Universal Background Check = Universal Registration.

[Walkalong]

to placate the masses.

The masses don't care unless it hits them in the pocket book or takes something away from them.

 

[Walkalong]

I just don't believe we still have a chance

We have a chance, but we have let it get to the point where it is much slimmer than before. One more reason to draw a line in the sand and say no.

they have won the war without firing a shot

And told us in advance, yet the masses have let it happen because they don't care until it affects them, but when it finally does and they wake up, it may be too late.

We have been in a non shooting war with the antis for decades.

 

[ATLDave]

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

I think maybe you’ve lost track of what I suggested. Which is NOT UBC’s. Earlier in this thread, I explained to some other posters why they SHOuLD worry about UBc’s as commonly proposed.

 

[ATLDave]

The masses don't care unless it hits them in the pocket book or takes something away from them.

No, the masses are currently whipped up into an anti-gun mood by persistent media and by the pro-gun forces having gotten out of their lanes. The masses are currently against us. We need to settle that down fast.

 

[AlexanderA]

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

Well, the concealed-carry permit would serve the purpose, but you would have to have a way for people without concealed-carry permits to be pre-screened. After all, why should we require people to get CCW training just to buy a gun? The purchase pre-screening would be for a broader public than just concealed carriers. And once you set up this broader system, then for the sake of uniformity have it apply to concealed carriers too.

BTW, this pre-screening process (such as by putting a designator on driver's licenses) would be initiated by the potential gun buyers. We don't want to create the presumption or impression that if you don't have such a designator on your license, then you are a felon or other prohibited person. You may simply be someone who's not interested in guns.

 

[ATLDave]

Sure. And going through the FFL 4473 process would remain an option. The important thing is to keep enough “leaks” in the system that it doesn’t work as a registry.

 

[George P]

Well, the concealed-carry permit would serve the purpose, but you would have to have a way for people without concealed-carry permits to be pre-screened. After all, why should we require people to get CCW training just to buy a gun? The purchase pre-screening would be for a broader public than just concealed carriers. And once you set up this broader system, then for the sake of uniformity have it apply to concealed carriers too.

BTW, this pre-screening process (such as by putting a designator on driver's licenses) would be initiated by the potential gun buyers. We don't want to create the presumption or impression that if you don't have such a designator on your license, then you are a felon or other prohibited person. You may simply be someone who's not interested in guns.

The LAST thing I want is something on my license indicating I have a CWFL. I have no duty to inform LEO, nor do I need to alert any store clerk, doctor's office etc.
You folks arguing for more concessions must be too young to remember the recent past

 

[AlexanderA]

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.

The pre-screening document would be good until and unless something happens to make the person ineligible to buy a gun. For example, upon conviction of a felony or domestic-violence misdemeanor, the convicting court would have the person surrender the document. This action would be part of a checklist for judges.

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.

All this would be done more or less the same as NICS checks are done now. Except that the buyer would initiate the process rather than an FFL dealer. The results would be passed on to the buyer's driver's license agency, which would send him a new license with the gun-buying approval designator on it. Regarding cost, such a system would certainly cost less, in total, than the UBC systems being proposed, which would have FFL's collecting transfer fees for every transaction. You would only have one (nominal) fee for the initial check.

 

[Jackal]

We have universal background checks here in WA. There's no registration...

 

[George P]

The pre-screening document would be good until and unless something happens to make the person ineligible to buy a gun. For example, upon conviction of a felony or domestic-violence misdemeanor, the convicting court would have the person surrender the document. This action would be part of a checklist for judges.

All this would be done more or less the same as NICS checks are done now. Except that the buyer would initiate the process rather than an FFL dealer. The results would be passed on to the buyer's driver's license agency, which would send him a new license with the gun-buying approval designator on it. Regarding cost, such a system would certainly cost less, in total, than the UBC systems being proposed, which would have FFL's collecting transfer fees for every transaction. You would only have one (nominal) fee for the initial check.

NO!, stop capitulating.

 

[AlexanderA]

The LAST thing I want is something on my license indicating I have a CWFL. I have no duty to inform LEO

The way this works in Virginia right now is that all concealed-carry permits are in the police data base, linked to the holders' driver's licenses and car tags. When you get pulled over for a traffic violation, for example, the officer knows instantly that you have a permit to carry a gun, and so he responds accordingly. "Duty to inform" is therefore moot in Virginia, since the police officer already knows. (This is exactly why some people, myself included, are hesitant to get carry permits. Strangely enough, the state machine gun registry is apparently not in this routine police data base.)

Pre-screening to buy a gun, even if it was on the driver's license, would not be nearly as intrusive. In fact it wouldn't mean anything, other than that you're a "good guy."

 

[Deanimator]

The pre-screening document would be good until and unless something happens to make the person ineligible to buy a gun.

