Universal background checks

[TXAZ]

Why not?

[Pahoo]

Why not?

Primarily because it has not been clearly defined, including the "Devil" in the details. Now then, you are obviously better informed than I. Could you enlighten us. ........

Be Safe !!

[turkeestalker]

I kind of believed that was what we had now with NICS.

[Spats McGee]

First, because they most certainly lead to registration, either of guns or of gun owners. You decide which is worse.

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

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

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

[NateKirk]

I kind of believed that was what we had now with NICS

Same here. They could remove the exemptions for CPL/ CCW holders but I don't think that would make any difference really

Fourth, not one more inch. We've given enough.

That attitude only tightens the noose while delaying the drop. You get strangled either way.

[turkeestalker]

not one more inch. We've given enough.

Well said.
IF the holes in our current system were fixed, (as best such holes could be), isn't that what we already have?
What is the difference between NICS and UBC if there is a difference?

[turkeestalker]

That attitude only tightens the noose while delaying the drop. You get strangled either way.

NOT if you exercise your right to vote and fight the tyranny head on by insuring that the right individuals are in positions to make the difference that matters.
In other words, future Supreme Court Justices.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

That attitude only tightens the noose while delaying the drop. You get strangled either way.

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

-Benjamin Franklin, in the Continental Congress just before signing the Declaration of Independence, 1776.

[DaleA]

First, because they [universal checks] most certainly lead to registration, either of guns or of gun owners.

Yes. This ^.

We've discussed this before.

A felon is found with a gun. Who did he get it from?

Without the gun being registered to someone you can't charge someone with the crime of selling a gun to a prohibited person. Without that, the law would be pretty much toothless and useless.

WITH registration when a prohibited person is found with a gun you quickly and easily go back to the last legal owner and charge them with selling to a prohibited person, failing to report that the gun was stolen and/or failure to secure the gun. All might become crimes in the UBC laws.

Are we willing to put up with gun registration?

[turkeestalker]

So when I read the phrase universal background checks what I should be reading is gun registration?
Not simply the inclusion of ALL available information regarding crimes committed and those individuals legally adjudicated mentally unstable etc. etc. into our current system?

[LogicMan]

The only way to enforce universal background checks is with registration, and registration almost always leads to gun confiscation. In addition, it is frankly not the government's business what guns and ammunition I own.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by turkeestalker

I kind of believed that was what we had now with NICS.

Many states don't require a background check for firearms sales between private individuals who reside in that state. The demand for "universal registration" is a demand to eliminate that "loophole."

I thinks Spats McGee summed up the reasons to oppose it very well.

So when I read the phrase universal background checks what I should be reading is gun registration?
Not simply the inclusion of ALL available information regarding crimes committed and those individuals legally adjudicated mentally unstable etc. etc. into our current system?

The call for universal background checks isn't a call to include all information on people who undergo background checks (that's the "Fix NICS" bill), it's a call to expand the pool of gun buyers who are subjected to background checks.

[turkeestalker]

Thanks for the clarification and pardon my lack of understanding.

added:
I should say pardon my ignorance as every time I've heard the term UBC I've thought to myself that we already have those, and I've never believed that there was anything that could honestly or accurately be labeled a loophole.
My bad.

[44 AMP]

Why not??

Because the people writing the law won't stick to their own mandate, and that supposed mandate is false, to begin with.

First off, what is the entire stated benefit of the check in the first place???
To identify people who have a legal barrier to possessing a firearm, so they cannot buy one, and thereby, cannot do harm with one.

Do you agree??

So, what's the practical point (other than irritating people) of running a check on a person who already has a gun??? None I can see. If they are intent on causing harm, they already have a gun (or a dozen) so no check can prevent that.

No check can see into the mind of someone who hasn't done anything wrong, yet, so it stops nothing there, either

I'm not saying a background check does no good at all, anywhere, what I'm saying is that the very best it can do is less than we are being told it will do, and currently its clear that the system isn't working even close to the very best it could do.

And, to make matters worse, we don't get just a law that covers buying from a dealer, we get laws that cover all "transfers" and they can be so badly written that it is nearly impossible to get a clear understanding of what does, and does not apply under the law.

