Universal Background Check and Universal Gun Registration-Breitbart

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma tried working with Senators Schumer, Manchin, Toomey, and Angus King(?) after Sandy Hook. His proposed bill required a background check for ALL sales. It also did away with the record keeping.

For his efforts to bring universal background checks that just lessened the risks of registration (and was far from eliminating it), he got booted from the bipartisan coalition forming what became the Manchin-Toomey bill and his own bill never got a vote.

One provision of the Manchin-Toomey bill was that if you had a qualifying CHL, you didn’t have to go through the background check; BUT you did have to go to an FFL and fill out a 4473. Now tell me, if we know you are OK to possess a handgun because you have a valid, qualifying CHL, and we aren’t going to run a background check on you anyay, why require a 4473? That question pretty well answers itself.

Background checks as proposed in every state and federal example that actually got a vote thus far are about registration - and registration inevitably leads to confiscation.

[kmw1954]

I have voiced before that I am not against background checks as a matter of fact because of the area I am in and that Wisconsin allows face-to-face sales to residents I wish these were a way I could check someone if I was doing a private sale. Some suggest the CCW permit accept that I myself do not have one and do not intend to get one anytime soon. Which brings me back to the area part. I am directly between Chicago and Milwaukee and there is an interstate running directly thru here. It has also been shown that there are a good number of gang bangers traveling back and forth also. This alone makes me weary of doing face-to-face transactions. I have no way of detecting if someone is a convicted felon.

[44 AMP]

Prior to background checks becoming law (and, in some places still) what was required by a private seller was seeing proof of residence (buyer and seller had to reside in the same state), and a reasonable belief that the buyer was not criminal or had criminal intent.

That decision was left to our individual judgement. This is not a flawless system, but neither is background checks. One thing the background check system does is remove our authority to make our own decisions. We can, still, decide to say no sale, for any reason that seems good to us, but we can no longer say "sold" that decision now rests with the system.

Is this a big deal? Probably not. But consider that no system is perfect, screwups do happen. One of my personal worries (though not a large one) is the inconvenience and expense I would have to accept if the system misidentifies me. Or someone I know.

I have a spotless record, never been even charged with a crime of any kind. Haven't even gotten a traffic ticket in over 25 years. Have held govt. security clearances. I have a friend with the same kind of record, and have known him over 20 years, BUT under the background check laws, I CANNOT use my own knowledge and judgement and buy a gun from him, or sell him one, we have to go to an FFL dealer, and have them run us through the system, (and pay the fee) before any "transfer" of a firearm.

How is that in any way right? Background checks sound like a good thing for everyone EVERY TIME, but they aren't. When you know the people you're dealing with, its a barely veiled slap in the face that says "you aren't trusted to make your own decisions".

[Bartholomew Roberts]

How is that in any way right? Background checks sound like a good thing for everyone EVERY TIME, but they aren't. When you know the people you're dealing with, its a barely veiled slap in the face that says "you aren't trusted to make your own decisions".

Probably not an accident that gun control is very popular among the “I can make life decisions for you better than you can” crowd.

[kmw1954]

44 AMP, I suppose that's what makes us different from one another. I agree that the system is not perfect, I don't know of any that are. Though I do know my own personality and I am generally a trusting person and tend to give the benefit of the doubt. Gullible, maybe, probably.

It would trouble me immensely to find that I sold a firearm to a restricted person unknowingly and that person hurt someone with it. Also not that I or a background check can stop it but because of this area there is great risk of unknowing straw purchases.

No system is perfectly flawless and any or every law can be abused by those in power but we still need laws and regulations in society. Unfortunately I do not have the answer but I will listen to suggestions.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let running a NICS check as currently processed be an option that you can pay for at a gun store for a private sale.

If you want to sell a gun to an unvetted stranger and it goes to crime, it will way on your soul and it should.

Of course, the evil in intent won't avail of this. No system would stop the criminal to criminal trade.

[44 AMP]

Let running a NICS check as currently processed be an option that you can pay for at a gun store for a private sale.

