Universal Background Check = Universal Registration.

[AlexanderA]

I agree completely with what ATLDave just said. Make the BGC system person-based and not transaction-based or gun-based. Issue a hard-to-forge document (perhaps a designator on the driver's license) that the person has passed a background check, has no criminal or other disqualifying record, and is eligible to buy a gun. Thereafter, this would be good at any seller, whether an FFL dealer or a private individual. The Form 4473 could be done away with completely. At most, all you would need would be a toll-free number or Web site where the seller could go and verify that the pre-screening was, in fact, valid.

 

[Deanimator]

Ah, I see the source of our failure to communicate. You are assuming that the whole world, or the American polity, is divided into pro-gun and anti-gun people. The majority of Americans aren't really either. I'm not talking about satisfying the anti-gun people... you're right as to their implacability. I'm talking about taking the steam out of their efforts to rile up the vast numbers of people who neither love nor revile guns, who are easily seduced by alleged "common sense."

If the anti-gun folks block something like what I'm suggesting, then the cynical middle will be more inclined to see the anti-gunners goals as they are.

Without them, there ISN'T any movement.

They DRIVE this movement and NOTHING happens in it without them.

 

[ATLDave]

In most states, existing CCW permits meet those criteria, Alex'. There's not even a new system/document to invent in most places.

 

[ATLDave]

Without them, there ISN'T any movement.

They DRIVE this movement and NOTHING happens in it without them.

Sure. But they're not going away. So how do you make sure their positions stay minority positions? By satisfying the middle 65% of the country that can get riled up, but isn't committed one way or the other.

This isn't complicated. This has been a pretty common political dynamic since... Athenian democracy.

 

[Deanimator]

I agree completely with what ATLDave just said. Make the BGC system person-based and not transaction-based or gun-based. Issue a hard-to-forge document (perhaps a designator on the driver's license) that the person has passed a background check, has no criminal or other disqualifying record, and is eligible to buy a gun. Thereafter, this would be good at any seller, whether an FFL dealer or a private individual. The Form 4473 could be done away with completely. At most, all you would need would be a toll-free number or Web site where the seller could go and verify that the pre-screening was, in fact, valid.

That makes perfect sense... as long as you completely discount the motivations of the other side.

NONE of that will be acceptable to the other side ESPECIALLY doing away with the 4473... falsification of which they steadfastly refuse to prosecute.

NOTHING rational is going to satisfy them.

 

[Deanimator]

Sure. But they're not going away. So how do you make sure their positions stay minority positions?

By hammering away at their lies.

By promoting firearms OWNERSHIP, not ever new and different LIMITATIONS on firearms ownership.

 

[ATLDave]

None of what I’ve suggested would be a new restriction on ownership.

And we can (and should) hammer away at lies, but they’ve got a bigger megaphone right now. You don’t give up, but merely arguing with them won’t be enough. We have to maneuver a bit.

 

[Old Dog]

I agree completely with what ATLDave just said. Make the BGC system person-based and not transaction-based or gun-based. Issue a hard-to-forge document (perhaps a designator on the driver's license) that the person has passed a background check, has no criminal or other disqualifying record, and is eligible to buy a gun. Thereafter, this would be good at any seller, whether an FFL dealer or a private individual. The Form 4473 could be done away with completely. At most, all you would need would be a toll-free number or Web site where the seller could go and verify that the pre-screening was, in fact, valid.

So how long would your background checks be good for? Six months? A year? If the background check is not routinely re-done on a regular basis, there is NO purpose in doing the initial b.c.

What agency is going to initiate this hypothetical background check? What databases would be searched? What agency will actually conduct and compile the information? Oh, and then a "hard to forge" document? More expense. There's no way background checks like this would be possible (even after the couple years the various government entities took to create, staff and train an agency to do them) without passing on significant expense to the citizen consumers.

Sorry, I just don't see this possible. We can't get inter-agency cooperation in my not heavily-populated state (why even those with CPLs are gonna have a ten-day waiting period to buy handguns and "assault rifles" come July 1, 2019), don't see it working on a nation scale.

 

[ATLDave]

Same as CCW’s - check at time of issuance, revocation if you become prohibited. This system ALREADY exists. Nothing new to create.

Of course it will not be perfect. But it will not burden our rights. And it would be something to offer that would persuade many that our side is willing to be constructive.

