Creating a contingency plan to influence the legal language of a UBC

[Nom de Forum]

This is not the thread for people to post their vehement opposition to a UBC Law, imply people who disagree with them are “caving”, behaving like Nazis, Fudds, Fifth Columnists, and other terms universally agreed to be insults. Making those type of comments are more about enjoying the expression of anger and frustration with mental masturbation in public than it is about making thoughtful, discussion stimulating comments. If you want to do the former rather than the later the place for that is apparently here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=786883

This also is not a thread for people who want to discuss way to evade any law or cache guns as part of a contingency plan.

People who vehemently oppose a UBC Law are encouraged to post to this thread if they will accept for the purposes of this thread, if not in reality, that a National Universal Background Check is inevitable, and we as supporters of the RKBA should discuss what we can do to make it as benign as possible before a law is enacted.

Below are some comments and suggestions made by THR members in other threads that should be considered.

JSH1 - I'm not sure why this is so hard to get:
• There are gun owners that support background checks
• There are hunters that support background checks
• There are gun dealers that support background checks
Supporting background checks does mean someone isn't a "real" gun owner / hunter / dealer. It just means that person supports background checks.

Nom de Forum - In this country mandatory background checks on all gun sales are inevitable regardless if you support them or not. Only a draining delaying action that drains our resources can be fought against them. Directing our resources to fight for more important gun rights issues can make mandatory background checks nothing more than an inconvenience. Mandatory background checks are not a unidirectional step down the path toward bans and confiscations. We can make mandatory background checks a step down a dead-end road.

buck460XVR - I don't think it is the background checks per-say that has folks upset, but the thought that there may be a record kept somewhere of the sale and thus a way for "big brother" to know who owns what firearms. I suspect that if UBCs are required at the federal level for all gun sales, that many folks will still buy/sell FTF without using them, just as many folks now work on the side for cash and never report that income.

Backgrounds checks in themselves are not really a bad thing, nor are they a big deal anymore. My wife uses them all the time before hiring new employees. I had to have a BGC in order to ref youth Hockey Games and to work inside of buildings in the local School District as a contractor. Friends I know that have rental properties use BGCs before they rent to someone. To some degree, you and I can go online and do a check on almost anyone we want.

Most of us with any grasp on reality know that UBCs are not going to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. They may make it a tad more difficult. They may make it more difficult for other folks such as convicted felons that are prohibited from owning firearms to obtain them. They also may keep someone mentally incompetent from buying a firearm. But they are not the solution to most mass shootings or killing sprees. They are not going to stop organized gangs and criminals from obtaining firearms, just as the war on drugs has not stopped drug usage.

gripper - The only background check I believe in is AFTER scaling back the " prohibited persons " language to narrowly focus on convictions and unresolved indictments for VIOLENT felonies... The way they've stretched and expanded the stated intent ( vs the ACTUAL intentions) for all firearms related laws and restrictions is a crime in and of itself.

Nom de Forum - I agree a UBC will not stop the anti-gun crowd. What I am proposing in not “giving the anti gun crowd what it wants”. Since there are going to get it, let them expend their resources on getting it implemented. It is a dead-end that does not lead to bans and confiscation. Preventing a UBC is never going to win the war against the anti-gun crowd. Increasing the number of people who own guns, and number of non-gun owning people who believe gun owners are responsible and reasonable, is the best tactic for the long term defense of the RKBA. Examples of better areas for us expend our resources on are increasing CCW in all states, increasing convenient opportunities for recreational shooting in areas where they are limited or non-existent, and craft our message to avoid attaching right-wing political rhetoric to the RKBA that alienates those liberals and moderates who are neither pro or anti gun. Many pro-gun people seem to forget that not all liberals and moderates are anti-gun. On a personal note, don’t accuse me of “caving” and implying there is no point where I will make a stand (“You'll then declare that one to be inevitable”) against gun grabbers. We are not going to win the fight by attempting to continue convincing people pro-gunners cannot be defeated in the legislature. That strategy has been moderately successful but future demographics make it perilous. We are going to win the fight by increasing the number of pro-gunners and neutrals.

Justin - Advocacy of the "default deny" concept is nothing short of a the removal of a person's civil rights without due process, something that anyone with respect for a society of laws should have deep-seated and serious misgivings about. The "default deny" position is essentially a presumption of guilt without putting the accused through the process of charging and convicting them of a crime.

JSH1 - I have said more than once here that UBC's could be used as a bargaining chip to get some things we want like nationwide CCW or suppressors without a tax stamp. However, the more states that pass UBCs the less our chip is worth.