This is acceptable to me. If you want to, fine. Have the buyer pay, or split the cost, I'm fine with that, its a personal CHOICE.

I am not opposed to the idea of background checks on sales, I am opposed to the idea of MANDATORY background checks on all "transfers". I am opposed to the lie that background checks are a cure-all for our troubles. They aren't.

And I am vehemently opposed to pieces of crap bills that entrap ordinary folks for doing what we have always done, becoming law. Unfortunately, under our system, if you can mislead and lie and get enough people to believe you, you get what you want.

Here's another situation where a badly written law could trap someone...
Know anyone living with an SO? (Significant other) without being legally married? Is there a gun (yours) in the house that they have access to? Guess what, when you leave the house to go to work (or go to the corner store for milk...) you might have just "transferred" that gun to them. Without having the legally mandated background check. The law may contain an exception for spouses, and certain other family members, but doesn't exempt your BF/GF if you aren't married.

own 30 guns, and SO has a key to the safe or knows the combination? YOU just illegally transferred every one of them the moment you step out your door. so, that's 30 counts of illegal transfer, AND when you come home, another set of illegal transfers from your SO back to YOU! And at $35 a piece, because the law can be interpreted as requiring a separate check for each gun, that adds up fast in terms of money the law could cost you.

Add to that the law says, the first time you do a transfer without doing the check (which requires taking you, the gun, and the transferee to an FFL) its a misdemeanor, but after that, its a felony.

SO, here's a situation where a badly written law, could trap people and make them FELONS just for living their lives in their normal day to day routine.
Good ideas are good ideas. But bad laws claiming to enforce good ideas are still bad laws.

Every act of tyranny begins with someone's good intentions. The reason why does not matter as much as the results. Ever.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

That’s OK. We won’t be enforcing the law against minor errors... I mean unless you’ve been badmouthing your government or agitating against its wisdom. Then we have a duty to act against a potential threat to our community.

[kmw1954]

Also if a buyer doesn't want to go through a private background check then they are free to back out also. Neither are obligated to complete the transaction.

I am being selfish and basically just looking for protections for myself.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma tried working with Senators Schumer, Manchin, Toomey, and Angus King(?) after Sandy Hook. His proposed bill required a background check for ALL sales. It also did away with the record keeping.

For his efforts to bring universal background checks that just lessened the risks of registration (and was far from eliminating it), he got booted from the bipartisan coalition forming what became the Manchin-Toomey bill and his own bill never got a vote.

One provision of the Manchin-Toomey bill was that if you had a qualifying CHL, you didn’t have to go through the background check; BUT you did have to go to an FFL and fill out a 4473. Now tell me, if we know you are OK to possess a handgun because you have a valid, qualifying CHL, and we aren’t going to run a background check on you anyay, why require a 4473? That question pretty well answers itself.

Background checks as proposed in every state and federal example that actually got a vote thus far are about registration - and registration inevitably leads to confiscation.

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

[44 AMP]

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

No registration we KNOW about, at this time...

If there is a record kept and that record includes your information and the gun's information (make, caliber, serial # etc.) that is registration. Whether or not they are currently using it as such is a different matter.

When my FFL does the phone check (current law) the only information gun information given is "long gun" or "handgun". That's it. No other gun info is submitted. SO, even if the record is kept (in violation of existing law) there is only a record that I bought a gun, not what gun, specifically.

No matter what they claim, if their background check proposal includes requiring information specific to the individual gun, the purpose is to create data that can be used as a registry. If they say otherwise, it's a lie.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by kmw1954

I have voiced before that I am not against background checks as a matter of fact because of the area I am in and that Wisconsin allows face-to-face sales to residents I wish these were a way I could check someone if I was doing a private sale. Some suggest the CCW permit accept that I myself do not have one and do not intend to get one anytime soon. Which brings me back to the area part. I am directly between Chicago and Milwaukee and there is an interstate running directly thru here. It has also been shown that there are a good number of gang bangers traveling back and forth also. This alone makes me weary of doing face-to-face transactions. I have no way of detecting if someone is a convicted felon.

