Universal Background Check = Universal Registration.

[paulsj]

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.

This not effective because liberal left is afraid of private folks running through woods and on our southern border with AR-15s not of a totalitarian government. On the other hand display of anti-government signs at pro-gun rallies scares potential supporters and gives the media easily material to discredit and mariginalize those rallies.

 

[Texas10mm]

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

If you've bought a handgun from a dealer it's registered. Same for "assault rifles" very soon.

Universal registration is coming.

 

[Texas10mm]

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.

Wow. You've already gone past the slippery slope and are deep in the pit.

If you allow them to set the certification requirements they will make it so onerous that most people won't be able to handle the process.

 

[Jackal]

If you've bought a handgun from a dealer it's registered. Same for "assault rifles" very soon.

Universal registration is coming.

I am a dealer. You are incorrect, there is no registry. There are records though. Then again, most every gun sold in the U.S. has had a background check performed at sometime and has a record anyway.

 

[AlexanderA]

If you allow them to set the certification requirements they will make it so onerous that most people won't be able to handle the process.

Yes. The previous comment about medical records really scares me. It seems like this would be a breach of medical confidentiality, and would put doctors in a tough spot. I'm nearly 74, and people my age typically have a host of medical issues. Who's going to say exactly what conditions would disqualify a person from owning a gun? Perhaps because they can't see as well as they used to?

 

[ATLDave]

I know plenty of anti-gun people who think that desire to own a gun is per se evidence of some sort of psychological disorder.

 

[kcofohio]

Yes. The previous comment about medical records really scares me. It seems like this would be a breach of medical confidentiality, and would put doctors in a tough spot. I'm nearly 74, and people my age typically have a host of medical issues. Who's going to say exactly what conditions would disqualify a person from owning a gun? Perhaps because they can't see as well as they used to?

That is my thoughts exactly. When you put something before a panel, you are subject to their biased opinions.

 

[ATLDave]

That is my thoughts exactly. When you put something before a panel, you are subject to their biased opinions.

And the last thing we want to do is deter people who are having issues with, say, depression or anxiety, from getting appropriate care because they are afraid they will lose their rights if they ask for medical help. That's a good way to get crazy mass-shooting-type events. Let's not do that.

 

[Texas10mm]

I am a dealer. You are incorrect, there is no registry. There are records though. Then again, most every gun sold in the U.S. has had a background check performed at sometime and has a record anyway.

Do you not have to turn in a copy of the pistol purchase form to the police?

 

[boom boom]

Do you not have to turn in a copy of the pistol purchase form to the police?

No, federal law does not require this and cannot do so--a state may require that they get a record of purchases from a dealer and the process can be different for long guns and handguns.

 

[Texas10mm]

No, federal law does not require this--a state may require that they get a record of purchases from a dealer and the process can be different for long guns and handguns.

The person I was replying to is a dealer in Washington state. Washington state has long had a seperate pistol purchase form. One copy of that form is/was required to be turned into the local police. Back when I was selling firearms in Washington state there was a three day waiting period. The form was supposed to be turned into the local police by the close of the business day on which it was filled out.

I'm quite familiar with Federal law and know that there's no such form required by the US Government.

 

[boom boom]

The person I was replying to is a dealer in Washington state. Washington state has long had a seperate pistol purchase form. One copy of that form is/was required to be turned into the local police. Back when I was selling firearms in Washington state there was a three day waiting period. The form was supposed to be turned into the local police by the close of the business day on which it was filled out.

I'm quite familiar with Federal law and know that there's no such form required by the US Government.

Your postings above were ambiguous and far too many people equate form 4473's retained by a dealer with a registry or database.

 

[ATLDave]

There are 2 things that keep the 4473's from being a database: 1) Their location and non-digitization; and 2) their incompleteness (in that they do not purport to track/record all legal transfers, only those that go through an FFL).

#1 is a thing that could be changed with effort and expense - and the amounts of effort and expense get reduced all the time by technology.
#2 is the real obstacle. You could throw a zillion dollars in optical character recognition and database construction at the existing 4473's (to blow past #1), and you still wouldn't have a meaningful equivalent of a registry. You'd just have a searchable list of where some guns once were.

