Universal Background Checks sans registration

[buck460XVR]

Universal Background Checks sans registration

Is it possible?

IMHO, it is. The technology is out there that once the BC has been made and a pass/fail determination made, that all traces of the BC destroyed. Make/Model/serial number do not to be included, only that a purchase is being considered. A BC would not be able to confirm whether or not the purchase was made.

The biggest problem with this is, that folks don't trust the folks they themselves, or their neighbors voted into office. They think that something nefarious is going on and that "big brother' knows who has what for firearms and will be coming for them. They say we do not need BC because the RTBA protects us. But whatever happens for the rest of our rights to be destroyed, will also destroy the 2nd. If that ever happens, all bets are off, even without BCs. I guarantee you, if a Stormtrooper is holding a gun to your shooting buddies wife's head, he is going to rat you out. The fact that you have guns bought without a BC or because there once was a 2A, won't mean squat.

That doesn't mean that I think BCs are going to reduce violent crime one iota. Criminal are still going to buy stolen guns and steal guns. Some folks are still going to do the cash under the counter thingy. Like volunteer online deer registration, those who hunt responsibly will follow the law, but those that did not go to registration stations years ago will still feel superior because they don't.

[HiBC]

Well said,Spats

First,I ask, Given the number of gun laws already in place (presumably the best our Esteemed Legislators and bureaucrat agency officials could offer: )

Why do we need more?

The failure and ineffectiveness of the laws on the books is strong evidence they are not good law.

As a matter of fact,most of them have been driven by the emotional fervor of "crisis"

One of the best ways to write and pass bad law.

If and when law needs to be written that encroaches on Constitutional Liberty it should be considered only in times of calm,deliberate sobriety from emotion and crisis.

Each of the thousands of legislations and regulations placed on gun gun owners has robbed us of a portion of the 2nd Amendment Liberty our Founders declared "Shall Not Be Infringed"

The demad for New Gun Law is evidence that the laws the anti-gunners have passed don't work. They are bad law.

As such,BEFORE any new laws are written, ALL of the old laws should be cleared from the books...because bad law or not,we can be prosecuted for an ineffectual procedural law that makes a good citizen a criminal when that citizen has harmed no one.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

Also, IMNSHO, UBCs are unenforceable as to previously convicted felons. You can convict them for Felon In Possession, but not for failure to do a BC. Perhaps some specific statutory language could get around the A5 problem, but I have never seen a UBC proposal that includes such a provision. See U.S. v. Haynes.

Post-Haynes, the NFA was changed to put the burden on the transferor rather than the transferee. Since the transferor lawfully owns the firearm, there is no 5A issue of self-incrimination by filling out the required paperwork. See U.S. v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601.

I think there are still some potential 5A issues there; but that was the “official” reply to Haynes.

Finally, we don't do pure politics here at TFL, but it's very hard to discuss UBCs without discussion politics. If memory serves (no guarantees) there was a UBC proposal at the federal level in ~2013 (right after Sandy Hook) that didn't include gun information. I think it was the Manchin-Toomey proposal? Someone correct me if that's wrong. In any event, it was rejected outright by gun control advocates. Let me rephrase that: It actually had a chance of passing, but it was rejected by gun control advocates. That, to my mind, is pretty clear evidence of where UBCs are intended to go. If it can't lead to gun registration, the antigunners want none of it. And if it can, I want none of it.

The original “bipartisan” Senate gun control effort after Newtown was led by Senators Cotton, King, Manchin, and Toomey. Sen. Cotton was GOA’s A+ rated “most important election” endorsed candidate and he worked with the other Senators (and Schumer who was the key Senate leader in the effort) to expand UBCs in a fair way.

Before the bill was announced, Cotton dropped out of the group saying he was unable to come to agreement with the others - who went on to create what became Schumer-Toomey-Manchin. Cotton, however, kept the version he had worked on and offered it as an alternate bill. Cotton’s bill had flaws that concerned me since it was attempting to build on the system created by the 1968 GCA instead of replacing it; but it did offer actual protections for gun owner privacy including an elaborate temporary “control number” that a gun owner could obtain that would give them permission to purchase as many firearms as they liked in a limited time period. It was also an honest compromise attempt that also reduced some restrictions on gun owners instead of just increasing them.