You could make the transfer through an FFL.

So often, I see 44AMP's posts and think, "Where's that 'Like' button?" I'm not against background checks. I'm against mandatory background checks on every transfer.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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..

Straight from Connecticut’s legislative summary of the Colorado law:

“Under the new law, before any person who is not a licensed gun dealer transfers possession of a firearm, he or she must arrange for a licensed dealer to obtain the required background check. In obtaining the background check, the dealer must follow all procedures that it would follow were it transferring the firearm in a retail transaction, including recording the transfer, retaining the records, and complying with all state and federal laws. The dealer must provide a copy of the background check results and the Bureau's approval or disapproval to the transferor and intended transferee, and may charge a fee of up to $10.”

So, yes - the gun is registered via a Form 4473, as that’s required by federal law and state law requires “recording the transfer and retaining the records.”

[USNRet93]

If there is a record kept and that record includes your information and the gun's information (make, caliber, serial # etc.) that is registration. Whether or not they are currently using it as such is a different matter.

When my FFL does the phone check (current law) the only information gun information given is "long gun" or "handgun". That's it. No other gun info is submitted. SO, even if the record is kept (in violation of existing law) there is only a record that I bought a gun, not what gun, specifically.

No matter what they claim, if their background check proposal includes requiring information specific to the individual gun, the purpose is to create data that can be used as a registry. If they say otherwise, it's a lie.

But that's been true for decades..Every retail outfit records who bought what. It's the same when you buy a bicycle or a car. BUT my FFL doesn't record the gun type when he gets on the laptop to do my BGC..same for Tanner Gun Show..the lady didn't even know or ask what I was buying(separate service from the retailer)...NO requirement in CO for this.

Is there a way to find this stuff out via the retailer? probably but no national registry right now.

In obtaining the background check, the dealer must follow all procedures that it would follow were it transferring the firearm in a retail transaction, including recording the transfer, retaining the records, and complying with all state and federal laws.

Yup..but nothing says 'register' that gun with the Feds..in fact, the BGC in CO is with CBI..and there is no requirement to pass on owner's info to the state or feds..Does the retailer keep this info? Probably..I knew who bought what bike when I owned a bike store.

BUT let's be clear..I would not support any gun registry..BUT the toothpaste is outta the tube..and in fact, before 2013, in CO, private gun transfers required no BGC..lots of guns changed hands in CO before 2013.

PLUS not gonna have black shirts come pounding on doors and searching everybody's house for guns any time soon, even after the shutdown is over.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

USNRet93, how can you compare this to retail sales when the whole point is private citzens are being forced to go through retail outlets to sell their personal property whether they want to or not?

And while retail stores may keep records of sales, I doubt the local grocery store keeps records of my purchase of 16oz of mild cheddar for very long. Form 4473s must be kept for a minimum of 20 years - and the ATF takes possession of forms from gun shops that have gone out if business. This information included the gun information and who it is sold to.

This is absolutely a national registry, albeit a decentralized one versus a centralized NFA-style registry.

PLUS not gonna have black shirts come pounding on doors and searching everybody's house for guns any time soon, even after the shutdown is over.

Then there is no need to link background checks to registration is there? If someone is OK to own a firearm, we don’t need to record what they bought. If police need to track one for investigation, they can use the retail sales records you mentioned the same way they track where the serial killer bought the shovels and duct tape he used.

And yet, here we are - recording every private sale on a 4473. We’re even proposing recording the ones where we didn’t do a background check at all because we know that person is OK.

Aren’t you the least bit concerned that Colorado has its own background check system that doesn’t keep any record of the firearm transferred and works well enough to temporarily satisfy gun control proponents; but you are still required to fill out a 4473?

[USNRet93]

USNRet93, how can you compare this to retail sales when the whole point is private citzens are being forced to go through retail outlets to sell their personal property whether they want to or not?

