Would Universal Background Checks be acceptable if no firearm information was required?

[Aim1]

There is more gun control movement from both sides of the aisle with the recent double mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, OH. One commentator said it started with the students at Parkland HS who immediately banded together something that has no happened before.

It appears that red flag laws and universal background checks appear to be the most likely legislation pushed, not assault weapons bans, age restrictions, or magazine capacities.

They are pushing for a universal background bill despite the fact that both recent shooters acquired their weapons legally and after having gone through a background check so not sure how making them go through the background check that they already went through would have changed anything.

The fact is that many mass shooters’ first major crime is their mass shooting, thus they have a clean background and nothing in their background to stop them from legally passing a background check or obtaining a weapon.

When it comes to the gang shooters in places like Chicago and Baltimore they average in range from ages of 12-20+ years old and cannot even legally own or purchase a pistol so they are buying them off of the street and not buying them legally where they would have to go through a background check if they did so background checks and age restrictions are worthless in this area.

Most citizens concerns about background checks are that they keep the serial number and firearm information during a sale/transfer and thus know who owns what what firearms and this is defacto registration which has historically been followed by confiscation such as the parallel red flag laws which would assist law enforcement in taking said weapons.

So, since I believe we are going to lose the battle on universal background checks and they will be required for all firearm/gun sales private and public what if we did them but did not have to give any of the weapon information, would that be acceptable to you?


Example:

Citizen: “This is John Smith. I am calling because I am selling a gun to Mike Johnson. I just want to know if Mike Johnson ( DOB 9/8/1971 & social security number ) is legally allowed to own a firearm and thus be sold one.”

The Government: “We just ran the background check on Mike Johnson and he is valid to own a firearm. You may sell him whatever firearm or firearms you want.”

Done.

Would that be acceptable?


Yes, I don’t think the government should have knowledge of our private affairs and I strongly disagree with background checks for private sales and also gun registration but I think we are going to lose on this one and the 2nd Amendment says nothing about background checks. This is just one way to make it so that it doesn’t become a backdoor way to gun registration if it does come to this.

Imagine if there was a federal database where citizens could log on to a public website, check someone to see if they are currently legally allowed to own a firearm like checking someone’s valid drivers license status and it was as easy as that? You can actually do similar checks on public government websites to see people’s criminal records. If they had this you wouldn’t even need to have to make a phone call. The government would just have to keep the database up to date like drivers license validity. This maybe unrealistic now but perhaps in the future it would work.

Would this be possible and would you accept it if it did?

 

[ATLDave]

I think that would be reasonably acceptable. I would prefer for their to be an option to show a CC permit (or other ID that can only be issued to people who don't have 4473-disqualifying status) without an affirmative call in.

The check isn't the problem - it's the de facto registry it creates. Taking the gun ID out of it helps a lot.

 

[wojownik]

A voluntary universal system would be acceptable to me. e.g. setting up free ATM-style kiosks for voluntary use by buyers and sellers, if they so chose. That would be maybe a nice public service. Just get a green screen for pass, or red for no-go.

A mandatory universal background check system is unacceptable for numerous reasons. One reason is that it would just encourge more people to go "underground" due to the cost and hassle of going through an FFL (such as when the FFL is an hour drive or more from you, or around my parts where FFL fees range from $25 to an unreasonable $150 per transaction.

Coupled with the requirement to provide detail on the firearm merely leads to the situation which the Brady Bill was supposed to prohibit - a gun registry. Which effectively exists, but in dispersed locations, in disaggregated paper files (at the FFL, or with ATF when they turn in their records when they turn in/lose their FFL).

So if you really feel that UBCs are inevitable, I would counterpropose a UVBC (universal voluntary background check) and have the government fund local governments to host these free ATM-style machines (free FFL) across the nation, in readily accessible places. And - I wholly agree - without the need to enter any information about the firearm.

 

[entropy]

We already have de facto registration to include type of gun and serial #: Remember this scene from Red Dawn?

Cuban Colonel Bella instructs the KGB to go to a local sporting goods store and obtain the records of the store's gun sales on the ATF's Form 4473, which lists citizens who have purchased firearms.

 

[shoobe01]

I think this was discussed a year or two back. I and others pointed out that there's no reason to create a registry at the same time, and if that's what causes you heartburn, chill. More to the point: the reason we should be proposing stuff instead of just screaming about it.

We already do NCIC checks. Universal just expands this to everything. You become a lawbreaker if you don't do a check for private sales. Which I HOPE would be individual checking. I can call or get online, do a check the same way and there's no central individual record. But worst case is: no change to the system, now all legal transfers go though a dealer.

