Universal background checks

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by DaleA

WITH registration when a prohibited person is found with a gun you quickly and easily go back to the last legal owner

Only in cases where the registered owner is too stupid to grind off the serial number. And I really doubt people knowingly selling registered guns to felons would leave the serial numbers intact.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Fact: The CDC is not prohibited from conducting research. They are prohibited from spending federal money on lobbying for gun control. That said -- IMHO the CDC should be prohibited from studying "the dangers of gun violence." Murder is not a disease. You can't develop a new antibiotic to cure someone of homicidal thoughts, and you can't develop a vaccine to immunize people against gunshots. The CDC should stick to researching diseases.

Yes, the CDC has no business studying gun violence. That is a criminology issue, not a public health issue. Yes, gun violence can affect the overall health of the public, but that's like saying that how to deal with North Korea is a public health issue and that thus we should be consulting public health experts on what to do. Yeah, if North Korea launches a nuke into the U.S., it will affect the health of the American public, but the issue of how to deal with North Korea is a foreign policy and national security issue and those are the people whom you consult.

On gun violence, that is a criminology and law enforcement issue and those are whom you consult. Not public health experts. That hasn't stopped the public health community though from thinking they are qualified to comment on the issue

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by LogicMan

Yes, gun violence can affect the overall health of the public, ...

That's a stretch but, if you want to go there, overall I think automobiles and bathtubs each probably injure and kill lots more people than firearms, yet I don't see the CDC whining about not being allowed to do research on automobile safety and bathtun safety, and I don't see them doing much advocacy (i.e. lobbying) for automobile or bathtub safety. Nor should they.

The name is, after all, the Center for "Disease" control. Their role and function is to study diseases. Just fly the mission.

[44 AMP]

When they began discussing the "disease" of "gun violence" they kept the mission, but changed the targeting.

the logic is simple. False, but simple.

Diseases cause harm, therefore anything that causes harm is a disease (of some kind).

Killing is bad...guns kill, therefore guns = bad

Free will causes problems, problems are bad, therefore free will = bad

UNLESS your free will agrees with mine, in which case, it is good.

[Lohman446]

I don't mind the idea of universal background checks. I don't buy and sell a lot of guns but when I dispose of a gun it is either to a person I know and have reason to believe is not a prohibited individual (they have a CCW) or I accept the best offer I can get from one of the gun store vendors (no an individual) at a gun show.

As others have noted how are you going to enforce it exactly? Who is going to be responsible for the "green light"? How long is it going to take? Who is responsible for verifying identity? Can I use the presence of a state ID that would have been considered valid for the individual I performed the background check on as an affirmative defense in the event of identify theft? Does a background check indemnify me from any further liability?

[brian33x51]

The government can't even properly handle the no fly list. Why would they do any better with this?

So you got 2 options with the government: raging incompetence or deep state maliciousness. The constitution was designed to protect us from the government, not make us subjects of that government.

[seeker_two]

Originally Posted by brian33x51

The government can't even properly handle the no fly list. Why would they do any better with this?

So you got 2 options with the government: raging incompetence or deep state maliciousness. The constitution was designed to protect us from the government, not make us subjects of that government.

^^^^This.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[manta49]

Only in cases where the registered owner is too stupid to grind off the serial number.

They could make that illegal if its not already. They have background checks here at the push of a button i am sure they could do similar in America, like it or not. PS And a ballistic test for handguns.

[5whiskey]

They could make that illegal if its not already.

It already is illegal, and those serial numbers in most cases can be recovered. If they are stamped (and most are), then the metal beneath has been compacted and a series of chemicals added can reveal the serial number by slightly changing the color of the metal in the compacted area.

[ATN082268]

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.

Second, because they're unenforceable against prohibited persons under either Haynes v. U.S. (SCOTUS, 1968), the A5 or the A8, depending on circumstances. Unless and until we can enforce them, at the very least, against those already convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in jail, there is no good reason to place additional restrictions on lawful gun owners.

Third, given the evidence of horrible reporting problems that we've seen in the current system, the problem isn't that there aren't enough background checks. It's that gov't agencies are ignoring the flags that are being waved.

Fourth, not one more inch. We've given enough. The antigunners have been openly telling us for decades that they want to take all of our guns. Their claims that "nobody wants to take your guns" ring hollow in light of what I'm seeing on the national landscape. Their use of the word "compromise" is wholly inappropriate. If I let you keep half of your cash so that I don't beat the snot out of you and take all of it, it's not a compromise. That's how a protection racket works.