Bartholomew Roberts - In theory, UBCs don't have to be privacy invasive or something that needs registration to work. Software guys work with all kinds of access and verification codes that don't require the personal information on a 4473. From a marketing standpoint, you could even sell the change as "updating" the dated 1968 system. If you look at the difference between the Schumer-Toomey-Manchin UBC proposed in 2013 and the UBC proposed by Tom Coburn, you can see a glimpse of what I am talking about - though Coburn's system was flawed and tried to use the existing 1968 GCA infrastructure.

Bartholomew Roberts - If you really feel that UBCs are some unconquerable hill and you want to compromise in that area, your first goal should be knocking down the recordkeeping of the 1968 system and envisioning a system that better protects gunowner privacy. Once you have that, UBCs are no threat to gun owners and a compromise there can make access to firearms easier either by removing a lot of the nonsensical bureaucratic barriers a la Coburn's 2013 bill. Because once registration is in, the bureaucratic requirements will become increasingly burdensome until the number of legal gun owners are no longer a politically significant force and the illegal gun owners hide out and stay quiet to avoid being spotted.

danez71 - There isn't a chance in heck that the recordkeeping outlined 1969 GCA will be destroyed. Is there any meaningful litigation or piece of proposed legislation even attempting that? That's a red herring if there ever was one. On the other hand, there's successful incremental movement forward in expanding UBC. Fighting UBC's, as others have noted, doesn't portray the Pro side well. We look like we want to hide in the shadows and sell guns like dope dealers.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Comments continue

Justin - Here's my solution, and it doesn't even require the use of a computer to check a record. Are you a prohibited person? Yes? Well, now your government-issued ID (driver’s license, etc) is stamped with a little icon in the corner with the outline of a pistol behind the international NO symbol. If you go to buy a gun from someone, the seller is legally obligated to look for that symbol on your driver's license, and if they see it, they cannot sell the gun to you. If you go to buy a gun from someone, the seller is legally obligated to look for that symbol on your driver's license, and if they see it, they cannot sell the gun to you. If they fail to check the ID, or sell the gun anyway and are caught, you both go to prison. Bam. Background check issue solved.

USAF_Vet - Because no one has ever managed to get a fake ID.
All this would do is include private sales as straw purchases.
"Hey man, I can't buy a gun because I have this symbol on my ID and my fake one hasn't come through yet. If I give you some cash, will you buy me that gun from that dude?"
It'll also mandate personal identification. Currently, I'm not required to carry any form of government issued identification. It's recommended, and certain activities require it (driving on public roads, carrying a firearm on public property, etc.)
Just putting a "no guns" symbol on an ID card doesn't do much. My license expires in January, and I look a lot different now than I did in that picture. I could "borrow" someone else's ID that has a passing resemblance to what I currently look like. What mandates that someone surrenders their old license when prohibited? Sorry, I lost the old one. Not really, I'm going to use it to buy guns. It's not a simple "problem solved".

danez71 - Nothing is going to stop a very determined criminal.
But I bet you still lock your doors even though those locks "don't do much".
Don't get me wrong... I'm not if favor of giving the Govt more time to do the BC and if they can't do their job the buyer shouldn't suffer added delay. They need to get their act together.
But there IS a public perception issue. That fighting UBCs, and eliminating BCs completely, portray us as the shadowy dealers of no good.
So how do we change that? What are we doing to to change that?
Currently, we're doing nothing. And that's going to... it actually already is... leading to UBC.
It will be our own fault for not taking the horse by the reigns and instead, trying to say that a horse is of no use so kill the horse.
Just about the worst strategy ever.

Justin - In cases of fake IDs, where it can be shown that the seller was acting in a manner consistent with the law, they wouldn't be charged.
I never said it was a perfect system, but frankly, I'd much rather live in a world where the legal and judicial system treats legitimate gun owners as allies and the first line in keeping guns out of criminal hands. One of the reasons so many people chafe at so-called UBC laws is because such laws treat everyone like a criminal, regardless of whether or not they're an upstanding citizen.
Plenty of things require personal identification, from buying a beer to driving a car to holding a parade. I fail to see how this is any different. Or do you think it's a travesty that ID is required for those things?
Sure, but that would require a pretty decent amount of forethought on the part of the criminal class. Furthermore, implementing a standard policy of relinquishing an ID upon conviction would certainly be no more technically complex than standing up an entire secure computer network and requiring anyone who wants to buy a gun (including those who live in exceedingly rural areas) to drive to an FFL to do a transfer.
I would argue that it would certainly be more effective than the current system, whereby the feds can't be even be bothered to arrest, try, and convict criminals who fail background checks.

