Universal Background Check = Universal Registration.

[boom boom]

Are they "smoked out" if the media never reports it?

That is a problem and always a problem--however, more ways to get around the media and gatekeepers today exist. Furthermore, the media's influence is swirling around the toilet as they abandon news for advocacy. At the state level, I suggest forming state level organizations that develop connections or reinvigorating those in existence--do no rely on the NRA at the state level as they have their own agenda and usually use hired gun lobbyists and astroturf type campaigns. Instead, do the hard slog of contacting even those legislators who are hostile, develop relationships, testify before committees, arrange for hard to miss media activities, etc.

At the national level, participation is more difficult and that makes it all the more necessary to band together for collective opposition, even if they do not agree with every jot and tittle of that organization's methods. Smaller, more honey badger type groups can also work. But you must spend the time which is the one thing that billionaires won't do. They will pay underlings and supervise them but don't expect seeing them at townhalls for candidates--they rely on money and bought persuasion for their acts. Long run, it can be fought by authenticity and mass popular support.

 

[Deanimator]

That is a problem and always a problem--however, more ways to get around the media and gatekeepers today exist.

What are they, and what if they're every bit as biased as the TV networks? It won't be long before Twitter and Facebook BAN criticism of invidiously racist gun controls.

The other side has no interest in "compromise" and never has had.

 

[Kaybee]

"The other side". Well, yeah, there some serious grabbers out there, but I think there are many many moderates that simply aren't knowledgeable. I think anti groups are better at or have more power to reach out to those moderate people. I don't know the solution to that.

 

[Deanimator]

"The other side". Well, yeah, there some serious grabbers out there, but I think there are many many moderates that simply aren't knowledgeable. I think anti groups are better at or have more power to reach out to those moderate people. I don't know the solution to that.

They're not running the show.

EVERY chance I get, prove to the uninformed that they're being lied to.

The "movement" as a movement is maximalist and eliminationist.

 

[boom boom]

What are they, and what if they're every bit as biased as the TV networks? It won't be long before Twitter and Facebook BAN criticism of invidiously racist gun controls.

The other side has no interest in "compromise" and never has had.

Not saying that that hard core gun control advocates will and there is such a thing as Usenet, blogs and comment sections, forums like this, etc. that can be used to coordinate messages and get news out. There are also ways to avoid triggering the auto ban stuff, especially Facebook-hint--text in pictures using memes etc., posting non-primary links such as maketinyurl etc. Twitter is not something that most ordinary folks use anyway and the general unpleasant experience is best avoided.

However, the electronic media is not the most influential source--the best is start with your friends and families, get involved in local politics, organizations, etc. The real hollowing out of America has occurred when far too many people go home and watch the tube, game, etc. to the exclusion of any kind of community engagement. That kind of signal is impossible for the gatekeepers to block and impossible to buy off. That also means engaging in projects like Appleseed, either on a formal or informal basis to train and advise new shooter. Ultimately, for us to succeed, we don't have to give up our core beliefs but we do have to actively recruit and engage in the political system.

 

[Kaybee]

To stay on topic,

1. In theory, can we have BG checks without registration? Yes.
2. With or without registration will BGCs "solve" anything? nope. Best case they will make illegal guns marginally more expensive for criminals. Maybe that's not terrible. Dunno. Doesn’t feel urgent to me.
3. Can we ever have a real public conversation about it? No. For a lot of reasons. Mainly, I think most people with influence seem to benefit from everyone fighting about it.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Using that logic there is no need to pass any new laws.

I agree.

 

[CapnMac]

The fundamental problem with UBC is that it relies upon a flawed premise. The Premise being that the NICS prohibited person list is accurate, complete, and without error.

Depending upon the source you find, the NICS is between 61% and 74% complete. Between 18 and 38 states (again, depoending upon source) have not fully contributed disqualifying information required by NICS. (Some troubling reports that as many as 7 or states have given no information to NICS.)

There are around 4 million names (I could look up in that recent older thread, but, it's late and I'm tired) on the Prohibited Person list. A 16% error in that number is 680,000 persons. More than half a million. Additionally, there has never been an audit of the NICS information, so no one really knows if Coyote, Wylie, E., of Roadrunner, AZ is listed. Or the number of Smiths, John, or Sanchez, Juan, etc. that are duplicated on the list, either. No one much seems to have a plan for even asking about an audit, let alone actually performing one. Which is not helped by the 80's technology SQL query system NICS uses. Something the original FixNICS legislation was meant to repair, said legistation being squashed for "political" reasons more than 8 years ago (and reborn 4 years later as an antigun measure, a wolf in sheep's clothing).

