Universal background checks

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by SonofaScubaDiver

I don't believe that, even for a second. The same restrictions that apply to felons and the adjudicated mentally ill under the current system would apply under a permit based system. One has to answer question 11c & f as it is, and the courts haven't deemed it to be unconstitutional.

Read it for yourself: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/85/

Prosecutions for 4473 are for lying on a federal form, not for failure to register a firearm.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Does that help clear anything up? or just make it worse?

It makes sense in the case of registering guns, but I am not talking about registering guns. I can see how if the current system of background checks were expanded to require all sales to include such a check then it would require some sort of gun registry. But what I'm talking about is a new system that wouldn't require any kind of gun registry because a background check would not be tied to sales. It would be tied to getting the permit. Once you have the permit, you could buy a gun from a private party, dealer, online etc. without an additional check. The permit would also allow you to carry your gun nationwide. So Joe Blow could walk into any gun store, gun show, garage sale, answer an ad, etc., and as long as he had the permit he could buy a gun without having to pass a background check because he already passed the check to get his permit. Felons and the adjudicated mentally ill would be prohibited from getting the permit. It's a way of creating a universal background check system that I think would be simpler than what we currently have, address the private sale "loophole", and expand our carry rights.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Read it for yourself: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/85/

Prosecutions for 4473 are for lying on a federal form, not for failure to register a firearm.

But you guys are thinking under the current system which is directly tied to the sale of a firearm. The sale is what triggers the background check. The permit based system I'm talking about replaces the current system with one that ties the background check to getting the permit.

[44 AMP]

It's a nice dream, but there are large practical problems with getting it to even be tried, let alone work.

The permit based system I'm talking about replaces the current system with one that ties the background check to getting the permit.

I get this. But, aside from having to go cap in hand to humbly ask the government's permission to exercise a constitutionally affirmed right, the system you propose is registering people, as gun owners, just not registering a specific ser# gun to them. And don't think there won't be such a registry. If its a govt permit, its required by law(s) to have records kept.

Then there is the fact that those people pushing the current system and its expansion won't accept anything other than their pet plans which contain the foundation for a gun registry. SO, you'd get opposition from both sides of the issue.

Next on the list of problems is the issue of state's rights. Federal law is not automatically supreme in every case. This is NOT an issue like slavery, where there is clearly a morally wrong choice. The states have a long standing, legally recognized, and vested interest in making their own decisions about some things, inside their own borders, and gun laws are one of those things, as currently recognized in our system. You, I, and the rest of the country might think those rules are wrong, stupid, pigheaded, and infringement of our rights, but if the majority of the people of that state don't think that way, they have a right to do so.

Remember that the same power and authority to say "you must" is ALSO the power and authority to say "you must NOT", and that goes for every issue you can think of.

This is the reason I oppose any kind of Fed govt top down imposition of a national carry permit type of thing. Not because being able to carry everywhere is a bad idea, but because forcing that idea on people (states) that don't want it is destructive to the checks and balances of our political system that retards and so far has prevented gross tyranny from a central government. (and note I said "gross" )

Another point against a permit system like you describe is the simple fact of time passing between getting the permit, and getting a gun. yes, most will have a gun in mind, and once they get the permit, will go get it straight away. But what about those who don't. Wait even ONE day, and a case can be made that you might have become a prohibited person after the issuance of the permit, so a current background check is still needed.

Personally, I think a better system would be to simply have the "limitless resources" of our government simply run a check on every single citizen, and put a gun/no gun icon on their driver's license or ID card.

Then, when you go to buy a gun, they can just run your driver's license number, with out any other information and find out if your legal status has changed since the issuance of the license. Doesn't need to contain any information about the gun in question either. Of course, in order to work correctly the system would have to be created within the government to ensure timley and proper updating of your "citizen license" and of course, there is a potential for abuse...

still boils down to a degree of registration though. If our govt is involved in any way, there will be some kind of record, somewhere. If it ever gets to the point of them rounding up gun owners, the list of people who applied for a permit is going to be their starting point, and it doesn't matter if you don't have any guns when they come for you, or didn't even get a gun at all, your name will be on their list and you'll be in the camps with the rest of us, if you survive the arrest....

don't stop dreaming, though. However unlikely sometimes dreamers do change the world.

[thallub]

So some folks are apprehensive about selling privately owned firearms because the buyer could be a convicted felon. The federal government should absolutely not be involved in the sale of privately owned firearms.

