I have a question. Why hasn't a law been proposed to allow anyone to conduct a background check when selling a gun rather than just FFL's. Then, the "90%" of people, or whatever the going Stat is today, who support UBC's can have a background check done when selling a gun, and the other 10% can go about their lives as they choose. Seems like opening that up for private sales would be an easy compromise for our legislature to make.
Background checks
- Thread starter avs11054
- Start date
- Status
Who would pay for this? It would cost money, which isn't really in excess supply for the federal government/taxpayers.
90% do not support private transfers being made illegal (that's what so called UBC does, really, is make private transfers illegal). That's just a BS number spouted off by the antis.
We all know that if that were to pass, it would be followed up, ASAP, by making it mandatory. And then there would inevitably be times the system is down or unavailable, or simply not accessible by the parties in question at the time/place they need it. Not to mention that it would be an unconstitutional and ineffective law to begin with (as are many gun control laws).
Besides, anybody who wants to have a background check on the buyer/receiver can already do that by simply going to an FFL to conduct the transfer, or by requesting certain documents from the buyer/receiver, such as a weapon license or permit or a recent receipt for receiving a firearm from a licensed dealer.
Well that is a nonsense number, but here it doesn't seem to be "spouted off by the antis."Warp said:
In fact, an initiative requiring UBCs passed by a 20% margin in Washington State not that long ago, and Oregon recently passed legislation requiring UBCs. It's starting to look like there is increasing public support for making private transfers illegal, at least in some political climates.
we have a law in IL requiring face to face individual sales to go through the Il State Police to certify that the buyer has a valid Firearms Owner ID card. You get a transaction number to keep in your records for ten years.
This is why I laugh at ideas like "gun show" and "private sales" loopholes. Yes, I doubt everyone follows through and I'm sure many don't even know about this law.
This is why I laugh at ideas like "gun show" and "private sales" loopholes. Yes, I doubt everyone follows through and I'm sure many don't even know about this law.
PowerG
Member
I think UBC will be the law nationally eventually, and sooner rather than later. The last private seller I bought a gun from wanted to see my CCW, so in effect there was a background check on that sale (in a Walmart parking lot).
I don't think it will be. Not even close, nationally.
Seeing your carry license is kind of a background check yes...but without the registration component or the time and money wasted with an FFL and NICS .
I've asked that question a few times (or, even better, have the DMV put a G-for-guns endorsement on your driver's license when you turn 18, and remove it if you are convicted of a disqualifying crime).
The usual objection is that anyone - employers, landlords, etc - could find out who has felony convictions. I kinda view that as a feature, but some people view it as a bug (cf. the 'ban the box' movement).
The usual objection is that anyone - employers, landlords, etc - could find out who has felony convictions. I kinda view that as a feature, but some people view it as a bug (cf. the 'ban the box' movement).
There are several jurisdictions that require and provide for UBCs.
dogtown tom
Member
ATF permits FFL's to conduct an FBI NICS background check for a transaction between two nonlicensees.
Standardization would be difficult without a guiding agency.
As of right now, I think the best option for someone who wishes to sell a firearm only after a background check is probably best off going to a FFL and paying whatever the price is for the 4473 & transfer. Personally, that's what I would do if selling a firearm to someone I do not know purely due to liability concerns...in reality, such an action may or may not benefit me from that perspective.
At the same time, I've noticed many firearm 'sales' are often not sales in the traditional sense in that someone may purchase a first firearm for a family member, or a close friend, or two friends who are shooting buddies may trade firearms. For those things, doing a 4473 would be a PITA so I like the idea of this being optional...but as soon as a system as such would be implemented, it seems possible that gun control forces would put everything they got into making it compulsory.
As of right now, I think the best option for someone who wishes to sell a firearm only after a background check is probably best off going to a FFL and paying whatever the price is for the 4473 & transfer. Personally, that's what I would do if selling a firearm to someone I do not know purely due to liability concerns...in reality, such an action may or may not benefit me from that perspective.