That is the system that is intended to have several million more requests made of it in a day, week, month or whatever it turns out to be. And, only works when law abiding people comply with yet another infringement.

Call me cynical--many do--but, UBC seems to be set up to fail. And that failure to use as a goad for worse, that worse being UGR.

@AlexanderA makes excellent points, and proposes a valid and workable solution. Which would be mete, if, in fact, the desired end were a workable, useful solution. I'm nowhere near the brightest candle on the cake, even with 16 years in Information Warfer--but, I can write a structured query SQL script that could be plugged into an app, which would blind search zero 4th Amendment issues) the NICS. But, that would require having the NICS be mirrored somewhere with blind public access. Off the shelf stuff, every bit of it. But, that's not what is being proposed. What's being proposed is more window dressing and make-work.

 

[Casefull]

We should not have most of the gun laws that we have now. Yet some in this thread want to compromise away more of their rights. What in the hell is the matter with us?

 

[Deanimator]

The fundamental problem with UBC is that it relies upon a flawed premise. The Premise being that the NICS prohibited person list is accurate, complete, and without error.

Two even MORE fundamental problems are:

1. the presumption that it's stated purpose is it's REAL purpose.
2. the presumption of innocent motives on the part of its proponents.

 

[boom boom]

We should not have most of the gun laws that we have now. Yet some in this thread want to compromise away more of their rights. What in the hell is the matter with us?

Emotionally and philosophically, I agree with your statement as a civil libertarian-to me, all of the constitution and the Bill of Rights is important. Considering what I do, I feel the loss of historic liberties across the board very acutely. Your argument is no less an echo of what the colonists in the U.S. were debating from 1760's to 1776 regarding their relationship with England. But the colonists had an advantage in that the British government was way over there across an ocean that we do not have. Our governments have a massive presence that enforce a status quo of stability backed up by a popular majority of civil society.

In a republic such as ours, we have a representative system of government and if our elected officials decide to "compromise" in the people's name, they can do so. Furthermore, the politicians in black robes decide whether or not that "compromise" actually violates our rights and usually side with the government, especially regarding maintaining internal order. Remember that a primary function of the court system is to punish lawbreakers and unfortunately a lot of firearms are used to break those laws. It is also the court's presumption is that all laws passed by Congress are constitutional--people challenging such have the burden of proof in the case. Reliance on courts to roll back half baked legislation is not an optimal solution. The courts have never treated firearm ownership under the 2A as a civil right but instead they treat it more like the 4th Amendment where the court balances 2A rights versus its affect on society. The popular impulse behind the evisceration of the 4th Amendment is the same as in the 2A--societal stability being affected by crime. Voters want "bad people" stopped from doing bad things and thus law enforcement should be given all of the tools that it wants to stop bad people from committing crimes. Thus, Mayor Bloomberg set up street corner mass friskings of citizens in crime hotspots for firearms without warrants with little overall outrage from the public. It was only ended when DeBlasio received complaints from his political supporters and the ACLU filed suit that the policy was ended.

IN our case, those supporting gun rights can vote against politicians that pass such acts as a UBC or propose them and in states where UBC passed by referendum--then you are directly challenging the "will of the people" but you cannot "fire" the voters. Thus, you have to work the political system to find those politicians that will basically thwart the will of the people through non-enforcement. But in the end, if the bill is passed--you have two choices (neither is palatable). Swallow losing a bit more of your rights and prepare for the next encroachment or resist passively or actively via the political system.

What some are doing above, like Alexander A, is game planning what to do if UBC looks like it is going to pass to make the best out of an awful situation. He faces a real risk of UBC's coming to his state and thus his responses are coming from a concrete situation. The trick then is to do what the House Dems did with FOPA via the Hughes Amendment. Retention of liberties requires subverting the bureaucratic state via waivers, carveouts, statutory limits (such as forbidding NICS information from being retained or the use of 4473's in constructing a registry). If such a law passes, it is best to make it as toothless and useless to guncontrollers as another step to creating a registry while making it look like government is "doing something".

