Universal background checks. - Page 4

**Aguila Blanca** · November 13, 2014, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

(the real world drawback to holding lawmakers personally responsible (beyond getting the chance to vote them out the next election cycle) for the laws they pass, is that if we did that, they wouldn't pass anything, for fear of being held accountable.)

You say that as if it might in some small way be a bad thing ...

**44 AMP** · November 13, 2014, 11:42 PM

Tempting as the thought is, them not passing anything would be a bad thing. Specifically the operating money for what are considered "essential services".

if that was all they passed, I could live with that, easily. Trouble is they don't even do a good job at that, while wasting our money on non-essential, and often useless cr..stuff.

Bella · November 14, 2014, 12:24 AM

A petition has been filed in Nevada for UBC to be on the ballot in 2016. Most of the signature gatherers were from out of state.

**Aguila Blanca** · November 14, 2014, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bella

A petition has been filed in Nevada for UBC to be on the ballot in 2016. Most of the signature gatherers were from out of state.

From MALG*, no doubt.

That should be illegal. Those collecting signatures should be from the jurisdiction just as much as those who sign.

*Moms Against Legal Guns

carguychris · November 14, 2014, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Tempting as the thought is, them not passing anything would be a bad thing. Specifically the operating money for what are considered "essential services".

if that was all they passed, I could live with that, easily.

On that note, I've previously floated the idea of states passing ballot initiatives or (even better) state constitutional amendments that read something like this:

"Neither the State of {name}, nor any political subdivision thereof, shall be permitted to authorize the expenditure of funds to create or maintain any registry of lawfully owned firearms."

The underlined word "any" is critical- it's intended to forestall efforts to create a backdoor registration scheme under the guise of a UBC requirement. If "MALG" (I like that) or some other group tries to pass UBC's, they will have to risk enforcement efforts being undermined by the no-expenditure clause if/when the courts deem the 4473 forms to be a "registry", OR they will have to show their hand and openly ask for UBC's AND registration at the outset.

IMHO one other big plus of this proposal is that it's likely to sound attractive to fiscally conservative but socially liberal voters who don't own guns- the type who would potentially vote for a UBC requirement.

**44 AMP** · November 14, 2014, 12:44 PM

I like the idea, Chris, but I can see the opposing argument coming, '
"how do we know its legally owned without a registry?"

History has shown us, time after time, after time, AFTER TIME, around the world, and in the United States, how if a registry exists, the government will, at their leisure, use it to confiscate privately owned firearms.

The fact that confiscation has not (yet) happened everyplace there is a registry in no way invalidates the fact that they have been used for confiscation over and over, and that the threat of that exists, as long as there is a registry and a government.

The most benevolent government can change, nearly overnight. Some of the most brutal, repressive, genocidal, and evil governments ever were elected by popular vote. It has happened elsewhere, and it could happen here.

2ndsojourn · November 14, 2014, 02:37 PM

^^^
44, I agree. What's the purpose of a registry if not to facilitate confiscation? What purpose or benefit does a registry hold?

**Aguila Blanca** · November 14, 2014, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2ndsojourn

What's the purpose of a registry if not to facilitate confiscation? What purpose or benefit does a registry hold?

That's the crux of the issue.

In reality, does it really matter whether a mass shooter obtained the gun(s) used legally or illegally? In the face of multiple charges of murder, attempted murder, armed assault, assault with intent to kill, and a host of other potential charges that could probably be dusted off (if the shooter happens to survive -- which they usually don't), what purpose is served by looking to see if the gun is "registered"?

Looking at recent mass shootings:

Columbine: Guns bought legally, stolen by shooters
Sandy Hook: Guns bought legally, stolen by shooter
Virginia Tech: Guns bought legally
Aurora theater: Guns bought legally
Fort Hood: Guns bought legally
Navy Yard: Gun bought legally
Gabby Gifford: (??) Gun bought legally (?? IIRC)
Washington "state" HS shooting: Gun bought legally, stolen by shooter
Luby's Cafeteria: Gun bought legally
Bath, MI, school massacre: Weapon = dynamite, not firearm

In the face of a virtual anthology of mass shootings committed by people using guns that were either purchased legally by the shooter or stolen by the shooter, exactly WHAT is a registry or "even just" a universal background check supposed to accomplish? Universal background checks would not have prevented a single one of the incidents listed above. NOT ONE.

