Question about universal background checks

[Spear Dane]

In my reading the last few days I've come across a number of references to opposition to universal background checks being due to belief they will lead to gun registry. So questions:
#1 What exactly is a 'universal background check' and how is it different from the NICS system we now use?

#2 By what path does the UBC lead to gun registry?

#3 Does not the very act of going through a NICS check tell the Feds you have bought 'something', even if it's not known exactly what?

 

[HoughMade]

#1- In addition to sales through licensed dealers, they would apply to private sales, gifts, inheritance and according to the way the 2013 bill was written, even borrowing. ANY change of possession would trigger a background check (under the bill which was defeated).

#2- Instead of there only being a records of the original sale from a licensed dealer to a person, there would (theoretically) be a record of every change of possession everywhere. This would more easily enable the government to determine who has guns (again, theoretically) because there would be no legal way to obtain a gun that did not involve a background check.

#3- Yes. It tells the Feds something. Better something than everything and better nothing than anything.

 

[rvb]

In my reading the last few days I've come across a number of references to opposition to universal background checks being due to belief they will lead to gun registry. So questions:
#1 What exactly is a 'universal background check' and how is it different from the NICS system we now use?
only firearms bought through an FFL need to go through a NICS. I can sell you a firearm privately and no NICS is needed. "Universal" = every transaction.

#2 By what path does the UBC lead to gun registry?
There is no other way for a UBC to be enforceable. If you have a new gun, how do does the law know whether you skirted the UBC unless there is a paper trail? If I sell you a gun and we don't do a background check, how would they know? They could only know if it was registered to me.

#3 Does not the very act of going through a NICS check tell the Feds you have bought 'something', even if it's not known exactly what?
yes. and that's where we get into semantics on a "registry." The NICS itself doesn't say "what," but they definitely know "who."
And The current paperwork has all the details about "what." All that paperwork eventually ends up with the ATF, even if held by the FFL while in business. So they have the data. It's not currently searchable (by law), but they have it.

-rvb

 

[pudly]

1- In practice (Washington and Oregon), UBCs are actually a wide range of gun control measures hiding behind what sounds like a "common sense" label. The Washington state UBC was 18 pages in length. That text went well beyond what you would think is a UBC. In theory, UBC is requiring that all "gun transfers" be subject to a background check, not just FFL sales. So, this ends up including person-to-person sales, handing your child a gun for training/practice, loaning a gun to a friend, meeting with another INGOer to test fire a specific model of gun before purchasing, and in any of those cases another background check when they hand the gun back to you. Every single one of those transactions adds to data collection on who has guns, adds costs to gun use, and substantial delays to what should be very easy/smooth/legal activities.

2- It is impossible to enforce a true UBC if you don't know who has which guns. How can they know if I've done a proper background check on you before I sell you my gun if they don't know (a) I have it, (b) I'm selling it to you, (c) have a record of the transaction and (d) which gun it is? If you left out any of those details, then you couldn't do any real enforcement/prosecutions based on non-compliance.

3- Yes.

4- You forgot the most important question:How effective are universal background checks for preventing crime including mass murder?
Chris Mercer passed 13 FFL background checks in a UBC state before becoming a mass murderer. Most of the other firearm mass murderers also passed background checks and purchased their guns legally or took/stole guns which would have bypassed any background check. Even among those who do fail current FFL background checks, virtually none are prosecuted, even though they have provably broken the law. So felons are free to move on to other means of acquiring firearms and doing whatever they had in mind.

UBCs:

• Don't have a track record of preventing crime.
• At best will be selectively enforced.
• Will produce a database of gun owners and firearms that are a requirement before gun confiscation can happen.
• Impose unconstitutional costs and hassles for the law abiding and not the law breakers.
• Other than that, they are a good idea.

 

[Spear Dane]

Awesome replies. I thank you all.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

#2 By what path does the UBC lead to gun registry?

This is the reason Indiana's UBC was unenforceable and ultimately repealed. Without a registry the UBC is near impossible (barring a confession or sting) to prosecute.

 

[possum_128]

When a nics check is done the feds do not know a) the make, model or caliber of gun. b) if you even bought the gun. and c) how many guns you may have bought.
What they do know is you may be buying a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun or other. Now if the background was done on a rifle and a pistol they would know that you may be buying at least two firearms but still would not have any other information.

The only way for the feds or the police to "trace" a firearm is to track the make, model and serial number back to the manufacturer and see where it was shipped to ie, what ffl and then go through that ffl's 4473's.