Justin - The policy I've suggested isn't perfect, but it's one that I would think would be effective for a couple of reasons.
1.) It would let any gun seller check the status of a person with a quick glance at their driver's license and make a go/no go decision right on the spot.
2.) It would not require the feds to stand up or expand a computer network and the attendant bureaucracy required to expand NICS.
3.) It doesn't treat gun owners like criminals.
4.) It would give the pro-rights side a serious talking point that they could use to counteract the calls to continue to centralize authority on background checks via the NICS system.

JSH1 - It is that desire for ideological purity that works against us. Someone that agrees with us on say 95% of things should be welcome. That is how we build a winning coalition.

End of comments made elsewhere.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Please don't confuse the two different threads as being about the same topic. I will post some of my suggestions and comments for creating a contingency plan as soon as I can.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Some of my thoughts for crafting a contingency plan to influence the language of an inevitable UBC to make it as benign as possible are:

No automatic denial if the check is not completed within a specific number of business days. This is not negotiable.

Demand nation wide reciprocity for state issued concealed carry permits as part of establishment of a UBC.

Requiring nothing more that proper ID much like the CWP I have in Arizona along with a photo ID to avoid the UBC. Perhaps a photo being place on the CWP could be used as a bargaining chip.

End the requirement for recording gun type and serial number. This will probably not be agreed to by our opponents but it could be part of bargaining for just he need of proper ID.

Require all FFLs to enable private to private transfers. The fee
for this service to be established by the marketplace. If no FFL is available within one hours driving distance, the a provision will be made for a government entity or agent to enable the transfer.

More idea to follow.

 

[Lord Teapot]

non compliance, and a plan to flood the courts/DA offices with nonsense paperwork until the law is rescinded, is a good contingency plan.

 

[Nom de Forum]

non compliance, and a plan to flood the courts/DA offices with nonsense paperwork until the law is rescinded, is a good contingency plan.

What part of "This also is not a thread for people who want to discuss way to evade any law or cache guns as part of a contingency plan" did you not understand.

Please make any similar comments in the other thread I mentioned or anywhere else but here. Thank you for your future courteous adherence to this request.

 

[JSH1]

I get what you are trying to do Nom de Forum but it isn't going to work. Any thread on background checks quickly returns to the same discussion and round and round we go in circles.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I get what you are trying to do Nom de Forum but it isn't going to work. Any thread on background checks quickly returns to the same discussion and round and round we go in circles.

I can only try, hope that people like you support the thread, and hope that others will demonstrate courtesy in limiting responses to the topic. To not try just empowers the voices of the extremists. At least there are a few paragraphs at the beginning of the thread that let others know some of us are thinking about more than unthinkingly charging to attack with language that is certainly less than productive in convincing people who are not yet our allies.

 

[Old Dog]

Well, we've seen how the "we will not comply" works here in Washington ... Guy has a rally in the capital, rally brings out all the crazies and attracts much negative media attention, making our gun owners look like whackjobs.

Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure there are many, many private sales being conducted of guns that'd been purchased prior to December 4, 2014 with no BCs being conducted and no paperwork filled out ... I-594 pretty much killed off our local for-sale/for-trade gunboards and is making a lot of money for FFLs who are charging ridiculous fees for a phone call and a few minutes worth of paperwork.

I don't agree that UBCs are necessarily inevitable in all states. Now, if federal legislation mandates them, that's another story, in which case, as the OP notes, we need to ensure the legislation is crafted so as to be as transparent and benign as possible.

Certainly, in Washington, the folks who wrote the actual law knew little to nothing about guns, firearms law, range customs, the state's gun history or our state tax system. I-594 was as poorly written as any law ever written -- but, in the end, so many of its provisions are purely unenforceable, to the point that most law enforcement agencies probably will never attempt to enforce many of those provisions.

 

[JSH1]

Well, we've seen how the "we will not comply" works here in Washington ... Guy has a rally in the capital, rally brings out all the crazies and attracts much negative media attention, making our gun owners look like whackjobs.

Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure there are many, many private sales being conducted of guns that'd been purchased prior to December 4, 2014 with no BCs being conducted and no paperwork filled out ... I-594 pretty much killed off our local for-sale/for-trade gunboards and is making a lot of money for FFLs who are charging ridiculous fees for a phone call and a few minutes worth of paperwork.

I don't agree that UBCs are necessarily inevitable in all states. Now, if federal legislation mandates them, that's another story, in which case, as the OP notes, we need to ensure the legislation is crafted so as to be as transparent and benign as possible.