Maybe a way for private individuals to do private background checks then. I doubt there is anything sinister going on..a sneaky way to do national registration. BTW...have any idea how many private transactions in CO actually go thru a FFL? I'm guessing damn few..One neighbor has a gun, other gent says, keen..wants to buy..$/gun changes hands. The 'law' was essentially for gun shows..largely unenforceable for private sales. Also thedefinition of 'immediate family'...so BGC.

I doubt the local grocery store keeps records of my purchase of 16oz of mild cheddar for very long

Hmm...exactly the same thing as a gun!!Note-

Yes, records CAN be used for a registry..somewhat cumbersome but yes, possible but unlikely..so it leads to confiscation? Unlikely also, IMHO..

Aren’t you the least bit concerned that Colorado has its own background check system that doesn’t keep any record of the firearm transferred and works well enough to temporarily satisfy gun control proponents; but you are still required to fill out a 4473?

No, not concerned at all. Colorado and the US in general, particularly considering the makeup of the US Supreme Court...and the difficulty in actually changing, modifying or replacing, a Constitutional Amendment, is not against private ownership of guns.

according to the fall 2018 survey. Around nine-in-ten Republicans and Democrats (both 89%) say people with mental illnesses should be prevented from buying guns. Nearly as many in both parties (86% of Democrats and 83% of Republicans) say people on federal no-fly or watch lists should be barred from purchasing firearms. And majorities of both Democrats (91%) and Republicans (79%) favor background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows.

Not the same as banning all private ownership of guns along with the 'any gun at any time for anybody that wants one', crowd..US public is somewhere in the middle.

Filling out a Form 4473..that is kept at 'little gun store', Boulder..not concerned.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

1. State level registration has, and will continue to be used for confiscation. People who registered their “assault weapons” in NY or CA have been required by law to surrender them or move them out of state.

2. That 4473 in the little gun store in Boulder eventually ends up as the 4473 in the big federal warehouse at ATF. Unless, the owner stays in business for 20 years AND destroys the forms as soon as legally practicable, even though that means assuming a small liability for him.

3. If you aren’t concerned that the state of Colorado requires registering your privately transferred firearm when they can check your background without going through the Feds at all and only need to know “long gun” or “handgun”, then I don’t know what to tell you. There is likely little we will agree on in gun policy.

Back to the original point you disputed, there is no reason to do a 4473 as part of a background check. There is no reason for anyone to know what type of firearm is being transferred, let alone keep records of it for 20 years. And yet every UBC law, including Colorado’s, includes that requirement at a minimum. Some are much worse.

I mean, if you really wanted UBCs and thought they were an important gun control policy, your biggest obstacle is gun owners who fear they will be used for registration. As Colorado demonstrates, it is entirely technologically possible to take that issue off the table entirely (although Colorado didn’t do that). Instead, gun control groups say “Don’t be silly. Nobody wants to take your guns. Fill out the form.”

[kmw1954]

Spats McGee, once again I am not against Background checks one bit and believe they can be useful. Now I also believe tat if background checks are going to be mandatory then they should be free. No Cost. Kinda like Photo ID's for voter registration. Free!

I can see a few different ways that checks can be done and none require gun registration. Because a background check should be done on the person, not the firearm.

As I suggested and was told it's been suggested before but make Backgrounds Check Mandatory for everyone, gun owners and non-owners alike. Or there could be a nation wide Universal check that once done a license such as a CCW or Drivers License is issued that proves you have gone thru a check and have passed. Then if a sale is done then all that needs to be shown or exchanged is that ID number. No gun serial numbers involved.

As you have suggested about going thru an FFL all the ones I've talked with will not do a transaction between private parties because that puts them in the middle and involves to much paper work because they never own the gun. Same thing they do not want to do a consignment either. At least that's what I've found locally.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

And while retail stores may keep records of sales, I doubt the local grocery store keeps records of my purchase of 16oz of mild cheddar for very long.

