Background checks

Status
Not open for further replies.
The other fly in the ointment is that the NICS is flawed.
Some egregious number of states have not reported a vast number of felony convictions. In addition a different batch of states have not reported any of their mental health adjudication (actual, real DQs)

This was to be fixed in an NRA-endorsed Senate bill.

The Democrats filibustered the bill (effective bills are anathema in DC) and it dies on party lines.

In an "Eat the cake and have it too" they libs then counted that as one of the "four the GOP voted down" so recently seen as a sound bite.
 
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!
Not my intention to insinuate those were the only two options. Didn't mean to make it come off like that, just writing off the cuff.
 
Current Federal law prohibits a "database", that's why ATF spends several days on each gun trace.

The key words here are Current Federal Law, which of course is always subject to change. This is what the Democrats and they're mainstream media allies are pushing for.

But that's only part of the picture. It is clear that the government now in power is spending billions of dollars to create databases with all kinds of information about the whole general population, under circumstances that are probably in violation of Constitutional restrictions.

It is well known that when firearm businesses that have FFL holders go out of business they must turn in their records that are quickly entered into a database. To change this to include all #4473 forms and Bound Book entries can be accomplished with a simple amendment added to an unrelated bill.

It should be kept in mind that the present uproar over background checks is not a freestanding bill, but rather something the Democrats are determined to add to an appropriation bill that has nothing to do with guns.
 
Old Fuff
Quote:
Current Federal law prohibits a "database", that's why ATF spends several days on each gun trace.

The key words here are Current Federal Law, which of course is always subject to change. This is what the Democrats and they're mainstream media allies are pushing for.
You can hypothesize all day long about what might happen. The fact remains there is no "national database" and Federal law prohibits such.





But that's only part of the picture. It is clear that the government now in power is spending billions of dollars to create databases with all kinds of information about the whole general population, under circumstances that are probably in violation of Constitutional restrictions.
The government "now in power"? You mean the one where both Senate and the House of Representatives are controlled by Republicans?:rolleyes:
Conspiracy theories about massive government databases? Heck, ATF takes DAYS to compete a single gun trace. If such a "national database" existed I doubt they would bother with chasing down manufacturers, distributors and dealers to get a copy of a 4473 that might not even exist.






It is well known that when firearm businesses that have FFL holders go out of business they must turn in their records that are quickly entered into a database.
Well known by whom? Conspiracy theorists? ATFaphobes?
Again, again, again the ATF is prohibited by Federal law from creating a database of dealers old 4473's. You can choose to believe the conspiracy theorists or ask anyone who has ever been to Martinsburg, WV about the storage trailers chock full of cardboard boxes filled with paper 4473's.

Read this and find out what actually happens with out of business records:http://www.npr.org/2013/05/20/185530763/the-low-tech-way-guns-get-traced

And dealers that haven't gone out of business can DESTROY their old 4473's after twenty years. Kind of difficult to create a database of records that no longer exist isn't it?




To change this to include all #4473 forms and Bound Book entries can be accomplished with a simple amendment added to an unrelated bill.
And who would vote on that bill?:scrutiny:
Congress? A Congress that hasn't shown the slightest inkling of anti gun legislation in decades?




It should be kept in mind that the present uproar over background checks is not a freestanding bill, but rather something the Democrats are determined to add to an appropriation bill that has nothing to do with guns.
Pro gun legislation works the same way.;)
 
lol, hypothesizing is pretty much what this thread is about since it is asking about proposed laws and why/why not. Giving a "why not" by presenting a rather plausible consequence of such a law is precisely what this thread is about
 
The government "now in power"? You mean the one where both Senate and the House of Representatives are controlled by Republicans?

Yup. My mistake. I should have said "Administration."