Want to loan a friend of 20+ years whom you know has no criminal background a gun? BOTH of you have to go to the FFL and pay for the check done on him. Then when he gives it back, another trip to the FFL, and another $$ so he can return your property to you!!!

Going to work for the day? Guns at home, all locked up like a good boy?? Does your wife have a key to the gun safe? or know the combination???
Did you take her to the FFL and pay to have a check run on her, when you "transferred" all those guns to her possession when you left for work that morning?? If not, you might be a felon!!

Do you do it every morning before you leave for work?? If not, you might be a felon!!!

I'm not kidding, one law I've seen is written so badly that a case could be made for prosecuting what I've just mentioned!

Its not that I object to the base idea that people who shouldn't have guns, shouldn't have guns, its that the background check idea is being sold as a panacea, which it can only fail at being, and its being done so poorly that the many of those it should stop aren't being stopped and those it shouldn't even be applied to are being punished with inconvenience, and costs that they don't deserve.

[Aguila Blanca]

^^^ Well said.

Look at recent shootings. How many of the shooters passed background checks?

Parkland shooter -- passed
Sutherland Springs church shooter -- passed (he shouldn't have, but he did)
Las Vegas shooter -- passed
Pulse Nightclub shooter -- passed
Republican baseball team shooter -- passed

In a number of other recent school shootings, the gun was purchased by someone who passed a background check, and then the gun(s) was (were) stolen by the shooter. In the case of Sandy Hook, the shooter murdered his own mother to get the guns.

And yet the anti-gun side says we "need" to expand the scope and reach of background checks to cover private sales. To what end? I know of a guy (whom I knew thirty years ago, and I don't have any idea where he is now so NSA don't bother to call me) who went to a ghetto area late one night and bought a handgun for his boyfriend. The state where this happened didn't allow sales of handguns between individuals without a background check, so the "loophole" had already been closed. However, it was ignored. Only a lunatic or a serious optimist would believe that criminals will submit background check requests when selling stolen guns on ghetto street corners late at night, so -- again -- what's the point? Honest people already behave honestly, and new regulations will only serve to encumber honest people. Universal background checks won't make a dent in illegal gun sales.

[HiBC]

First,we already have too many laws and regulations.BEFORE there is one more restrictive gun law is passed,somebody needs to own up that all the gun laws already in force are ineffective failures.
Its like there is a hoarder house of laws. Clean up before adding any more.
No law will make up for mediocre ineffective bureaucrats who fail at their job.
Had there not been "balls dropped",nearly every one of these shootings could have been prevented.
Don't ask me to give up any more of my liberty or my grand children's legacy of a US Constitution that says "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.

Now,to the OP's question: Along with a passed and signed legislation come the inevitable bureaucrat regulations with force of law that can put you in jail.
They do not get a vote or a veto process. They are just written by ,if we may,the deep state.

If we have such a law,don't we require a means to enforce? To ensure compliance? How?
To enforce a universal back ground check,every firearm in the USA must be inventoried.
Exactly every firearm you own must be registered and accounted for,AND,you must be subject to audit,perhaps by a knock on the door.
"Firearms Audit!"
If you have one gun too many,or come up one short,I speculate you will be a felon.
That is why I adamantly oppose such "Common sense gun safety laws"

It was with great Wisdom our Founders said "Shall not be Infringed"

They selected the 2nd Amendment for such an admonishment.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Under current laws, universal background checks require registration to work and registration is a necessary first step to confiscation. Given how many leading public figures openly support confiscation and bans, I'm inclined to take them at their word for a change.

Originally Posted by NateKirk

That attitude only tightens the noose while delaying the drop. You get strangled either way.

Well, putting the noose around your own neck is a novel solution then.

[thallub]

IMO: The concept of background checks on private firearms sales is repugnant to the extreme.

Put to referendum; background checks on private firearms sales would pass in many states.

[ligonierbill]

I disagree with a key point of this discussion, that the only way to enforce "universal" background checks (some exceptions are necessary) is registration. That would be one way, and I'm sure a lot of anti-gun folks think it is a clever way to get the registration, and confiscation, that they really want.

