Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 53
  1. #1
    Plinker

    User Info Menu

    EXPLAIN to your legislator HOW to do 'background check' WITHOUT a Gun Registry

    The word is circulating among firearms advocates that “You can't have a Background Check without a Gun Registry,” and I think this is a dangerous, and defeatist line of thought. I've heard many hard-line pro-gun speakers voice this thought, and I believe they are on the wrong track. Blanket opposition to 'background checks' is not going to prevent passage of a bill, but we can mitigate the damage IF we push back hard and fast.

    Here is why I don't believe that a Gun Registry has to be part of a Background Check:

    First of all, many of us have various sorts of 'background checks' on a regular basis, and there aren't even any firearms involved.


    • We get a prescription filled, and the pharmacist checks against a state database of drug abusers.
    • We purchase something with our credit card, and the seller verifies that we are good for the money.
    • We board an airplane, and the TSA checks to see if we are a prohibited flyer.


    None of those involve any firearms, so obviously don't involve any 'gun registry'.

    Here is one way a registry-less Background Check could work if Sally Seller transfers to Paul Purchaser:


    • Sally wants to sell a firearm to Paul.
    • Paul provides Sally with his Identifying Information (i.e. Name, Birth, Address, SS#).
    • Sally calls the NICS, and provides the Identifying Information.
    • Sally is issued a Transaction Approval Number, good for the date of the sale.
    • Sally records the Date, Transaction Approval Number, and Name of the Purchaser.
    • Sally can and should record the firearm identification for her own records, to protect herself.
    • Paul copies the information for himself, along with the name of the Seller.


    As of now – the Background Check HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.
    THIS is the alleged goal (and the ONLY goal) of the people who say 'background checks' would make us safer.

    Objections that come up:

    "Not everyone will participate” Guess what, I'll tell you a secret – that is true now, and will ALWAYS be true. The true criminals evade and disobey ALL laws. Our goal should be realistic – to assure that as many firearms sales as possible are made with background checks. This would absolutely meet that goal, because nobody wants to be the last owner of record for a firearm later used in a crime, and nobody wants to inadvertently sell to a criminal. Mandating sales through FFL dealers with inclusion into a federal gun registry would still not capture the 'prohibited possessors' or criminal purchases – those individuals simply steal or use the black market, the same place they get their drugs in most cases.

    It is unenforceable” The question would be, who are we enforcing this against, and there are different answers, but I think none of them lead to an enforcement dilemma. There are several scenarios:


    • Suppose Paul is behaving questionably – if that's the case, the officer involved can simply to a current NICS check, and if Paul is indeed a 'prohibited possessor' then the officer can arrest him right then and there. It doesn't matter where the firearm came from; even if purchased from an FFL Paul would still be arrested. With a private sale, this would still be true whether or not there was a background check, and would be true even if the NICS check was ok at the time of sale. The only difference the latter would make is if the NICS check was done and Sally has that Transaction Approval, it would keep her from getting in trouble (which is a very strong motivation for Sally to use the NICS and insist on a background check before she sells a firearm).



    • Suppose a firearm is being 'traced' (which is rarely pivotal in law enforcement, according to the FBI), and the trace goes from manufacturer, to wholesaler, to FFL retailer, then to the first individual who purchased the firearm, Fred. If Fred is no longer in possession of the firearm, he must therefore have transferred that firearm to someone else. If Fred has a date and Transaction Approval number, it means he transferred the firearm with a background check, and he is ok. Under this appropriate warrant, Fred can, should, and must provide the identification of who he sold the gun to, and so on down the line of transfers. Not a perfect or easy system, but actually far better than what the police have to work with today. If Fred did not do a NICS background check, he could be charged with transferring without a background check. (Note that if Fred is just a lousy bookkeeper, NICS could still pull up any checks he ran and the date, so he could at least prove he did a check and stay out of trouble).



