Universal Background Checks sans registration

[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?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by koda94

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?

This one would not.

Registration isn't the only burdensome quality of mandated background checks.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

This one would not.

Registration isn't the only burdensome quality of mandated background checks.

Can you expand on that to clarify the other burdens?

[zukiphile]

Can you expand on that to clarify the other burdens?

They take time and money. Increasing those increases the burden of exercising the right.

Moreover, if I am buying from someone in my state and other than a federal licensee, Congress should lack the authority to restrict our agreement.

[HiBC]

I can tell you my concern.

Written into every law,will be (sooner or later) the means to enforce. Lets not forget the Agency ,like the BATF,does not need the legislature to write regulations with force of law.

So,please tell me in detail how,without registration, this UBC can be enforced?

Will the "Honor System" suffice?

It seems these days we have to be able to prove our innocence. We already have a 2A that says "Keep,and bear arms ,shall not be infringed" That's my Right till the State can prove I'm a criminal.

And that's what "common sense gun laws " do. They provide the procedural means to make criminals out of innocent people. Words on a page, and what was Freedom becomes a crime.

Without registration (your promise) how can you know whether I'm innocent of selling my brother a gun?

HMMM. So it WILL come to pass that I will be required to prove myself innocent.

The obvious solution is the government entity must have a detailed inventory of every firearm in my possession. And of course,in order to assure my COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW, I must be subject to audit.

Just like a FFL/BATF audit. Of couse,there will be "implied consent"

And if the audit shows one more gun,or one less gun than the government inventory says I should have, I'm guilty till provem innocent of being a criminal who broke the "Common Sense UBC Law"

I hope that spells it out for you.

I forget the details,but maybe James Madison observed tat we cannot rely on those who gain political power to be honorable or trusted with our Liberty.

That is the Genius behind a Constitution based on Individual Liberty and LIMITED government.

No,I do not consent to or trust the soft sell behind "Universal Background Check" Its one ,ore step to tyranny.

I truly hope you learned something

[olddav]

Sounds like a compromise that old one side pays the price. That would be a vote of NO for me.

[Koda94]

HiBC, thats a great reply the kind Im looking for..

[American Man]

Define your version of UBC. Does this include mental health checks, to include getting medical records from every doc you've seen for pych issues?... ptsd from war, depression from current chronic illnesses and other stuff you probably don't want to have sitting in file cabinets and databases other than at your clinic. I know my records are sitting in a file cabinet at my sheriff's department right now. They get a fresh new copy of the same exact records every 5 years because I will never ever see a doc for any issues ever again... I will not add one more sentence for some sheriff's dept to have on file. Does a private seller get those or does he get the buyer to provide a letter from some UBC office/dept saying he is mentally okie dokie? How about drug treatment centers? They send my name out to some of the major rehab centers and I have to pay for the search in addition to the other fees. My CCW currently negates the NICS requirement, but if you don't have a CCW in my state, even if you buy from a private seller, you have to apply for a permit at your sheriff's dept and go through the same mental health and drug rehab checks to get a pistol purchase permit. This has been the standard for decades... last I checked there was no shortage of gun violence in the heavily populated urban areas.

The goal of the anti gunners is to just get anything UBC passed... just like they did with healthcare. They know once they get something passed they can just expand on it and abuse it... kind of like how people who could not afford the affordable healthcare coverage and had to pay the fine anyway. But with UBC, they will take this and go 100x more crazy with it.

UBCs are nothing but a distraction. I think my state goes above and beyond, but what does it really accomplish? Do these checks keep guns out of the hands of felons... I don't even think they fill out any forms.

Lastly, look at the background checks in NYC in order to buy a gun or a FOID in Chicago... any shortage of gun violence in those places?

[44 AMP]

Is it possible?

Yes.

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?

Not many. Many because of the huge difference between principle and practice and the risks HiBC detailed in his post.

I would not support a UBC on all sales including gun shows and private sales, simply because its barking STUPID. (i'll explain more in a bit)

And how would such a registration-less UBC work?

A UBC without a registration component could work. It could work without any information about the gun at all. However, a system that could do that is not acceptable to the people pushing the current version of background checks. Not even remotely, and that exposes their double standard.

First, the check can be done without any firearm information at all. One checks THE PERSON. Not the person and the gun, not the gun, just the person, as it is only the person buying the gun that can be the prohibited part.

THey are, after all only checking the person's records in the system to see if there is anything that legally prohibits them buying a firearm. Information about the gun DOES NOT MATTER, unless you have registration as your ultimate goal.