 

[Old Dog]

Same as CCW’s - check at time of issuance, revocation if you become prohibited.

I suspect you'd be surprised just how long after becoming a "prohibited person" one can keep a concealed handgun license in many jurisdictions. If you think any system routinely pings all the databases of CPL/CHL/CCW holders in every state should they have a misstep that would ultimately lead to revocation of their license, and then notifies their local LE agency, you would be wrong.

This system ALREADY exists. Nothing new to create.

Not everywhere, and yes, yes there is. Trust me, I work for the government.

 

[Old Dog]

Oh, and the folks pushing for universal gun registration know all this, which is exactly why a one-time background check will never fly.

 

[George P]

Same as CCW’s - check at time of issuance, revocation if you become prohibited. This system ALREADY exists. Nothing new to create.

Of course it will not be perfect. But it will not burden our rights. And it would be something to offer that would persuade many that our side is willing to be constructive.

Why are we having to "offer" up something YET AGAIN. We have never gotten anything in return of equal value. They are not interested in being constructive; why is that SO HARD for some to see? They are using Soviet style negotiating tactics; look up Khrushchev at the UN. Their stance was not to negotiate to a "win-win" settlement. They HAD to win and we HAD to lose; the left is using the same tactics.

 

[ATLDave]

You guys are missing the point. This is a thing to offer that costs us nothing we care about. If it goes forward, great. If it is rejected, also fine. What’s in it is that it mollifies the moderates and makes the anti-gunners appear unreasonable. Right now, they are doing a good job of making the moderates see US as unreasonable. That’s the name of the game.

 

[Sistema1927]

One would think that it is incumbent on the other side to prove that GCA '68, NICS, 4473's, etc. have had ANY impact on violent crime by keeping bad people from obtaining firearms.

I would argue, and rightly so, that none of these things have ever stopped more than a tiny fraction of criminal activities, and have, instead, proven to be an un-Constitutional infringement of the rights of law abiding citizens.

That is the story that we need to tell, loud and often.

 

[ATLDave]

I agree with all of that. But that story isn’t being heard/understood.

Violence is a function of culture, not laws. But our politics are also a function of culture. We’d better figure something out fast, because the culture is against us right now. I’d rather offer something that costs us nothing than have them force something that costs us a lot. And I think that’s the choice before us. Keep everything as-is isn’t going to be an option for long.

I’m in my mid-40’s. My daughter is only 10. She won’t have any meaningful gun rights left by the time she stands to inherit my stuff if we don’t figure out something beyond counting on the GOP to win every national election.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Likewise, nobody who MATTERS has the slightest interest in half measures to disarm the American public as an endpoint. To the people who RUN this movement, a total handgun BAN would be a "good first step". "Negotiations" with irrelevant peripheral characters is nothing more than kabuki theater of the most contemptible sort.

The AG crowd has been off of the handgun ban for quite awhile now. They really got that pot to boil in the 80's. Since then a lot of good things have happened for people who want to be able to own and carry a handgun. We had Heller and McDonald. We've also seen many states move toward constitutional carry and shall issue. Shall issue as we all know is based on BGC's (permits).

Like others have said, this thing can be moderated, or even turned around like shall issue, by convincing legislators to write legislation that people can live with. I'm sure there are a lot of people in my state that would like to see my ability to get a permit to carry, or my ability to open carry, or my ability to own a SA rifle made illegal. Those people are in the radical minority and the chances of that happening are zero. The reason is not a single one of them can make a good case for it. The same holds true of legislation like a UBC that restricts (not prohibits) my ability to purchase a firearm. I'm already restricted but I still own about 15 firearms including some SA rifles. The fact that I have to get a BGC isn't going to prohibit me because I'm not a prohibited person. I'm not terribly concerned about BGC's because we've had those since Brady and I get several every year. What I am concerned about is outright bans like the last AWB. I would much prefer to not have anymore gun control but I'll be getting some more regardless because I live in a blue state.

The difference between getting a BGC (permit) to carry and not being able to carry is huge. Ask those people in TX about that. The difference between getting a BGC (permit) to buy an AR or not being able to even own one is also huge.

 

[jar]

I have no issue with not just a Universal Background Check but even some form of regular re-certification including medical records. And while we are at it, I would support a citizenship registry as well.