    • Suppose Melvin, who is not breaking any laws, is in possession of a firearm which may or may not have been transferred to him/her with a background check. That would be most of us today. First of all, that is not an 'issue' because most of us do not commit crimes with our firearms. Eventually when Melvin wants to transfer his firearms to someone, even a friend or relative, he can still call up NICS and do a background check. Melvin would be motivated to do so because failure to do that would incur legal penalties if later found out. He would not fear doing so, nor would his prospective buyer, because the firearm in question wouldn't be entered into any 'registry', so a corrupt government in the future which decided to arbitrarily confiscate firearms would not have that list.



    • Suppose Harry is 'found with a gun' and it was one he purchased years ago, before any new laws requiring 'background checks' – is that a problem...? Again, if the officer runs a NICS check on Harry now, and he has become (or always was) a 'prohibited possessor', it doesn't matter – he is now in violation, and will go to jail. If Harry bought his firearm legally 10 years ago, he is still in trouble. If he stole it, or bought it on the black market recently, he is still in trouble, and in the latter case, if Harry squeals on his source, that person is also in trouble. If Harry bought his firearm recently, and skipped the background check, again if he squeals on the seller, the seller is in trouble. Of course Harry might lie (criminals do that) and say he just found the gun under a rock, but he could do that regardless of ANY new laws. Finally, if Harry bought the firearm recently and passed a NICS at the time of sale, but only became a prohibited possessor after that, the seller is protected, as they can document that whatever they sold us on the NICS date was an approved sale, but Harry is still in trouble.


    This may seem complicated, and unfortunately, most gun-control fanatics don't have the patience to think very in-depth about the topic – they just want to “do something” - mostly to feel good about themselves, or virtue-signal to their peers. Still, some actually care about end results, and would like legislation that stands some chance of helping, and minimizes risk of abuse.

    What WE have to do is educate our legislators, AND our peers in the pro-gun community, as to how EASY it would be to open up NICS to private sales, and NOT create any federal gun registry...!!!

    The other part of the discussion, for the few legislators and 'concerned citizens' who have the attention span and intelligence to grasp it, is to educate them as to just WHY a federal gun registry is so very dangerous. Unfortunately, the concept of genocide, though an ongoing and consistent cause of over 4,000 innocent lives lost worldwide every single day, is so remote from those who live in the U.S., that they usually can't even conceive that it could ever happen. I just remind them that three generations ago the good citizens of Germany would have said the same exact thing.


    Anyway – PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS and share this information – they MUST get a handle on this BEFORE all the back-room deals and compromises, because after that, any changes to the legislation will be extremely unlikely.


    HERE is where you can find your legislator contact information - https://gunownersaction.org/legislator-lookup/


    • After you enter your zip code, the page will list your legislators.
    • On the far right the black button says 'contact', but just to the left are the Twitter and Facebook logos.


    • by those logos is a 'globe' symbol and that is the link to where you can email them.


    While you're at it, use those links to send the same information to President Trump.

    Heck, send it to GOA and the NRA too – they may need encouragement to stand firm.

    For that matter, go ahead and send it to your state legislators; I'm sure they will be bitten by the "just do something" bug.

    Remember, Lyndon Johnson actually got this right when he said:

    "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."




    Last edited by AJMD429; 08-12-2019 at 21:49.

  2. #2
    Grandmaster Cameramonkey's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    I posted this thought in another thread. I believe a UBC is impossible to enforce without a registry. Several others far smarter than I (Guy Relford I believe is one, but cant say for sure) believe this to be true as well.

    How do you prove a firearm was transferred if you dont know where it was before the transfer ban went into effect?

    Assuming this new UBC law (sans registry) were to kick in 9/1/19, If you dont know who had the gun on 8/31/19, how do you know the person who has it on 9/15/2019 wasnt the same person? Even if it wasnt the same, how do you prove it? You cant.

    In order to enforce a UBC you must first register the firearm to establish its ownership and current location. If you dont register it first, you have no way of knowing how long the person has had it to be able to enforce a UBC law.

    "This old thing? I've had it for years." Good luck proving the guy isnt lying.