Webleymkv · November 22, 2014, 02:18 AM

This will be a long post so bear with me. It seems to me that we would all do well to back up for a moment and consider the particulars of "universal background checks." The line we're being sold on this is that it's about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals which, on its face, seems reasonable enough but the devil is in the details.

First and foremost, it must be understood by all that if one is a prohibited person who cannot pass a background check at a licensed dealer, that person cannot legally be in possession of a firearm at all regardless of how it was acquired (bought from a private party, given as a gift, stolen, found under a rock, etc.). While this may seem like a statement of the obvious, it is actually a very important fact because some seem to think that a prohibited person can magically buy a gun legally so long as it's done at a gun show or through a classified ad.

So, why should we think that a "universal background check" would deter a prohibited person from doing something that is already illegal? After all, such a person is already willing to commit one crime by acquiring a gun in the first place, so why would an additional law deter them when they've already demonstrated a willingness to break at least one law already? It seems to me that this notion of making things "double illegal" is rather asinine.

Secondly, we must also understand that it is also illegal to knowingly provide a gun to a prohibited person. This is another important point because many people think that knowingly selling a gun to a prohibited person magically becomes legal if it's done at a gun show or over the internet. As with the prohibited person himself, why should we think that someone willing to sell a gun to a prohibited person, and thus willing to commit at least one crime, would suddenly be unwilling to do so because of a UBC law? It's the silly "double illegal" thing again methinks.

Third, why would prohibited persons be looking to buy guns through classified ads or at gun shows as we're being told that they are? The answer seems pretty obvious to me: they don't care that buying a gun is illegal and are looking for a way to circumvent the law illegally. The question that this raises is if prohibited persons are willing to circumvent the law in one illegal manner, why would they be unwilling to do so in another illegal manner? A prohibited person can obtain a gun in many ways besides private-party sales. Straw purchases, theft, smuggling/black market, and "under the table" sales from unscrupulous dealers are all ways in which prohibited persons can and do acquire guns. So, if UBC's can eliminate private-party sales as an option (and I'm not convinced that they can), what is to stop a prohibited person from resorting to one of the other methods I just mentioned? After all, it's illegal for them to have a gun regardless, so what difference does it make how it was acquired?

Fourth, how would one enforce a UBC law? There are hundreds of millions of firearms in private ownership throughout the U.S. and a firearm, if well maintained, can remain in good working order for decades, if not centuries. So, how would one be able to determine when a gun made prior to the passage of a UBC law was last sold? So long as the gun in question was made prior to the passage of the UBC law, it seems to me that one could buy/sell it at any time one liked and simply claim that it was bought/sold prior to the institution of the UBC law. How would one prove otherwise?

The answer, of course, is that the only way in which a UBC law could be even remotely enforceable would be to require registration. Don't think for a moment that when a prohibited person circumvents a UBC law and commits a crime with a gun that gun-control advocates won't immediately start banging the drum for registration. Honestly, I think that the whole push for UBC's is, in fact, a stepping stone towards registration. Registration in and of itself is a terrible idea which I will explain momentarily, but even it could be circumvented by a someone who is even remotely clever. If one wanted to sell an illegal, unregistered gun, all one would have to do is report the gun stolen after the sale. If the buyer is caught with the gun, he is already in possession of an illegal weapon so the notion that he stole it or bought it from a fence would be quite plausible (we know he's committed one crime, so he's probably committed another mentality). Likewise, the buyer of an unregistered gun would already be in legal trouble if he's caught with it, so what difference would it make if it were reported stolen since it contraband either way?

Registration, in addition to being easily circumvented by those who do not respect the law, is also an awful idea for a variety of reasons. First, it allows easy harassment/intimidation of law-abiding gun owners. Many might remember the whole fiasco with The Journal News in New York publishing the names and addresses of gun owners. This would not have been possible had the state of New York not kept a registry of gun owners to begin with. Suzie Soccer Mom might not be so keen on the idea of gun registration if it's explained to her that it might facilitate the public "outing" of a single mom who bought a gun to protect herself from a violent ex-husband.

