Universal Background Check and Universal Gun Registration-Breitbart

[JN01]

Not keen on arguing bias and various media outlets but the bias exhibited by Rasmussen is as glaring as the 'other side' bias by other outlets. Rasmussen often limits their polling to only those who have a landline..that alone produces bias.

BUT, fact remains, albeit w/o specifics, that UBC is favored by a majority of adult Americans..Including a majority of NRA members. As structured, in CO, I just don't see how it's any problem and certainly prevents those who cannot pass the very rudimentary BGC here on Colorado, from buying handgun..BUT, of course, gun shows up in Wyoming are pretty dern close.

Aside from possible bias of the pollster, another problem is that the person being polled may not understand or have a different understanding of what is being asked. On the subject of UBCs, one person may think of it as a simple NICS check, someone else might think it includes a complete psych evaluation, gun registration, etc.

Another frequently asked question is: Do you think we need more gun control laws? If the person being polled is completely ignorant of the current laws, his answer may not be an accurate picture of how many restrictions he thinks are the right balance.

As LeverGunFan pointed out, we really don't know how many NRA members do or do not support UBCs

At any rate, basing public policy on polls is a really bad idea.

On the subject of the UBCs themselves, as others have pointed out, they can form the basis of gun registration which serves no legitimate purpose. They will have zero impact on criminals obtaining them, as they can either buy on the black market or (illegally) have someone do a straw purchase for them. Prohibited persons who currently attempt to buy them from FFLs are almost never prosecuted. What is the point of adding more expense, bureaucracy and potential for abuse to law abiding gun owners with no corresponding benefit for crime reduction?

 

[44 AMP]

Make it so everyone has to do it , gun owners and non-gun owners alike.

This idea has been brought up before, and seems, to me, to be a better idea than the crap currently being proposed. BUT, because it is, because it could be done without a gun registration, those pushing the current offering will not consider accepting it. They want their system, and only their system to become law.

And, they want it to be a uniform FEDERAL standard. They want a system that can answer the question "did you get a background check done when you bought that gun? (and by "that gun" they mean that specific individual gun, by ser#)

That question can only be answered by a system that keeps a record connecting your personal information with a specific firearm, by serial number. That is the definition of registration.

We could (and I think, should) create a system that runs the check on every person who applies for a government issued ID. Driver's license, or ID card, or Passport, what ever it is, we could use that, adding a block or box or icon identifying that the bearer is or is not a prohibited person. All a dealer would have to do is check THAT ID # to determine current status. NO information about what gun is needed. A system could be created so that if you become a prohibited person, your ID (s) would be altered to reflect that.

It would, of course, require some effort to set up and keep updated, but it would be at least as accurate as what we do today, and possibly simpler.

Polls showing what people "are in favor of" are mostly so much swamp gas. They have more holes in them than good Swiss cheese. Mostly because of two reasons, the first is the idea that a few hundred, or even a few thousand people accurately represent the will of the more than 330 MILLION people in this country today.

The second is that when asked "are you in favor of....?" people respond to what they think is being asked, the general subject, and not the details of actual law or proposed law. Think for a moment about taxes...If you ask people if they are in favor of everyone having to pay their fair share, you will most likely get an overwhelming yes from the majority.

HOWEVER, you aren't telling people what their fair share actually is. Their "yes" answer to the general idea might change to a "no" if you tell them that your idea of the "fair share" is 80% of their income.

probably not a no, but a "Hell No!!"

Simply put, polls often ask open ended very general questions, then treat the responses as if they applied to very specific things.

And, that assumes that the pollsters don't go out of their way to cherry pick the data to fit their predetermined agenda. That also happens, all too often.

I

 

[rickyrick]

I’m all in if you had to submit to a rigorous background check to exercise all of your constitutional rights.

 

[kmw1954]

A background check to buy a gun but not to enter the country? Alright then.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Given the recent presidential election and revelation that pollsters can be bribed, I don't trust them at all. Also, the way you ask the question is obviously important.

The best analysis I've seen of general gun attitudes in the USA is that:

1. Most folks support the right to own firearms for self-defense and sport.
2. Most folks support measures to keep them from criminals and those who are not safe due to mental health concerns.