Certainly, in Washington, the folks who wrote the actual law knew little to nothing about guns, firearms law, range customs, the state's gun history or our state tax system. I-594 was as poorly written as any law ever written -- but, in the end, so many of its provisions are purely unenforceable, to the point that most law enforcement agencies probably will never attempt to enforce many of those provisions.

The situation in Washington with I-594 is a perfect example of the wrong approach by the gun community. I-594 is poorly written and was written by people with little knowledge of guns and the shooting community. The gun community did not work those people to explain why some things won't work and try to make the language better. Instead the rejected it and opposed it from the start and wrote their own pie in the sky ballot initiative.

The gun community also "preached to the choir" and rolled out the same old "background checks = registration = confiscation" that makes gun owners look like paranoid nut jobs to moderate voters with no strong opinion on the matter. For a undecided voter they were presented with two arguments:

Pro I-594: This extend the same background checks currently required for sales by dealers to all sales. This will make our state safer.
Anti I-594: This law is worthless and will lead to the confiscation of all guns

It was predictable who won.

Even this year, opponents have tried to completely repeal the law instead of modifying it to remove the ridiculous stuff like being allowed to loan your gun to some in your presence if they are a minor but not if they are an adult.

 

[Sam1911]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but (as I've asked many times before in other "compromise" threads), why do we think we're going to have a "seat at the table" to get to write any of this grand new legislation?

And I think at this point the NRA (at least) has learned a pretty hard lesson about the harvest they reap in lost credibility if they even appear to be helping write deals with the devil. (Ahem ... "FOPA"?)

we as supporters of the RKBA should discuss what we can do to make it as benign as possible before a law is enacted.

It is perhaps an interesting exercise to ponder and pontificate how to help Satan steal your soul in such a way that it doesn't hurt too bad, but is it somehow more than some sort of mewling begging for mercy before the executioner, ... who won't ever hear your pleas anyway?

I don't mind pointless "thought exercises" but I sure hate to be party to the sort of self-loathing implied in this sort. Sort of the "Emo" approach to politics, what?

 

[X-Rap]

There have always been Quislings who wish to convince those hardliners who wish to hold on to their freedoms.

I don't mind pointless "thought exercises" but I sure hate to be party to the sort of self-loathing implied in this sort.

Spot on

 

[Sam1911]

At least there are a few paragraphs at the beginning of the thread that let others know some of us are thinking about more than unthinkingly charging to attack with language that is certainly less than productive in convincing people who are not yet our allies.

So are you trying to say that your goal ISN'T to help write the legislative language that will usher in the era of UBC? You're just trying to convince people that we're "reasonable" so you're pretending to support this stuff? Get them to NOT support UBC by pretending to support it yourself?

That's pretty subtle...

 

[PJSprog]

So, you're saying that you don't want people who disagree with you and your opinion to post their disagreements on your thread, and even go so far as to delineate the positions (some of yours, some of others like-minded) that you consider acceptable.

'K. Got it.

I would think that, after 2300+ posts, you would be a bit wiser as to how a community forum works.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but (as I've asked many times before in other "compromise" threads), why do we think we're going to have a "seat at the table" to get to write any of this grand new legislation?

We may not have a seat at the table but we can influence the discussion and our elected representatives.

And I think at this point the NRA (at least) has learned a pretty hard lesson about the harvest they reap in lost credibility if they even appear to be helping write deals with the devil. (Ahem ... "FOPA"?)

As you can tell from my signature line, I am a supporter of the NRA. That does not mean I am a mindless drone agreeing with and obeying the instructions of the NRA leadership. The NRA may be the biggest player in the game but they are not the only player. Are you telling me just because the NRA got it fingers burned, causing defections and new organizations to be created, it should not be creating the same type of contingency plans as (some of which are for the most improbably events) the military of all nations do? We are in a fight, even the most unexpected should be planned for.

It is perhaps an interesting exercise to ponder and pontificate how to help Satan steal your soul in such a way that it doesn't hurt too bad, but is it somehow more than some sort of mewling begging for mercy before the executioner, ... who won't ever hear your pleas anyway?

I don't mind pointless "thought exercises" but I sure hate to be party to the sort of self-loathing implied in this sort. Sort of the "Emo" approach to politics, what?

O.K. that is the second reference to the Devil/Satan to discredit both the opposition and any friends to the RKBA that think the discussion valid. I am trying to avoid that type of name calling in this thread.

I don’t see or feel any self-loathing. “Emo” ? Isn’t that some type of sex fetish? Don’t think any definition of “emo” applies. Neither do I think we will ever be given a seat at the table unless we have a pre-planned convincing explanation for why we should be given one.