Despite promises from the Senate Majority Leader that any bill offering a solution would be heard, Cotton’s bill died in the Judiciary committee without ever getting a floor vote or being offered as an amendment. And this was a bill that still had serious flaws in gun owner privacy despite the overall improvement.

Instead, we got Schumer-Toomey-Manchin as the only choice. A bill, by the way, that said if you have an approved CHL, we won’t even bother subjecting you to a NICS check for the transfer; but you still have to go to an FFL and do the paperwork. That’s essentially “We know we don’t need to check you because you are a good guy; but go register your firearm.”

That’s not a good omen.

Go offer a bill that includes any serious, even imperfect, attempt to protect gunowner privacy and see where it goes.

Personally, I’d support a background check that protected gun owner privacy. I don’t think it will be effective at all but it is a minimal burden and technologically, we are at the point where credit card companies, banks, and Google can probably build a more accurate database of gun owners than the Feds could. So soon, regulating that will favor us.

[44 AMP]

The failure and ineffectiveness of the laws on the books is strong evidence they are not good law.

I agree they are bad law. But don't overlook the other side of the coin which is that even "good laws" badly enforced yield bad results.

If and when law needs to be written... it should be considered only in times of calm, deliberate sobriety from emotion and crisis.

The Founders believed that. Especially so if the law "encroaches on Constitutional Liberty", which is why they set up a representative Republic, and NOT a democracy.

One of our problems today is speed and technology. In our Founders day, and for a long time afterward, information and ideas traveled at the speed of a man on horseback, or a sailing ship. Both ways. That amount of time allowed for passions to cool, and (generally) rational discussion to prevail.

Today, information travels at the speed of electrons, worldwide. People demand instant everything, and because they get it in so much of their day to day lives, they feel it should apply to everything. And when its applied to making laws, we ALL suffer for that.

When the "rules" become what ever who yells loudest and longest wants, we lose. It's a variant of mob rule, and we should not do that, though it seems, especially with gun control, that we are doing just that, and the people who try to have deliberate informed discussion and rational debate involving actual facts () are being ridden over by legions of yammers demanding "something be done" NOW NOW NOW!!

Patton is reported to have said something like "almost any plan, carried out today, is better than the best plan, carried out next week". Other generals have said similar things. This is sound advice, for a military assault.

It is the exact opposite of the best way to govern people.

Social media has replaced gathering in the town square with torches and pitchforks, but does not change the fact that a mob screaming "burn the witch" on Twitter and Facebook instead of in person, is NOT justice. It is not due process. It is mob rule. Just 21st century style.

[langenc]

Copied from post #20

""In WA, a "comprehensive UBC" bill was defeated in the Legislature, repeatedly over three election cycles (not just legislative sessions). It became (a bad) law, finally, through the Initiative Process putting it on the ballot and enough un and underinformed people, primarily in the metro/urban areas voting for it based on the title, and not the content""

This is why we all (many/most) states need the equivalent of Electorial College.

In this state the legislature or electorate ov a few counties in SE MI can pass just about anything they want-to hexx with the other 75-80 COUNTIES.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by Koda94

Is it possible?
Im curious how many gun rights supporters, especially the most ardent gun rights supporters, would support universal background checks (UBC) on all sales including gun shows and private sales (FTF) if there was no registration scheme included with the background check?
And how would such a registration-less UBC work?

Every gun sold at a dealer is registered. They have not yet confiscated and compiled the paper into a registry, but the firearms are registered.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

Post-Haynes, the NFA was changed to put the burden on the transferor rather than the transferee. Since the transferor lawfully owns the firearm, there is no 5A issue of self-incrimination by filling out the required paperwork. See U.S. v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601.

I think there are still some potential 5A issues there; but that was the “official” reply to Haynes.

I'll pull Freed and take a look at it. Thanks.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by DaleA

Let's assume we have UBC without registration. (Note: this is NOTHING that hasn't be mentioned before in this thread, just maybe condensed a bit).

*The police find a bad guy with a gun.
*The system will prosecute the bad guy.
*The system would LIKE to prosecute the person that sold the bad guy the gun but they can't without gun registration.

The problem, of course, is that nobody who sells to a BG would register the gun in the first place and a few minutes with a Dremel tool removes the serial number anyway. This is why registration is absolutely worthless.

I wouldn't be opposed to UBCs, but only with certain conditions.

1. The UBC is free for both buyer and seller, exercising a Constitutional right shouldn't come with a cost.

2. It is instantaneous

3. No information on the gun, period.

After all, I'm sure most people here would like to know they're not selling a gun to a criminal.