1. Insist on seeing a concealed carry permit.

2. Have the local FFL transfer the gun for a fee.

3. Sell the guns to an FFL.

Because of advanced age i'm selling off my rather large collection. i want to see:

1. An active duty military id card.

2, A concealed carry permit.

3. An FFL or C&R permit.

4. A law enforcement officer id.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by SonOfScubaDiver

. . . .But what I'm talking about is a new system that wouldn't require any kind of gun registry because a background check would not be tied to sales. It would be tied to getting the permit. Once you have the permit, you could buy a gun from a private party, dealer, online etc. without an additional check. The permit would also allow you to carry your gun nationwide. . . . . Felons and the adjudicated mentally ill would be prohibited from getting the permit. It's a way of creating a universal background check system that I think would be simpler than what we currently have, address the private sale "loophole", and expand our carry rights.

Originally Posted by SonOfScubaDiver

But you guys are thinking under the current system which is directly tied to the sale of a firearm. The sale is what triggers the background check. The permit based system I'm talking about replaces the current system with one that ties the background check to getting the permit.

I'm not sure why you think we're confused. I don't speak for anyone else, but I understood what you meant. You want a mandatory, national license for possession of firearms, without which possession of a firearm would be a crime. If I'm wrong about that, let me know which point is wrong, but it sounds like you want to register gun owners instead of guns. Here's what I said in my first post in this thread:

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

First, because they most certainly lead to registration, either of guns or of gun owners. You decide which is worse. . . .

You may not think registering gun owners (which is really what a national permitting system would do) is so bad, I think it's a horrible idea. In addition to the reasons that 44 AMP so ably articulated, there's the issue of "who sets the standards and how" when you get to the nuts and bolts of such a system. If it's a national system, then Congress would set the statutes in place and possibly delegate some of the details to a federal agency. To put it mildly, I'm not excited about the prospect of having to go, hat in hand, to BATFE or the FBI to ask permission to buy a .22 bolt action rifle for squirrel control.

In addition to the enforceability problem that I've already mentioned, I have a couple of other objections, as follows:

1. Clearly, a criminal history check would be part of the process. Beyond that, though, we don't know what we'd get:

1. Will this system be in addition to the state systems, or will it replace them?
2. Which agency will be tasked with handling permits?

   The FBI? They run NICS, so that makes some sense.
   The BATFE? They regulate guns & NFA stamps, so that makes some sense, too?
   Joint operations?

3. Will this be funded by taxes or permit fees, or some combination?
   How much will a permit cost?
4. Will the permit process be "may issue" or "shall issue?"
5. Exactly what information must an applicant provide?
6. Beyond a background check, what additional requirements will there be?

2. The one that causes me real heartburn is "d," above. You're talking about a national system on the federal level. By definition, that invites members of Congress of all states into the sausage-making party of hammering out the details. That means that states like California, New York, Illinois and New Jersey will get to "help" in crafting the language of the statutes. That means that they get a voice in setting the standards, too. I don't believe for one minute that they'll settle for "just a criminal background check, shall issue, and nationwide carry." I believe that such states will want things like:

• Extensive training requirements;
• Psychological exams;
• Personal references;
• Waiting periods.

Given the standards in those states, I'd be surprised if their congresscritters didn't try to turn the permitting process into the bureaucratic equivalent of a colonoscopy. They could even try to allow states to opt out, which would destroy the national nature of the permit. Perhaps more importantly, I have no recourse against the congressfolks of those states. If a whole bunch of standards were implemented with which I disagreed, I'd have to just hope somebody sued to invalidate the law while I waited for new legislation. It's not like I can sue CA's congressfolks for enacting something I don't like. And I can't vote them out of office.

It's not that I don't want nationwide carry. I do. I just don't want it done by the federal gov't. If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times: Interstate Compact on the Carrying of Concealed Weapons.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

. . . .Personally, I think a better system would be to simply have the "limitless resources" of our government simply run a check on every single citizen, and put a gun/no gun icon on their driver's license or ID card.

Then, when you go to buy a gun, they can just run your driver's license number, with out any other information and find out if your legal status has changed since the issuance of the license. Doesn't need to contain any information about the gun in question either. Of course, in order to work correctly the system would have to be created within the government to ensure timley and proper updating of your "citizen license" and of course, there is a potential for abuse...