And overcoming obstacle #2 would require a substantive change in the law and years of letting the new leak-less system "work" to accumulate a reasonable approximation of a registry. That's why it's a far more important obstacle to a registry for those of us who oppose a registry (as a necessary precondition to a massive and enforceable loss of rights).

Keeping that obstacle in place is extremely important from our perspective. Non-gun people don't understand or care about this at all. "Universal background checks" sounds extremely reasonable to them, and all our objections just sound like paranoid slippery-slope-ism and/or an outright desire for prohibited persons to be able to buy guns easily. And that's why we ought to figure out some other proposal to make that would satisfy the non-gun people (not the anti-gun people - they cannot be satisfied, and we all know that) - to keep the big obstacle to a registry in place. Because this is going be the subject of a big push the next time the Democrats win both houses and the white house, which absolutely will happen at some point in the fairly near future. "Just say NO" won't be a winning strategy at that point.

 

[Deanimator]

There are 2 things that keep the 4473's from being a database: 1) Their location and non-digitization; and 2) their incompleteness (in that they do not purport to track/record all legal transfers, only those that go through an FFL).

During the '90s there were repeated reports of BATF agents unlawfully mass scanning 4473s during inspection visits. There was no legal justification given to the dealers for such activity. Given the behavior of the BATF at the time, they hardly deserve the benefit of the doubt.

 

[CoalTrain49]

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

They may be on it in a big way but they don't seem to be having a lot of luck with self defense arguments and slowing down ownership and carry. There are now 17 million carry permits in the US and 45 states with shall issue. A lot of that has to do with the permit process that comes with a BGC. It's apparent, to me anyway, that most people want the permit process enhanced with a UBC. I'm not in favor of it because I know it changes nothing but if it comes down to a permit or an outright ban I'll take a permit process any day. If suppressors were contraband I wouldn't be able to own one but with a permit I can. Same with a machine gun. Lots of people have to get permits to purchase a firearm now. A BGC is a permit to purchase. A CPL could just as easily be a permit to purchase and that's what I'm proposing to my legislators for things like an AR and 30 rd magazines. That gives the state 30 days to fully vet the individual with local LE when they issue a carry permit. If I don't give them something to work with they're just going to ban those items like they did in CA. There's already bills in our dem legislature to do just that and the AG crowd would love it if it passed. You can only hold off the mongul hordes so long.

Living in a blue state isn't much fun but lots of us here have to deal with it as best we can.

 

[Walkalong]

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.

I still think you are over stating it, but certainly believe you believe that.

Yes, public perception is important, and we need to work on that, especially when it comes to countering the lies of the anti gunners. BUT, we do not need to give in to some things to appease the middle, as that will just be another loss. More chipping away at the stone.

 

[HuckFinn]

Not sure why people think there is no registration here in Washington State when all records for handgun purchases are stored with the Director of Licenses in Olympia.
Now before I-594 (Universal Background Checks) you could say there was no registration as I could sell my handgun to another private individual without going through a FFL thus ending the paper trail back to the Director of Licenses. The DOL would still show it was in my name but would have no idea if I still owned it. Not so now with UBC.
With the passing of I-1639 now all semi-automatic rifles will also be registered to the current owner. Not sure if the semi-auto records will be stored with the DOL.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Not sure why people think there is no registration here in Washington State when all records for handgun purchases are stored with the Director of Licenses in Olympia.
Now before I-594 (Universal Background Checks) you could say there was no registration as I could sell my handgun to another private individual without going through a FFL thus ending the paper trail back to the Director of Licenses. The DOL would still show it was in my name but would have no idea if I still owned it. Not so now with UBC.
With the passing of I-1639 now all semi-automatic rifles will also be registered to the current owner. Not sure if the semi-auto records will be stored with the DOL.

That's true only if you sell your firearm in WA. There is no requirement to for a BC in this state if you box it up and send it to a dealer in another state. Although the dealer in another state has to run a BC on the purchaser there is no way the state of WA knows that you sold that firearm and it will forever be registered to you. There are no provisions for you to record that transaction with the state even if you wanted to. If you say you sold it and shipped it that's going to have to be good enough for the WA state. You have complied with the WA state law. I've already checked with my dealer about that. He suggested I just ship it myself. He's so busy he doesn't want to run it thru his books.

 

[Deanimator]

They may be on it in a big way but they don't seem to be having a lot of luck with self defense arguments and slowing down ownership and carry.