This. Somewhere on the horizon in the U.S., probably within the next decade or so, I see a national gun registry. That's the only way universal background checks will work on the guns already in circulation prior to a universal background check being passed. Soon after a national registry, there will undoubtedly be a start of incremental restrictions on some/all kinds of guns on the registry so you may not be able to give/sell it to anyone else, for example. I don't think the gun grabbers will have the patience for the gun owners to die off in 40-60 years or risk the law being repealed, so some incremental confiscation/forced turn in/destruction/etc. will come next...

[Lohman446]

Step 1) Registration

Step 2) Individual insurance - which will make owning firearms prohibitively expesnive

[SIGSHR]

Why not have them for drinkers, drug users, etc. ?

[manta49]

Why not have them for drinkers, drug users, etc. ?

Have what. ?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by manta49

They could make that illegal if its not already. They have background checks here at the push of a button i am sure they could do similar in America, like it or not. PS And a ballistic test for handguns.

It is already illegal to remove, alter or deface the serial number on a firearm. The way the law is worded, whoever is in possession of a firearm with a removed, altered or defaced serial number is presumed to be the person who committed the unlawful act of having removed, altered or defaced the serial number. It's a felony offense on the federal level, and many states have their own versions, as well.

Some states tried ballistic fingerprinting. This is why new firearms for awhile usually had a fired case in the package. The "technology" never solved a single gun crime, but it cost the states that used it a lot of money.

[2ndsojourn]

Like stated early on, UBC's will be unenforceable without registration.

With 300,000,000 (plus?) firearms already in circulation how are they going to enforce that? Wouldn't prosecution have to prove that the transfer occurred after the law took effect? (You have the right to remain silent...)

HRC and the Brady bunch repeatedly bragged that over 1 million firearm sales were stopped by the NICS system. So, where are all the prosecutions for lying on the 4473? They don't enforce the existing background check laws and they want more background checks. (Note: The 1 million sales number was a lie; the real number was 100,000+ but still...).

[DaleA]

Manta49---"Have what?"
One of the ploys of the anti-gun folk is the 'common sense' idea that gun owners carry liability insurance for their guns, you know, like liability insurance on your car.

SIGSHR points out why not require people who drink or use drugs to carry liability insurance. (And thanks SIGSHR for pointing out the ridiculousness of the idea.)

[DaleA]

Some states tried ballistic fingerprinting. This is why new firearms for awhile usually had a fired case in the package. The "technology" never solved a single gun crime, but it cost the states that used it a lot of money.

Thanks for bringing this up.

How many times have we heard incredibly dramatic and emotional anti-gun speakers proclaim "AND THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING TO STOP THIS!!!" (gun violence).

Well a LOT has been done. There's LOTS of gun laws. Disregarding 1934 and 1968 ('cause they were so long ago the anti-folk don't mention them) we've had the assault weapons ban that didn't do much, and the above ballistic fingerprinting which didn't work and the Canadians tried gun registration and gave it up as a bad idea, (I think).

I wonder if there is a list of all the gun regulations that could be displayed to refute the claim that "NOTHING" ever gets done?

[manta49]

Manta49---"Have what?"
One of the ploys of the anti-gun folk is the 'common sense' idea that gun owners carry liability insurance for their guns, you know, like liability insurance on your car.

SIGSHR points out why not require people who drink or use drugs to carry liability insurance. (And thanks SIGSHR for pointing out the ridiculousness of the idea.)

They don't even need liability insurance for firearms here i doubt it would be needed in America, its a separate issue from background checks.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by DaleA

I wonder if there is a list of all the gun regulations that could be displayed to refute the claim that "NOTHING" ever gets done?

That would make for a very long list. I don't know where it came from, but the conventional wisdom for a number of years has been that there are over 20,000 firearms laws in the United States (I assume that includes state laws and regulations as well as federal). The truth is, to compile a complete list of them all is impossible. I've been working for weeks just trying to come up with a tabulation of firearms provisions in the zoning laws of every municipality in my state. That's ONLY zoning laws, I'm not even touching on the criminal code.

[riffraff]

To the original question - the obvious, what "Universal Background Checks" refer to is ending private sales without background checks.

