|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 14, 2019, 03:24 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,289
|
Universal Background Check and Universal Gun Registration-Breitbart
It's no surprise 'Breitbart' is a seriously conservative place (okay, I didn't know this until somebody told me but everybody else already knows this) but one of the really BIG pushes going on right now is "Universal Background Checks" (UBC) even for private, face to face sales among individuals who aren't dealers. (Did I qualify that enough?)
https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendm...earm-registry/ It's been discussed here before that the UBC requires gun registration to work and Breitbart points this out in a very clear, easy to understand article. But the 'big push' is on to pass into law UBC's WITHOUT gun registration. So, should we say 'whatever' and save our determined resistance for when they come back for gun registration or should we show determined resistance for the UBC's even though there's no registration in the current proposal. Two proverbs come to mind: Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile and the old tale of "the camel's nose under the tent". |
January 14, 2019, 05:08 PM | #2 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
Quote:
HOWEVER, every version of the UBC that we are being offered (by the usual suspects) includes specific gun information being required as part of the process. This is because the sponsors WANT it there, not because it is needed for the check. This is so that the UBC check records can either function as registration, or provide the information for a registration database. It is by design, NOT need!! Quote:
The public has been trained and accepts the idea that doing a background check to stop a criminal from legally getting a gun is a good thing. And it is, and would be, if it actually worked. We can't win fighting that idea. What we can do is show how this specific law fails, and where, and how it puts an unnecessary burden on innocent citizens to no benefit. In 2016, Washington state passed a background check law. Passed by initiative after being defeated in the legislature three consecutive election cycles. The law requires a background check to be done, by an FFL on all "transfers". The law is written so badly that it is unclear what is and is not a transfer covered under the law. SO badly that all state law enforcement agencies have refused to enforce the law, without further clarification. TO date, such clarification has not been provided. That law requires the owner, the gun, and the person it is to be transferred to, to present themselves to an FFL for the check to be run. That law also limits the fee the FFL can charge for the check. That law does contain a couple of exceptions, which include loaning a gun to someone on a "certified range" (not defined) or while hunting, or transfer to certain family members can be done without going to an FFL for a background check. ALL other situations, could, under that law, require a FFL check, there is no guidance on that, so, possibly, you visiting a friend at his home, him handing you one of his guns to look at, you taking it, and then handing it back to him, COULD be crimes under the law, because you didn't go to an FFL and have the check done on you, to receive the gun, and another crime because you didn't get an FFL check to give the owner back his own gun. That law uses the term "transfer" and does cover more than purchase transactions. As written it is not just a bad idea, it is a bad law, and when not only the Sheriffs, but the State Patrol AND the Conservation Dept all say "we're not enforcing this until you explain it better" that ought to be a clue. However, there is a downside to this, no enforcement means no trial cases that can be used to overturn the law. So it stays on the books. The idea that a background check will stop a person committed to doing violence carries the same weight in the real world as the paper Chamberlin got in Munich in 1938, giving us "peace in our time!" the world found out how much that was worth in 1939.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
January 15, 2019, 08:48 AM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
11 states have universal background checks for all gun sales, including those between private citizens(essentially unenforceable tho), without gun registry.
Quote:
https://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...man-said-70-8/
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
|
January 15, 2019, 10:05 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The idea of being able to have a NICS check on a stranger buying your gun is not without merit. Keeping permanent government records is problematic.
Years ago, a friend of mine wanted to sell his Sigma pistol. So he was on line to enter the gun show, a unknown person comes up and asks what he has. The dude offers more than my friend expected. My friend sells it and the gun goes off to ... I would never do that. An interesting statistic - if a gun is sold NIB and it ends up in a crime, it takes about 10 years. If the sale is person to person, the time to crime (as it is called) is about 5 years. Anyway, if you sell a gun to an individual, you do not know well, what info would you ask for, if not required by law.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
January 15, 2019, 11:48 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
Quote:
|
|
January 15, 2019, 12:39 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 405
|
Quote:
__________________
Support the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition |
|
January 15, 2019, 01:17 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
|
|
January 15, 2019, 02:15 PM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
Quote:
There was a summer long campaign of tv ads (largely funded by out of state interests) which (falsely) claimed the law was needed to keep domestic abusers from getting guns. (domestic abusers are already prohibited by law from owning guns, and have been for a long time) The ad campaign was a lie. But, an effective one, enough people in that metro area voted to pass it, overriding the rest of the state. This kind of thing happens often in many states with many issues where the concentration of the population is in a single, relatively small geographic area or two. The "masses" get spoon fed misinformation, and vote on it as if it were the actual facts, and their numbers overwhelm everyone else. This is democracy. The will of the people rules (no matter who manipulates it, or how). 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner is democracy. Not so good for the sheep, though. Possibly why the Founders set up a democratic Republic, not a democracy. A distinction that seems lost on a lot of people these days.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 15, 2019, 03:31 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,289
|
In Minnesota one of the plans is, if someone wants to purchase a gun, any type of gun, they have to get a "permit-to-purchase".