Likewise, registration facilitates easy confiscation of gun by over-zealous public officials in a time of crisis. We've seen this once already in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. While it is true that such confiscation was later found to be illegal, that fact was, I'm sure, little comfort to the people whose guns were confiscated at the time and place that it was done. Also, many of the people whose guns were confiscated had to wait years before their illegally confiscated property was returned to them. We would all do well to remember that anything the government or its enforcers do is legal until the courts say otherwise.

Also, why should we believe that registration and/or UBC's would be fairly and consistently enforced? After all, we already have many gun laws which are rarely or only occasionally enforced. The vast majority of people who don't pass a NICS check lie on the 4473 form which is a crime, but very few of them are ever prosecuted. Straw purchases are used to arm Mexican Drug Cartels yet very few people are prosecuted for this crime. Laws like 922r are so obscure that most people are unaware of their very existence, many violate them unknowingly, and it's extremely difficult to find even a single case of prosecution. If we can't or won't enforce the laws we already have, then why should we believe that registration/UBC's would be any different? Most disturbingly, what is to prevent an unscrupulous politician or bureaucrat from selectively enforcing the law against his/her political adversaries? We've already seen drug and immigration laws selectively enforced, so why would we think that gun laws would be handled differently?

Finally, I personally find the whole notion of background checks, universal or otherwise, to be rather offensive. The notion that I have to prove my innocence in order to exercise my constitutional right simply doesn't sit well with me. I always wind up asking why, if someone has committed a crime so heinous or is so mentally unstable that he/she can never again be trusted with a firearm, is said person free to mingle with the general populace? If someone is that dangerous to society, then why on earth did we let them out of prison or a mental institution to begin with? It seems to me that if we handled crime and mental illness appropriately, background checks of any sort would be completely unnecessary. Instead, we've opted to burden the sane and law-abiding for the actions of the lawless and insane.

**44 AMP** · November 23, 2014, 12:45 AM

A number of good, and valid points, as usual Webley.

If you don't see the hand of anti gun bigots in all the proposed background check plans, just ask yourself, why they all focus on the gun?

A background check system could be done using ONLY the information about the person buying/receiving the gun, without any information about the gun being needed at all. But they consistently do not consider this.

Why else would they not consider a check on just the person, unless their intent was to create a system of registration, under the cover of background checks?

**Aguila Blanca** · November 23, 2014, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Why else would they not consider a check on just the person, unless their intent was to create a system of registration, under the cover of background checks?

That pretty much sums it up.

ROCK6 · November 23, 2014, 10:10 AM

I get really sick of all the “reasonable accommodations” individuals should be subjected to for a Constitutional Right. What if all journalists or bloggers were subjected to criminal (and mental) background checks for every article, blog post, etc…oh, and add a “small” fee for each published and make sure they are properly registered as well. Isn’t that reasonable to make sure we protect the public from potential damage from erroneous and dangerous use of our 1A rights?

You can make thousands of analogies as to why the 2A is the most threatened, restricted and demonized right (not a privilege) as opposed to other rights. Most think there is more of a Constitutional Right to smoke dope than own a firearm…the masses that support gun-control are not the most intelligent of the population.

I’m all for a Universal Background Check if associated with your driver’s license/picture ID, CCW and voter ID card. There are numerous rights and privileges lost when convicted of serious crimes. My ID should be enough proof I’m not a criminal…but as most have said, it’s not about background checks or even gun-control; it’s about people control and eliminating opposition from the law-abiding, general public. Gun control is directly proportional to Government Control. If there was any amount of common sense in any of these infringing restrictions, it would be focused on stopping and harshly prosecuting criminals not harassing the law-abiding.

ROCK6

November 13, 2014, 11:42 PM	#77
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,820	Tempting as the thought is, them not passing anything would be a bad thing. Specifically the operating money for what are considered "essential services". if that was all they passed, I could live with that, easily. Trouble is they don't even do a good job at that, while wasting our money on non-essential, and often useless cr..stuff. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

November 14, 2014, 12:44 PM	#81
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,820	I like the idea, Chris, but I can see the opposing argument coming, ' "how do we know its legally owned without a registry?" History has shown us, time after time, after time, AFTER TIME, around the world, and in the United States, how if a registry exists, the government will, at their leisure, use it to confiscate privately owned firearms. The fact that confiscation has not (yet) happened everyplace there is a registry in no way invalidates the fact that they have been used for confiscation over and over, and that the threat of that exists, as long as there is a registry and a government. The most benevolent government can change, nearly overnight. Some of the most brutal, repressive, genocidal, and evil governments ever were elected by popular vote. It has happened elsewhere, and it could happen here. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

