Universal Background Check and Universal Gun Registration-Breitbart

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNret93

Then there has to be some solution.

As a general proposition, rights don't need a solution, and one should suspect the intentions of those who would "solve" them.

[kmw1954]

Kind of a conundrum isn't it.

I have a Right to Qwn a gun. Correct?

I have a right to not be murdered by an unstable nut with a gun, Correct?

Which Right outweighs the other?

[zukiphile]

Let me suggest that it isn't a conundrum, and that a problem inheres in the analysis implied.

Originally Posted by kmw1954

I have a right to not be murdered by an unstable nut with a gun, Correct?

Which Right outweighs the other?

Constitutional rights are rights one holds against the government. You have a right against certain government searches and seizures, and a right against government takings without process and compensation.

Neither you nor I have any analogous right not to be murdered by an unstable nut with a gun. For us to have that right, the government would need to have a corresponding duty to prevent such a murder. Neither the federal nor state government have that duty.

If we wander down he path of balancing tests for the preservation of constitutional rights of individuals against the government, the destination will be that they are gone. At some point, someone is going to identify some purported worthy goal that outweighs the mere right of an individual to be free of state power, and the only remaining issue is whether he will be able to get enough people to agree with him who've passed the rigorous requirement that they are over 18 and still draw breath.

[rickyrick]

If someone is ever going to commit murder, have tendencies to murder. They are going to do it regardless of the tool availability.
Almost everyone lives their life without committing murder or assault. We don’t assume (or shouldn’t) a crime will be committed at some point in the future. I don’t think most crimes for which punishment has been completed should be used to take rights away from individuals either.

[44 AMP]

I have a right to not be murdered by an unstable nut with a gun, Correct?

who told you that???

because, you don't...

Not under our legal system as it exists today..

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Don’t think that’s true in Colorado when they passed their UBC law in 2013.
No gun registration in CO, but UBC..

Let's take a quick peek at that, shall we?

Originally Posted by Colorado

(1)(a) On and after July 1, 2013, except as described in subsection (6) of this section, before any person who is not a licensed gun dealer, as defined in section 18-12-506(6), transfers or attempts to transfer possession of a firearm to a transferee, he or she shall:
(I) Require that a background check, in accordance with section 24-33.5-424, C.R.S., be conducted of the prospective transferee; and
(II) Obtain approval of a transfer from the bureau after a background check has been requested by a licensed gun dealer, in accordance with section 24-33.5-424, C.R.S.
Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-12-112 (West)

Subsection 6 exempts certain transfers, but I don't want this to turn into a novel, so let's just go with the premise that it's a transfer between two individuals unrelated to one another, and that it's a sale. Thus, a UBC would be required.

Now, I couldn't figure out, at least not quickly, what information would go into this mandatory background check, so I went to the Colorado Bureau of Investigations web site and looked at its FAQ:

Originally Posted by Colorado Bureau of Investigations

Can individuals run a background check on persons to whom they are transferring firearms?

NO, effective July 1, 2013 (HB13-1229) a background check is required for all private transfer of firearms which must be conducted through a licensed firearm dealer (FFL).

Source: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cbi/firearmsfaqs

Hmmm, . . . . I then took a look at the issue of what records must be kept by the aforementioned FFLs:

Originally Posted by Colorado

Every individual, firm, or corporation engaged, within this state, in the retail sale, rental, or exchange of firearms, pistols, or revolvers shall keep a record of each pistol or revolver sold, rented, or exchanged at retail. The record must be made at the time of the transaction in a book kept for that purpose and must include the name of the person to whom the pistol or revolver is sold or rented or with whom exchanged; his or her age, occupation, residence, and, if residing in a city, the street and number therein where he or she resides; the make, caliber, and finish of said pistol or revolver, together with its number and serial letter, if any; the date of the sale, rental, or exchange of said pistol or revolver; and the name of the employee or other person making such sale, rental, or exchange. The record book shall be open at all times to the inspection of any duly authorized police officer.

Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-12-402 (West)

I find it interesting that the above section (enacted in 2018) does not seem to include long guns, but I'm also fairly sure this is registration.