I am not sure how the feds or the police could use a background check on a private sell through an ffl to track a firearm. By law all information about a nics checks, I believe must be destroyed after 24 hour of a "proceed".

 

[SSGSAD]

Yes, and I saw on line this morning, today, Thur., the "D" are introducing "NEW" gun control law, including UBC !!!!!

SO, INGO "D" KEEP on VOTING !!!!!

 

[rvb]

By law all information about a nics checks, I believe must be destroyed after 24 hour of a "proceed".

... and I completely trust the ATF...

-rvb

 

[possum_128]

... and I completely trust the ATF...

-rvb

What?? You don't trust the government?? Heaven forbid the thought!

 

[2A_Tom]

Gun Control FACTS


By Paul Harvey
Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?


CONSIDER; In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.


It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2% Assaults are up 8 % Armed robberies are up 44% In that countries' state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%. Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns."


It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens. Take action before it's too late, write or call your delegation.

 

[pudly]

Here is a list of mass murderers that I stole from here. Each of the following passed NICS background checks while legally purchasing guns at FFLs:

• Umpqua CC shooter Christopher Harper-Mercer
• Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof
• Isla Vista shooter Eliot Rodgers
• Colorado theater shooter James Holmes
• Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho
• Ft. Hood shooter Ivan Lopez
• Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan
• Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis. He also had a security clearance.
• Minneapolis shooter Andrew John Engeldinger
• [STRIKE]Las Vegas shooters Jerad and Amanda Miller[/STRIKE] - unclear
• Tucson shooter Jared Loughner

In addition:

• Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza used legally purchased guns. He just murdered the owner first and then stole them.
• Columbine shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. The guns were a straw purchase, but the ATF declined to even prosecute the straw buyer.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Las Vegas shooters Jerad and Amanda Miller

No way Jerad Miller passed NICS.

 

[pudly]

I struck the Millers. Did some additional searching and although multiple sites list their purchases as legal, they provided no details. Jared was indeed a non-proper person at the time. Amanda was legal and they were advertising in Facebook for guns. I can't find any references that I would consider authoritative, so I've marked their purchase as unclear.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Did some additional searching and although multiple sites list their purchases as legal

Those sites are incorrect.

The case I had him on he was acquitted (public record here) but Jerad had other matters that I was not on.

 

[pudly]

Those sites are incorrect.

The case I had him on he was acquitted (public record here) but Jerad had other matters that I was not on.

Do you have details on how they acquired the guns? I understand that he couldn't legally purchase them, but it sounds like Amanda could.

 

[chipbennett]

No way Jerad Miller passed NICS.

If he lied on his Form 4473, perhaps?

 

[pudly]

That still should be caught as part of the NICS check. However, we don't know if he ever did fill out a 4473.

 

[chipbennett]

4- You forgot the most important question:How effective are universal background checks for preventing crime including mass murder?
Chris Mercer passed 13 FFL background checks in a UBC state before becoming a mass murderer. Most of the other firearm mass murderers also passed background checks and purchased their guns legally or took/stole guns which would have bypassed any background check. Even among those who do fail current FFL background checks, virtually none are prosecuted, even though they have provably broken the law. So felons are free to move on to other means of acquiring firearms and doing whatever they had in mind.

This is the really important point to hammer: background checks accomplish absolutely nothing to further any public good, or to prevent any public harm.

1. Criminals simply bypass them (note: something they would continue to do, even if UBCs were enacted), by stealing their firearms, or purchasing them on the black market. Criminals use FFLs for all of about 10% of their firearm purchases. (And absolutely nothing would compel two criminals to self-report to NICS for a private, black-market transaction.)

2. Laws regarding straw purchases, lying on Form 4473, or even properly filling out Form 4473 as a "prohibited person", are simply not enforced. The conviction rate is abysmally low: somewhere around 2%, IIRC.

3. Because of due process rights, potential criminals cannot (and should not) be prevented from purchasing firearms due to background checks.

 

[chipbennett]

That still should be caught as part of the NICS check. However, we don't know if he ever did fill out a 4473.

How? What if he lied about his identity? For that matter: NICS is a GIGO system (see: Charleston). If the relevant information isn't in the system, NICS won't flag someone who should be flagged.

I know nothing about this specific instance; however, absent specific details otherwise, there are lots of way to get through a NICS check when you shouldn't.