The devil is in the details. The extremes of no restrictions or no guns are not supported.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma tried working with Senators Schumer, Manchin, Toomey, and Angus King(?) after Sandy Hook. His proposed bill required a background check for ALL sales. It also did away with the record keeping.

For his efforts to bring universal background checks that just lessened the risks of registration (and was far from eliminating it), he got booted from the bipartisan coalition forming what became the Manchin-Toomey bill and his own bill never got a vote.

One provision of the Manchin-Toomey bill was that if you had a qualifying CHL, you didn’t have to go through the background check; BUT you did have to go to an FFL and fill out a 4473. Now tell me, if we know you are OK to possess a handgun because you have a valid, qualifying CHL, and we aren’t going to run a background check on you anyay, why require a 4473? That question pretty well answers itself.

Background checks as proposed in every state and federal example that actually got a vote thus far are about registration - and registration inevitably leads to confiscation.

 

[kmw1954]

I have voiced before that I am not against background checks as a matter of fact because of the area I am in and that Wisconsin allows face-to-face sales to residents I wish these were a way I could check someone if I was doing a private sale. Some suggest the CCW permit accept that I myself do not have one and do not intend to get one anytime soon. Which brings me back to the area part. I am directly between Chicago and Milwaukee and there is an interstate running directly thru here. It has also been shown that there are a good number of gang bangers traveling back and forth also. This alone makes me weary of doing face-to-face transactions. I have no way of detecting if someone is a convicted felon.

 

[44 AMP]

Prior to background checks becoming law (and, in some places still) what was required by a private seller was seeing proof of residence (buyer and seller had to reside in the same state), and a reasonable belief that the buyer was not criminal or had criminal intent.

That decision was left to our individual judgement. This is not a flawless system, but neither is background checks. One thing the background check system does is remove our authority to make our own decisions. We can, still, decide to say no sale, for any reason that seems good to us, but we can no longer say "sold" that decision now rests with the system.

Is this a big deal? Probably not. But consider that no system is perfect, screwups do happen. One of my personal worries (though not a large one) is the inconvenience and expense I would have to accept if the system misidentifies me. Or someone I know.

I have a spotless record, never been even charged with a crime of any kind. Haven't even gotten a traffic ticket in over 25 years. Have held govt. security clearances. I have a friend with the same kind of record, and have known him over 20 years, BUT under the background check laws, I CANNOT use my own knowledge and judgement and buy a gun from him, or sell him one, we have to go to an FFL dealer, and have them run us through the system, (and pay the fee) before any "transfer" of a firearm.

How is that in any way right? Background checks sound like a good thing for everyone EVERY TIME, but they aren't. When you know the people you're dealing with, its a barely veiled slap in the face that says "you aren't trusted to make your own decisions".

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

How is that in any way right? Background checks sound like a good thing for everyone EVERY TIME, but they aren't. When you know the people you're dealing with, its a barely veiled slap in the face that says "you aren't trusted to make your own decisions".

Probably not an accident that gun control is very popular among the “I can make life decisions for you better than you can” crowd.

 

[kmw1954]

44 AMP, I suppose that's what makes us different from one another. I agree that the system is not perfect, I don't know of any that are. Though I do know my own personality and I am generally a trusting person and tend to give the benefit of the doubt. Gullible, maybe, probably.

It would trouble me immensely to find that I sold a firearm to a restricted person unknowingly and that person hurt someone with it. Also not that I or a background check can stop it but because of this area there is great risk of unknowing straw purchases.

No system is perfectly flawless and any or every law can be abused by those in power but we still need laws and regulations in society. Unfortunately I do not have the answer but I will listen to suggestions.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let running a NICS check as currently processed be an option that you can pay for at a gun store for a private sale.

If you want to sell a gun to an unvetted stranger and it goes to crime, it will way on your soul and it should.

Of course, the evil in intent won't avail of this. No system would stop the criminal to criminal trade.

 

[44 AMP]

Let running a NICS check as currently processed be an option that you can pay for at a gun store for a private sale.