Consider this, run the background check on EVERYONE in the country. Run it when they get their "smart ID", driver's license, or other ID. Mark the ID, if you're a prohibited person. Require surrender of ID and issue a new marked one if you get convicted of something that makes you a prohibited person.
Worried about use of false, forged ID? gee, why not just make that a CRIME!

Worries about "prove you had a background check done on this gun" go away under such a system, the question can't even be asked. All needed proof is you had a valid check done sometime before purchase, and are still not a prohibited person at the time in question.

The point is not to create a system can be beaten or not (there is no system that cannot be beaten) but one that is difficult enough to fool that going completely to the (illegal) black market is easier.

Next point, the idea of a background check on EVERY SINGLE PURCHASE.

To my mind, its stupid. The idea behind background checks is that a person who cannot legally have a gun will have something in their records stating that. The idea behind doing the check on every purchase is that you could have become a prohibited person since the last time you bought a gun.

The principle behind certain people not being able to have a gun is that they could do harm with a gun. Fine. The FIRST TIME you buy a gun, do a check (under the current system) not my ideal system described above..

Once you have a gun, HOW does any check on any future purchase add to public safety?? As far as I can see, it doesn't. If you're going to do harm, you already have a gun, therefore checks on further gun purchases are simply a waste of time and money, as far as preventing future risk. What ever risk exists (and the dregree of risk is arguable), exists from the time you get your first gun.

I believe that a system of background check could be created and would work without any information tying the buyer to a specific gun needed.

But that is not politically acceptable to the gun control people because it does not allow for some kind of registration to be created.

And the idea of background checks in general is not acceptable to many 2nd Amendment supporters on general principle, and the only version we are being offered is both unacceptable in principle AND in detail.

In short, we could have a system that does not require registration, but we are not being offered such and all suggestions otherwise are ignored, or scorned.

[BBarn]

Another pitfall of such laws is the lack of diligence on the part of the various government agencies when a mistake is made or correction is needed. Some Individuals who aren't prohibited are denied, and the burden is on them to get the error corrected (basically becoming a variation of prove your innocence followed by waiting an undetermined amount of time for a faceless bureaucracy to make correction).

[jimbob86]

Nope. I'm done "compromising".

Lawdog said it better than anybody has, before or since, almost a decade ago.

https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/...-ill-play.html

I'm Done playing. Virginia is Done playing. Free America is Done playing.

Convince me I'm wrong.

[Radny97]

44 AMP sets it forth perfectly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

This one would not.

Registration isn't the only burdensome quality of mandated background checks.

Yet, in many states, like CO, it works just fine..Only 'loophole' is transferring a gun from relative to relative, which is legal w/o a BGC.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNret93

Yet, in many states, like CO, it works just fine...Only 'loophole' is transferring a gun from relative to relative, which is legal w/o a BGC.

Emphasis added.

In CO, does a transfer to a non-relative require submission of an application and approval from a state or federal agency?

Is this done through an FFL, and if so, is the FFL entitled to charge for this service?

If the answers to any of those questions is "yes", then those systems do not "work just fine".

Poll taxes and literacy tests for suffrage arguably "work just fine", but that is too low a bar for the burdening of a civil right.

[USNRet93]

You are putting words in my mouth. Not a poll tax or literacy test. The ‘system’ in place works. NOT commenting on fairness or $ involved, politics of it...etc. Lotsa people in Colorado buying lotsa guns..from or via a FFL.
BTW, things like UBC is coming, some RFL too. NOT commenting on it but recognizing the ‘system’ in Colorado is going to become more common, not less.

[jimbob86]

USNRet93 .... I don't care if it works: it's just as blatantly Unconstitutional as a poll tax or literacy test...... Moreso, really: The Constitution does not explicitly protect voting rights as it does the RTKBA.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

You are putting words in my mouth. Not a poll tax or literacy test. The ‘system’ in place works.

That is incorrect. I have attributed to you nothing you haven't written. Pointing out to you that the standard you offer permits poll taxes and literacy tests for voting doesn't put any words in your mouth; this only illustrates the insufficiency of "works just fine" as a standard.

A burden on a fundamental liberty should be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. Making me and my neighbor travel to and pay an FFL in order to transfer an arm from him to me is a burden of time and money on an act the government has no compelling interest in preventing, and over which Congress arguably lacks power.

For those reasons, a UBC in CO doesn't "work just fine". Certainly, people in Pakistan have lots to say and speak quite a bit. That doesn't mean that its blasphemy laws work just fine vis a vis free speech.

Whether a lot of people in CO get to buy some arms isn't a reasonable test of whether UBCs are a power the state should hold. Certainly, people in Pakistan have lots to say and speak quite a bit. That doesn't mean that its blasphemy laws work just fine vis a vis free speech.