I suspect that if the Dems gain power over all three branches in 2020 that something like this might possibly pass. It is possible that public pressure from another horrid school shooting or terror event could also trigger enough Republicans to vote with Dems to pass it to look like they are doing something and under the right circumstances, even a Republican president might sign it. No one really knows what random events will happen in the next two years, let alone longer time frames.

But, politicians view loss of power as a personal disaster so A) they like to hedge their bets (thus we need to have reasonable off the shelf amendments to a UBC that gut such a law prepared) and B) acknowledge the pressure of the popular wave recedes shortly after the event and even more so if "something is done." Putting in trapdoors and backdoors that weaken the whole structure of gun control means that a tactical defeat such as a useless UBC law does not mean a strategic defeat. Enough politicians worried about their survival might allow such trapdoors because it reduces the incentives of angry voters to throw them out. Useless laws with little actual effect are passed all of the time that in principle violate our rights but in actuality are so difficult to enforce that they have little effect (think of laws against suicide or a law against jay-walking). If such laws do become enforced, then public outrage usually curtails the practice, either through renewed non-enforcement or repeal.

To flip Clausewitz, "Politics is the continuation of war by other means" and like war, there is no permanent victories nor permanent defeats--there is only perpetual struggle by voters to peaceably determine how our nation is run. God help us if ordinary politics no longer can fulfill that function. To live in a civil society, one must engage in the political system--disengagement from it means that you can complain from the sidelines but you and the causes that you support will be ignored or be at the mercy of those on the field.

 

[Casefull]

I don't agree that working with the anti-gun liberals to slowly give up our rights is the only way we can go. We need to take a page from their anti-gun book. They never give an inch and we should not either. We need to continue to support pro gun organizations like the NRA and push for new laws to gain back our Second Amendment rights.
I can hate the delusional anti-gunners for what they are doing to our freedoms and our way of life but I do admire their tenacity of which we do not have enough. I do not pretend to know all the ways that that can be done.

 

[AlexanderA]

What some are doing above, like Alexander A, is game planning what to do if UBC looks like it is going to pass to make the best out of an awful situation. He faces a real risk of UBC's coming to his state and thus his responses are coming from a concrete situation. The trick then is to do what the House Dems did with FOPA via the Hughes Amendment. Retention of liberties requires subverting the bureaucratic state via waivers, carveouts, statutory limits (such as forbidding NICS information from being retained or the use of 4473's in constructing a registry). If such a law passes, it is best to make it as toothless and useless to guncontrollers as another step to creating a registry while making it look like government is "doing something".

Yes. That's exactly where I'm coming from. Much as I would like for the RKBA to remain untouched and unsullied, that's not what's likely to happen in Virginia. Actually, a UBC system ("closing the gun show loophole") is the least of our worries here. We're staring a draconian AWB in the face. That would affect me so directly that I would have to consider leaving the state. And at age 74 moving would be a really big deal for me.

 

[boom boom]

I don't agree that working with the anti-gun liberals to slowly give up our rights is the only way we can go. We need to take a page from their anti-gun book. They never give an inch and we should not either. We need to continue to support pro gun organizations like the NRA and push for new laws to gain back our Second Amendment rights.
I can hate the delusional anti-gunners for what they are doing to our freedoms and our way of life but I do admire their tenacity of which we do not have enough. I do not pretend to know all the ways that that can be done.

Here is Alexander A's dilemma from what I understand, he has a Democratic governor who has a core campaign promise to institute a state UBC, the House and Senate in VA are controlled by one vote by Republicans with new elections in fall 2019. Bloomberg and others have poured money into state races to overturn that majority. Some of those Republicans are in NoVa which have voters look more favorably on things like UBC's. Now, consider whether the Republicans in those districts might want to retain their seats and that if some sort of UBC is passed that a lot of anti-voters might stay home. If you are not in their district, then you are not their constituent and they really do not give a damn about what you feel. Thus, in more rural areas, with a favorable electorate, a representative can oppose it safely because it will not affect their reelection. In an suburban/urban area, it might affect reelection.

Here is the dilemma, as a person outside of those contested districts, do you a) give money to a "squish" Rep that voted for a UBC with sufficient mutilation that it is impotent, b) work to get them out of office via a primary etc.
That representative's calculus is what is going to cause them to be reelected.

Sorry to speak for you Alexander A, our posts crossed.

 

[alfsauve]

There should be a means of pre-qualifying gun buyers.

Ah, wouldn't the 2nd amendment, shouldn't the 2nd amendment be all the pre-qualifying I need?

