S.649: Reid's Base Gun Control Bill

There are several issues here.

The first is that the NICS system is set up for dealer use. It is staffed appropriately to handle a given amount of volume and time. If we open it up to everyone, it's going to slow the whole thing to a dead stop.

(I really doubt a law mandating universal usage of the NICS system will include funding for more operators.)

The second is that I don't how one could prove they're calling in for a firearm eligibility check as opposed to "Imma check out mah neighbors." Would there be some kind of form with a unique identifier? If so, what are the filing requirements, and how would they collate the information?

Then there's the problem with "Imma check out mah neighbors." Even if it's just a proceed/delay/denial, that's more information than Joe Bob has a right to get about me.

The NICS system is intrusive and problem-ridden enough as it is. Nothing good will come of applying it to the whole populace.
Click to expand...

They can already get more than a Proceed/Deny/Delay with Google as is for the vast majority of people.

What you're also missing is that then that guy you met in the parking lot of the grocery sale for the in-state internet sale now has your name, SSN, address, etc all on a piece of paper he's REQUIRED to hang on to. A law requiring people to hang onto roadmaps to identity theft do not sit well with me.

As is being discussed on another thread right now, there are some serious doubts about how effective the NICS check is at all given the total number of records in the database, compared to estimates of just the total number of felons out and about today.
Yesterday 11:00 PM
Click to expand...

The FA-10 Form I have to use for a private transaction allows for an optional SS#. They've told people the old paper form is obsolete, but you can still use it if you find them. It's because legally here we have to report the transfer, and they claim it's not for "registration" but they keep a file so it is. Both parties are supposed to keep a copy, and I would really only do a private sale with someone I knew somewhat. I don't trust random Craigslist-type strangers to not jack my money at gun point.

The universal background check shouldn't apply to any private sale where someone had the check done to get a license to carry anyway.

http://www.quaboagsportsmensclub.com/downloads/fa10.pdf
 
Tom Servo said:
There are several issues here.

The first is that the NICS system is set up for dealer use. It is staffed appropriately to handle a given amount of volume and time. If we open it up to everyone, it's going to slow the whole thing to a dead stop.

(I really doubt a law mandating universal usage of the NICS system will include funding for more operators.)
Click to expand...

Private checks would have to require some sort of payment to provide at least partial support for the staffing. When compared with the number of sales being processed by FFL, I can't imagine the traffic at NCIS would go up more then 10-15%. That is, unless the Brady crazy number of 40% is correct, which I doubt.

The second is that I don't how one could prove they're calling in for a firearm eligibility check as opposed to "Imma check out mah neighbors." Would there be some kind of form with a unique identifier? If so, what are the filing requirements, and how would they collate the information?

Then there's the problem with "Imma check out mah neighbors." Even if it's just a proceed/delay/denial, that's more information than Joe Bob has a right to get about me.
Click to expand...

To ensure checks are only run by those purchasing or selling a firearm, I would suggest the seller be required to run the check on themselves first. Meaning I log into the system, I enter all of my own information and a receive the "go" or "no go". When I run the check the system provides me a UID. When I want to purchase a gun from a private seller I give them the UID which they can enter into the system. The system would have to spit out the "go" or "no go" answer along with enough information to verify identity based on a normal drivers license or military ID. This is certainly all well within the ability of the technology we have today

The NICS system is intrusive and problem-ridden enough as it is. Nothing good will come of applying it to the whole populace.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you are probably right. What I suggest is just an idea and I don't think it will ever be implemented. I also do not think that either "side" of this argument would widely support my suggestion. Heck, I would prefer they start with a voluntary system to see how it goes. I would also suggest this should not be done at a federal level. I do not support tracking any serial numbers or firearm types, or even the number of times the system has been used by a user.
 
overhead, you seem to assume that those of us who live in no-registration states don't frequently sell or trade with our acquaintances.

I suspect 10-15% is a lot less increase that NICS would actually see.
 
Mleake said:
overhead, you seem to assume that those of us who live in no-registration states don't frequently sell or trade with our acquaintances.

I suspect 10-15% is a lot less increase that NICS would actually see.
Click to expand...

First, I should say I tried approaching this problem like I would approach a problem I was given at work. I wasn't even really considering whether it was a great idea or not...well, my experience tells me I don't often come up with great ideas so it is probably a safe to assume it is not great ;). It was just sort of brain storming and I understand that there are probably many problems with my suggestion.

