Question about universal background checks

[actaeon277]

And let's not forget the Feds overreaching on to the purview of the State.

The Fed's regulate FFLs through the commerce between States.
The States could make their own rules, as long as the transaction was not crossing a State Line.

This UBC completely throws that out. And opens the door for more.

 

[Twangbanger]

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?

You would be correct in that the checks don't automatically "have" to lead to registration, if the records are destroyed. But I think another answer for the suspicion is a proposal mentioned in a recent posting by another new member, who also joined about the same time as you (and who I wondered if was an "Everytown" plant): "seller accountability." It's been mentioned by Hillary Clinton, the next President, as a central component of her gun control plans. She wants to sue people who sell guns which later turn out to be used in crimes. And if those guns are not traceable by serial number, then the system won't work. Any UBC proposal is likely also to include a provision like this.

Another reason for suspicion of UBC is that gun control bills are brought up at certain times for certain reasons, even if they're expected to fail. The most recent AW ban proposal, for example, was designed to pass the Senate, then go die in the Republican House, so Bloomberg could use it as a campaign issue against Republicans in House races. Groups like Bloomberg's "Everytown" organization hope to use these votes to get donations from like-minded people, and also to target vulnerable Republicans. There's more to the legislation than just what it ostensibly asks to do.

 

[Streck-Fu]

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

Do you honestly believe that is occuring?

 

[seedubs1]

They've already got a database of people that buy through FFL's. (If you don't think they're keeping that info, well, I don't know what to tell you).

I'd prefer there was a database of people allowed to buy firearms to the current system (no system would be best, but that's not happening). Just a simple go/no go database for people buying. That way there's no check on any individual purchase and no possible tracking of transfers. It'd also be nice for people selling/buying in individual face to face sales since you could look up if the buyer was listed as a "go" or a "no go."

 

[KLB]

They've already got a database of people that buy through FFL's. (If you don't think they're keeping that info, well, I don't know what to tell you).

I'd prefer there was a database of people allowed to buy firearms to the current system (no system would be best, but that's not happening). Just a simple go/no go database for people buying. That way there's no check on any individual purchase and no possible tracking of transfers. It'd also be nice for people selling/buying in individual face to face sales since you could look up if the buyer was listed as a "go" or a "no go."

How would such a database be kept up to date?

 

[dvd1955]

When a nics check is done the feds do not know... c) how many guns you may have bought. ....

This is why it is always a good idea to buy at least two guns at the same time!

 

[seedubs1]

The way the current system is SUPPOSED to be kept up to date.

You'd need to go through the NICS check the first time. After you pass that, you're on the "good to go" list. If you commit a felony or are deemed mentally defective, it should be reported, and you're taken off the list.

Pretty simple, really. It's basically the system as it is today, only no checks on individual transfers. Just a call in to the NICS system to verify if the buyer is ok to buy a firearm. No records or actual transfer would happen. Just verification that the buyer is good to go. You'd either be on the list, off the list, or need to apply to be on the list.

How would such a database be kept up to date?

 

[possum_128]

Do you honestly believe that is occuring?

Never said if I believe it or not, Just stated law. What would make you think that I believe they were following the law?

 

[Spear Dane]

I just saw this. That man cannot leave office soon enough.

Obama 'Seriously Considering' Using Executive Authority to Tighten Gun Laws | PJ Tatler

 

[edporch]

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?

In order for a universal background check to even work in theory, EVERY firearm in the country MUST first be registered.
OR else it would be an unenforceable law.

And even then, HOW would the government know when a private sale takes place WITHOUT the background check?
They'd at least have to:
1. Run a serial number check of every firearm encountered by the police against the database of registered firearms to make sure the present owner is shown as owning it.
2. Search every gun owner periodically to make sure they still possess ALL the firearms they registered.

Even these two things would be frighteningly Orwellian by their nature.

 

[Cameramonkey]

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.

Amen to that. Its akin to sanitizing the injection site before a lethal injection. The "patient" will be dead in minutes. I really dont think we have to worry about an infection from an unclean stick.

 

[rvb]

and.... the registry they currently do run, the NFRTR (the NFA registry), has been reported to be full of lost paperwork, mistakes, etc. SURE I trust them with millions of data entries being error free.