Why should I need to "prove" anything to anybody?

 

[CoalTrain49]

But of course the other side would never agree to such a thing because it negates the very purpose of the legislation, which is not to deter crime, but to deter LAWFUL firearms ownership, and to facilitate its future elimination.

Don't you have to propose the deal before someone can reject it? In this state, because I have a CPL, I don't have to wait the mandatory 10 days to purchase. In that case somebody recognized that I have already been vetted. The problem I have is the fed won't honor my CPL so I still go through NICS.

The trick is to become vetted, however you do that, either with a carry permit, a FOID card, or fingerprints. Any of those works for me.

The way it stands right now all you have is NICS between you and someone who is about to kill 25 people. A through state background check one time should be enough. If you look at the statistics from the Texas Handgun Licensing Program you could get a better idea of who's doing the killing and who isn't.

http://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2017.pdf

For me anyway, to not address the ever louder drumbeat for a UBC with something like a state permit is just asking for more federal legislation. Stand around long enough without putting forth some plan for your state legislators and you will surly be thrown to the socialist wolves in congress. It's already too late for some of us because we took little or no action in the face of a UBC. You will be singing a different tune about compromise when the left dictates the terms of your surrender. 11 states already have a UBC. Stop and think about that for a minute.

 

[Deanimator]

Don't you have to propose the deal before someone can reject it?

Don't you have to believe that a REAL "deal" is possible before proposing one?

Five seconds of listening to the other side is all it takes to know that there isn't going to BE any "deal" that doesn't end with them having guns and you not.

But perhaps you might actually believe that there really IS a Nigerian prince eager to give you $10,000,000. That's more likely than there being a "deal", or even more so, the other side living up to it.

The way it stands right now all you have is NICS between you and someone who is about to kill 25 people.

The way it stands right now, or any time in the future, all you have is somebody with a gun between you and someone who is about to kill 25 people. And he most likely won't be a cop.

For me anyway, to not address the ever louder drumbeat for a UBC with something like a state permit is just asking for more federal legislation.

Ohio doesn't have a state permit (other than for CCW) and we're nowhere near getting one.

The other side (from me, anyway) demands TOTAL SURRENDER. Partial surrender, especially one which lays the groundwork for a total victory for the other side is NEVER going to satisfy them, much less deter them.

I'm not interested in "negotiating" the number of bags I can take with me when I'm "resettled to the east". I already know what's going to happen to them... and me, when I get there.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Ah, wouldn't the 2nd amendment, shouldn't the 2nd amendment be all the pre-qualifying I need?

Why should I need to "prove" anything to anybody?

You shouldn't but Brady has been in effect since 1993. That's where this idea of BC's came from. Just because you shouldn't doesn't mean you won't. Brady is a nat'l BGC. Congress is very close to passing a universal BGC. Universal means it will effect everyone, not just people purchasing from a dealer. You can stick your head in the sand if you like but that doesn't mean you won't get a UBC. Like I said, 11 states already have one. I'm sure a lot of those people that live in those states thought they would never get one either. Most of those people probably weren't pro active with their legislators either. They woke up one morning with a UBC and there was absolutely nothing in the language that cut anything out for them......nothing.

 

[Deanimator]

You shouldn't but Brady has been in effect since 1993. That's where this idea of BC's came from. Just because you shouldn't doesn't mean you won't. Brady is a nat'l BGC. Congress is very close to passing a universal BGC. Universal means it will effect everyone, not just people purchasing from a dealer. You can stick your head in the sand if you like but that doesn't mean you won't get a UBC. Like I said, 11 states already have one.

The Fugitive Slave Law was in effect for a while.

Then it wasn't.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Don't you have to believe that a REAL "deal" is possible before proposing one?

Anything is possible my friend. You just have to be willing to try and make it happen.

Five seconds of listening to the other side is all it takes to know that there isn't going to BE any "deal" that doesn't end with them having guns and you not.

You must not be a contract bridge player. Every hand has points in it. It's your job to figure out where the points are and bid appropriately. If you don't you will always loose the game. Your defeatist attitude suggests that there is no point in trying to figure out a plan to score a few points even if you have a bad hand. Even a football team will take a field goal when a touchdown looks unlikely. You want to win every hand and score a touchdown with every possession. Doesn't work like that. We've been playing this RKBA game since NFA and it isn't over, not even close.