And this is easily done, for example consider this system:

A person wanting to buy a gun does a free NICS check on themselves. Upon approval a code is issued that is tied to their name, good for 30 days. The seller then, via internet or phone call, confirms the code is valid and tied to the buyer and the sale proceeds. No personal information is exchanged between buyer and seller other than the name, and no information on the gun is generated or even that a sale took place. A record of the BC is recorded, and this record grants the seller immunity from criminal and civil liability if the buyer does something illegal or negligent with the firearm.

No limits whatsoever on the number of guns you can buy in those 30 days, and you can keep rolling that over in perpetuity.

Thoughts?

[44 AMP]

My thought is, why 30 days??

If you aren't a prohibited person, you aren't a prohibited person until you become one, There is no, and shouldn't be an arbitrary time limit after which you have to "prove your innocence" again.

Becoming a prohibited person requires a conviction, in a court, of a disqualifying offense, or an adjudication of mental defect. There is no reason that when such finding is issued that your records cannot be updated, within HOURS. And absolutely before you are released back into the public.

Sloppiness and inefficiency in the system is NOT justification for them not doing a job required by law. Yes, its going to happen in a few cases, but IF the effort is made (and that means money) it can be done efficiently enough.

I understand the argument that one "might have become a prohibited person since your last background check" but that is bull, and that thinking ALLOWS the system to be lax and fail to correctly and properly change your status in the records. make it part of the law, that courts MUST change the records, AND verify the change takes place, before the person can be released. Simple, and would work. All that's needed is the political will to do it that way, and pay what it takes to do it.

So, why pick 30 days??

[vito]

The real concern for everyone here is the recognition that those pushing for UBC are the very people who have made it crystal clear that their real and ultimate goal is the prohibition of the private ownership of firearms. Why give them an inch on gun issues when all it does is let them move closer to their ultimate goal? UBC will not reduce crime or violence in general, anymore than the so-called AWB from 1994 to 2004 did. So once they get us to accept UBC and things are no better, crime wise, they will demand more “common sense” restrictions on our right to own a gun. Confiscation is preceded by registration. Registration is preceded by the UBC system of having the government aware of any and all changes of ownership.

And don’t forget that those pushing for UBC usually specify that it applies not just for changes of ownership, but for any “transfer” of a firearm. So you are at the range and you want to let a friend try out one of your guns. You hand me the gun and the next minute the cuffs are put on your for an illegal “transfer”. Or you want to teach your grandson about firearm safety, and in the process you allow him to hold your gun, even if only momentarily. Again, you have now become a felon.

We already have tolerated too many infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights. No more, not one more restriction. Not one more compromise, which by the way, always seems to be us compromising our rights and the anti-gunners giving us nothing in return.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

So, why pick 30 days??

Good point, the code should be good until you become prohibited.

[44 AMP]

UBC usually specify that it applies not just for changes of ownership, but for any “transfer” of a firearm. So you are at the range and you want to let a friend try out one of your guns. You hand me the gun and the next minute the cuffs are put on your for an illegal “transfer”. Or you want to teach your grandson about firearm safety, and in the process you allow him to hold your gun, even if only momentarily. Again, you have now become a felon.

The law as passed in WA allows the exceptions of transfer to certain family member, and to others during hunting and at "certified ranges" (which do not exist as no one knows what that is, and the law does not state it, either). These are the only named exceptions.

Otherwise, all transfers must take place through an FFL with you, the gun, and the fellow its being transferred to physically present.

Under that law, it MIGHT be that a friend who hands you one of his guns to look at IN HIS LIVING ROOM, could be breaking the law, and you could be breaking the law when you hand it back, and he would be breaking the law AGAIN when he took if from your hands. Also as written in the law the first time you do a transfer without going through an FFL its a misdemeanor. The second time, its a felony. So, POSSIBLY, my friend is guilty of a misdemeanor handing me a gun to look at, in his home, and I'm possibly guilty of a misdemeanor for taking it from his hands, and then, possibly, he's guilty of a Felony for taking his own property in his hands in his own home. THAT's how badly written that law is.

This, and other possible interpretations of what is and is not a covered transfer is why virtually every LEO in the state, including the state police are refusing to enforce the law, pending "clarification" of what is and is not a prohibited transfer.