Let me explain a little further. You, as someone that wanted to purchase a gun or maybe just buy one in the future, would enter your information once and receive one UID. The database that stored your information would have to be updated with new disqualifying information. Meaning that if you were convicted of a felony, your record in the system would have to be flagged. When a user entered that UID they would get a no go and that would be it. It would then be up to you to figure out why you were declined. The system today seems very wasteful to me, we should not have to enter all this stupid information over and over again.

So, what I am saying is one would not need to have the information entered and a new UID entered for every transaction. The UID could be used for multiple purchases.

A system such as this would not be that technically challenging to set up, and in the end could actually result in a more accurate and more efficient system. Or, maybe it would be a full on disaster.
 
I suspect it would result in the bogeyman-devil of a loss of government jobs, and would therefore be opposed by the applicable unions.
 
All of this speculation on what the check might be like, side-tracks the actual issue of Schumer's bill. It is many things, but the UBC is a very minor part of what it actually is.
 
All true, Al, though I think it might be handy to have additional counter-arguments in anticipation of a shotgun approach to the debate by the antis.
 
I suspect 10-15% is a lot less increase that NICS would actually see.
Click to expand...
Whether it's 1% or 1000% is beside the point. So is the idea that the cost would be kept minimal, or that there are already other sources for foraging my private information.

What's important is that the NICS system is intrusive and bothersome, and a balancing benefit has never been proven. Whether or not it's practical to extend that system to private sales is irrelevant; the fact that it's wrong to do so is my point.
 
Thank you, Tom

Although it's gratifying to have apart-techno-chiks like overhead explain why sacrificing our rights is so painless.
 
I finally found time to compare Schumer's previous (2011) background check bill S.436 to the current (2013) bill S.374.

I guess I should not be surprised, but the current bill looks substantially worse than the previous bill. All of the mental health actions that Schumer touted after the Giffords shooting were tossed from the current bill. Other changes nearly all point back to an obsession with requiring records of firearms transfers. The previous bill allowed NICS substitutes (i.e. concealed carry licenses) for private transfers, but the current bill forces everything through FFLs to generate records under government control. And there is a new section creating records for lost and stolen firearms.

One of the more disturbing nuances in the current bill adds a requirement to the exemption for temporary transfers at shooting ranges and competitions that the "firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises" of the range or competition. I can read this as the exemption is only valid if a gun stays on the premises for the duration of the temporary transfer, or I can read it as the exemption is only available if the gun is always kept on the premises in a European-style armory storage arrangement.

At any rate, the comparison is below.

-------------------------

NICS

2011 bill - 3%, 15% or 25% reduction in federal crime control funding to states as a penalty for incomplete NICS submissions.
2013 bill - 3%, 4% or 5% reduction in state's share of $100 million annual funding as a penalty for incomplete NICS submissions.

2011 bill - clarification that federal courts have to report information to NICS
2013 bill - SAME

2011 bill - certification of NICS reporting by federal departments and agencies
2011 bill - definition of "adjudicated as a mental defective"
2011 bill - mental health assessment plans for institution of higher education
2011 bill - clarification of definitions of "drug abusers" and "drug addicts"
2013 bill - all ELIMINATED

BACKGROUND CHECKS

2011 bill - purpose is to extend background checks to all sales and transfers
2011 bill - revoke pre-NICS Brady process in 18 USC 922(s)
2013 bill - both SAME

2011 bill - definitions of "unlicensed transferee" and "unlicensed transferor"
2013 bill - definition of "transfer" (sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or consignment, or other disposition)

2011 bill - background checks by FFLs, LE agencies, or by NICS substitutes (i.e. - concealed carry licenses)
2013 bill - background checks only by FFLs

2011 bill - reporting private transfers (without names) to the Attorney General
2011 bill - reporting multiple private transfers
2013 bill - both ELIMINATED

2011 bill - no recordkeeping requirement for "unlicensed transferor" (really only applied to CCL transfers)
2013 bill - recordkeeping requirement (by FFLs) for transfers by "unlicensed transferor"

2011 bill - fees for background checks not to exceed $15
2013 bill - Attorney General to determine maximum fees for background checks

EXCEPTIONS TO BACKGROUND CHECKS

2011 bill - gifts between immediate family members or inheritances
2013 bill - SAME