[kmw1954]

Seems I read somewhere about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and Unalienable Rights. Actually believe this is what this Country was founded upon.

[44 AMP]

Would the book required by Colorado law be a separate book than the "bound book" required by Federal law for FFL dealers??

I'm far from an expert on these matters, seems to me the CO law requires a lot more information be kept than the FFL dealer's 'bound book" of inventory transfers, so I'm thinking they would need to be two physically separate volumes.

is that right?

I agree, the information required, in a book, open at all times to the inspection of any duly authorized police officer IS a registration. It's just not an efficient mass data sharing one. The investigator in Denver may have to go to Boulder to the dealer's location, but when he gets there, there IS a registration waiting, "open at all times" for his inspection.

one would hope that investigators would be considerate enough to visit during normal business hours, but it seems that the law requiring "open at all times" does give them the authority to drag an FFL out of bed in the middle of the night and open their shop to provide access if they so demand..

lovely law...I suppose...

[rickyrick]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not in the constitution. It was written for foreign governments explaining our intentions.

[raimius]

KMW, my right (and yours) to own firearms does not infringe on any of our other rights.
If you, criminally assault me with a deadly weapon, you have wronged me by your actions, not your civil rights.

[kmw1954]

The Right to Continue Living many not be in the US Bill of Rights but in my mind the Right to Life and to Continue Life Trumps all other Rights. In the Bill of Rights or Otherwise. Life is the most sacred right there is.

So you may all quote whatever you want or Belief you have but again this is my belief

I also believe that if I need to take your life to preserve mine then so be it just as you all have the same right to preserve yourselves.

If someone incurs a brain injury or jumps the mental tracks and suffers a meltdown then just maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have a dangerous weapon of any kind. Right now we do not have a solution to deal with that, that works.

[rickyrick]

I say change the constitution. It’s meant to be changed if needed. There’s mechanisms in place to amend the constitution. Others beliefs do not change what the government is allowed to do to individuals.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by kmw1954

The Right to Continue Living many not be in the US Bill of Rights but in my mind the Right to Life and to Continue Life Trumps all other Rights. In the Bill of Rights or Otherwise. Life is the most sacred right there is.

So you may all quote whatever you want or Belief you have but again this is my belief

Be that as it may, our the US Constitution deals only with the powers that our gov't has, and the limitations on same. As zuikiphile notes, it lays out the rights that one has as against the gov't. Whatever right(s) you may have as against private parties are a different discussion.

[USNRet93]

I don't argue that there is a record of guns sold and guns transferred at a FFL for online sales or private transactions..MY point is the probability that those records will end up being in a fed data base for confiscation of guns. It's possible, certainly. Give me your name and about 10 minutes and I'll know your SSN, address, phone number too.

The 'registration' that was completed at the Tanner gun show for that Glock 43 I bought was done by the seller..the BGC was done by the nice lady who was doing them for 3-4 different sellers in a little 4 table enclave. She didn't know what I was buying.

[Spats McGee]

Why would it have to be in a federal database for confiscation to happen? Colorado is registering guns at the state level, according to its own statute.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

Why would it have to be in a federal database for confiscation to happen? Colorado is registering guns at the state level, according to its own statute.

Regardless of the level, and in spite of a DEM trifecta in state government, confiscation isn't anywhere on anybodies radar.

Rep. Jared Polis says he thinks banning weapons possessed by law-abiding people violates the Second Amendment: "I believe it would make it harder for Colorado families to defend themselves and also interfere with the recreational use of guns by law- abiding Coloradans," Polis said. "If we want to reduce violence, we should invest in improving our schools to ensure that young people have jobs and do not turn to gangs, crime or violence of any form, and improving access to mental health services."

He IS a politician but...BTW-YOU CAN own a AR type weapon in Boulder..just need to 'register' it.

Besides, 'it is what it is'...short of storming onto the streets, we follow the law and support candidates who coincide(as much as possible) with our beliefs and principals. Last midterm turnout was 47%..2016 turnout was about 62%...VOTE...or forever hold your tongue..

