Background Checks

Status
Not open for further replies.
44 AMP,

I agree with your accessment of the underlying purpose of the proposed UBCs. And I also agree that a check focused on the potential buyer (if followed) could be used to verify that the would be buyer is not a prohibited person at that moment. But there seems to be a rub as far as enforcement.

I don't see a path to enforcement of a "individual" type BC like you have suggested. It seems an individual centric BC (with no data on the firearm) would be easily disregarded and avoided. With no record of when specific guns are transferred, what evidence would exist that a gun was transferred without a BC? And if it was transferred without a BC, how would you know who transferred the gun?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a BC focused on the individual is a bad idea. I just don't see it gaining traction because it would seem to be prone to ineffectiveness (due to the difficulty of enforcement).
 
BBarn said:
I don't see a path to enforcement of a "individual" type BC like you have suggested. It seems an individual centric BC (with no data on the firearm) would be easily disregarded and avoided. With no record of when specific guns are transferred, what evidence would exist that a gun was transferred without a BC? And if it was transferred without a BC, how would you know who transferred the gun?
Click to expand...

The transferee will always have been a party to the transfer.

If the goal of a law that designates some people as prohibited persons is that they should not possess weapons, when and from whom a transfer occurs isn't pertinent to whether a transferee has a legal disability prohibiting them from possessing. That's your prosecutable crime.

Of course, to accomplish the goal of dissuading prohibited persons from possessing arms, it would require active prosecution rather than relatively passive administrative interference that only works against people amenable to that kind of interference.

To repeat the obvious, if passive administrative interference doesn't work well now, simply expanding the pool of people you want to comply with the interference isn't going to work any better.
 
BBarn said:
I don't see a path to enforcement of a "individual" type BC like you have suggested. It seems an individual centric BC (with no data on the firearm) would be easily disregarded and avoided. With no record of when specific guns are transferred, what evidence would exist that a gun was transferred without a BC? And if it was transferred without a BC, how would you know who transferred the gun?
Click to expand...
I can think of a couple of ways. First, as others have proposed, since we're now in the age of the "Real ID" driver's license, why can't drivers' licenses include a field that shows whether or not the holder is cleared to possess firearms? Drivers' licenses are already coded to show whether or not they are Real ID compliant. It would be easy to run a background check each time a DL is renewed, and just code that onto the license.

Another would be for NICS to not just say "Okay" to a check, but to issue an approval number. The seller would then be able to write down the date of the check and the approval number. He wouldn't have to show it to anyone, just keep it with his records. If the BATFE comes sniffing around ten years later because the gun was used in a crime, the seller just calls up the sale date and NICS authorization number. Done. No information about the firearm is needed. If a buyer is okay to buy one gun from me on Tuesday, he's okay to buy five guns or ten guns from me on Tuesday (NFA firearms excluded, of course).
 
It could be used by potential employers, lenders, boyfriends/girlfriends, or whoever to obtain info about someone.
Click to expand...

Yep, and that brings us to the second problem: scaling. Opening up NICS to a whole slew of people (none of whom have been trained to use it) is going to be a logistical nightmare, and the system will grind to a halt.

Notice that none of the "universal" background check bills mention increasing funding for the system.
 
Tom Servo said:
Notice that none of the "universal" background check bills mention increasing funding for the system.
Click to expand...

Y'all (not just Tom) seem to think UBCs are supposed to work. They are supposed to *not* work.
 
NICS should be mandatory for private face to face sales. It is a loophole like it or not.
Click to expand...

As should car sales in case the buyer is a DUI risk......and let's not forget other possible weapons like hammers, machetes, baseball bats, kitchen knives, chain saws and on and on.

There is NO loophole, has never been and please stop insinuating that there is (unless you're an anti mouthpiece trolling here)
 
Onward Allusion said:
NICS should be mandatory for private face to face sales. It is a loophole like it or not.
Click to expand...

It is NOT a loophole, regardless of who calls it one. It is not an oversight or mistake in the law. When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was written, it was deliberately left up to the individual states whether to require NICS or not.

Whether or not that is still a good idea is open to debate, but it is not a loophole and changing it is a major modification to the act.
 