But there is an easy and effective way to enforce this. Cops use it now to discourage all sorts of illegal sales: sting operations. First, most people obey the law. Mostly because...well, they're law abiding citizens. For folks that don't and want to buy or sell illegal drugs, sex, pirated videos, etc. the cops sometimes oblige them. Make the deal, make the arrest. Does it stop these sales? Of course not. But it sure gives normal people an incentive not to engage in these transactions.

Personally, I wouldn't do a face-to-face transfer with a stranger, even though it's perfectly legal here. NICS is imperfect, but it does seem to be effective and reasonable. Also regarding registration, just send someone who advocates for it to Canada. Our friends to the northleft tried it, dropped it. Too costly and ineffective.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

I don't have a problem with universal background checks, but I'm more in favor of a national gun permit. As a truck driver, I've had to pass federal background checks to get both my HAZMAT endorsement and TWIC card. Passed both with no problems whatsoever. However, when I go to buy a gun I get delayed every time with no explanation as to why. It's very annoying.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by ligonierbill

I disagree with a key point of this discussion, that the only way to enforce "universal" background checks (some exceptions are necessary) is registration. That would be one way, and I'm sure a lot of anti-gun folks think it is a clever way to get the registration, and confiscation, that they really want.

Expanding the current FFL "background" check to all sales, including those between individuals, is registration.

Guns don't have backgrounds, so it doesn't make sense that the licensee identify the arm you purchase and retain a record unless the point is to register that arm to you. He doesn't need a record of the arm to know whether you are an eligible buyer.

The rational answer to a problem of ineligible buyers would be to issue an ID to any eligible buyer and permit him to buy as he pleases from whoever he pleases without further interference.

Whether that poses a constitutional problem is a different matter.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by rc

The only legal requirement for the seller would be that the seller use the information on the purchase permit and a valid state ID to determine the buyer was not a prohibited person. The buyer could be required to keep the name and address information of the buyer for a period of 10 years as a protection from criminal liability.

I assume you meant that the seller would be required to keep the information for ten years.

Aside from the burden that would pout on private sellers (I can't imagine that if I sold a gun next week I might be able to find where I put the buyer's name and address five years from now), having such information recorded anywhere becomes a de facto registration. After all, 4473s aren't submitted to the federal government, they stay with the FFL. Yet after any major shooting where the firearm(s) is/are recovered, the BATFE knows within 48 hours or less exactly where and when it/they were bought -- by tracking the 4473s.

It's a mystery to me why any state's carry license/permit isn't all you need to buy a firearm, even from an FFL. Not just those states whose licenses/permits formally qualify for NICS -- I'm talking about all states. I believe all states that issue permits conduct a background check first. Even states like Pennsylvania, which has no training requirement. Ergo, if I have a carry permit, I have already passed a background check. Why do I have to pass another one if I want to buy a gun? Likewise, if I walk into a gun shop wearing a gun on my belt, and especially if the FFL knows that I have bought guns from him and passed the background check -- what's the purpose of subjecting me to yet another background check? I already own a gun! I could walk in wearing two Glocks with true high-capacity magazines, yet I have to pass a background check to buy a Ruger Single Six .22 caliber revolver. Why?

[peterg7]

Repeal GCA of 68 and give Freedom a try.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aguila Blanca]

I stumbled across an article in the Guardian that was written by the Parkland students. It's interesting for showing us what they are demanding ... as well as for showing us how their demands demonstrate their ignorance of the topic they are speaking and writing about:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ricas-gun-laws

Ban semi-automatic weapons that fire high-velocity rounds

Civilians shouldn’t have access to the same weapons that soldiers do. That’s a gross misuse of the second amendment.

But ... the semi-automatic weapons we "civilians" can buy are NOT the same weapons that soldiers have. And, in fact, the scary .223/5.56x45 round that they are so wrought up about is not allowed for hunting deer in many states because it isn't lethal enough to provide humane kills.

Further, except for .22LR, pretty much every semi-automatic rifle fires "high velocity" rounds. So this isn't a call to ban just "assault weapons," taken on its face this would ban ALL semi-automatic rifles, and possibly many semi-automatic handguns. Bye-bye Ruger Mini 14 and Mini 30.