This is acceptable to me. If you want to, fine. Have the buyer pay, or split the cost, I'm fine with that, its a personal CHOICE.

I am not opposed to the idea of background checks on sales, I am opposed to the idea of MANDATORY background checks on all "transfers". I am opposed to the lie that background checks are a cure-all for our troubles. They aren't.

And I am vehemently opposed to pieces of crap bills that entrap ordinary folks for doing what we have always done, becoming law. Unfortunately, under our system, if you can mislead and lie and get enough people to believe you, you get what you want.

Here's another situation where a badly written law could trap someone...
Know anyone living with an SO? (Significant other) without being legally married? Is there a gun (yours) in the house that they have access to? Guess what, when you leave the house to go to work (or go to the corner store for milk...) you might have just "transferred" that gun to them. Without having the legally mandated background check. The law may contain an exception for spouses, and certain other family members, but doesn't exempt your BF/GF if you aren't married.

own 30 guns, and SO has a key to the safe or knows the combination? YOU just illegally transferred every one of them the moment you step out your door. so, that's 30 counts of illegal transfer, AND when you come home, another set of illegal transfers from your SO back to YOU! And at $35 a piece, because the law can be interpreted as requiring a separate check for each gun, that adds up fast in terms of money the law could cost you.

Add to that the law says, the first time you do a transfer without doing the check (which requires taking you, the gun, and the transferee to an FFL) its a misdemeanor, but after that, its a felony.

SO, here's a situation where a badly written law, could trap people and make them FELONS just for living their lives in their normal day to day routine.
Good ideas are good ideas. But bad laws claiming to enforce good ideas are still bad laws.

Every act of tyranny begins with someone's good intentions. The reason why does not matter as much as the results. Ever.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

That’s OK. We won’t be enforcing the law against minor errors... I mean unless you’ve been badmouthing your government or agitating against its wisdom. Then we have a duty to act against a potential threat to our community.

 

[kmw1954]

Also if a buyer doesn't want to go through a private background check then they are free to back out also. Neither are obligated to complete the transaction.

I am being selfish and basically just looking for protections for myself.

 

[USNRet93]

Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma tried working with Senators Schumer, Manchin, Toomey, and Angus King(?) after Sandy Hook. His proposed bill required a background check for ALL sales. It also did away with the record keeping.

For his efforts to bring universal background checks that just lessened the risks of registration (and was far from eliminating it), he got booted from the bipartisan coalition forming what became the Manchin-Toomey bill and his own bill never got a vote.

One provision of the Manchin-Toomey bill was that if you had a qualifying CHL, you didn’t have to go through the background check; BUT you did have to go to an FFL and fill out a 4473. Now tell me, if we know you are OK to possess a handgun because you have a valid, qualifying CHL, and we aren’t going to run a background check on you anyay, why require a 4473? That question pretty well answers itself.

Background checks as proposed in every state and federal example that actually got a vote thus far are about registration - and registration inevitably leads to confiscation.

Don’t think that’s true in Colorado when they passed their UBC law in 2013.
No gun registration in CO, but UBC..

 

[44 AMP]

Don’t think that’s true in Colorado when they passed their UBC law in 2013.
No gun registration in CO, but UBC..

No registration we KNOW about, at this time...

If there is a record kept and that record includes your information and the gun's information (make, caliber, serial # etc.) that is registration. Whether or not they are currently using it as such is a different matter.

When my FFL does the phone check (current law) the only information gun information given is "long gun" or "handgun". That's it. No other gun info is submitted. SO, even if the record is kept (in violation of existing law) there is only a record that I bought a gun, not what gun, specifically.

No matter what they claim, if their background check proposal includes requiring information specific to the individual gun, the purpose is to create data that can be used as a registry. If they say otherwise, it's a lie.

