The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 17, 2013, 04:30 PM   #1
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
Changed my mind on universal background checks.

I've changed my mind on universal background checks and now think we should push for them without registration and the requirement that all background check information be destroyed after 24 hours except that a background check was run for the individual selling/gifting/transferring a gun or guns with no information kept on the buyer or recipient or the gun or guns transferred. One background check for any number of guns no requirement to specify gun or guns transferred.

Then a person could legally decide to gift/sell one gun and effectively all their guns would legally be off paper, no way to know if they all were sold or gifted in one transaction or not.

Got any guns? Hmmmm, did I sell or gift them all from that one recorded transfer I made in the government database to that now anonymous person who passed the background check? I hope I remember, let me think. I know we would all answer honestly and support such a system.
mack59 is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 05:13 PM   #2
Que
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 869
My problem with universal background checks is that it offers Obama another existing law to act as a springboard to launch Executive Orders based upon enforcing existing law. It is another foothold from which to expand the attack. Never let them take the beach.
Que is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 05:38 PM   #3
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,144
Shall not be infringed, period.
rebs is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 05:54 PM   #4
Crankgrinder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 634
Im sure this forum will almost unanimously be against it but here is my own problem with it: Who will enforce this requirement that all info. be destroyed/discarded within such time after the sale? the gov. themselves im sure. The ATF perhaps? Who is going to blow the whistle when they do not? not you or I im sure. Not only that but universal background checks can and will lead to registration and we know what that will inevitably lead to. So no.
Crankgrinder is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 06:01 PM   #5
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
No offense but your post makes almost no sense at all. I honestly cannot understand your point.
AH.74 is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 06:03 PM   #6
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Re: Changed my mind on universal background checks.

It sounds great. But even the Federalists, the ones who supported a strong central government, didn't trust a central government that much.

Your Social Security number will never be used as a national universal registration number either, until it was.

The problem is that it's the precrime division at work.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 07:14 PM   #7
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
One, gun control advocates would never accept it as they really want registration and it would put the lie to their meme that they just want universal background checks.

Two, it would be a counter proposal that the media would have to report and would take the wind out of the universal background check meme, see above, and would put the gun controllers on the defensive.

Three, if it did pass, allowing one gun or multiple guns to be transferred with an approved transaction that only notes the seller and the approval of a buyer with no record of the gun or guns involved being transmitted there would be no way to track individual guns or groups of guns. Even if they cheated and kept the information it would only tell them the name of someone who bought/received a gun without telling them what they owned. So theoretically an individual could buy five guns one of which was an old shotgun, turn around and sell the shotgun in an approved transaction and keep the rest and the government would have no way of knowing what if any gun that person had. Basically all the paper trails from FFL's on guns could be wiped out with one transaction, especially if the legislation superseded state laws like CA where now all transactions are required through an FFL or even states like IL where records of individual sales are supposed to be kept.
mack59 is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 07:25 PM   #8
Romeo 33 Delta
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 27, 2009
Posts: 300
My Social Security card is actually old enough to specifically state that it is NOT to be used for identification ... oh well, the government knows best!
Romeo 33 Delta is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 08:00 PM   #9
TailGator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,862
There are two problems with background checks:

(1) We currently value patient privacy more highly than our ability to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill; therefore, mental illness data is frequently not included in the database. The resulting background checks are therefore inherently incomplete and flawed.

(2) Although the form itself states that straw purchases are a felony, government officials as high as the vice president have stated publicly that such violations are not being prosecuted.

Until those problems are solved - in other words, until current laws are adequately enforced - expanding the number of transactions that require background checks is just a way to generate more paper, and should not be considered.
TailGator is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 08:13 PM   #10
Jo6pak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2010
Location: West Coast...of WI
Posts: 1,427
Universal background checks ARE NOT UNIVERSAL

Only the law-abiding will abide by the law. Haven't we all seen that gun control laws have no affect on criminals and little effect on crime.

It's not about guns, it's about control.
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF contributor.
Jo6pak is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 08:21 PM   #11
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
My input...

The very 1st thing the US Govt & the federal level elected officials should do is to clean house & get the ATF/DoJ/DHS system in order.
There is NO formal dir of the ATF(aka BATFE). This is an ongoing issue for nearly 6/six FYs(fiscal years)!

Add to the "Fast & Furious" scandals and the major problems with ATF, I'd get those problems fixed FIRST, then set up new laws/agencies/SOPs/fees etc.
CNN did a few reports around 3/4 years ago about the ATF & the problems. The non fiction book; Under and Alone explains the major problems too. It was by an ex-ATF special agent who worked undercover in high profile criminal investigations of the Mongols motorcycle gang. The ATF agent was a SE Asia combat veteran & served in SF(special forces/18 series). He dealt with the fraud-waste-abuse.
CNN's report stated that the ATF had more citizen complaints & IG issues than the FBI & DEA together! The ATF by manpower was also a smaller federal agency.