If it's being run on EVERY citizen (no opt-out provision), at the state level, I'd be way more comfortable with this than a national permit. Still, I need to let this one "ferment" in my head before I decide if I can really get behind it.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

As I already pointed out in another post, the devil would be in the details. It would require a complete revamping of what we currently have to create one system that would be the same in every state that covered everyone. I have no doubt that some folks on the pro gun control side would still not be satisfied and that some folks on the pro gun rights side would also be unhappy.

[Tom Servo]

A bit late to the party, but I'm going to put on the lampshade and ask one simple question: why?

I have asked gun-control advocates more times than I can count to show me where and when permitting or background checks have reduced violent crime. It doesn't even have to be strict causation; I'll settle for a strong correlation.

The answer? A change of subject or an accusation that I'm a lapdog for the "gun lobby."

Remember, we were told that requiring background checks under the Brady Act would trigger massive decreases in violent crime. That didn't happen. In fact, even studies funded by anti-gun think tanks have trouble establishing the most tenuous relationships between background checks and minuscule decreases in crime. Same goes for requiring permits.

These measures have nothing to do with reducing violence. They are simply intermediate roadblocks to gun ownership. If Proposal A passes and we have another shooting, then obviously we need Proposal B, which is far stricter. Then another shooting. Well, Proposals A and B just didn't go far enough, so we need Proposal C. And so it goes.

These aren't compromises. They're concessions. And we shouldn't be lining up to hand them to the anti-gun lobby.

[peterg7]

Judging by this discussion gun ownership will be severely limited in the future, if gun people are advocating a national ID or restrictions on private sales we’ve lost. More than RKBA basic freedom as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by SonOfScubaDiver

As I already pointed out in another post, the devil would be in the details. It would require a complete revamping of what we currently have to create one system that would be the same in every state that covered everyone. I have no doubt that some folks on the pro gun control side would still not be satisfied and that some folks on the pro gun rights side would also be unhappy.

As Tom asked, why?

Why on God's green earth would I ever consider supporting a "complete revamping" of the system that:

• will cost an arm and a leg in the overhaul;
• will not be enforceable against previously-convicted felons;
• allows states like NY and CA to "help" decide if I'm eligible to own a gun;
• will not reduce crime; and
• will be replaced by stricter measures in pretty short order.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by thallub

Because of advanced age i'm selling off my rather large collection. i want to see:

1. An active duty military id card.

2, A concealed carry permit.

3. An FFL or C&R permit.

4. A law enforcement officer id.

Asking to "see" one of the above is one thing. I've gathered from past discussions on this point that most people here wouldn't object to "showing" one of the above, but they balk at the point where the seller wants to photocopy it or write down the information. It's a non-issue for me because I live in a nanny state that already requires state police approval for private sales, but for those who live in free states, I sympathize with the idea that a private sale should be a private sale. A paper trail takes it out of that realm.

Do you just want to see a qualifying document, or do you also want to write down the buyer's personal information for your records?

[Tom Servo]

Do you just want to see a qualifying document, or do you also want to write down the buyer's personal information for your records?

I'd want to see something along those lines, but that's my preference. The problem arises when I use the government as a cudgel to mandate the application of my preferences to everyone else.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

I'd want to see something along those lines, but that's my preference. The problem arises when I use the government as a cudgel to mandate the application of my preferences to everyone else.

The question was posed to thallub, as a direct response to his post, but I think you missed the point. Many pro-gun, pro-2A people don't have a problem showing a private seller something that demonstrates they're not a prohibited person, but they draw the line when the seller wants to record the buyer's personal information for posterity. We understand that the seller wants to protect himself, but we also understand why buyers may want to NOT leave a paper trail. It's not that they want to do something illegal. In fact, it's precisely because their purchase IS legal that they don't think there's any reason to have it recorded for posterity.

I sympathize with that. It's not an option in my home state but, if it were, I would not buy a gun from a seller who insisted on recording my data. If I want a paper trail, I may as well just buy from an FFL.

It's a bit of a conundrum.

[thallub]

Do you just want to see a qualifying document, or do you also want to write down the buyer's personal information for your records?

i want to see the document and write down nothing. The name of the person goes in the Disposition column of my spreadsheet.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by thallub

i want to see the document and write down nothing. The name of the person goes in the Disposition column of my spreadsheet.