At the same time, I've noticed many firearm 'sales' are often not sales in the traditional sense in that someone may purchase a first firearm for a family member, or a close friend, or two friends who are shooting buddies may trade firearms. For those things, doing a 4473 would be a PITA so I like the idea of this being optional...but as soon as a system as such would be implemented, it seems possible that gun control forces would put everything they got into making it compulsory.
stonecutter2
Member
Putting the IL requirement in place was easy, because we have the FOID system that means we have individual ID #'s that can be used to run a check with ISP. On a federal level this would require some national ID# of some sort.
I could see other states putting forth a similar system, but with a voluntary adoption, not mandatory. Same at the federal level. Those who wished to totally not care who they're selling to, could do so, but those who wished to run a check could do so as well.
I follow the letter of the law because I like being a law abiding citizen
And I prefer to know that whoever I'm selling to is not prohibited.
stonecutter2
Member
I don't know why a system hasn't been devised yet for this.
I think it should be voluntary though. Not a mandatory law to do the check in private transactions. However, if you sell to a prohibited person who then misuses the firearm, you should be penalized (I won't even speculate what the repercussions would be) for selling to someone who shouldn't have been sold to. This way, over time, more will be motivated to adopt the usage of the background check, and know who they're selling to.
Putting the IL requirement in place was easy, because we have the FOID system that means we have individual ID #'s that can be used to run a check with ISP.
I could see other states putting forth a similar system, but with a voluntary adoption, not mandatory. Those who wished to totally not care who they're selling to, could do so, but those who wished to run a check could do so as well.
I follow the letter of the law because I like being a law abiding citizen
You make it sound like those are the only two options...create a whole new system that allows people to call in background checks, or "totally not care who they're selling too". I don't know why you list those as the only two options because they very clearly are not.
Even IF there was no possibility of getting a background check done (there is), one can and usually does care who they sell too. Not only are there simple intuitions, gut feelings, individual rules and the option to exercise judgment and simply not sell to somebody for any or no reason, in most states it is also possible to simply ask to see a carry license from the buyer, or see a receipt showing the buyer has passed a background check however-recently (such as a receipt for a gun they took possession of at a dealer).
And...here's the big one..anybody can simply take their transaction to an FFL and have the FFL conduct a background check.
Anybody who wants to get a background check before transferring a gun to another person can already do that, in any state!
dogtown tom
Member
It's ALREADY a Federal crime to knowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited person.
Advocating a penalty for what happens after a legal sale/transfer is asinine.
Most, if not all of the private sale background check proposals require that such transfers must be brokered through an FFL (Federally Licensed Gun Dealer).
Why? because then the FFL is required to keep a #4473 form on file, and another firearm becomes traceable forever through a paper trail.
Is this good or bad? It depends on how far you trust the good intentions of the Federal Government. The Founding Fathers would have been up in arms (pardon the pun) because they would see it as a way the government could control the availability of arms and even confiscation. When they said "shall not infringe they met it.
Today the National Government is breaking the Bill of Rights amendments right and left through no-warrant surveillance of our entire population on a massive basis, and probably doing more.
On the other hand criminals obtain guns through a black market, fed through theft - that keeps no records.
Those who want to sell or otherwise transfer a firearm under circumstances where a government record is kept have several options. They can sell the gun to a licensed dealer or place it on consignment with them; or they can insist that the transfer be brokered through an FFL, with one or both of the parties paying the dealer for the service. But requiring that this be done is a slippery slope - especially when it's proponents cannot explain how it can be affectively enforced against terrorists or criminals.
Why? because then the FFL is required to keep a #4473 form on file, and another firearm becomes traceable forever through a paper trail.
Is this good or bad? It depends on how far you trust the good intentions of the Federal Government. The Founding Fathers would have been up in arms (pardon the pun) because they would see it as a way the government could control the availability of arms and even confiscation. When they said "shall not infringe they met it.
Today the National Government is breaking the Bill of Rights amendments right and left through no-warrant surveillance of our entire population on a massive basis, and probably doing more.
On the other hand criminals obtain guns through a black market, fed through theft - that keeps no records.