 

[Spats McGee]

I have voiced before that I am not against background checks as a matter of fact because of the area I am in and that Wisconsin allows face-to-face sales to residents I wish these were a way I could check someone if I was doing a private sale. Some suggest the CCW permit accept that I myself do not have one and do not intend to get one anytime soon. Which brings me back to the area part. I am directly between Chicago and Milwaukee and there is an interstate running directly thru here. It has also been shown that there are a good number of gang bangers traveling back and forth also. This alone makes me weary of doing face-to-face transactions. I have no way of detecting if someone is a convicted felon.

You could make the transfer through an FFL.

So often, I see 44AMP's posts and think, "Where's that 'Like' button?" I'm not against background checks. I'm against mandatory background checks on every transfer.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Don’t think that’s true in Colorado when they passed their UBC law in 2013. No gun registration in CO, but UBC..

Straight from Connecticut’s legislative summary of the Colorado law:

“Under the new law, before any person who is not a licensed gun dealer transfers possession of a firearm, he or she must arrange for a licensed dealer to obtain the required background check. In obtaining the background check, the dealer must follow all procedures that it would follow were it transferring the firearm in a retail transaction, including recording the transfer, retaining the records, and complying with all state and federal laws. The dealer must provide a copy of the background check results and the Bureau's approval or disapproval to the transferor and intended transferee, and may charge a fee of up to $10.”

So, yes - the gun is registered via a Form 4473, as that’s required by federal law and state law requires “recording the transfer and retaining the records.”

 

[USNRet93]

If there is a record kept and that record includes your information and the gun's information (make, caliber, serial # etc.) that is registration. Whether or not they are currently using it as such is a different matter.

When my FFL does the phone check (current law) the only information gun information given is "long gun" or "handgun". That's it. No other gun info is submitted. SO, even if the record is kept (in violation of existing law) there is only a record that I bought a gun, not what gun, specifically.

No matter what they claim, if their background check proposal includes requiring information specific to the individual gun, the purpose is to create data that can be used as a registry. If they say otherwise, it's a lie.

But that's been true for decades..Every retail outfit records who bought what. It's the same when you buy a bicycle or a car. BUT my FFL doesn't record the gun type when he gets on the laptop to do my BGC..same for Tanner Gun Show..the lady didn't even know or ask what I was buying(separate service from the retailer)...NO requirement in CO for this.

Is there a way to find this stuff out via the retailer? probably but no national registry right now.

In obtaining the background check, the dealer must follow all procedures that it would follow were it transferring the firearm in a retail transaction, including recording the transfer, retaining the records, and complying with all state and federal laws.

Yup..but nothing says 'register' that gun with the Feds..in fact, the BGC in CO is with CBI..and there is no requirement to pass on owner's info to the state or feds..Does the retailer keep this info? Probably..I knew who bought what bike when I owned a bike store.

BUT let's be clear..I would not support any gun registry..BUT the toothpaste is outta the tube..and in fact, before 2013, in CO, private gun transfers required no BGC..lots of guns changed hands in CO before 2013.

PLUS not gonna have black shirts come pounding on doors and searching everybody's house for guns any time soon, even after the shutdown is over.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

USNRet93, how can you compare this to retail sales when the whole point is private citzens are being forced to go through retail outlets to sell their personal property whether they want to or not?

And while retail stores may keep records of sales, I doubt the local grocery store keeps records of my purchase of 16oz of mild cheddar for very long. Form 4473s must be kept for a minimum of 20 years - and the ATF takes possession of forms from gun shops that have gone out if business. This information included the gun information and who it is sold to.

This is absolutely a national registry, albeit a decentralized one versus a centralized NFA-style registry.

PLUS not gonna have black shirts come pounding on doors and searching everybody's house for guns any time soon, even after the shutdown is over.

Then there is no need to link background checks to registration is there? If someone is OK to own a firearm, we don’t need to record what they bought. If police need to track one for investigation, they can use the retail sales records you mentioned the same way they track where the serial killer bought the shovels and duct tape he used.

And yet, here we are - recording every private sale on a 4473. We’re even proposing recording the ones where we didn’t do a background check at all because we know that person is OK.

Aren’t you the least bit concerned that Colorado has its own background check system that doesn’t keep any record of the firearm transferred and works well enough to temporarily satisfy gun control proponents; but you are still required to fill out a 4473?