And the current Administration would never consider doing anything without Congress's approval. :rolleyes:
 
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.
Virtually every new gun sold since 1968, when the use of a form 4473 became mandatory, would be what you claim is "effectively registered", since new guns are most always sold thru a licensed dealer. At the very least, every new gun sold since June of 1996 is still on the official books somewhere. Then there's the secret registration books those guys with black suits and wearing sunglasses keep of records supposedly destroyed. Thus, if one is so fearful of the gun registration/confiscation theory, it's already too late....unless you haven't bought any new gun for almost half a century. Without the paper trail to show you no longer have the gun, odds are you will be tortured or given a truth serum(or both) until you give up said guns or die. Then there's the way they track credit card purchases for ammo, reloading components and anything else gun related. Even without purchasing a gun or ammo, those security cameras affixed to every streetlight and mailbox will see you walk in the house with a package that could be a gun. Odds are the camera has X-ray vision to see what's in the package, thus, they got you, coming and going. As long as one is fantasizing, you may as well go all out, cause that's what thinking UBCs are only intended for under the table registration is....a fantasy. If you cannot trust those officials that you and your peers have elected, to keep all your rights safe, you have more things to worry about than just your guns and the RKBA. If the majority of your peers vote for someone that endorses gun confiscation, you are screwed even without UBCs. If that day comes, the Storm Troopers will march you out of your house and burn it along with the guns, cause those same friends turned you in.

Now.....getting back to reality.

While I too doubt very much that making UBCs the law of the land will reduce crime and Mass murders to any great extent, I also don't see the possibility of confiscation being anything close to realistic. What I do see as realistic, is the change in attitude since the last mass murder, to attempt in any way, to keep certain folks from obtaining firearms. This attitude ebbs and flows, back and forth, depending on the frequency and horribleness of violence when guns are used. In several of the latest polls from various institutions, 9 outta 10 Americans want expanded background checks.....

When asked about specific policy steps, 92 percent of respondents favored expanded background checks, 87 percent supported prohibiting convicted felons or people with mental health problems from buying guns and 85 percent were in support of banning people on the terror watch list or on the no-fly list from buying guns. Only 9 percent of those surveyed supported preventing all Americans from owning guns.


This tells me the majority of Americans do not want to take guns from law abiding, responsible gun owners. They just want to prevent BGs from easily and legally obtaining them. Again, will UBCs help? I dunno.
 
Virtually every new gun sold since 1968, when the use of a form 4473 became mandatory, would be what you claim is "effectively registered".

Nope. Because as soon as you get to somebody who transferred it without going through an FFL (in most states...), the requirement for government permission and record keeping ends.

With so called UBC, it would, as I already explained, either keep going to the next possessor or the last person found would be a criminal for not having documented the transfer with the government (after obtaining the government's permission)
 
Nope. Because as soon as you get to somebody who transferred it without going through an FFL (in most states...), the requirement for government permission and record keeping ends.

With so called UBC, it would, as I already explained, either keep going to the next possessor or the last person found would be a criminal for not having documented the transfer with the government (after obtaining the government's permission)

You're preaching to the choir.

Apparently, you didn't read my post very thoroughly and take it for the humor that was intended. Like many of us here, I do know how the system works and know that a FTF sale after the original sale would not realistically be traceable....but folks are not being realistic, especially with the ranting about confiscation and UBCs being secret registration, thus my humor. UBCs are not registration, nor are they intended to be, nor do the majority of folks supporting them, want them to be. Still, paranoid conspiracy theorists swear they are. Hmmmmmm.:rolleyes:

I've had several background checks this year on top of those used for new gun purchases. Without them I would not have a job or be able to ref/coach youth sports. Anyone who has applied for a job, tried to rent an apartment, works in any way with children or applied for a major loan has had one. Not a big deal. As dogtown tom has stated over and over again, "The fact remains there is no "national database" and Federal law prohibits such. Remember, 7 years ago these same conspiracy theorists swore that Obama was going to confiscate all our guns/ammo thru Executive Orders. How's that working out?
 
We can say that none of the checks and records of sales are used in compiling a database but don't say it can't happen because it's to hard or because the gov respects the laws and constitutional rights.
Also remember that a little company called Google has a picture of your front door.
 
When asked about specific policy steps, 92 percent of respondents favored expanded background checks

Without knowing the description of "expanded background checks" in the question asked, versus what is in the Universal Background Check laws actually passed in places like Washington State (Initiative 594), 92% is meaningless. Did the 92% know about the ambiguous language of what constituted a transfer in I594?
 
buck460XVR, apparently, you didn't read my posts at all...or you are intentionally choosing to remain ignorant of what is being presented
 
The biggest problem with UBCs if that it cannot be effectively enforced without every gun being registered and every transfer being recorded. UBCs alone would still not allow tracing of a gun unless every seller were required to retain a record of what FFL every sold gun was transferred through. Even now, once the retention period for the 4473 has expired, if the FFL [legally] destroys those records, the trail ends.