If you're selling a gun you ask to see the permit-to-purchase, if they have the permit-to-purchase then you proceed with the sale, if they don't, you don't. No need to go to the police station or an FFL dealer. In MN you have to have the permit-to-purchase RIGHT NOW if you want to buy a handgun or an "assault weapon". It's been this way for years. Note: in MN the Remington 597 .22LR with the AR-like tacticool stock requires a permit-to-purchase. The Remington 597 .22LR with the wood stock does not require a permit-to-purchase. Of course set up like this it is unenforceable. If Joe Felon is found with a gun and he won't say who sold it to them there is no gun registry for John Law to go to to find out who the last owner of the gun was. Note: I should add that in MN if you have a concealed carry permit then you don't need a permit-to-purchase. A permit-to-purchase only requires you to fill out a form and hand it in to local law enforcement, takes about 20 minutes and it's free they run their checks and it usually takes about two weeks. |
January 15, 2019, 03:43 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,432
|
This is also being discussed in THR with a lot of vim and vigor. Recap from there is the UBC is designed to deliberately fail so that registration (and ultimately confiscation) comes to the fore. Some of those posts seems to make a lot of sense in that regard. Without registration it doesn't work; and like all of the other gun control attempts, when it does fail there will be a cry for , "well we just to add this aspect" tot he new law.Slowly, death by a thousand cuts becomes a reality.........and they have been cutting on us for quite some time.
They want to eliminate FTF sales, except this does nothing to stop criminals, but it does make it harder for those of us who distrust our government to keep our business to ourselves. Just say NO to any more laws until the thousands of existing ones are eliminated, enforced or revised.
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa |
January 15, 2019, 04:43 PM | #11 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: E Tennessee
Posts: 828
|
Quote:
From Politifact: Quote:
Again from Politifact: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In spite of all this, Politifact still rates the poll results as "mostly true", because, well, that is the result they wanted. |
|||||
January 15, 2019, 06:17 PM | #12 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 3, 2014
Location: Delaware
Posts: 121
|
Delaware requires a FFL for all sales of guns except WHEN A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT HOLDER SELLS TO ANOTHER CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT HOLDER. In some of the red states long guns do not require a FFL to buy or sell and you can be under 21 years old.
|
January 16, 2019, 01:23 AM | #13 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
If it's illegal for a felon to possess a firearm, and the cops have caught Joe Felon with a firearm -- what difference does it make who the last [legal] owner was, and from whom Joe felon bought it? (Or stole it.) |
|
January 16, 2019, 03:24 AM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,289
|
Quote:
My question is, do we protest the toothless UBC that has no gun registry component claiming that we see in the future that there will be a demand for universal gun registration or do we let the toothless UBC go through and save our efforts for when the universal gun registration is proposed. Thanks FITASC for pointing out the similar discussion over at "thehighroad.org" |
|
January 16, 2019, 07:14 AM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
Hardly a liberal 'bias'...
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
|
January 16, 2019, 04:36 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: E Tennessee
Posts: 828
|
Quote:
I can't speak to whether or not Rasmussen has a bias, but if you examine Politifact much at all, their bias is obvious. The Rasmussen poll you referred to was taken a week after a school shooting when emotion might play into a response much more than normal. Depending on how they are worded and/or conducted, a poll can be crafted to produce a desired outcome. You can't really give a lot of weight to most polls of any type- as often seen with pre-election polls, they are often proven to be far from reality. They do have some utility if the same poll is used annually to give a hint toward trends. |
|
January 17, 2019, 09:56 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Not keen on arguing bias and various media outlets but the bias exhibited by Rasmussen is as glaring as the 'other side' bias by other outlets. Rasmussen often limits their polling to only those who have a landline..that alone produces bias.