Like how 9/11/2001 changed a lot of federal policy & federal laws, ending the INS(Immigration & Naturalization Service) and starting the US Dept of Homeland Security(DHS), Sandy Hook & the new "gun safety" policy should set up a better system where decent, law abiding citizens can buy-sell-possess firearms w/o conflicts or legal hassles.

As President Ronald W Reagan once stated; "The most dangerous words a US citizen can hear are; I'm from the federal government & I'm here to help."

Clyde
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 08:21 PM   #12
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Yes, you can really trust the government to tell us the truth about things, too.

The Social Security system was sold as a "Savings Account" except that the administration was in front of the Supreme Court arguing that it was "just a tax" before the ink was even dry on it.

The Affordable Health Care act was billed as insurance to the population, but Justice Stevens finally caved and allowed it to stand as "just a tax" in the final ruling.

Yeah, And George Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac. RRRIIIGHT!!!
__________________
"The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

NRA Endowment Member
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 08:47 PM   #13
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,144
No more gun laws, we already have enough. The problem is so obvious that the whole thing is about controlling the people and removing their right and ability to defend ourselves against enemies both foreign and domestic. Right now I would worry more about the domestic enemy.
rebs is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 08:47 PM   #14
j3ffr0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 153
Quote:
There are two problems with background checks:

(1) We currently value patient privacy more highly than our ability to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill; therefore, mental illness data is frequently not included in the database. The resulting background checks are therefore inherently incomplete and flawed.

(2) Although the form itself states that straw purchases are a felony, government officials as high as the vice president have stated publicly that such violations are not being prosecuted.

Until those problems are solved - in other words, until current laws are adequately enforced - expanding the number of transactions that require background checks is just a way to generate more paper, and should not be considered.
Good points that need to be addressed. I think if something is ever going to be fixed this is a good place to start.
j3ffr0 is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 09:10 PM   #15
tomrkba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 533
California demanded people register guns redfined as "assault" weapons and changed the law a short time later.

More importantly, Congress does not have the power to regulate commerce inside states.
tomrkba is online now  
Old February 17, 2013, 09:11 PM   #16
breakingcontact
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
I do my own "background check" in that I only sell to other CHL holders locally if not sending through an FFL/gunbroker.

Understand it could tick off people but i feel better knowing I didn't potentially arm a felon. (unless their CHL is fake or they committed a felony real recently, generally, the background checked CHL crowd is real law abiding)

That being said, I don't think there should be a government mandated universal background check.

Why not?
  • It will be unenforceable,
  • will just create bigger and more expensive government
  • and eventually misused by some government.
breakingcontact is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 09:14 PM   #17
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 864
The United States DOJ in a study conducted in 2006 stated that 57% of felons arrested for violent crime had a prior arrest for a felony. 70% of violent felons had a previous arrest record. 67% of murderers had a previous arrest for robbery or assault. The problem we have with violent crime is not one of gun culture, but one of a broken justice system. More background checks won't help keep felons in prison

Source for Stats: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 02:22 AM   #18
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Woof!

Good post Sheep!
Many people in the US do not understand the current gun laws & ordinances.
They don't get that armed criminals or felons are already breaking the law!
Armed citizens & armed professionals(PIs, security, corrections, LE, etc) are not the same as gang members/terrorists/drug dealers.

ClydeFrog
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 05:52 AM   #19
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
The only check I could even consider getting behind would be along these lines:

1) The check is to obtain a license that is good for both purchase/transfer and for carry;

2) Licensees get the same benefits as retired LEOs do under LEOSA (IE carry in any state, according to each state's laws for its own licensed carriers);

3) Checks at purchase are only to verify validity of the license, and are not allowed to record actual firearms sold to any database.

Take out any one of those three legs, and I won't consider a proposal. Also, should a proposal like this be made, it would be illustrative to watch the votes in Congress, as it would immediately show which gun control proponents really want a registry, as opposed to a means to ensure that guns are only sold to the law-abiding.
MLeake is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 07:31 AM   #20
thedudeabides
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2012
Posts: 972
Want to give a gun to your law abiding wife? You're a felon without a UBC. Want to will your collection your son? You're a felon without a UBC. It would make transferring of a legal piece of property between law abiding citizens into a heavily regulated and potentially criminal act.

Oh, and while you were away on a business trip someone broke into your house and your wife defended herself with your gun... you're both now felons.
thedudeabides is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 09:39 AM   #21
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,766
The fact of the matter is that UBC's would be unenforceable without registration and the anti's know this just as well as we do. If you think for one second that the anti's wouldn't go for UBC's without registration out of some sort of all-or-nothing mentality, you're sorely mistaken. Let's be frank here, the movers and shakers within the gun control movement including Feinstein, Schumer, McCarthy, Rush, Soros, and Brady all have the ultimate goal of a complete ban on private ownership. This has been the goal all along but they know that it's too big a pill for the American people to swallow all at once.