As I said somewhere else..Pro Gun people and organizations are losing the messaging 'war'..yelling and screaming while displaying a AR type weapon on Pearl St mall might get 'some' riled up but it riles those who want to see them gone, much more vigorously.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Regardless of the level, and in spite of a DEM trifecta in state government, confiscation isn't anywhere on anybodies radar. . . .

Isn't on anybody's radar?!? I'll have to just plain ol' disagree with you on that one. One side has been saying for well over 20 years that taking the guns is exactly what they want to do. Here's a blog where some of those quotes (many of which I've seen and remember) have been collected. Nobody Wants to Take Your Guns.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

Isn't on anybody's radar?!? I'll have to just plain ol' disagree with you on that one. One side has been saying for well over 20 years that taking the guns is exactly what they want to do. Here's a blog where some of those quotes (many of which I've seen and remember) have been collected. Nobody Wants to Take Your Guns.

It isn't on 'anybody's radar' in the Colorado state legislature. Besides..confiscation with regards to the present makeup of SCOTUS and the stated position of the majority of Dems, and the difficulty of changing or eliminating ANY constitutional amendment..Not too worried about anybody coming to my door and trying to take my guns.

Yes, there are some very vocal congress-people who yell this from time to time but generally speaking, short of a 28th amendment, repealing the 2nd..isn't going to happen anytime soon, IMHO..

Heller, with all it's warts, said,

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

Confiscation of everybody's guns is the opposite of the above..

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

It isn't on 'anybody's radar' in the Colorado state legislature. Besides..confiscation with regards to the present makeup of SCOTUS and the stated position of the majority of Dems, and the difficulty of changing or eliminating ANY constitutional amendment..Not too worried about anybody coming to my door and trying to take my guns.

I don't think it will happen in a door-to-door manner. Little by little, This will be outlawed, then That will be outlawed, then the "see-something-say-something" campaigns will take over. This or That will be confiscated from drunk drivers, divorces will turn into Turning In Your Ex, which will result in confiscations . . . .

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Yes, there are some very vocal congress-people who yell this from time to time but generally speaking, short of a 28th amendment, repealing the 2nd..isn't going to happen anytime soon, IMHO..

Heller, with all it's warts, said, . . . .

I've read Heller a time or two . . . .

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

I don't think it will happen in a door-to-door manner. Little by little, This will be outlawed, then That will be outlawed, then the "see-something-say-something" campaigns will take over. This or That will be confiscated from drunk drivers, divorces will turn into Turning In Your Ex, which will result in confiscations . . . .


I've read Heller a time or two . . . .

With the YUGE number of shootings in the US, still no AR type ban..so I don't think the above is imminent at all. 'Outlawed' is HUGE word...why there are lawyers on both sides but as I mentioned..the pro-gun/NRA-type groups need to learn some PR from the 'other side'..stop looking like they are the armed to the teeth 'enemy'. How many pro-gun campaigns, aimed at non gun owning but voting people, stress the 'sportsman', range shooter, leisure time activity,family outings of shooting. All you hear is 'pry from my dead fingers', 'I WILL NOT COMPLY', 'TRY TO TAKE THIS'..bad guys everywhere, and 'libtards/demacreeps' are the enemy. Take a look at youtube and search about guns or shooting and tell me what a lot of these guys say and wear.

When I did my CCW class, a solid hour was about red states and 'commie blue states'..with comments about various government reps.
...Gee, I wonder why Feinstein doesn't like the progun crowd..why are pro-gun people referred to as 'gun freaks'..messaging.

NOT saying you are ignorant of anything but the precedent has been set in stone, at the SCOTUS level..so considering that----> confiscation is a LONG and bumpy road.

Even the last AR type ban was for anything manufactured after that date..anybody who had one, could keep it.

[Spats McGee]

I don't disagree with you over the pro-gun side's PR problems. That's why I haven't been arguing about those.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

I don't disagree with you over the pro-gun side's PR problems. That's why I haven't been arguing about those.