Which would be dumb (talking point!) because a huge black market would emerge overnight of people do refuse, or simply are unaware of the requirement, and do FTF transfers anyway.

So you know for the talking points again: Charleston in 2015 was a likely (confirmed?) reject, but got the default-proceed when NCIC had to think about itself. During the delay he did his massacre. Changing default HOLD would therefore likely be part of this, along the same lines as most red flag laws; immediate action to deny possession, then can come back/go to the judge to get permitted/restored. Or not.

 

[ATLDave]

We already have de facto registration to include type of gun and serial #: Remember this scene from Red Dawn?

Cuban Colonel Bella instructs the KGB to go to a local sporting goods store and obtain the records of the store's gun sales on the ATF's Form 4473, which lists citizens who have purchased firearms.

All you can tell from that is that they possessed those guns at one point in the past. As long as private sales are legal and not logged, then the last buyer-from-an-FFL can plausibly say "I sold it."

 

[shoobe01]

We already have de facto registration to include type of gun and serial #: Remember this scene from Red Dawn?

Cuban Colonel Bella instructs the KGB to go to a local sporting goods store and obtain the records of the store's gun sales on the ATF's Form 4473, which lists citizens who have purchased firearms.

But it's not centralized. And is not computerized (generally). This has been a very vigorous fight over the decades, and also is why NFA checks take forever; fear of registry means nothing computerized, one-time records checks only.

I would like to see computerized records systems, but we do things like check the person, only. No reason it can't be as instant as airline/customs/immigration checks — it is +/- the same background check — we're just worried about A Registry and cannot therefore even discuss other approaches to improve it.

 

[ATLDave]

I think this was discussed a year or two back. I and others pointed out that there's no reason to create a registry at the same time

[shakes head] No, the problem is that a UBC that logs individual guns together with transferees IS the registry.

Right now, we all know that a non-grandfather ban of common items, such as AR's, would not result in their universal surrender. If you have a list of all legal transfers, then you have a list of all the last legal owners. If they don't turn in their AR, you send the police to knock on the door. Either they produce the AR, or they admit that they transferred it illegally outside the UBC.

That's the problem with a universal UBC that logs transferees and guns - it makes locating the current owners of the guns vastly easier, and, therefore, enables future confiscation.

 

[herrwalther]

There is no benefit to UBC. None, zero, zilch. We already have background checks in place. Anyone who has filled out a 4473 knows this. There is no way to enforce universal background checks without a registry. And that is fact.

 

[shoobe01]

I think registry and log are as close to the same word as makes no difference. I am saying continue with the Do Not Log principles we have now. Then, no (centralized) registry.

Also, not sure why a registry makes everything more secure. If a gun is being traded without checks, it just disappears. Without radio tracking it cannot be found. A paper trail will do nothing to solve this, and there will presumably be provisions for theft, destruction, and loss, which will be exploited as it always has been for items to drop off any tracking scheme.

 

[edwardware]

With a believable assurance that the UBC wouldn't be used to infringe in the future, yes.

But I can't imagine much that would be believable.

With a Supreme Court decision affirming what the 2nd Amendment actually says, I would be delighted to have a reasonably efficient, no-records, UBC requirement. The days of executing anyone who shouldn't own a gun are (unfortunately) past.

 

[AlexanderA]

So, since I believe we are going to lose the battle on universal background checks and they will be required for all firearm/gun sales private and public what if we did them but did not have to give any of the weapon information, would that be acceptable to you?

The issue is not what is "acceptable" to us. The issue is what will be forced down our throats.

Most UBC systems have private transactions to go through FFL dealers. That means that the gun is entered in the dealer's "bound book," a Form 4473 is filled out, and the dealer calls in the transaction to NICS. Just like a regular retail sale. This leaves the same paper trail as a regular retail sale. (Not to mention that the dealer gets his usual fee for the transfer.)

There could be alternatives to this. But, it's probably too late to push for alternative systems. As gun owners, we have no clout. We lost the clout when we stonewalled UBC's earlier. If we had presented at least a veneer of cooperation, we would have had input into the final design of the system. This is typical of many lost opportunities in the gun debate.

 

[entropy]

As far as 'do not log'- NICS checks are done over the phone. There is a big building just outside Logan, Utah devoted to listening into communications, and it surely has them stored and retrievable.

The days of executing anyone who shouldn't own a gun are (unfortunately) past.

Really. Why not just add in anyone without blue eyes and blonde hair?