    I mean eventually new guns purchased after the UBC law could be established via 4473 history, but dear God, how many millions of guns are there in circulation right now? Not a one of them could be nailed down without a registry to prove whether it was transferred or not illegally. Every last gun in your home today is effectively immune from this without a registry.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Freeman View Post
    A confused cop is an arresty cop.
    Quote Originally Posted by hoosierdoc View Post
    also, where do we sign up to touch Frank's equipment?

  3. #3
    I still care....Really
    churchmouse's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Just another very deep nail on the 2A coffin.
    AKA..Thor. Odin son. God of thunder.
    But you can call me John.....Force.

    Forum Rules

    Classified Rules

    FAQ

    http://ingunowners.com/forums/handgu...e-posting.html

  4. #4
    Grandmaster eldirector's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Why not just tell our legislatures "NO"?

    There are enough unenforceable laws that are already ignored by the criminal element, and only (negatively) impact otherwise law-abiding citizens. We don't need more.

    Dear Elected Official - if you vote for UBC, or any other nonsense, we will vote in the primaries and get someone else into office. Thanks.

    Besides, your first 3 examples illustrate the PROBLEM, not the solution
    - Meth and prescription drug abuse is UP, after all these "check your ID" laws. Oops.
    - Credit cards are contracts with a private business, not the government.
    - The "no fly list" is unconstitutional (IMHO), and there is no due process to get on/off the list. Yeah... let's do more of THAT.
    Ryan "ElDirector"


  5. #5
    Plinker

    User Info Menu

    "How do you prove a firearm was transferred if you dont know where it was before the transfer ban went into effect? "

    I don't think that is necessary. The purpose (if we are to believe the people pushing for the Magic Background Check) is simply to get as many purchasers of firearms to be background-checked as possible. There is no need to prove any gun per se has been checked. Now, if the real purpose is to register guns, of course we suddenly have a pressing need to account for all of them, rather than simply make sure that people in possession of them are proper persons, or if not, arrest them just like always. If they are a prohibited possessor they are in trouble, and if not, it doesn't matter if they were 'background checked' because they are not a prohibited possessor, and thus if they had been checked they would have passed.

    Quote Originally Posted by eldirector View Post
    Why not just tell our legislatures "NO"?
    Quote Originally Posted by eldirector View Post
    There are enough unenforceable laws that are already ignored by the criminal element, and only (negatively) impact otherwise law-abiding citizens. We don't need more.

    Dear Elected Official - if you vote for UBC, or any other nonsense, we will vote in the primaries and get someone else into office. Thanks.

    Besides, your first 3 examples illustrate the PROBLEM, not the solution
    - Meth and prescription drug abuse is UP, after all these "check your ID" laws. Oops.
    - Credit cards are contracts with a private business, not the government.
    - The "no fly list" is unconstitutional (IMHO), and there is no due process to get on/off the list. Yeah... let's do more of THAT.


    I'm NOT saying the 'background checks' would work any better than other ones done for non-firearms purchases; we all know that 'background checks' are a waste of time, and potentially "another nail in the 2A coffin", but WE CAN BEND THAT NAIL. Failure to be involved and "just say no" will not succeed when you have 350 million people and 90% of the legislators they represent demanding 'background checks'. Failure to be involved WILL result in "another nail in the 2A coffin".

    It is the 'gun registry' that is the irreversible problem - once that information is in the wrong hands, it WILL be retained, even if the law is repealed someday (and that is extremely unlikely, as the concept of 'distant harm' is too abstract for the "just do something" crowd). At least the other asinine laws proposed by these legislators, such as the background check itself, could be repealed and there is no permanent harm.

    I think we all know that the higher-ups who push for 'background checks' actually know they are useless, but either view them as 'harmless' because they are really that uneducated and naive, or more likely, they ultimately want a 'gun registry' because they ultimately want confiscation of all firearms, or at least/first all 'semiautomatic' firearms. The REGISTRY is the thing that absolutely must not happen, as it is the thing that ultimately leads to a disarmed citizenry, which ultimately leads to a police-state, and sets the stage for genocide.
    Last edited by AJMD429; 08-13-2019 at 06:17.

