off, a most serious illegal endeavor by any gov't agency and it will be catastrophic if it happens.

 

[Leanwolf]

Coaltrain 49 - " ... Confiscation? Well that is a 4A stand off, a most serious illegal endeavor by any gov't agency and it will be catastrophic if it happens. "

I'm afraid you're not aware of the exact wording of the Fourth Amendment.

ARTICLE FOUR - "The Right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

All a future, totalitarian Govt. would have to do would be to pass a law defining all firearms as "illegal contraband" and it would then be axiomatic that "probable cause" existed to search any and all places wherein firearms are known to exist because of Universal Registration.

U.S. Supreme Court would invalidate the law?? No. By that time the Court would have been packed with enough extreme left judges -- just as Hillary says she'll do -- to declare such a confiscation law as "reasonable."

The anti-gun culture has always said their strategy is "incrementalism." Or, inch-by-inch-by-inch-by-inch-by-inch until they achieve their ultimate goal. Full confiscation in accordance with law.

NO MORE COMPROMISES! The anti-gun culture gives up nothing: we give up our Rights, inch-by-inch-by-inch.

L.W.

 

[Sistema1927]

It is absolutely amazing that for almost 200 years citizens of this country were able to buy firearms without having to fill out forms or get background checks. Amazing that the streets weren't running red with blood ankle deep all the time.

 

[yugorpk]

It is absolutely amazing that for almost 200 years citizens of this country were able to buy firearms without having to fill out forms or get background checks. Amazing that the streets weren't running red with blood ankle deep all the time.

Some firearms anyway. The NFA has been around since 1934. Keep in mind it was last minute dealing that kept handguns out of the NFA system.

 

[Teachu2]

I can see both sides of the issue. First and foremost, it is an infringement of our rights. Second, it leads to other ineffective regulation - like the CA Roster. Third, it's poorly enforced.

That said, I've still managed to fill my boat with a variety of firearms. Still working on that pesky leak, though....

 

[CoalTrain49]

All a future, totalitarian Govt. would have to do would be to pass a law defining all firearms as "illegal contraband" and it would then be axiomatic that "probable cause" existed to search any and all places wherein firearms are known to exist because of Universal Registration.

It's already happened in NY, MA and CA. with "assault weapons". State banned them and required the existing guns to be registered. Not very many people registered them. I'm pretty sure the ATF knows where most of those guns are and have given that information to the state as most past thru dealers. How else do they come up with the numbers.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/why...rks-assault-weapons-registry-isnt-a-surprise/

Your scenario depends on a lot of what ifs. The way it sets right now congress isn't getting a lot of support for more gun control. Given that in the last 20 years dems have had a majority in the house only 4 years. Hillary may get elected but some serious AG stuff needs to happen in congress before she can do much. If it were possible that a pres could do it without congress BHO would have already done it.

Anythings possible but likely is a different story.