Ban accessories that simulate automatic weapons

High-capacity magazines played a huge role in the shooting at our school. In only 10 minutes, 17 people were killed, and 17 others were injured. This is unacceptable.

That’s why we believe that bump stocks, high-capacity magazines and similar accessories that simulate the effect of military-grade automatic weapons should be banned.

But "high capacity" magazines don't have anything to do with rate of fire. And the shooter at Parkland used 10-round magazines.

Establish a database of gun sales and universal background checks

We believe that there should be a database recording which guns are sold in the United States, to whom, and of what caliber and capacity they are.

Just as the department of motor vehicles has a database of license plates and car owners, the Department of Defense should have a database of gun serial numbers and gun owners. This data should be paired with infractions of gun laws, past criminal offenses and the status of the gun owner’s mental health and physical capability.

Together with universal background checks, this system would help law enforcement stop a potentially dangerous person before they commit a gun crime.

As has been noted, universal background checks can't work without registration. Here, the students are openly calling for registration.

Registration leads to confiscation. Canada proved that registration was NOT effective in reducing crime. A registration system would not have stopped the Las Vegas shooting, and (by itself) a registration system would not have prevented the Parkland shooting. Registration also would not have prevented the Pulse Club shooting.

Change privacy laws to allow mental healthcare providers to communicate with law enforcement

As seen in the tragedy at our school, poor communication between mental healthcare providers and law enforcement may have contributed to a disturbed person with murderous tendencies and intentions entering a school and gunning down 17 people in cold blood.

We must improve this channel of communication. To do so, privacy laws should be amended. That will allow us to prevent people who are a danger to themselves or to others from purchasing firearms. That could help prevent tragedies such as the Parkland massacre.

Slippery slope. 'Nuff said.

Close gun show and secondhand sales loopholes

Thanks to loopholes, people who otherwise wouldn’t be able to buy firearms are able to purchase them at gun shows and secondhand sales. The existence of these loopholes reflects the ineptitude of state and federal legislators.

If we are serious about preventing people from purchasing deadly weapons, we must monitor sales that take place at gun shows and on secondhand markets. This is especially urgent given the danger posed by mentally unstable and violent individuals armed with firearms.

This is really a second call for universal background checks and registration.

Allow the CDC to make recommendations for gun reform

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should be allowed to conduct research on the dangers of gun violence. The fact that they are currently prohibited from doing so undermines the first amendment. It also violates the rights of the American people.

It is hypocritical to rally people to protect the second amendment, while remaining silent on the ways that blocking research violates one of our most basic constitutional freedoms.

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

Raise the firearm purchase age to 21

In a few months from now, many of us will be turning 18. We will not be able to drink; we will not be able to rent a car. Most of us will still be living with our parents. We will not be able to purchase a handgun. And yet, we will be able to purchase an AR-15.

Why is it that we will be able to legally obtain a weapon that has the ability to fire over 150 rounds and kill 17 people in about six minutes? That is unacceptable. It makes no sense that to buy a handgun, you have to be 21, but a gun of mass destruction and devastation like the AR-15 can be purchased when one is just becoming an adult.

Okay. But motor vehicles driven by teenagers kill a lot of people every year, too. Let's be fair -- if we're going to raise the age for buying a gun to 21, then we should raise the age for everything associated with maturity to 21: drivers licenses, voting, age of consent for sex, age to marry, age to enlist in the military ... everything.

Dedicate more funds to mental health research and professionals

Federal and state government should earmark more funds specifically for mental health services. Those with mental health issues, especially those who express aggressive, violent, suicidal and/or homicidal thoughts should have the opportunity to receive the help they need regardless of their economic status.

Schools specifically should receive more funds in order to hire more psychologists and guidance counselors who can aid students suffering from PTSD, depression and other debilitating mental illnesses.

Many of those who commit mass shootings suffer from these kinds of illnesses. It is essential that more funds be dedicated to mental health research.

Many school shooters were victims of bullying, too. That inconvenient factoid seems to be conspicuously absent from their manifesto.