Dogtown tom: Current Federal law prohibits a "database", that's why ATF spends several days on each gun trace.

And any Federal law can be repealed.
 
buck460XVR, apparently, you didn't read my posts at all...or you are intentionally choosing to remain ignorant of what is being presented

It has nuttin' to do with choosing to be ignorant Warp, only the choice of not believing paranoid drivel folks post on internet forums and to choose the facts over rants.

Frank here, seems to mirror my feelings......


Well that is a nonsense number, but here it doesn't seem to be "spouted off by the antis."

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.

Seems I'm not the one choosing to remain ignorant.
 
It has nuttin' to do with choosing to be ignorant Warp, only the choice of not believing paranoid drivel folks post on internet forums and to choose the facts over rants.

Frank here, seems to mirror my feelings......


Seems I'm not the one choosing to remain ignorant.

Frank said absolutely nothing about the facts I presented and you insisted on ignoring, twice.

You know this.

I'll save everybody else from reading the same thing a third time.
 
Well that is a nonsense number, but here it doesn't seem to be "spouted off by the antis."

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.
In SOME "political climates" there's considerable support for repeal of (or at least totally ignoring) the 1st Amendment. There have been REPEATED calls for CRIMINAL prosecution of those who deny human caused "climate change".

In SOME "political climates" I've seen support for MASS INTERNMENT... of GUN OWNERS. I once contributed to getting the pee-pee of an ROTC cadet whacked by his Professor of Military Science for acting as a SPOKESMAN for the United States Army and declaring online the need to put gun owners in CONCENTRATION CAMPS.

Bill Ayres was a proponent of Stalinist style mass murder of his political opponents.

What's popular in PARTS of New York... or Obama's social circle, isn't popular in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Kentucky.
 
I agree. Cost would be an issue, but allowing the average person to run your info is scary.
 
When asked about specific policy steps, 92 percent of respondents favored expanded background checks

Without knowing the description of "expanded background checks" in the question asked, versus what is in the Universal Background Check laws actually passed in places like Washington State (Initiative 594), 92% is meaningless. Did the 92% know about the ambiguous language of what constituted a transfer in I594?
I'm sure a lot of Jews would be in favor of legislation promoting the "displaying of symbols to promote ethnic and religious pride"... until they found it the only ones REQUIRED to do it were Jews, who'd be required to wear yellow Stars of David...
 
Deanimator said:
In SOME "political climates" there's considerable support for repeal of (or at least totally ignoring) the 1st Amendment. There have been REPEATED calls for CRIMINAL prosecution of those who deny human caused "climate change".....
But so far those ideas haven't gotten anywhere. A lot of people want a lot of things that just don't seem to happen.

On the other hand, the folks in Washington State and Oregon got the the UBC wanted. A bunch of States already have it is some form, and more might be getting it in due course. Many will complain that it's unconstitutional, but it's not unconstitutional until the courts say so.
 
If your state has something like this then you can do a background check of sorts. The you can make a decision to sell or not
Access to the Public Records of the Wisconsin Circuit Courts

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/index.xsl
No you can't. You have to do what they tell you to do. Its not really the background check they want per se. They want you to ( require you to ) run everything through a dealer on a 4473. IF the buyer fails the BG check the dealer transfers it back to you on a 4473. If you fail the BG check you don't get the gun back.
 
Yup. And this is the reason the Democrats won't consider any background check proposal - even though they have had the opportunity - that does not require the transaction/transfer to be brokered through an FFL.

What they really want is Universal #4473 forms anytime a firearm moves from one person to another under most circumstances. :uhoh:

Sometime in the future, at a time of their choosing, they can use those forms to create de facto registration.
 
Yup. And this is the reason the Democrats won't consider any background check proposal - even though they have had the opportunity - that does not require the transaction/transfer to be brokered through an FFL.

What they really want is Universal #4473 forms anytime a firearm moves from one person to another under most circumstances. :uhoh:

Sometime in the future, at a time of their choosing, they can use those forms to create de facto registration.
That may be. For now what they want is cradle to grave traceability. Hard to run a trace on a gun if the trace stops at the first post dealer transfer.
 
None of the 4473 that I have ever seen show the make, model, and serial # of the gun. The FFl enters it in his book but its not on the 4473 so I fail to see the 4473 is a form of registration? The FFL's bound book is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top