Because of this, they choose to attempt to implement their agenda incrementally rather than in one fell swoop. By slowly whittling away, they can make their proposals seem "reasonable" while telling you that they're only after those evil machine guns/saturday night specials/assault weapons/gun shows/etc. The anti's would gladly take UBC's without registration because they'll simply wait until UBC's don't work (they won't) and then push for registration so that the UBC's which "are supported by a majority of gun owners" will be enforceable. They'll further demonize the NRA and the "Gun Lobby" for not allowing them to take UBC's far enough. UBC's without registration today makes full-on registration seem all the more "reasonable" tomorrow.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 10:06 AM   #22
dlb435
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 654
I'm against the universal background check because it is unenforcable without first having universal gun regisration.
It will quickly be pointed out that that is the big failing of the law and the "fix" would be regisration. As we all know, regisration is the first step to confiscation. I'm not one who believes that our current government is evil or that any current leaders are trying to enslave the population. What I do know is that if such people come to power in the future, we will have no defense without arms and even only a little defense with them.
You don't need to look any farther than Siria to see what a struggle it is to overthrow an evil government.
Small arms ain't much but it's better than nothing.
dlb435 is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 10:17 AM   #23
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
At least then they would have to make an open argument for registration and by then all the 300 plus million guns in private hands would have no paper trail.

Registration is what they need to have confiscation - an anonymous background check gains them no ground and in fact would lose them ground as the paper trail from retail sales through FFL's would be voided in any real or legal sense as the gun could have been sold numerous times in paperless background checks that do not include information on the gun or guns that were transferred.

Right now they are pushing hard for registration under the guise of "universal background checks" - when we argue against that we are burdened to have to explain to most people that we are arguing principally against registration. That is fighting this current fight with one hand tied behind one's back. Our opposition gets to say, all we want is a simple background check and never has to defend registration. And it gives them an easier road politically to get registration than if they had to openly push for it.
mack59 is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 10:17 AM   #24
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Changed my mind on universal background checks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake View Post
The only check I could even consider getting behind would be along these lines:

1) The check is to obtain a license that is good for both purchase/transfer and for carry;

2) Licensees get the same benefits as retired LEOs do under LEOSA (IE carry in any state, according to each state's laws for its own licensed carriers);

3) Checks at purchase are only to verify validity of the license, and are not allowed to record actual firearms sold to any database.

Take out any one of those three legs, and I won't consider a proposal. Also, should a proposal like this be made, it would be illustrative to watch the votes in Congress, as it would immediately show which gun control proponents really want a registry, as opposed to a means to ensure that guns are only sold to the law-abiding.
The pen (written word) is mightier than the sword (arms).

So I propose we should make you obtain a license with a background check prior to allowing you to write letters to the editor, attend peaceful protests in city parks, call in on talk radio shows, or post on internet forums.

1A vs 2A.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 10:41 AM   #25
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 10,577
Ok, I understand what the OP wants, and it is not the background check of today, or one that is proposed by anyone, save the OP.

What I am confused about is how is full registration required to make a "universal" background check work? (and before anyone gets the wrong idea, I am opposed to the universal check on principle, just as I am opposed to the current law, on principle)

The check is run on a person, not the gun. All the checks I have been through, the closest they come to any information about the gun is the questions "long gun, or handgun?"

How is that registration? Sure, the 4473 form is registration, but that form stays at the dealer. Police can go look at it, but its not in the Fed computer database. Right?

Also, where does the ex post facto principle come in? They aren't supposed to make a law that retroactively creates a crime (although they have done it a few times, and are trying hard to do more). You couldn't be held criminally liable for not getting a UBC before the effective date of the law (assuming it does get passed), so the law could only apply to transfers done after it goes into effect.

So, someone please explain to me how it can't work without registration? Even if they kept the data (and they will, there are lawsuits currently pending to force them to purge data that they have already kept, in violation of the statute), all they have is data on you (as recieveing a gun) not what gun. Not the ser# of the gun, linked with your name.

Ok, is that it? THey can't trace a GUN back to see if there was a check before its transfer. I can see that. Is that where you think they need the registration for it to work? OK, I can see that too.

But that isn't what is being proposed, is it? I'm not hearing that they want a law to be able to trace a gun back and see that the check was done, the current system cannot do that. They would need full registration (an impossibilty) for a system to work like that. While they might be able to get all new guns in their system there is no way possible to get all the existing guns into that system.

What I am hearing is that they want to have the check run on anyone recieving a gun, from now on. That is what they are demanding, isn't it?

Or am I looking at this the wrong way?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13075 seconds with 7 queries