BUT, fact remains, albeit w/o specifics, that UBC is favored by a majority of adult Americans..Including a majority of NRA members. As structured, in CO, I just don't see how it's any problem and certainly prevents those who cannot pass the very rudimentary BGC here on Colorado, from buying handgun..BUT, of course, gun shows up in Wyoming are pretty dern close.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
January 17, 2019, 11:39 AM | #18 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
Quote:
I'll say this for the benefit of any new folks reading it, ALL gun control laws apply to gunshow and internet purchases EXACTLY the same as they apply to everyone everywhere else. Period. It is a popular fiction that one can buy anything without complying with the law at gunshows. likewise, the Internet. Now, maybe you can find someone willing to break the law to sell you a gun, but you can find those types anywhere, if you look in the right way. Criminals don't care about the laws, and aren't limited to given locations.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 17, 2019, 11:43 AM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 405
|
Quote:
__________________
Support the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition |
|
January 17, 2019, 12:55 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 11, 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 1,524
|
I have tried following this topic and there have been very good comments made in both directions Some of the discussion gets confusing and hard to understand just where the speaker is going.
I am going to offer this, instead of UBC why make Mandatory Background Checks? Make it so everyone has to do it , gun owners and non-gun owners alike. Issue a number to each person, Then if someone wants to purchase or sell they can show the number and be done with it. Then make the parties to the transaction responsible for maintaining the records of who they bought or sold to. Guess it could be like a drivers license with a physical card. Then if you are arrested or taken to court for a violation they confiscate your card. I think that could be refined to work without having to have a registry. |
January 17, 2019, 04:29 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: E Tennessee
Posts: 828
|
Quote:
Aside from possible bias of the pollster, another problem is that the person being polled may not understand or have a different understanding of what is being asked. On the subject of UBCs, one person may think of it as a simple NICS check, someone else might think it includes a complete psych evaluation, gun registration, etc. Another frequently asked question is: Do you think we need more gun control laws? If the person being polled is completely ignorant of the current laws, his answer may not be an accurate picture of how many restrictions he thinks are the right balance. As LeverGunFan pointed out, we really don't know how many NRA members do or do not support UBCs At any rate, basing public policy on polls is a really bad idea. On the subject of the UBCs themselves, as others have pointed out, they can form the basis of gun registration which serves no legitimate purpose. They will have zero impact on criminals obtaining them, as they can either buy on the black market or (illegally) have someone do a straw purchase for them. Prohibited persons who currently attempt to buy them from FFLs are almost never prosecuted. What is the point of adding more expense, bureaucracy and potential for abuse to law abiding gun owners with no corresponding benefit for crime reduction? |
|
January 17, 2019, 04:57 PM | #22 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
Quote:
And, they want it to be a uniform FEDERAL standard. They want a system that can answer the question "did you get a background check done when you bought that gun? (and by "that gun" they mean that specific individual gun, by ser#) That question can only be answered by a system that keeps a record connecting your personal information with a specific firearm, by serial number. That is the definition of registration. We could (and I think, should) create a system that runs the check on every person who applies for a government issued ID. Driver's license, or ID card, or Passport, what ever it is, we could use that, adding a block or box or icon identifying that the bearer is or is not a prohibited person. All a dealer would have to do is check THAT ID # to determine current status. NO information about what gun is needed. A system could be created so that if you become a prohibited person, your ID (s) would be altered to reflect that. It would, of course, require some effort to set up and keep updated, but it would be at least as accurate as what we do today, and possibly simpler. Polls showing what people "are in favor of" are mostly so much swamp gas. They have more holes in them than good Swiss cheese. Mostly because of two reasons, the first is the idea that a few hundred, or even a few thousand people accurately represent the will of the more than 330 MILLION people in this country today. The second is that when asked "are you in favor of....?" people respond to what they think is being asked, the general subject, and not the details of actual law or proposed law. Think for a moment about taxes...If you ask people if they are in favor of everyone having to pay their fair share, you will most likely get an overwhelming yes from the majority. HOWEVER, you aren't telling people what their fair share actually is. Their "yes" answer to the general idea might change to a "no" if you tell them that your idea of the "fair share" is 80% of their income. probably not a no, but a "Hell No!!" Simply put, polls often ask open ended very general questions, then treat the responses as if they applied to very specific things. And, that assumes that the pollsters don't go out of their way to cherry pick the data to fit their predetermined agenda. That also happens, all too often. I
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 17, 2019, 08:51 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
|
I’m all in if you had to submit to a rigorous background check to exercise all of your constitutional rights.
|
January 17, 2019, 09:43 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 11, 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 1,524
|
A background check to buy a gun but not to enter the country? Alright then.
|
January 18, 2019, 11:33 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Given the recent presidential election and revelation that pollsters can be bribed, I don't trust them at all. Also, the way you ask the question is obviously important.
The best analysis I've seen of general gun attitudes in the USA is that: 1. Most folks support the right to own firearms for self-defense and sport. 2. Most folks support measures to keep them from criminals and those who are not safe due to mental health concerns. The devil is in the details. The extremes of no restrictions or no guns are not supported.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|