Those who want to sell or otherwise transfer a firearm under circumstances where a government record is kept have several options. They can sell the gun to a licensed dealer or place it on consignment with them; or they can insist that the transfer be brokered through an FFL, with one or both of the parties paying the dealer for the service. But requiring that this be done is a slippery slope - especially when it's proponents cannot explain how it can be affectively enforced against terrorists or criminals.
bikemutt
Member
There's a fair amount of personally identifying information furnished on a 4473. It's one thing to hand that over to a gun dealer in order to have the BG check performed, quite another to hand it over to John Q private citizen whom you don't know, and, these days, may not be a US citizen. I'll pay the transfer fee and let the gun dealer handle it, at least I have some reason to believe the information in his/her files is being handled responsibly.
dogtown tom
Member
Not exactly.
Firearms "traces" work like this:
Local PD recovers firearm> contacts ATF National Tracing Center>contacts Manufacturer or Importer who tells ATF what Distributor it was shipped to>Distributor tells ATF what Dealer it was shipped to> ATF contacts Dealer who faxes a copy of the Form 4473 on the original buyer>ATF then attempts to contact original buyer to find out where he sold/traded/gifted that firearm> if to a nonlicensee....the trace stops here 99% of the time.
If the seller of that firearm wasn't the original buyer then the likelihood of a trace is almost nil.
I have no objection to that, and even suggested it in my post.
But while you owned the firearm the next buyer will only get a no-charge lease until the government decides to further regulate under what conditions they can keep it, or simply take it outright.
It's for the children.
Or if the gun was made or originally sold before 1968.
But it the current push for FFL brokered private sales becomes law, all private sales from that point on will legally require that future sales or transfers from one party to another go through the same procedure.
At some point - at least in theory - all firearms will be listed on a #4473 form or perhaps several. Considering the progress being made in computer technology, they're will be a national database.
Observe the United Kingdom. For decades gun registration was (and still is) required. When the government decided that private ownership of handguns would no longer be allowed, those registrations made it possible. Not perfect, but good enough.
A #4473 form is a backhanded kind of registration - and it was met to be so.
4
Yes exactly.
If so called UBC passed literally every gun manufactured after that date would effectively be registered. Either the trail could be followed to the current owner/possessor, or if not, the end of the trail would be in violation of the law for having transferred possession without a background check and paperwork.
Also any gun that was lawfully transferred after that date would then be effectively registered.
Unless the UBC did not require any information on the gun that was being transferred (and if so, you know they would just push to have that added later/next)
dogtown tom
Member
Current Federal law prohibits a "database", that's why ATF spends several days on each gun trace.
You are wrong.
UBC isn't in effect is it?
If, If, If........If the Queen had balls, she'd be King.
Fact is UBC hasn't passed. Which means my "Not exactly" comment is accurate.
And even if UBC were to be passed, an ATF firearms trace on firearms purchased from a dealer prior to UBC and subsequently sold/traded/gifted to other nonlicensees would be nearly impossible to trace back to the original 4473.
But that isn't the case RIGHT NOW is it?
Even if/when UBC ever comes about, a trace will only work for a miniscule number of firearms.
Current FBI NICS checks only ask for Handgun, Long Gun, Other Firearm. They do not ask for Make/model/caliber/serial#/etc
Last edited:
Of course the fact is UBC hasn't passed, and of course that's an "if"...and it is an "if" certainly worth discussing.
You have a hell of a lot more faith than myself in the government following its own laws. They don't, and there's nobody to do diddly about it
You have a hell of a lot more faith than myself in the government following its own laws. They don't, and there's nobody to do diddly about it
Carl N. Brown
Member
I can get a private background check through the state for $29.
Or the two of us go to an FFL and pay $30 for state and NICS check.
Interstate transfer is $65. Some intrastate transfers cost $40.
That's a deal killer on most used guns.
If the people who put their faith in lists and files believe UBC is such a good idea, why don't they pay for UBC out of general public safety funds?
I think it's like the Maryland and New York ballistic fingerprint databases of fired cartridge casings: a punitive tax on most gun owning citizens with no serious impact on gun using criminals.
Or the two of us go to an FFL and pay $30 for state and NICS check.
Interstate transfer is $65. Some intrastate transfers cost $40.
That's a deal killer on most used guns.
If the people who put their faith in lists and files believe UBC is such a good idea, why don't they pay for UBC out of general public safety funds?
I think it's like the Maryland and New York ballistic fingerprint databases of fired cartridge casings: a punitive tax on most gun owning citizens with no serious impact on gun using criminals.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