When they're not engaged in taqqiyah, they're pushing the borders at the speed of light. The fact that it has so little traction with real people just shows how malicious and irrational their views are.

There are now 17 million carry permits in the US and 45 states with shall issue. A lot of that has to do with the permit process that comes with a BGC. It's apparent, to me anyway, that most people want the permit process enhanced with a UBC.

Support plummets when you tell them the truth.

 

[Walkalong]

Yes. The previous comment about medical records really scares me. It seems like this would be a breach of medical confidentiality, and would put doctors in a tough spot. I'm nearly 74, and people my age typically have a host of medical issues. Who's going to say exactly what conditions would disqualify a person from owning a gun? Perhaps because they can't see as well as they used to?

And have you seen the commercials on TV from insurance companies advising/encouraging you to tell your doctor about any mental issues you might be having? This is one area of attack for the antis. be careful out there. I know some of them mean well by wanting to try to catch real nuts who should not own a gun, but it is a very slippery slope and with healthcare almost completely under government control now. That is the one big thing they got that I mentioned earlier, control of your healthcare, it's not complete yet, but they are much farther down that rode than before Obamacare was passed. Control your healthcare? Control you. Control arms? Control you. Why do you think control of your healthcare was such a "big ****ing deal" like Biden was caught on mic saying.

No more. I have drawn a line in the sand and they can just bulldoze me right there.

 

[George P]

45 states with shall issue.

Really?

"Shall issue" states: Thirty-five states have what is called a "shall issue" policy regarding concealed carry permits, meaning, according to an Illinois Bar Journal article regarding that state's policy, "the [state] must issue a license to an applicant who meets the requirements."
"May issue" states: The nine states with the most restrictive rules regarding carrying a concealed weapon are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island.

 

[HuckFinn]

That's true only if you sell your firearm in WA. There is no requirement to for a BC in this state if you box it up and send it to a dealer in another state. Although the dealer in another state has to run a BC on the purchaser there is no way the state of WA knows that you sold that firearm and it will forever be registered to you. There are no provisions for you to record that transaction with the state even if you wanted to. If you say you sold it and shipped it that's going to have to be good enough for the WA state. You have complied with the WA state law. I've already checked with my dealer about that. He suggested I just ship it myself. He's so busy he doesn't want to run it thru his books.

I remember reading that I-1639 will ban out of state gun sales. Later when I get time I will reread I-1639.
So if what you are saying is true then the state would still be doing an annual background check on me to see if I was still qualified to own a semi-auto rifle even though I sold it to an out of state FFL under the new I-1639 guidelines?

 

[CoalTrain49]

I remember reading that I-1639 will ban out of state gun sales. Later when I get time I will reread I-1639.
So if what you are saying is true then the state would still be doing an annual background check on me to see if I was still qualified to own a semi-auto rifle even though I sold it to an out of state FFL under the new I-1639 guidelines?

I just read it again.

I think the BC is for the purchase only. No more BC's for you after you purchase it. If you sell it in WA it will have to be transferred thru a dealer and the purchaser will have to get a BC. WA laws don't apply to out-of-state sales and as far as I know there is no way to even report an out-of-state sale to the state. The dealer has to do that during the transfer and obviously if that dealer isn't in WA they aren't required to record the transfer with WA state. Basically, it's the same as pistols.

Talk to a dealer. They know the laws better than I do.

Here's some advice on out-of-state sales. Know what you shipped including SN and model. Keep all of your buyer contact information, the dealer you shipped the gun to, and any postal receipts of the shipment. If push comes to shove and you have to prove that you sold that gun you have the records. Otherwise there is no reason to give that information to anyone unless you are accused of a crime, which is highly unlikely. Just because a firearm was registered to you doesn't mean you can't legally sell it.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Really?

Your information is from 2013.

44 states either have shall issue, no permit required or both. So I guess I was wrong when I said 45.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[George P]

This not effective because liberal left is afraid of private folks running through woods and on our southern border with AR-15s not of a totalitarian government. On the other hand display of anti-government signs at pro-gun rallies scares potential supporters and gives the media easily material to discredit and mariginalize those rallies.

And I am afraid of uneducated, naive, manipulated idiots running around crying and throwing fits because someone they didn't like won an election and then stealing elections, ignoring the law regarding illegals, etc.
Guess that makes us even in our fears and concerns