[2damnold4this]

Here is an academic study on California's "universal" background check:

link
California's comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies and firearm mortality

Highlights
•
CBC/MVP policies were not associated with changes in firearm homicides in California.

•
Changes in firearm suicides were similar to changes in nonfirearm suicides.

•
The null findings in California are consistent with other recent CBC evaluations.

[jimbob86]

BTW, things like UBC is coming, some RFL too. NOT commenting on it but recognizing the ‘system’ in Colorado is going to become more common, not less.

These things will happen if we are OK with them ..... and allow them ..... I won't. You seem to be OK with these infringements.

[44 AMP]

These things will happen if we are OK with them ..... and allow them .....

These things happen if we aren't OK with them and if we do everything legal not to allow them...

When we are outnumbered.

It is a problem inherent in democracy, particularly when outside the framework of the representative REPUBLIC that our Founder gave us, "if we could keep it".

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.

Basically, the people in the SeaTac area voted for it in sufficient numbers to make it the law for the entire state. They (the law's sponsors) couldn't get the Legislators to pass it, so they misinformed the people and got them to do it.

This is democracy. Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner is also democracy. So is mob rule. Its just not as structured.

[Koda94]

I actually like the idea of 44 AMPs suggestion to include prohibited persons in the smart ID system.

Ive heard of a similar idea of requiring a CHL for all gun sales which would not need a background check, but anyone without a CHL would have to conduct a background check. I think the smart ID system would be a better way to go on this.

The idea has merit worth exploring.

[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.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by jimbob86

These things will happen if we are OK with them ..... and allow them ..... I won't. You seem to be OK with these infringements.

I'm recognizing that here in Colorado, if you wish to buy a gun, THIS is the system in place. Whether or not I am 'ok' with it is irrelevant. I may go to an anti UBC rally on Sunday but go to a LGS on Monday, fill out the 4473..and wait 10-15 minutes..and hand over my credit card.
I'm saying 'it works' because it allows me and a lot of others to easily go buy a gun.

These things will happen if we are OK with them ..... and allow them ..... I won't. You seem to be OK with these infringements.
__________________

You won't allow them but they are in place and you wish to buy a gun where you live(Nebraska?)...how do you do that? Intentionally break the law to make some 'point'? Might make you feel better but it also might make you a felon.

I might 'seem' that way but I am only recognizing that in CO, play by the rules of the law or don't play.
Support candidates that will over turn/change the UBC/RFL..
I go to a local gun store where the owner is VERY vocal about the RTKBA..but he also insists on BGC and following the letter of the law when selling any gun...does he 'seem' to be OK with these infringements?

Sounds like in Nebraska, to buy a gun at a LGS..gotta pass a criminal BGC..takes 3 DAYS..here in CO, takes about 10 minutes.

[44 AMP]

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

A lot of the time the system can't prosecute the guy who sold the gun even WITH registration.

There is no "cradle to grave" tracking of firearms. Even though that seems to be the intent of the UBC laws that require a check on every purchase and transfer now. It doesn't exist everywhere, yet, and it didn't exist before now so there's millions of guns not in the system, and millions upon millions more that are only in the system up to the last point of dealer sale after 1968.

Stolen guns are, of course, completely black market, and there are also more than a few cases where the "bad guy" wasn't a bad guy when he bought the gun.

Even with full registration (cradle to grave tracking), if the bad guy wasn't a bad guy (prohibited person) when he bought the gun, there's nothing to prosecute the seller for.

I firmly believe that no matter what they claim, every system that has registration in it is a precursor to confiscation. And such information would be used when they have the political power to make confiscation a reality instead of their dream. The pattern is long established, and consistent.

Just because they haven't started confiscation YET doesn't mean they never will.

Look at various states and laws about "assault weapons" for just one example.

[Spats McGee]

We've had the discussion several times over the years. I've made the claim (not without some push-back) that UBCs are unenforceable. I suppose that it might be enforceable prospectively, at least to some degree. Any gun built after the effective date of the law should have a clear chain of title leading up to and including a current possessor of the gun.

With that said, there are some very real, practical problems with enforcement as to any firearm manufactured prior to the effective date of a UBC law. "Prove it" is a perfectly valid defense to a criminal charge, and if the State (any State, or the federal gov't) wants to pursue a UBC violation, it has to prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and I would be within my rights to force it to prove its case. So, if we're talking about: (a) a UBC law without resigstration; and (b) a firearm built before the effective date of the law, the State is going to have a very hard time proving that I didn't already have it when the law went into effect. Is it impossible? No, but it is very difficult.

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.

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.

I, for one, remain in the Not One More Inch Club.