 

[WrongHanded]

I really don't have a problem with the concept of a background check sans firearm description or serial number. I think the issue is that without registration, spot checks, follow ups, etc. (all of which I'm against), it's fairly pointless.

The only way to possibly make sellers more likely to follow through on a background check on a buyer, is to have undercover LE purposely attempt to entrap private sellers. Most gun owners won't sell to a criminal, but some will. And some just don't know who they're dealing with.

 

[labnoti]

quid pro quo -- Universal background checks to establish "buyer's club card" system where the revocation status of the card can be checked instantly; gun details not in system, only the buyer's card -- in exchange for 50-state reciprocity on concealed carry with same card, and effectively Federal-level pre-emption.

 

[Zoogster]

Lets ask something first. Why do you suddenly think this is needed and why are certain others suddenly thinking this is needed?

Is it the mass shooting media and politician rhetoric? If that is the reason lets consider most acquired their legal firearms legally passing a background check from an FFL.
Sure eventually that will not be the case, but is it really a problem or a solution to something that would have much if any impact on that issue?


Now lets look at the motives of those suggesting it as a solution as we clearly see it would have had a minimal impact on the things they are highlighting:

They want to ban things, and they want checkpoints of purchase, records of ownership. Only if everything requires a paper trail, or rather a digital trail, will many of the other things they want to implement be feasible.
They want to know where the guns are, and who has them. Setting up the infrastructure to accomplish this is done by making everyone go through specific checkpoints. If everyone must go through an FFL that is also subject to any state laws in their state, that FFL will do most of their work for them, and have a financial and legal motivation to comply with anything and everything to stay in business even those rules and laws they feel strongly against. It will just be part of the required formality they require or no gun sale.
They are small in number compared to citizens and far more feasible to track and control with limited resources. They self report whatever they are required to self report in their state and under federal law, or they cease to be in business.

Then you can ban things. Then you can foce them to keep a record or make the FFL comply with whatever law you come up with, or good bye business. Much harder to get civilians to comply with whatever you come up with. But if the FFL gives up the information that results in registration, it doesn't matter what the civilian firearm purchaser thinks or will do. They are in the database anyways and can be made to comply or targeted based on the FFL information.

This is done in California already. All FFL sales or transfers are tracked and enter an automatic state registry that registers the gun to the individual often without them even being aware they are registered.
The state then uses this registration for a variety of things to target these people.
One of them is to send people to collect guns of people registered when they become prohibited either permanently or temporarily. On the surface you may think great, we don't want bad guys to have guns right? Well what is a California bad guy may be something that is a good guy or a minor screw up in your location.
California has some of the pettiest things to remove gun rights over and will grant temporary restrictions for almost nothing. Its state government actually wants far more restrictions than the Constitution allows, and so will use whatever method it can to reduce ownership. Its view of the balance of reducing harm versus trampling rights is also skewed so far towards who cares about a person's rights if it saves one butterfly that you can guess how courts will often go.
But that is just the beginning. It is currently hard to tell what known things in the registry have been made to comply with laws which when sold were in a coonfiguration that is no longer allowed. Many ways of complying with many restrictions are available. But you do know who legally has transferred what to or from who, because everything legal is through an FFL, AKA universal background check requirement and ban of person to person transfers.
But if an entire class or type of firearm is banned that registry is a whole lot more useful. You know eactly who has what and where their currently registered DMV, utility, court, or other current address is on seperate existing state databases.
You know who self reports, self replies, and who to focus the limited resources of the police state on.
Going after the highly capable firearms is the scariest and most dangerous part. But once you get done with that first wave the subsequent bans on things far less scary to a tactical armored unit working as a coordinated team will only occasionally be scary to enforce. So it gets quicker to ban more and enforce things with fewer resources.
How far you can tie the hands of those citizens first and get them to give up lots of intelligence on themselves adds up to make everything easier. Making them report to an FFL legally required to be a government intelligence gatherer and database creator for any and all firearm related activities gives the police state all the information it needs to figure out ways to get what they want to get done.