 

[Walkalong]

The majority of Americans aren't really either.

Yep, and don't care, but it isn't them who are pushing the anti gun agenda, it's a handful of politicians and rich Socialist types who will never stop until we are disarmed.

They got one great big one during the Obama administration, and to add disarmament would be the final nail in the coffin.

Registration leads to confiscation which leads to genocide, just check history. Can't happen here? Hogwash.

UBC will lead to registration, plain and simple.

 

[Walkalong]

Right now, they are doing a good job of making the moderates see US as unreasonable. That’s the name of the game.

One small part of the propaganda. The risk of moderates thinking we are unreasonable is just fine with me, many do, but if we are unwilling to draw a line in the sand and stand up for what we believe in we are doomed.

 

[Deanimator]

The AG crowd has been off of the handgun ban for quite awhile now.

They were NEVER "off" of it and are ON it in a BIG way.

 

[CapnMac]

I agree with all of that. But that story isn’t being heard/understood.

And, it certainly appears (just appears) that the anti crowd prefers it that way, which better lumps the apathetic middle in with the AG crowd.

As I pointed out four pages ago, the entire NICS system could be made a blind system accessible by a smartphone app. All using off-the-shelf tech and coding. As in easy enough to get done in less than 90 days easy.

Mind, the problem would be that such a plan with break the rice bowls of all the current NICS employees--pretty much a no-go. Also, the system would only be as good as the current NICS.

But, efficient and easy is not the point. The point is control. To take one more thing from "us" and reserve to the elite to keep for themselves, and to dole out at their whim to their sycophants and cronies.

So, the argument starts from a flawed premise. UBC will not fix the gaps in NICS. UBC cannot be "universal" without some way to track every possible firearm. Which is why a UBC must needs eventually lead to registration (I strongly suspect WA's UBC only "works" right now because compliance is lower than Canada's now-repealed registration).

It's not possible to make the illegal more illegal, no matter how many laws get enacted. Unfortunately the apathetic middle does not want to stop and hear that. They have been inculcated to believe that you can compound anything. The middle wants to stay focused upon their own status quo, They want to assume that if a politician is calling for a law, that it means there is no other existing law already. "We" can't even tell them that there are already 20,000 gun laws on the books already, that just will not make sense to them--guns are just one thing, so why would you need more than one law?

The harder part is that "we" cannot afford to become divided. And, UBCs are showing excellent traction in fracturing "our" side. That is the evil. That is the danger.

 

[Anchorite]

Unless every single gun you've ever bought was done face to face with no 4473 involved you are already in the system. They may not know exactly WHICH guns you own, but someone in an alphabet agency knows you are a gun owner. I don't see a huge difference.

I always wondered - when you purchase and the FFL makes that call, and you get a “proceed,” there is a number given to that “check” that is written on the 4473. Why?

 

[ATLDave]

Yep, and don't care, but it isn't them who are pushing the anti gun agenda, it's a handful of politicians and rich Socialist types who will never stop until we are disarmed.

They got one great big one during the Obama administration, and to add disarmament would be the final nail in the coffin.

Registration leads to confiscation which leads to genocide, just check history. Can't happen here? Hogwash.

UBC will lead to registration, plain and simple.

I agree. That’s why we need to come up with something OTHeR than UBC to placate the masses.

 

[George P]

I agree with all of that. But that story isn’t being heard/understood.

Violence is a function of culture, not laws. But our politics are also a function of culture. We’d better figure something out fast, because the culture is against us right now. I’d rather offer something that costs us nothing than have them force something that costs us a lot. And I think that’s the choice before us. Keep everything as-is isn’t going to be an option for long.

I’m in my mid-40’s. My daughter is only 10. She won’t have any meaningful gun rights left by the time she stands to inherit my stuff if we don’t figure out something beyond counting on the GOP to win every national election.

YOU aren't going to have anything left by the time you're 50 if you keep giving up without getting anything in return; that is a sign of weakness to them (or indifference on our part)

 

[George P]

One small part of the propaganda. The risk of moderates thinking we are unreasonable is just fine with me, many do, but if we are unwilling to draw a line in the sand and stand up for what we believe in we are doomed.

I just don't believe we still have a chance. As mentioned here and elsewhere by many, they have won the war without firing a shot