The anti-gun cult has ALREADY declared that unacceptable and called for an end to shall issue citizen concealed carry on that basis.

According to them, I'm a law abiding citizen... until I'm NOT.

I know people think I was born yesterday, but what TIME yesterday?

 

[Deanimator]

We have universal background checks here in WA. There's no registration...

When they fail to END crime with guns [as they inevitably MUST] there will be a drumbeat for registration... as a "first good step"...

 

[Deanimator]

We really need to stop with the kabuki theater of one sided concessions.

I absolutely refuse to buy into the delusion that people whom I've personally seen call for gun owners to be put in concentration camps or be nuked can be trusted in any way.

 

[readyeddy]

Just wanted to say before the thread is closed that I thoroughly enjoyed the topic. Great ideas and powerful passion on all sides.

I don’t believe we’re divided. There’s simply a willingness to discuss and co-exist. Kind of how things used to be.

Thanks to Deanimator for starting the thread.

 

[paulsj]

Just wanted to say before the thread is closed that I thoroughly enjoyed the topic. Great ideas and powerful passion on all sides.

I don’t believe we’re divided. There’s simply a willingness to discuss and co-exist. Kind of how things used to be.

Thanks to Deanimator for starting the thread.

The best way to win in two party state is to belong to both parties.

 

[Delawarean]

If we are "compromising" on UBCs what exactly are we getting in return?

With the exception of the proliferation of shall issue CCDW and FOPA (excepting Hughes) it seems we have been on a downward "slippy" slope since 1934.

 

[paulsj]

If we are "compromising" on UBCs what exactly are we getting in return?

With the exception of the proliferation of shall issue CCDW and FOPA (excepting Hughes) it seems we have been on a downward "slippy" slope since 1934.

Nothing. Most gun owners back the party in decline. The oposition can simply wait offering nothing in return for consessions.

 

[Deanimator]

If we are "compromising" on UBCs what exactly are we getting in return?

Nothing, and it's pretty obvious that that's the objective.

It's strange how I NEVER see anyone on the other side advise them to give up something in return for nothing.

Of course I've NEVER seen any of them advise giving up ANYTHING for something.

 

[Walkalong]

The masses are currently against us. We need to settle that down fast.

I'm not so sure about that, much of the "the public agrees with us" hype is just that, anti gunners lying about public support. I can run a survey to get any answers I want. So can they, they are gifted at it, just word it carefully and then twist it. Both sides do that.

 

[George P]

The way this works in Virginia right now is that all concealed-carry permits are in the police data base, linked to the holders' driver's licenses and car tags. When you get pulled over for a traffic violation, for example, the officer knows instantly that you have a permit to carry a gun, and so he responds accordingly. "Duty to inform" is therefore moot in Virginia, since the police officer already knows. (This is exactly why some people, myself included, are hesitant to get carry permits. Strangely enough, the state machine gun registry is apparently not in this routine police data base.)

Pre-screening to buy a gun, even if it was on the driver's license, would not be nearly as intrusive. In fact it wouldn't mean anything, other than that you're a "good guy."

That's nice for VA, but it is NOT the way it is in Florida (and many other states). My CWFL is not in LEO database, my CWFL is not issued by the state LE agency, it is issued by the Dept. of Agriculture. I prefer it that way.

This is exactly why some people, myself included, are hesitant to get carry permits

So why would have it glaring noted on your license suddenly make you want to get one? That makes no sense to me at all.

 

[ATLDave]

I'm not so sure about that, much of the "the public agrees with us" hype is just that, anti gunners lying about public support. I can run a survey to get any answers I want. So can they, they are gifted at it, just word it carefully and then twist it. Both sides do that.

No, those of us who live in swing areas feel a palpable difference in attitudes. Anti-gun sentiment was a fringe view where I live 6 years ago. I now encounter it constantly. We have to change the game in some way, the current strategy is about to get us blown out.

 

[paulsj]

The masses don't care unless it hits them in the pocket book or takes something away from them.

The masses are good because large peaceful protests are something the politicians still pay attention to. It's too bad gun owners can't unite behind one issue and will never get financial support from conservative billionaires like the opposition can get from liberal ones.

 

[George P]

It is called saying NO! in no uncertain terms; it is using their tactics against them; this is a no-holds-barred fight to the finish, not some negotiating buying a new car. They are acting like dictatorial nazis and need to be reminded what happened when that type of government took over. EVERY dictatorship, even today, has enslaved the people, and the way to ensure that success is to disarm them.

 

[Sistema1927]

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?

My understanding is that this is an audit number. If/when an FFL's 4473's are checked they can see ascertain that this number was generated at that date and time. The way it works also makes sure that there is no purchaser identifying information associated with that number. As such, this is a mechanism to keep FFL's honest.