It became law in 2016. Clarification has still not yet been issued. I don't know if it ever will be. If the police don't enforce it, then no one gets arrested, so there's no court ruling to set precedence, either way. And the lawmakers don't seem to be in any hurry. In fact, that particular law was NOT crafted by the state legislature, who voted it down, repeatedly. It was passed by voter initiative after a massive disinformation ad campaign.

Whenever anyone advocates for a UBC law, take a damn close look at what ELSE is in that law besides just the requirement for a check. Because I guarantee you there will be other stuff in it. BAD STUFF.

[Tom Servo]

And don’t forget that those pushing for UBC usually specify that it applies not just for changes of ownership

None of the proposals mention ownership. They specify possession, which is very different.

[USNRet93]

Confiscation is preceded by registration

I'll wade into this..how exactly do you confiscate about 400 MILLION guns?

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

I'll wade into this..how exactly do you confiscate about 400 MILLION guns?

You don't. Largely you count on voluntary compliance. A few high profile gun busts can help voluntary compliance and you certainly don't have to confiscate every firearm at once. Just chip away, bit by bit, until they are all gone (except from the ruling elite and their enforcers).

[USNRet93]

The poster specifically mentioned 'confiscation'..

Gonna be alot of $, time, manpower to 'chip away', bit by bit.., 'until they are all gone'...

Lets say 20,000 PER MONTH..1600+ years..200,000 per month? 166 years..

Look, I lament some of these trends also but 'confiscation' is turning into a sound bite..

Bloomberg gets mentioned a lot but his proposals..same as the comments by the 'guy in the big chair'..

UBC, RFL, 21 age limit, AW ban..

In his meeting Wednesday, Trump encouraged lawmakers to pass a comprehensive bill that would expand background checks and raise the age limit for purchasing weapons to 21. The NRA has said it opposes raising the age limit for buying guns.

He told Republicans not to incorporate legislation that passed in the House of Representatives last year that would expand provisions for carrying concealed firearms because it would never pass. He also said lawmakers should not bother including a ban on bump stocks — accessories that dramatically increase semi-automatic weapons’ potential rate of fire — because he would enact a ban through Executive Order.

In regards to strengthening background checks, Trump specifically urged that lawmakers merge two ideas: the bipartisan proposal from Senators Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin, which expands background checks on gun sales and the Fix NICS Act, which would hold federal agencies accountable for failing to upload relevant records for background checks.

[Jim Watson]

I'll wade into this..how exactly do you confiscate about 400 MILLION guns?

You don't. You totally ban possession of a class of gun - "assault weapon", "Saturday night special". You will get a few surrendered voluntarily. You will pick up some more when somebody gets SWATted or Red Flagged or in conjunction with investigation of some other charge. The rest go underground, not visible to the policymakers. Problem solved, next category.

[American Man]

Even with the most extensive background check that could be dreamt of, of which you would be issued a Halo that designates you as safe to the world, who here would change the way they do anything? Who would feel safer and why? If you are being lulled into some compromise, you might want to snap out of it... and maybe explain how you would really be safer than you are now. And spare me the, "at least a felon will not be able to just walk into the store and buy a gun" crap. That is the minimum that is supposed to be prevented by NICS and the Gov't can't even seem to do that right in some cases.

I wouldn't change a tactic or lower my level of guard, or paranoia as I believe some call it. Democrats want Comprehensive immigration that includes a pathway to citizen ship for all illegal aliens with no restrictions on those who come in after. What is the point of compromising with them on anything with that? Didn't they make a sucker out of Reagan bigtime? Now they want UBCs that will give them the advantage they want with their dream of registration and dreams of confiscation. None of this is being done to protect anyone. None of this is to save school children from Adam Lanza types. The only concern from the left is putting more pressure on our necks or lay more groundwork for the foundation that will put more pressure on our necks.

Some people think the current system works... but for who?

I say a NICS check to make sure a felon can't buy a gun from a dealer is about the best this country is ever going get... and this will only cause a felon get their gun somewhere else... for cheaper. But if people really want to irrationally feel that there is a safety net out there, well, NICS is the best they're going to get... sweet dreams to them.

UBCs are nothing but a cudgel to bash law abiding citizens into giving up more rights in the name of common sense and what you get in return is nothing... you won't be safer, crime will not go down, but there will be more opportunity for you to become a felon.