-rvb

 

[jamil]

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?

People have answered the questions such that I don't have much to add. But I do want to address a couple of things.

1) The effectiveness of background checks at all depend on the idea that they are accurate predictors of behavior. It sounds good, but in practice it's not very effective at all. The idea is to prohibit people who would use guns to harm people. And I suppose it makes sense that people who have a background of harming people, especially with illegal firearms, should probably be prohibited from owning firearms legally. And people who have a background of violent mental illness, would probably also be violent with a firearm.

But that's not what our background check does. Felony drug possession? Embezzlement? Other non-violent crimes? No guns for you, even if you don't have a history of violence. Ever been adjudicated as mentally ill? No guns for you, even if you don't have a history of violence. Those things aren't accurate indicators of violent behavior. And that's why UBC can't effectively prevent violence with firearms. And the people who do want to do violence, won't bother going through a background check to get what they want.

2) UBC is effectively voluntary unless there is gun registration. Since Sandy Hook some states have adopted UBC. Oregon did. Colorado did. Several east coast states did. Look at the participation. People aren't following the law. It is unenforceable without registration. For example, Colorado expected to do ~400,000 private background checks per year, in addition to the checks the dealers do. So they spent a few $million on a system that can handle that kind of volume. In the year that they've had the system in place, they've processed a bit over 13,000 private background checks. And a lot of moderate tax payers who bought into the idea, and had to pay for that whoop-tee-doo system, are pretty pissed off. To them it is exactly like, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period."

 

[Dosproduction]

Registration leads to confiscation leads to extermination.

 

[jamil]

Registration leads to confiscation leads to extermination.

I think we tend to take this point much further than what reality allows. Registration has followed that path. It does not always follow that path. Canada, for example, has had some form of registration requirements for several decades. They can still own guns, even "prohibited" guns, as long as they have the proper licensing. And, although most long guns no longer need to be registered, all handguns do. The Canadian government doesn't appear to be hell bent on exterminating its citizens. And if they were, the technology exists to do it whether its citizens are armed or not.

So we make ourselves look like [STRIKE]cooks[/STRIKE] kooks when we say things like registration leads to extermination, as if it were a foregone conclusion. It's not. It has happened in certain instances the past. It could, under specific circumstances, happen in the future. I'm not saying we shouldn't use the argument at all. Just that when we do use that argument it would be a more accurate and even intellectually honest argument if we augmented the verb with 'could'. Registration could lead to confiscation. Confiscation could lead to extermination. Because it has.

But we shouldn't even need that argument. We have better arguments. Everyone has an innate right to protect oneself from violent people and abusive governments. Period. Canadians have that right too, but their government suppresses that right. On the pretense of "safety". Canada's lower violent crime rates have much less to do with the availability of guns and much more to do with the homogeneity of a non-violent culture. The idea that registration does anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is absurd. It is completely unnecessary and an undue burden on the people. Whatever "safety" might be gained by laws that make it more difficult to obtain firearms is more than offset by making it harder for people to acquire the tools they need to protect themselves.

And I think that's a more sensible argument than "registration leads to confiscation leads to extermination". Makes us sound like we're about to hole up in a bunker in Idaho with a million rounds of ammo.

 

[pudly]

Makes us sound like we're about to hole up in a bunker in Idaho with a million rounds of ammo.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[BugI02]

So we make ourselves look like cooks when we say things like registration leads to extermination.....

Cordon Blue?

Ola, Jamil

 

[Roadie]

I try to use this example in my debates with anti gunners and they just can't grasp it..

What we have now:
It is illegal to sell a gun to an improper person. Thug A sells a gun to Thug B anyway. Illegal sale.

What we would have with UBCs:
It is illegal to sell a gun to an improper person. It's illegal to sell without a Background check. Thug A sells a gun to Thug B anyway. Illegal sale.

 

[bwframe]

Registration leads to confiscation leads to extermination.

This has been the trend. YMMV, but do we want to take that risk?

Sometimes the "common sense" isn't really common sense.
Universal background checks, formerly called, closing the "gun show loophole" really stands for registration, which leads to...

 

[jamil]

Cordon Blue?

Ola, Jamil

Boyardee.