  6. #6
    Grandmaster eldirector's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    I am simply not willing to continue compromising my rights away, a little at a time.

    I...we... have already given up so much. It will never be enough. As long as folks are willing to give up more, there will be others happy to take.

    So, thanks for your proposal. I do not care for it. I will continue contacting my reps, and voicing my concerns. With so many people actively trying to push UBCs, even from within the firearms community (if there is such a thing), I'll need to be even more vocal.
    Ryan "ElDirector"


  7. #7
    I still care....Really
    churchmouse's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by eldirector View Post
    I am simply not willing to continue compromising my rights away, a little at a time.

    I...we... have already given up so much. It will never be enough. As long as folks are willing to give up more, there will be others happy to take.

    So, thanks for your proposal. I do not care for it. I will continue contacting my reps, and voicing my concerns. With so many people actively trying to push UBCs, even from within the firearms community (if there is such a thing), I'll need to be even more vocal.
    ^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^

    I will not willingly give up more because they can not work with the laws already in place. Knee jerk appeasement of the squishy brained softy's has to stop. It does o good and only serves to undermine our freedoms which is the end game here anyway.
    AKA..Thor. Odin son. God of thunder.
    But you can call me John.....Force.

    Forum Rules

    Classified Rules

    FAQ

    http://ingunowners.com/forums/handgu...e-posting.html

  8. #8
    Plinker

    User Info Menu

    im not in favor of UBC's, because I think they will attempt to create a registry. I think it is possible to do it without craeting one, but i doubt they will. I really don't know why this is an issue? How many of these shooters got their guns through a private sale? The problem we have is, if we agree that certain people shouldnt have firearms (maybe we don't agree?), how do we check that out?

  9. #9
    Grandmaster Cameramonkey's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Is it possible to do a UBC and "force" use to transfer all firearms through a FFL (or direct call to NICS) without a registry? Sure. Anything is possible.

    Will it be effective? F*** NO! If you cant show a jury (or even a prosecutor) proof that it changed hands you cant prosecute/convict. So if you cant prove it happened, why even have the law?

    Oh, and if it DOES go into effect, the next thing you will see is my arguments above being used to push a registry. "this UBC is great but we are unable to prove people arent using it. We need a registry to make the UBC work. Think of the children!"
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Freeman View Post
    A confused cop is an arresty cop.
    Quote Originally Posted by hoosierdoc View Post
    also, where do we sign up to touch Frank's equipment?

  10. #10
    Grandmaster eldirector's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kdf101 View Post
    How many of these shooters got their guns through a private sale? Single-digit percentage of them. The majority are purchased thru an FFL with a background check. The rest are stolen.
    The problem we have is, if we agree that certain people shouldnt have firearms (maybe we don't agree?), how do we check that out?
    How about:
    If someone that shouldn't have a firearm, say, if convicted of a violent felony, and they are found with a firearm in their possession - regardless of HOW they obtained it (FFL, private sale, theft, gift, borrowed, or found) - they are arrested and charged with a felony, get to spend a little time back in lockup, and the firearm is confiscated. Interesting enough, this could also be used for ANYTHING a convicted felon should not have: weapons, drugs, alcohol, cars, etc....

    To top it off, if the criminal is stupid enough to buy a new gun through an FFL, they would get denied, and could be prosecuted for TRYING to do something illegal.

    Yes, I know this does not STOP someone who MIGHT commit a crime from getting a firearm prior to any crime being committed. Considering criminals get the majority of their firearms illegally anyway, there is no change. Considering good, upstanding citizens are already getting their firearms legally, and NOT committing crimes with them, there is no change.

    Extending the current broken system, that is proven to be ineffective, will not miraculously fix this issue. It does not matter how much folks want it. It does not matter how much hand-wringing folks do. It is known not to work.

    Which then begs the question.... why are folks pushing it? What is the REAL motive?

    Ryan "ElDirector"


Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Button Dodge