November 22, 2014, 02:18 AM	#84
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,446	This will be a long post so bear with me. It seems to me that we would all do well to back up for a moment and consider the particulars of "universal background checks." The line we're being sold on this is that it's about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals which, on its face, seems reasonable enough but the devil is in the details. First and foremost, it must be understood by all that if one is a prohibited person who cannot pass a background check at a licensed dealer, that person cannot legally be in possession of a firearm at all regardless of how it was acquired (bought from a private party, given as a gift, stolen, found under a rock, etc.). While this may seem like a statement of the obvious, it is actually a very important fact because some seem to think that a prohibited person can magically buy a gun legally so long as it's done at a gun show or through a classified ad. So, why should we think that a "universal background check" would deter a prohibited person from doing something that is already illegal? After all, such a person is already willing to commit one crime by acquiring a gun in the first place, so why would an additional law deter them when they've already demonstrated a willingness to break at least one law already? It seems to me that this notion of making things "double illegal" is rather asinine. Secondly, we must also understand that it is also illegal to knowingly provide a gun to a prohibited person. This is another important point because many people think that knowingly selling a gun to a prohibited person magically becomes legal if it's done at a gun show or over the internet. As with the prohibited person himself, why should we think that someone willing to sell a gun to a prohibited person, and thus willing to commit at least one crime, would suddenly be unwilling to do so because of a UBC law? It's the silly "double illegal" thing again methinks. Third, why would prohibited persons be looking to buy guns through classified ads or at gun shows as we're being told that they are? The answer seems pretty obvious to me: they don't care that buying a gun is illegal and are looking for a way to circumvent the law illegally. The question that this raises is if prohibited persons are willing to circumvent the law in one illegal manner, why would they be unwilling to do so in another illegal manner? A prohibited person can obtain a gun in many ways besides private-party sales. Straw purchases, theft, smuggling/black market, and "under the table" sales from unscrupulous dealers are all ways in which prohibited persons can and do acquire guns. So, if UBC's can eliminate private-party sales as an option (and I'm not convinced that they can), what is to stop a prohibited person from resorting to one of the other methods I just mentioned? After all, it's illegal for them to have a gun regardless, so what difference does it make how it was acquired? Fourth, how would one enforce a UBC law? There are hundreds of millions of firearms in private ownership throughout the U.S. and a firearm, if well maintained, can remain in good working order for decades, if not centuries. So, how would one be able to determine when a gun made prior to the passage of a UBC law was last sold? So long as the gun in question was made prior to the passage of the UBC law, it seems to me that one could buy/sell it at any time one liked and simply claim that it was bought/sold prior to the institution of the UBC law. How would one prove otherwise? The answer, of course, is that the only way in which a UBC law could be even remotely enforceable would be to require registration. Don't think for a moment that when a prohibited person circumvents a UBC law and commits a crime with a gun that gun-control advocates won't immediately start banging the drum for registration. Honestly, I think that the whole push for UBC's is, in fact, a stepping stone towards registration. Registration in and of itself is a terrible idea which I will explain momentarily, but even it could be circumvented by a someone who is even remotely clever. If one wanted to sell an illegal, unregistered gun, all one would have to do is report the gun stolen after the sale. If the buyer is caught with the gun, he is already in possession of an illegal weapon so the notion that he stole it or bought it from a fence would be quite plausible (we know he's committed one crime, so he's probably committed another mentality). Likewise, the buyer of an unregistered gun would already be in legal trouble if he's caught with it, so what difference would it make if it were reported stolen since it contraband either way? Registration, in addition to being easily circumvented by those who do not respect the law, is also an awful idea for a variety of reasons. First, it allows easy harassment/intimidation of law-abiding gun owners. Many might remember the whole fiasco with The Journal News in New York publishing the names and addresses of gun owners. This would not have been possible had the state of New York not kept a registry of gun owners to begin with. Suzie Soccer Mom might not be so keen on the idea of gun registration if it's explained to her that it might facilitate the public "outing" of a single mom who bought a gun to protect herself from a violent ex-husband. Likewise, registration facilitates easy confiscation of gun by over-zealous public officials in a time of crisis. We've seen this once already in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. While it is true that such confiscation was later found to be illegal, that fact was, I'm sure, little comfort to the people whose guns were confiscated at the time and place that it was done. Also, many of the people whose guns were confiscated had to wait years before their illegally confiscated property was returned to them. We would all do well to remember that anything the government or its enforcers do is legal until the courts say otherwise. Also, why should we believe that registration and/or UBC's would be fairly and consistently enforced? After all, we already have many gun laws which are rarely or only occasionally enforced. The vast majority of people who don't pass a NICS check lie on the 4473 form which is a crime, but very few of them are ever prosecuted. Straw purchases are used to arm Mexican Drug Cartels yet very few people are prosecuted for this crime. Laws like 922r are so obscure that most people are unaware of their very existence, many violate them unknowingly, and it's extremely difficult to find even a single case of prosecution. If we can't or won't enforce the laws we already have, then why should we believe that registration/UBC's would be any different? Most disturbingly, what is to prevent an unscrupulous politician or bureaucrat from selectively enforcing the law against his/her political adversaries? We've already seen drug and immigration laws selectively enforced, so why would we think that gun laws would be handled differently? Finally, I personally find the whole notion of background checks, universal or otherwise, to be rather offensive. The notion that I have to prove my innocence in order to exercise my constitutional right simply doesn't sit well with me. I always wind up asking why, if someone has committed a crime so heinous or is so mentally unstable that he/she can never again be trusted with a firearm, is said person free to mingle with the general populace? If someone is that dangerous to society, then why on earth did we let them out of prison or a mental institution to begin with? It seems to me that if we handled crime and mental illness appropriately, background checks of any sort would be completely unnecessary. Instead, we've opted to burden the sane and law-abiding for the actions of the lawless and insane. Last edited by Webleymkv; November 22, 2014 at 02:23 AM.