I say all additional efforts should be made into making targets harder and every effort put elsewhere is negligent and a dereliction of duty.

I'll point out the obvious. What states have the tightest restrictions, regulations and laws? What states have the highest crime rates and least freedom? And we're supposed to follow their lead?

[44 AMP]

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” he said.

I wonder how those millionaire/Billionaire people would feel if we applied the same process to their MONEY????

Accused/under investigation of a crime, (any crime) FREEZE THEIR ASSETS. ALL OF THEM. EVERY SINGLE PENNY. After all, they could use their money to flee the country, or buy guns, or hitmen, or even lawyers!!

Ok, maybe not ALL their money, allow them a Federal minimum wage allowance, to "live on" but take away EVERYTHING else, until AFTER "due process" Just to teach them a lesson.

People are willing and happy to support the most outlandish and restrictive laws, WHEN they believe the consequences will never apply to them, personally.

I will say it again, and again though the powers that be don't listen. IF a person is such a risk to public safety you feel you need to take their guns away,. you need to take that PERSON away. (lock them up).

Sure, we'll all be safe if you take some wackjob's guns but leave them on the street where they are able to hijack airplanes with boxcutters or burn down a nightclub with a gallon of gasoline....or commit other crimes of violence with means other than firearms. IF the risk is there, lock up the person, not their property. anything else is just BS.

[DaleA]

I will say it again, and again though the powers that be don't listen. IF a person is such a risk to public safety you feel you need to take their guns away,. you need to take that PERSON away. (lock them up).

If people can't understand this simple fact I despair.

Sure, we'll all be safe if you take some wackjob's guns but leave them on the street where they are able to hijack airplanes with boxcutters or burn down a nightclub with a gallon of gasoline....or commit other crimes of violence with means other than firearms. IF the risk is there, lock up the person, not their property. anything else is just BS.

Gosh, do you think we could get the Gonzales Girl to support this "common sense" conclusion? She likes calling BS...

[bn12gg]

Imo, every hand gun that passes from one individual ownership to another, including a family member, should go thru a background check. Just simple common sense.

.02. David.

Ps. I am NRA

[44 AMP]

why?

(sharpens knives, on which no background check was ever done, and waits for a reply....)

[USNRet93]

Democrats want Comprehensive immigration that includes a pathway to citizen ship for all illegal aliens with no restrictions on those who come in after.

BUT

Two Republican senators introduced a slimmed-down version of the Dream Act on Monday, hoping to offer a more conservative option to grant a pathway to citizenship to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, but with more strings attached and over a longer time frame.

U.S. President Donald Trump is offering a path to citizenship for up to 1.8 million young illegal immigrants but insists on measures that would curb some legal immigration programs and provide a border wall with Mexico, senior White House officials said on Thursday.

[American Man]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

BUT

What I was getting at is why compromise with a bunch of ideologues who are not really offering us anything? What is the compromise?... burdensome bureacracy for what benefit?... public safety? As far as Reagan, he got played, but Trump is not going to be played... which is why the ideologues will use their "It's Comprehensive or it's Nothing" excuse and any meaningful solutions will never go anywhere. Same as with UBCs... the ideologues only want a new database they can use to weaponize when they have their own in the white house. They don't care about anything else... just the New Weapon to target Americans... and I'm sure they'll bring Lois Lerner out of retirement to get the new weapon off the ground and running.

All a correctly functioning new Halo Issuing UBC database/system/dream will do is give someone a false sense of security that SOMETHING (or ANYTHING) is being done. At best it will cause some prohibited person to get their guns illegally... pretty much the same system already in place that the criminals use.

Why not have breathalyzers hooked up to every single automobile engine? Even for those who don't drink. Won't that stop drunk driving? Apparently to some who think a background check for every firearm.. or actually they stated "hand gun"... which is probably what their party line email talking points of the day stated, should have no problem with the check just giving a "hand gun" to their brother or mother. Meanwhile, since the last felony I did not commit, I haven't not committed a felony since then either... but that's ok, it's not a burden or insult to me... I should be happy about going through another pointless background check... hell, I should even be happy about paying for it.

[Tom Servo]

Just simple common sense.

Saying something is common sense doesn't make it so. We've had the Brady background-check system for over 20 years now. There have been innumerable studies, and nobody's been able to show that it had any measurable effect on crime, much less the huge declines we were promised.

If the system doesn't do any good, it doesn't seem very sensible to expand it.