2011 bill - temporary transfer in the transferEE's home to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm
2013 bill - temporary transfer in the transferOR's home or curtilage for less than 7 days

2011 bill - transfers in certain remote locations as approved by the Attorney General
2013 bill - ELIMINATED

2011 bill - temporary transfers at certain shooting ranges and competitions
2013 bill - ADDS to above that the "firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises"

2011 bill - temporary transfers while hunting, fishing, or trapping
2013 bill - ELIMINATES fishing and ADDS that the transfer must be during a hunting season

2013 bill - temporary possession for "examination or evaluation" of a prospective purchase
[would the requirement for the transferor's presence effectively eliminate consignments?]

LOST AND STOLEN REPORTING

2013 bill - NEW SECTION requring reporting within 24 hours of discovery of loss or theft
 
Mr. James said:
Thank you, Tom

Although it's gratifying to have apart-techno-chiks like overhead explain why sacrificing our rights is so painless.
Click to expand...

I have been called many things, but I do believe this is a first for "apart-techo-chik". If I knew what it meant I might find a way to be offended. My limited vocabulary has failed me again!

My suggestion was a voluntary system and it would also improve the checks we already have to go through today. But, I understand your concern, if not your creative use of the language.
 
Tom Servo said:
Whether it's 1% or 1000% is beside the point. So is the idea that the cost would be kept minimal, or that there are already other sources for foraging my private information.

What's important is that the NICS system is intrusive and bothersome, and a balancing benefit has never been proven. Whether or not it's practical to extend that system to private sales is irrelevant; the fact that it's wrong to do so is my point.
Click to expand...

I really have no idea how effective it is. It maybe that I spend too much time around gun counters, but I have seen two people arrested by the state police for trying to buy guns that had outstanding felony warrants and more then a couple rejected. Of course, as I said, I have no idea how effective the system is in the end because those folks could certainly go buy a gun illegally if they wished without a background check.

The background checks really don't bother me that much, obviously. And I say that being a person that has never gone through a background check without getting a hold placed of 15 minutes to a couple of days each time I buy a gun.

But, I understand why people have concerns, I just disagree with some of them.
 
Re: Universal Background Checks Passed Committee

overhead said:
I wondered about that. I would like to think if I am arrested for something like this and keep my mouth shut that the state would be required to actually prove I did something wrong. Having to prove my innocence sort of turns our justice system over on it's ear, doesn't it? The state going into this assuming a citizen is guilty of a crime without any evidence scares the crap out of me. The IRS does this and look at what a tyrannical mess of regulations and nonsense people have to go through with them.
Click to expand...

You want one to scare you?
Look at the "Lautenburg Amendment" AKA "Violence Against Women Act".

NC's version CONFISCATES YOUR GUNS & AMMO EX PARTE.

That means the accuser and a judge have a Hearing WITHOUT YOU and decide to strip your 2nd Amendment rights. WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

When served with the Summons to a Hearing and an ex Parte Order, you must surrender all firearms, ammo, CWP to the Sheriff on the spot.

If you are found not guilty at a full hearing, you have to file a motion for another hearing, and if the judge decides it's ok, you have to pay the sheriff a fee per gun to get them back.

Oh, and if the accuser lied about the whole thing?

No penalty for her, you're out atty fees, storage fees, lost work, court filing fees, no guns during the whole time and if she is convinced to make it criminal as well, you can spend the weekend in jail without bail for 48 hrs.

Then she can do it again.

(Stepping down off soapbox)
 
You're welcome, OH.

I've deleted a couple of posts. Opinions about marriage are off-topic.

I posted the link to discussion of the Lautenberg Amendment for those who are interested, but the subject of this thread is pending legislation.
 
Last edited:
I saw the other day the V.A. told NYS to pound sand on mental health reporting, citing that the information is protected by privacy laws. There is a whole pile of laws protecting Doctor-Patient communications and records at federal and state levels. I think that I'm seeing more people actually get involved in this fight from the privacy and health care angles. In my opinion, this is a good thing because it lays bare the goals of the Grabbers like Schumer. It narrows the scope of the argument and forces the fascists out in the open where more people can see what the problem is.

The pool of citizens facing "reporting" is large at the moment because of two wars and our national attempt (sic) to help our returning vets. The Grabbers are starting to feel the heat, even Chuck, over this approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top