Tom Servo said:
There's nothing ambiguous in the Brady Act. They knew it wouldn't pass if it had to cover private sales, so they took what they could, and they exempted private sales as a deliberate concession.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They took what they could get at the time and before the ink was dry they started demanding more.

They’ll do the same thing here. Expand background checks to private sales with no change and then call the lack of registration a loophole. Then they’ll demand registration. I’d say that after that they’ll demand confiscation but they’ve been demanding that for 30 plus years now even as they try to claim “Nobody wants to take your guns.”
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Exactly. They took what they could get at the time and before the ink was dry they started demanding more.

They’ll do the same thing here. Expand background checks to private sales with no change and then call the lack of registration a loophole. Then they’ll demand registration. I’d say that after that they’ll demand confiscation but they’ve been demanding that for 30 plus years now even as they try to claim “Nobody wants to take your guns.”
Click to expand...
Not exactly
A new Fox News poll shows a majority of Republicans supporting background checks and red flag laws, and Trump has hinted at his support.
Click to expand...
Politico reports that more Republican lawmakers appear to be ramping up their support for background checks and red flag laws in the wake of the recent weekend of mass shootings, President Donald Trump has signaled his interest in these mild gun control moves, and a majority of lawmakers' Republican constituents now appear to be on board.
Click to expand...
at least some of McConnell's Republican caucus may be ready to take action. In addition to Collins, Sen. Mitt Romney said that he supports “enhancing existing background checks,” while Sen. Marco Rubio is supportive of red flag laws, which allow law enforcement to take firearms away from a gun owner if they're believed to be a threat to themselves or others. “My gut tells me that Leader McConnell wants to bring something to the floor for a vote,” Republican Sen. Mike Braun told Politico.
Click to expand...
 
You misunderstand my point. Political leaders (they) certainly wanted registration and confiscation then, just like they do now. They understood this was politically unpopular with the people who elected them though (as well as being near technologically impossible to do at the time given a decentralized registration system that existed only on paper.) This was bipartisan, even though something like 98% of the politicians supporting it were Democrats.

I oppose any person who supports expanding the current system of background checks regardless of their party. They are traitors to the Constitution in my view.
 
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member

Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,094
You misunderstand my point. Political leaders (they) certainly wanted registration and confiscation then, just like they do now. They understood this was politically unpopular with the people who elected them though (as well as being near technologically impossible to do at the time given a decentralized registration system that existed only on paper.) This was bipartisan, even though something like 98% of the politicians supporting it were Democrats.

I oppose any person who supports expanding the current system of background checks regardless of their party. They are traitors to the Constitution in my view.
Click to expand...


LOL! Anyone who disagrees with your opinion in the slightest (and expanding background checks to private Intrastate sales is pretty damn small) is a "traitor to the Constitution"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you are going to quote me and call it an insult, at least have the courtesy to quote me correctly.

As has been pointed out multiple times, the current system of background checks cannot effectively be expanded to private sales without centralized registration. Given that prominent political and media personalities have been demanding confiscation for decades, centralized registration will eventually result in confiscation. As has been pointed out, that doesn’t mean it is impossible to extend background checks to private sales in a manner that protects the 2A - just that the foundation of our current gun laws doesn’t allow it.

People who advocate expanding the current system are thus advocating a slow, drawn-out death of the Second Amendment. Therefore, yes, I believe those people are betraying the Constitution of this country.

You want expanded background checks? It is easy to get gun owners on board - make it so they can’t be used for registration or confiscation. The gun control crowd knows this. They read these forums too. Yet never once have they even attempted this - even when Tom Coburn joined with them in 2013 to try and reach a compromise. They still insist on only expanding the current system. Expanding that system is not pro-Second and people who pretend otherwise aren’t fooling anybody but the most dimwitted.
 
Last edited:
LOL! Anyone who disagrees with your opinion in the slightest (and expanding background checks to private Intrastate sales is pretty damn small) is a "traitor to the Constitution"? I guess you don't give a crap if you happen to sell one of your guns to a prohibited person, eh?

Like I'd said previously, YMMV. However do not go around saying stupid crap to people you don't know. You got any idea how insulting your statement is?
Click to expand...

Before 1968 there were no background checks nor "prohibited persons", and it wasn't really a problem. The whole thing is a manufactured problem, and you've obviously bought into the lie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top