Ohio doesn't have a state permit (other than for CCW) and we're nowhere near getting one.

Not everyone lives in Ohio. If we get a UBC from congress you'll have one.

I'm not interested in "negotiating" the number of bags I can take with me when I'm "resettled to the east". I already know what's going to happen to them... and me, when I get there.

Your choice. I have to move on with my life, even with a UBC.

 

[Deanimator]

Anything is possible my friend. You just have to be willing to try and make it happen.

Possible is different from probable, and both are entirely distinct from desirable.

Nobody has yet to explain to me why I'd WANT to surrender to an implacable enemy whose word is utterly worthless.

You must not be a contract bridge player.

I'm not. I'm an historian and political scientist.

This is a con on the level of the Sudetenland, and I'm not falling for it.

Your defeatist attitude suggests that there is no point in trying to figure out a plan to score a few points even if you have a bad hand.

Calling MY attitude "defeatist" is hilarious.

I'm not the one counseling incremental surrender to an eliminationist foe.

And of course here in Ohio, we were told we had a "bad hand" when we fought for shall issue CCW. It's the job of your enemy (and they are enemies) to convince you that you have a "bad hand". It's my job to not believe them or their fifth columnists. I'm not going to keep "compromising" until I have nothing left but gun BOOKS, and I've been told I'll have to give THEM up too.

This isn't 1940 and even if it were, I'd be telling Joe Kennedy to chase himself.

There are some here who were this March of 1945, would be counseling us to "make a deal with" the Japanese.

 

[jmorris]

All new laws that place restrictions on the 2nd Amendment are stepping stones towards the end goal of elimination of it or as is popular these days redefining it to mean something other than what it meant when written.

 

[Sistema1927]

Maybe we need enough gun control restrictions to ensure that nobody has any firearms. Total prohibition always works, doesn't it. [/sarcasm]

Anybody who thinks that any restrictions on law abiding citizens will stop criminals is a few bricks short of a load.

 

[Old Dog]

In this state, because I have a CPL, I don't have to wait the mandatory 10 days to purchase. In that case somebody recognized that I have already been vetted.

And that also changes on July 1, 2019. Even CPL holders will no longer have the waiting period waived. And that was nothing to to with I-594 or I-1639.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I'm not going to keep "compromising" until I have nothing left but gun BOOKS, and I've been told I'll have to give THEM up too.

Like I said, that's your choice.

When people get so entrenched in their total rejection of a situation, like the Japanese did, they get to deal with an unconditional surrender and the death of your civilians.

You hold up your CCW like some sort of a prize. These are the conditions for being able to CC in Ohio.

• Must be at least 21 years old
• You have completed an approved firearms training class of 8 hours
• Non-Residents: If you live in another state you must be employed in Ohio
• You must not have had a concealed carry license issued by another state suspended
• You must not have been convicted of, pleaded guilty to, or adjudicated a delinquent child for committing a violation of section 2919.25 of the Revised Code (Domestic violence) or a similar violation in another state
• You must not be under indictment, be charged with, or convicted of any felony
• You also must not be under indictment, charged with, or convicted of an offense that involves trafficking in drugs, a misdemeanor offense of violence, or negligent assault.
• In addition, you must not have been convicted, pleaded guilty, or been adjudicated as delinquent in connection with a crime that involves the illegal use, sale, possession, administration, distribution, or trafficking of a drug of abuse.
• You cannot have been convicted, pleaded guilty, or been adjudicated as delinquent for assaulting a peace officer
• You must not, within three years of your application, have been convicted, pleaded guilty, or been adjudicated as delinquent in connection with a misdemeanor offense of violence
• You may not obtain a license if you have been charged with falsification of a concealed handgun license
• You must not be subject to a civil protection order or a temporary protection order of an Ohio court or a similar protection order issued by another state
• You must not have been convicted, pleaded guilty, or been adjudicated as delinquent in connection with two or more assaults or negligent assaults within five years of your application
• You must not have been convicted, pleaded guilty, or adjudicated as delinquent in connection with resisting arrest within 10 years of your application. If you are charged with an offense during the application process, the sheriff can suspend your application until your case is resolved

I suspect you'll also need a BGC.

That looks like a pretty long lists of conditions to me. If you have a CCW then by that fact you have made "compromises" to do that.

I don't know tho, maybe you don't carry. I do however and I'll meet the conditions to do that.