Increase funding for school security

We believe that schools should be given sufficient funds for school security and resource officers to protect and secure the entire campus. As a school of over 3,000 students, teachers and faculty, Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school was only supplied funds to hire one on-campus armed resource officer by the state.

Without backup, this officer’s hesitation proved to be disastrous and allowed for the senseless deaths of people who were killed on the third floor of the 1200 building.

Though this idea has been proposed in the past, these funds should not be appropriated from the already scarce funding for public education. Governments should find resources to secure the millions of children that attend public schools without taking away from the quality of education that is offered at these institutions.

This ignores the fact that a single officer took out another school shooter just a couple of weeks after Parkland. The issue isn't that there weren't enough cops at Parkland, the issue is that the cop they had was a coward. Also, after the shooting there were multiple officers assigned to Parkland, and the students complained because seeing all those cops made them feel like they were in prison. So they want to be made secure, but they don't want to see any security measures. As a song from my late mother's era said, "You can't have one without the other."

[44 AMP]

I could walk in wearing two Glocks with true high-capacity magazines, yet I have to pass a background check to buy a Ruger Single Six .22 caliber revolver. Why?

Because they wrote the law that way. On purpose.

This goes back to what I said earlier, the problem isn't just the idea of background checks, its also the specific way the law(s) are worded.

WA got a UBS..er, pardon.. UBC law a couple years back. After being defeated in the Legislature, over 3 different election cycles (that I know of), they went the ballot initiative route. Because they were able to manipulate the opinion of enough people in the 5 counties of the Seattle metro area, it passed there. It only passed in those five counties, every other county in the state defeated it.

That didn't matter. Those five counties has enough people in them that passed the law to make it the law for the entire state.

It's the most poorly writing law I've ever seen. It's so poorly written that the WA State Police (and other WA LEOs) have refused to enforce it. (qualified with, refused to enforce it absent further clarification of what is, and is not a covered "transfer") Its been a couple years, but so far, as far as I know, that clarification has not been forthcoming, yet.

I see voluntary compliance at gun shows. One dealer sets up and does nothing but run the background checks for all the other dealers at the show.

And, yes, its one check per gun, if you buy from different people. Same day, could even be in the same hour, but if you buy a gun from two (or 3 or..) different dealers, each time you need a background check run.

I can see, a degree of justification (other than the wording of the law) for A check. One. The first one. I can see no valid reason or use for the 2nd, or 3rd, or whatever check other than to obey the wording of the law.

I have met dealers who, speaking as private citizens, detest the background check idea, but speaking as an FFL dealer (a businessman), they love it., It makes them MONEY!!! (nothing makes you money like a law that requires people to use your business...)

As to being able to have a "system" that does not require/create a registration database, it can be done. It could be done, except the anti's absolutely will not accept any idea that doesn't create a registration system.

They won't even entertain the idea. They refuse to consider, let alone support, any idea that isn't their own on this issue. As someone else said, so much for "compromise"....

As to enforcing such a law, after the point of sale..what a nightmare..

What are they going to do, come into my home and demand proof I had a background check run (which I do not, and CANNOT have) on each and every firearm I own???

They aren't doing it, today, but that doesn't mean that they never will...

It's a scary thought, that some jackbooted thug of an enforcement official (and whether they wear their jackboots openly or concealed doesn't matter, its an attitude, not an article of footwear I'm referring to..) demanding to see "proof" that I had a background check run on my grandfather's double barrel shotgun that has been in my family for 110 years!!!!!

You want to check something? How about, instead of checking me, and millions of other people who are not doing anything wrong or criminal, each and every time we buy a gun, you put that effort into creating a "watchdog" agency, who SOLE function is to go through all court records, everywhere, at all levels, to ensure all are/have been reported to NICS??
(and be sure to check and include the records of all those who have since died, as well. After all, they still vote in some places, so they might be out there trying to buy a gun, as well...

No doubt such a task is a moving target, but it would create lifetime employment for a number of people. Isn't that a good thing???
(and no, don't ask me to pay for it, and don't steal my money to do so without even the courtesy of asking.)