The reason why it's nonsensical is any private transaction aside from resident of some state to resident of the same state is already illegal without using an FFL. Any problem that is caused by such, ie prohibited people getting guns, is pretty much isolated to the state where it's happening. States can make their own laws, so if they think it's a problem they can require sales always go through an FFL. What we do in NH though is none of their concern or business in CA - like a bumper sticker I read recently "We don't care how you do it in California" ..

Resident from state #1 sells firearm to resident of state #1. Any existing problem stays in the same state...

Resident from state #1 sells firearm to resident of state #2 - already very illegal (for both seller & receiver). Existing laws already require it goes through an FFL.

The same also maintains various state bans - ie gun stays in the same state, no introduction of prohibited firearms that didn't exist there already.

The way private & "internet" sales, and "gun shows" are made out to be by the media and non gun owners is ridiculously misleading. There are some very strong laws in place strictly regulating even private sales.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well just in off the top of my head federal laws and regulations there is 18 USC 921, 18 USC 922 and all title 27 in the CFR. That doesn’t include dozens of other laws and regulations squirreled away in more obscure sections of the CFR or USC.

[Lohman446]

The way private & "internet" sales, and "gun shows" are made out to be by the media and non gun owners is ridiculously misleading. There are some very strong laws in place strictly regulating even private sales.

The way internet sale are made out is largely misleading. The issue, at least around here, is gun shows are composed of FFL dealers selling firearms and private individuals selling "private collections." While I have no doubt some of these are in fact private individuals selling private collections some of them look an awfully lot like a gun dealer, have tables set up at nearly every show like a gun dealer, and are, for all intents, a dealer.

I can walk into a gun show this month and buy a gun from an FFL. Same amount of papework as I would have at a normal "brick and mortar" gun store, same background check, and same payment methods.

I can walk into the same gun show, hand over cash, and walk out with a long gun (handgun sales are regulated by the state of MI) with zero background check and not even a positive ID.

I don't think we can discount the concern with the later. We can discuss IF it should be regulated or is protected but we seem to be in denial that it happens. I think it is the "gun show purchase" that is being held up by those favoring regulation as the issue

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Lohman

I can walk into the same gun show, hand over cash, and walk out with a long gun (handgun sales are regulated by the state of MI) with zero background check and not even a positive ID.

I don't think we can discount the concern with the later. We can discuss IF it should be regulated or is protected but we seem to be in denial that it happens. I think it is the "gun show purchase" that is being held up by those favoring regulation as the issue

I have never read anyone denying that private sales occur at gun shows. They also occur at ranges, gun shops, and garages. The problem in part is that "gun show loophole" is offered as a description of something that exists, so that people who hear it as part of their introduction to the topic imagine that a gun show is the firearm equivalent of a duty free shop in which normal rules don't apply.

"Private sale loophole" isn't a part of the gun control advocate's lexicon because most people with ordinary life experience don't imagine a private sale to be implicitly criminal. They've bought end tables, lawn mowers, and all sorts of other junk privately, and don't think it's odd when the state isn't a party to those transactions.

[Lohman446]

I don't think it does us any favors to deny that there is some "gun show loophole"

Imagine, for instance, I want to buy a particular rifle for illegitimate purposes and I am a prohibited individual. I can drive around from yard-sale to yard-sale over time. I can look through sales ads leaving some form of digital footprint. Or I can go to a gun show with cash and, presenting no identification and no other communication with some private seller, walk out with what I want.

Now as you note we can discuss if private sales in any way should be regulated. Is the local flea market for instance? It does us no favor to repeatedly deny that there is something "different" about gun shows especially when those who propose there is can readily demonstrate it.

FYI: If I was a legitimate dealer at a gun show I would be annoyed to be competing with unlicensed (and likely uninsured) "private collectors" that are operating on the same business model I was

[turkeestalker]

I have been asked by more than just a few individuals, “You mean that you can’t just buy anything you want at a gun show no questions asked?”.
Or something similarly worded.
THAT is the impression intended to be given by the people using the term ‘gun show loophole’ and it’s wholly dishonest.
Truth be told the percentage of private individuals setiting up tables at a gun show is small, but there is a percentage out there.
Just a very small percentage of little consequence in the bigger scheme of things.
I have purchased from them in the past and from individuals just wandering through the show with something on their shoulder.
Though I don’t think it’s wise not to verify information on the seller and myself the purchaser for their own benefit, by seeing a drivers license and recording it in written form, and then keeping it for your records.
Though in no way does my state require the purchaser or the seller to do that.