That counts as "writing it down," in my view. It's a record of who bought the gun. You are essentially keeping your own, personal version of an FFL's bound book, so there is a trail. It's not a "paper" trail unless and until it's printed on paper, but it's a trail.

I understand why you do it. I also understand why some buyers balk at having the seller keep a record of the sale.

[BBarn]

I would be unable to provide any of those four documents, yet I have passed numerous background checks at several gun stores when buying guns. I never realized I was such a bad risk.

[Aguila Blanca]

You are only a bad risk to a private seller who can't run a NICS check and who wants to protect himself by having evidence that you aren't a prohibited person. The law doesn't require postitive proof that you're not -- the law only says that we can't sell a firearm to someone we have reason to believe is a prohibited person -- but a risk-aversive seller can't be blamed for wanting to cover his own posterior.

[BBarn]

I realize all of that. It's just that the whole senario smells of guilty before proven innocent.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by BBarn

I realize all of that. It's just that the whole senario smells of guilty before proven innocent.

Not really. Put yourself in the seller's position. Maybe you bought the gun new, or at least through an FFL, so there's a 4473 out there that points to you. You sell the gun. A couple or few years later there's a knock on the door. It's the BATFE. "Your" gun was just recovered at a murder scene. They want to know how it got there.

You tell them that two (or a few) years ago you sold it to some dude at a yard sale. No, you don't know who he was, but he didn't look like a gang banger and he paid in cash, so you had no reason to think he was prohibited. Perfectly legal -- but if the authorities can't come up with any leads to other suspects, you will remain a suspect in that murder. If you don't have a good alibi for the time of the crime, you might even be arrested and have to lawyer up.

From the seller's perspective, knowing it's hard to prove a negative, it's much safer to ask for (and write down) some sort of documentation that shows he (the seller) did his due diligence and made an effort to assure himself that the buyer wasn't a prohibited person. I don't like it, but I understand it. I certainly don't regard it as the seller accusing me of being a felon.

[BBarn]

Regardless of the reasoning, the seller is assuming that the buyer is a prohibited person. And he's asking for documentation that suggests to himself that the buyer isn't a prohibited person (even though the things the seller is asking for do not prove the buyer isn't a prohibited person).

If someone is concerned about being a future suspect and being arrested, they should go to an FFL so there is an official record of the firearm transfer. Asking for documentation and taking names on their own proves nothing.

[Lohman446]

There is a major difference between a seller requiring verification of identity and a record of sale for his or her own reasons and the same being required by law. If you are uncomfortable with a sellers terms you need not purchase from that seller.

[peterg7]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

You are only a bad risk to a private seller who can't run a NICS check and who wants to protect himself by having evidence that you aren't a prohibited person. The law doesn't require postitive proof that you're not -- the law only says that we can't sell a firearm to someone we have reason to believe is a prohibited person -- but a risk-aversive seller can't be blamed for wanting to cover his own posterior.

Yes they can, because their actions provide fuel for the gun grabbers.

If the gentleman with the collection is uncomfortable selling private he can just send the collection to auction and let the ffl deal with legalities.

My concern with a UBC is when I want to gift my guns to my family we shouldn’t have to incur any expenses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lohman446]

Yes they can, because their actions provide fuel for the gun grabbers.

You don't think that those arguing for and demanding the ability to anonymously buy a firearm do the same in providing fuel?

In this thread we have devolved from opposing universal background checks to objecting to private sellers who want to copy down information from individuals they are selling a firearm to because IT MIGHT lead to UBC. Yes I am going to have the information of anyone I sell a firearm to and I am going to have reason to believe they are not a prohibited person. Granted this is why I generally go through an FFL but I don't think anyone asking to record where a firearm went is a problem.

[thallub]

If the gentleman with the collection is uncomfortable selling private he can just send the collection to auction and let the ffl deal with legalities.

Why in hades should i pay to sell my private property?

Yep, i could sell them to an FFL or pawnshop for 30-50 percent of their value. i could sell them at a gun buyback extravaganza.

Yep, i choose to simply record the buyers name in my database. That's all, just the buyers name; no address, no phone number, no type of identification or anything else.

The man i sold my Luger collection to has a C&R license. The man is a serious collector who never haggled over the price.

i've not always required that type of identification. Then a young man reeking of meth showed up to purchase a handgun. There was no sale.

One could be sued into bankruptcy because of a gun sale.