Interesting take on UBC

[TX1911fan]

The Wall Street Journal made an interesting point about universal background checks the other day in their "Best of the Web" column. As it is now, only FFLs are required to, but more importantly, are allowed to access the NICS background check system. Once UBC is passed (if it is), anyone theoretically has access to the UBC. Even if you have to go through an FFL. So what happens when I decide I want some dirt on someone so I seek a background check on them. It would be some pretty good dirt if they failed the background check, right? Has anyone heard of any controls proposed that would prevent unnecessary background checks?

 

[steveno]

I think you would only get a pass/fail answer and not a why. when a nics check is called in you don't get the "why" as it is now.

 

[JustinJ]

You do realize that you can already pull a background check on just about anybody with extreme ease already, no nics required? Also, as i understand it the NIC's gives the FFL either a yes or a no, not a list of past transgressions.

 

[PavePusher]

Firstly, I don't know of any language in any bill being pushed that opens NICS access to the public. If there is some, please cite to it.

Secondly, NICS only gives a "proceed" (with transfer)- or "do not proceed"-type response, with no indication of what reason for a "d.n.p."

Please, do some reading, or ask some questions, on the subject before actually speculating.

:banghead:

 

[TX1911fan]

PavePusher, perhaps you didn't read my post where I stated that it was in the WALL STREET JOURNAL where I read THEIR speculation on the issue. In order to have UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS, would the public not need to have access to NICS in order to perform a background check for a face to face sale? And the point was not the why, but just the fact that someone did not pass. The point the WALL STREET JOURNAL made was "who cares why they didn't pass. They didn't pass, and usually you fail to pass for a bad reason."

 

[semperfi63]

tx1911fan no the public would not get access to NICS because it was never about the background check. you would have to go to a licensed dealer because it has always been about getting the transaction recorded so they could trace the gun. Which is why it is funny that Obama said the NRA willfully lied about the creation of a database

 

[rdhood]

I think you would only get a pass/fail answer and not a why. when a nics check is called in you don't get the "why" as it is now.

Exactly. To find out "why", the person denied must appeal by sending a letter and a set of fingerprints... and wait 6 months.

 

[Justin]

I would actually be much more supportive of a law that would let anyone, including Joe Schmoe run a NICS check for any reason than the current mess of a law that forces everyone to go through an FFL on pain of being thrown in prison.

 

[mrvco]

Being able to run a background check on yourself in advance of a firearm purchase, print it and show it to prove that you are go to go (at your LGS or for private-party transactions) would be a huge improvement over the current system.

Of course I'd also like to be able to use my CCW Permit in lieu of a background check at my LGS.

 

[TX1911fan]

mrvco, I do that now. Is that a state thing? I thought it was a federal thing.