We need someone in the business to answer this. If I buy something at HEB (Texas supermarket) and want to return it without a receipt, they will run the card I used to pay and come up with the sale. How long do they keep those records at the central info site they use?

No record of anything ever goes away. If I buy a gun from Brownells with a card, that will exist forever. So I should freak out if I buy from a individual and they run a mutually agreed on NICS check?

[rickyrick]

I miss HEB lol,

Now I live in PNW, the store of the land is Fred Meyer. I can see all my purchases online for the last several years.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not to divert but I moved from Fred Meyer land to HEB land. When I moved OR was shall issue and TX had no concealed carry and must have been a socialist state (Haha).

How could you move to a socialist state? Major promotion and raise!

Ok, back on topic after Ricky and I shared. My bad.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by kmw1954

. . . .As I suggested and was told it's been suggested before but make Backgrounds Check Mandatory for everyone, gun owners and non-owners alike. Or there could be a nation wide Universal check that once done a license such as a CCW or Drivers License is issued that proves you have gone thru a check and have passed. Then if a sale is done then all that needs to be shown or exchanged is that ID number. No gun serial numbers involved.

While this strikes me as somewhat less onerous, I need to think on it a bit. The only things that come to mind are: (1) it would have to be a periodic check, which carries a certain amount of administrative cost; and (2) that would mean adding those administrative costs for some 200 million Americans who don't own guns.

There's also a certain Big Brother-ish feel to having the gov't root around through my background periodically, "just because." If I'm not buying a gun or applying for a job, I'm not sure I like the idea of having to get a background check.

Originally Posted by kmw1954

As you have suggested about going thru an FFL all the ones I've talked with will not do a transaction between private parties because that puts them in the middle and involves to much paper work because they never own the gun. Same thing they do not want to do a consignment either. At least that's what I've found locally.

I'm very sorry that you're in that situation. It stinks.

[USNRet93]

I mean, if you really wanted UBCs and thought they were an important gun control policy, your biggest obstacle is gun owners who fear they will be used for registration. As Colorado demonstrates, it is entirely technologically possible to take that issue off the table entirely (although Colorado didn’t do that). Instead, gun control groups say “Don’t be silly. Nobody wants to take your guns. Fill out the form.”

Then there has to be some solution. There is no doubt UBC keeps guns out of the hands of those who probably shouldn't have them. BUT the 'they are gonna take all our guns' is a sound bite that does nothing but rile up both sides of the gun spectrum. Seems both sides of the issue talk past one another....This conflict has been around for decades, is very emotional, maybe there isn't any middle ground...but UBC means 'confiscation is right around the corner'..don't buy that.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Is confiscation a couple of decades from now more palatable to you?

The whole point of our system of government is checks and balances. If we remove the checks, we can have the greatest, most well-meaning politician in the world in charge. Maybe we’ll have a virtuous, amazing, culture and that will continue for generations. But eventually a bad guy will get in and they’ll have unchecked power.

The Constitution was intended to replace relying on virtuous men with relying on human nature so the thieves would keep the other thieves in check for their own personal benefit.

Arguing “Confiscation isn’t right around the corner” while simultaneously giving politicians tools that enable confiscation is just a minor variation on the “Nobody wants to take your guns” shtick. Also see this more updated version.

[TomNJVA]

Originally Posted by kmw1954

As I suggested and was told it's been suggested before but make Backgrounds Check Mandatory for everyone, gun owners and non-owners alike. Or there could be a nation wide Universal check that once done a license such as a CCW or Drivers License is issued that proves you have gone thru a check and have passed.

Force everyone in the country to submit to a background check?! In addition to the millions of outraged citizen who would vehemently object and outright refuse, I think you would face a few other issues, such as:

1. It is unconstitutional, violating my 4th Amendment rights.
2. It would cost a fortune, in time, money, and resources.
3. The data of citizen status would continuously change by the thousands every week with court convictions.
4. Criminals will still get guns - always have and always will.

What next, tattoo each citizen's background approval number on their forearms?