One last thing. I don’t think your post is any thing like the suggestions and comments requested. It is just the type of post that can encourage others to derail the thread as evidenced by the post X-rap made immediately following it.

 

[Nom de Forum]

So are you trying to say that your goal ISN'T to help write the legislative language that will usher in the era of UBC? You're just trying to convince people that we're "reasonable" so you're pretending to support this stuff? Get them to NOT support UBC by pretending to support it yourself?

That's pretty subtle...

No.

Nothing subtle at all. A very straight forward attempt to discuss a contingency plan.

Still waiting for any suggestion for such a plan. If you don't have any you are just derailing the thread.

 

[ljnowell]

So, you're saying that you don't want people who disagree with you and your opinion to post their disagreements on your thread, and even go so far as to delineate the positions (some of yours, some of others like-minded) that you consider acceptable.

'K. Got it.

I would think that, after 2300+ posts, you would be a bit wiser as to how a community forum works.

Yep, you nailed it. That and we should all just give up and let the other side have their victory because it's inevitable.

 

[PJSprog]

If you don't have any you are just derailing the plan.

There are many who see that as a plan worth derailing. Count me amongst them.

 

[Deanimator]

So, you're saying that you don't want people who disagree with you and your opinion to post their disagreements on your thread, and even go so far as to delineate the positions (some of yours, some of others like-minded) that you consider acceptable.

I guess if they can't justify their own position, discouraging criticism of it by others will just have to do.

I think I'm going to follow their example and go on the National Science Foundation website and start a discussion of ways to cope with the the sun's rotation around the earth, while discouraging references to a heliocentric model of the solar system.

 

[R.Ph. 380]

Simple, Let your representative know that you OPPOSE UBC, you will actively work to unseat them if they work to pass it and let it go at that. Then back/support those who evidence an opposition to UBC and actively campaign for them. After all, that's what the Brady folks have been doing for the past 30 years. No necessity for long winded manifestos and implying that it's now a "bad" thing. YES it is, it curtails one of my basic liberties. I can dispose of My Property as I see fit, not how some politician in DC tells me I can.

Bill

 

[Deanimator]

Yep, you nailed it. That and we should all just give up and let the other side have their victory because it's inevitable.

So what you're telling me is that Joe Kennedy might have initially been wrong about that whole WWII thing?

 

[Nom de Forum]

So, you're saying that you don't want people who disagree with you and your opinion to post their disagreements on your thread, and even go so far as to delineate the positions (some of yours, some of others like-minded) that you consider acceptable.

'K. Got it.

Nope, ya don't got it.

I am not looking for suggestions that support my suggestions. I am looking of all types of suggestions for crafting a plan, some of which I probably not agree with. Please not some of the suggestions I delineated above are from people I do not have much agreement with.

I would think that, after 2300+ posts, you would be a bit wiser as to how a community forum works.

I have a far better understanding than you give me credit for. I am just more likely to stick my neck out posting on a controversial topic or taking an unpopular stance on issues than most folks. Even in the face of bad odds of having this thread stay on topic I am willing to try even if ridiculed. Its called displaying moral courage PJSprog.

 

[JSH1]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but (as I've asked many times before in other "compromise" threads), why do we think we're going to have a "seat at the table" to get to write any of this grand new legislation?

Any bill with a hope of passing needs votes from both parties. That is how you get a seat at the table. That is of course if the goal is to actually pass bills instead of grandstand for the base.

And I think at this point the NRA (at least) has learned a pretty hard lesson about the harvest they reap in lost credibility if they even appear to be helping write deals with the devil. (Ahem ... "FOPA"?)

That is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics today. The idea that even sitting down and trying to reach common ground is a betrayal. I assume you are using the Firearm Owner Protection Act as an example of bad legislation. However, it is an example of giving something to get something.

 

[Deanimator]

Even in the face of bad odds of having this thread stay on topic I am willing to try even if ridiculed. Its called displaying moral courage PJSrog.

Trofim Lysenko had the same sort of stick-to-it-ness in the face of harsh reality.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Some of the responses here indicate there are individuals who are terrified to even consider a contingency plan. So much so they will do anything to suppress a conversation about one. What happens if despite the best efforts to prevent a UBC coming up for a legislative vote it does, and we don't have any participation in crafting the language being voted on because we had no other plan but to denounce a UBC?

All you guys attacking this thread with comments other than suggestions for creating a plan are being very rude. You have that other thread in which to rant about the evils of UBC. I asked politely for even those opposed to a UBC to make suggestions for crafting a plan. What I am getting are the not unexpected rude comments that have nothing to do with the thread topic of making suggestions for crafting a plan.