I understand but any mention of a UBC and the 'slippery slope, confiscation is next' inevitably comes next..FEW disagree some system, trying to keep a deadly weapon out of 'some' who shouldn't have one, is a bad idea but the 'message' gets skewed immediately.

Both sides talk at each other, don't talk TO each other and until they do, this emotional conflict will continue with NO solution possible. Anything that is passed by any 'side' will result in people yelling at each other. Sign of the times.

[sigarms228]

Registration is not required to do a UBC but registration would be needed in an attempt to force compliance of using UBC, which is what I believe Breitbart and others are getting at. No registration and UBC are for the most part optional with little chance of being caught for not doing such unless gun sold was used in crime and recovered. I have read that states that require FFL transfer between private parties also are not havine a very high compliance rate though I am not sure how that is determined.

If all firearms were registered with strict and stiff penalties for non compliance then when Joe sells a gun to Bob, Bob will make dang sure he updates his registration info to show he now owns another firearm with make/model/serial number info he bought from Joe with Joe's UBC validation code and if Joe does not update his record within the designated time window he will have a stranger with a badge at his front door wanting to know why not and demanding to inventory his firearms and God help Joe if it does match the government record. At least that is how gun control folks would expect it to work.

Gosh I hope it never comes to that but I believe that is exactly what a lot of politicians want. Here in Illinois we firearms owners are registered and have a Firearms Owners Identification Card to buy guns and ammo but our firearms are not registered, at least not with any direct owner supplied information. If I want to legally sell a firearm to a private person I need to see their FOID card to get their ID number and DOB to enter it into the Illinois State Police FOID verification website and I would get an approval number if the FOID is still valid good for thirty days. The complete FOID database is updated daily to reflect any FOIDs that have been invalidated due to info obtained about the FOID holder such as criminal convictions. When I then sell the firearm I need to document some info about the sale and keep that for ten years and info needed is FOID approval code, date of sale, name and address of buyer, and make/model/serial number of firearm. Though I am not fond of having to do that I would find such a system far preferable to having to register every firearm I own with specifics and serial number. However Illinois politicians are currently trying to make it so that when a private sale is made that it will be required to include specifics about the firearm including make/model/serial number to Illinois State Police in an attempt for back door registration.

https://www.ispfsb.com/Public/Firear...mTransfer.aspx

https://www.gunrights4illinois.com/b...n-in-illinois/

[USNRet93]

Registration is not required to do a UBC but registration would be needed in an attempt to force compliance of using UBC, which is what I believe Breitbart and others are getting at.

I guess that's what I don't understand..When they do a BGC on me, they are saying it is legal for me to buy a firearm, not THAT firearm, but 'a firearm'. There isn't any guarantee I WILL buy one, probanly yes, but no requirement to follow thru with a purchase. Other regulations specify what firearms can be legally sold in the US..I don't see why registration is a necessary part of UBC..

[sigarms228]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

I guess that's what I don't understand..When they do a BGC on me, they are saying it is legal for me to buy a firearm, not THAT firearm, but 'a firearm'. There isn't any guarantee I WILL buy one, probanly yes, but no requirement to follow thru with a purchase. Other regulations specify what firearms can be legally sold in the US..I don't see why registration is a necessary part of UBC..

Again registration is not what I want but I can see politicians wanting it to try and force people to use UBC for private sale due to fear that big brother has a database of what firearms they own and your inventory better match during a compliance check or you are looking at jail time. If no transaction happens then your database entries do not change because you don't report a sale to the registry folks. Of course registration comes in real handy in the event of any future firearm bans.

In a way it is kind of like speeding and running stoplights. It is against the law to do both but speeding is frequently done and running stop lights is not unusual. So what did states to further enforce the law? They installed cameras and radars to catch those that were speeding and running stop lights. They then used registration information of the vehicle to issue citations and fines to the owner in the registration record.

Let's say UBC is law of the land and everyone is supposed to used it for any firearm sale or transfer. Then a big school shooting happens and it is found out the shooter bought a rifle from a guy in the neighborhood not using UBC. What do you think gun control politicians will be demanding next?