November 23, 2014, 12:45 AM	#85
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,820	A number of good, and valid points, as usual Webley. If you don't see the hand of anti gun bigots in all the proposed background check plans, just ask yourself, why they all focus on the gun? A background check system could be done using ONLY the information about the person buying/receiving the gun, without any information about the gun being needed at all. But they consistently do not consider this. Why else would they not consider a check on just the person, unless their intent was to create a system of registration, under the cover of background checks? __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

November 14, 2014, 12:24 AM	#78
Bella Senior Member Join Date: July 6, 2009 Posts: 341	A petition has been filed in Nevada for UBC to be on the ballot in 2016. Most of the signature gatherers were from out of state.

November 14, 2014, 02:37 PM	#82
2ndsojourn Senior Member Join Date: January 15, 2013 Location: South Jersey Posts: 1,416	^^^ 44, I agree. What's the purpose of a registry if not to facilitate confiscation? What purpose or benefit does a registry hold?

November 23, 2014, 10:10 AM	#87
ROCK6 Senior Member Join Date: November 6, 2004 Location: Georgia/Afghanistan Posts: 314	I get really sick of all the “reasonable accommodations” individuals should be subjected to for a Constitutional Right. What if all journalists or bloggers were subjected to criminal (and mental) background checks for every article, blog post, etc…oh, and add a “small” fee for each published and make sure they are properly registered as well. Isn’t that reasonable to make sure we protect the public from potential damage from erroneous and dangerous use of our 1A rights? You can make thousands of analogies as to why the 2A is the most threatened, restricted and demonized right (not a privilege) as opposed to other rights. Most think there is more of a Constitutional Right to smoke dope than own a firearm…the masses that support gun-control are not the most intelligent of the population. I’m all for a Universal Background Check if associated with your driver’s license/picture ID, CCW and voter ID card. There are numerous rights and privileges lost when convicted of serious crimes. My ID should be enough proof I’m not a criminal…but as most have said, it’s not about background checks or even gun-control; it’s about people control and eliminating opposition from the law-abiding, general public. Gun control is directly proportional to Government Control. If there was any amount of common sense in any of these infringing restrictions, it would be focused on stopping and harshly prosecuting criminals not harassing the law-abiding. ROCK6