Since the citizens are primarily law abiding and passive they wait to be attacked and are readily divided and conquered. In reality the number of law enforcement is tiny and the job would be beyond scary if the citizens went on the offensive and started making it impossible to be a law enforcement officer enforcing such things. They would have to call in help from the even less numerous but highly capable feds.
But since they are good people of society they want to do what they can to be legal, until its too late. The jews did all they could to comply with the law and avoid confrontation that would get them killed too. Except for the small minority readily dealt with using highly trained loyal gestapo or local german law enforcement, or both in combination, you know local law enforcement assisted and overseen by some feds.
The Gestapo was previously the Prussian Secret Police, and was a highly honorable job, one of the elite of law enforcement, and before the government turned down the path under the Nazis rarely abused its citizens. And that level of skill and organization was instrumental in making the gestapo so effective.
The Jews primarily waited till offense came to them, and then they lost, because that offense was clearly ready to deal with anything they could dish out and had thought and planned everything necessary to have absolute control by then. If you just told them the eventual goal up front when they were spread out living amongst the population with lots of resources they would have been far more challenging to deal with and required a lot of resources to fight.
But you gotta know where what you want to control is first, and the easiest way to do that is to make it a requirement that people that want to avoid problems tell you.

Since citizen self compliance with registration is also low, getting the FFL to do it fills in a lot more gaps the citizens would have left blank. But you gotta have everyone used to using an FFL for everything first, and a crime not to. Since all the firearms are at a minimum recorded in the bound book per federal requirements, and often in retail chains by a computer database even easier to browse, a firearm found in the hands of anyone else readily traces back to the citizen that did not use an FFL to transfer it to them. So that becomes how you scare the population into complying, going after the people that transfer outside of an FFL and making examples out of them. It becomes a felony to transfer a gun outside of an FFL, a lifetime prohibiting offense and serious crime, while using the FFL results in automatic registration very useful in gun bans.

 

[George P]

As far as 'do not log'- NICS checks are done over the phone. There is a big building just outside Logan, Utah devoted to listening into communications, and it surely has them stored and retrievable.



Really. Why not just add in anyone without blue eyes and blonde hair?

Let's not forget something, not EVERY state uses the NICS system; some use their own. Not even LEO can access my CWFL data since it run by the Ag Commissioner.

 

[badkarmamib]

Absolutely, IF I truly believed that it would be the last attempt at stripping the 2A. But, like all proposed measures, it would not have prevented anything, it won't prevent the next one, and they will return for the next bite. I for one would love the piece of mind of knowing that the individual that I am selling to is 100% legal, without having to take time, money, and gas to have a third party involved in something that I should be able to accomplish myself. But, it won't solve anything, just emboldened the other side for the next strike.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

Background checks would not have stopped most of these "mass" shootings as most used legally bought weapons. So you/they want us to give up more freedom for something that would have had little, if any effect.

About 1/2 (forget exact #) of weapon deaths are suicides and I don't think they would be caught be a background check either.

Giving up more freedom for no effect just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[DeepSouth]

It want work so why do it.
Show me something that will work or nothing at at all.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Compromise simply for compromise sake or as a show of good faith is meaningless. The details of any of these plans, what they exclude or how they'd be executed, don't matter. The proponents aren't going to let up the pressure because we found some common ground. They will be right back at it next session. HCI or whatever they call themselves now, didn't shut their doors and move on after the Brady Bill was signed into law.

As for universal checks, how many actual off book sales are we even talking about? Does FBI/BATFE have an estimate? And within that number if they do, what subset of sales are conducted between two complete strangers rather than people who know each other? I've always felt this is a solution in search of the problem, but if we can actually show that the number of guns sold this way is minuscule, we'd have a valuable talking point.

 

[Aim1]

Background checks would not have stopped most of these "mass" shootings as most used legally bought weapons. So you/they want us to give up more freedom for something that would have had little, if any effect.

About 1/2 (forget exact #) of weapon deaths are suicides and I don't think they would be caught be a background check either.

Giving up more freedom for no effect just doesn't make sense to me.

Do I want Universal Background Checks, no? But it doesn’t matter what I want. It’s what realistically going to happen and what’s not. Universal background checks are probably coming whether we want it or not.

If we can minimize the damage better than doing nothing.

 

[ATLDave]

The idea would not be to satisfy opponents, but to satisfy the general populace that is turning against us.

 

[Basura Blanca]

The idea would not be to satisfy opponents, but to satisfy the general populace that is turning against us.

Fair enough but that's all the more reason to show them they're talking about a tiny subset of sales/transfers (which I assume is the case).
We let "gun show loophole" go unchecked for so many years that people think the property on which gun shows are held is some sort of magical hallowed ground where anything can go. We failed to convince the general populace that they were victims of a broad number of misconceptions over the decades so that ship has sorta sailed already.

 

[tarosean]

A voluntary universal system would be acceptable to me.

we already have one... Anyone here can choose to transfer a gun through an FFL instead of a FTF sale.