Universal Background Check and Universal Gun Registration-Breitbart

[USNRet93]

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?

Maybe a way for private individuals to do private background checks then. I doubt there is anything sinister going on..a sneaky way to do national registration. BTW...have any idea how many private transactions in CO actually go thru a FFL? I'm guessing damn few..One neighbor has a gun, other gent says, keen..wants to buy..$/gun changes hands. The 'law' was essentially for gun shows..largely unenforceable for private sales. Also thedefinition of 'immediate family'...so BGC.

I doubt the local grocery store keeps records of my purchase of 16oz of mild cheddar for very long

Hmm...exactly the same thing as a gun!!Note-

Yes, records CAN be used for a registry..somewhat cumbersome but yes, possible but unlikely..so it leads to confiscation? Unlikely also, IMHO..

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?

No, not concerned at all. Colorado and the US in general, particularly considering the makeup of the US Supreme Court...and the difficulty in actually changing, modifying or replacing, a Constitutional Amendment, is not against private ownership of guns.

according to the fall 2018 survey. Around nine-in-ten Republicans and Democrats (both 89%) say people with mental illnesses should be prevented from buying guns. Nearly as many in both parties (86% of Democrats and 83% of Republicans) say people on federal no-fly or watch lists should be barred from purchasing firearms. And majorities of both Democrats (91%) and Republicans (79%) favor background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows.

Not the same as banning all private ownership of guns along with the 'any gun at any time for anybody that wants one', crowd..US public is somewhere in the middle.

Filling out a Form 4473..that is kept at 'little gun store', Boulder..not concerned.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

1. State level registration has, and will continue to be used for confiscation. People who registered their “assault weapons” in NY or CA have been required by law to surrender them or move them out of state.

2. That 4473 in the little gun store in Boulder eventually ends up as the 4473 in the big federal warehouse at ATF. Unless, the owner stays in business for 20 years AND destroys the forms as soon as legally practicable, even though that means assuming a small liability for him.

3. If you aren’t concerned that the state of Colorado requires registering your privately transferred firearm when they can check your background without going through the Feds at all and only need to know “long gun” or “handgun”, then I don’t know what to tell you. There is likely little we will agree on in gun policy.

Back to the original point you disputed, there is no reason to do a 4473 as part of a background check. There is no reason for anyone to know what type of firearm is being transferred, let alone keep records of it for 20 years. And yet every UBC law, including Colorado’s, includes that requirement at a minimum. Some are much worse.

I mean, if you really wanted UBCs and thought they were an important gun control policy, your biggest obstacle is gun owners who fear they will be used for registration. As Colorado demonstrates, it is entirely technologically possible to take that issue off the table entirely (although Colorado didn’t do that). Instead, gun control groups say “Don’t be silly. Nobody wants to take your guns. Fill out the form.”

 

[kmw1954]

Spats McGee, once again I am not against Background checks one bit and believe they can be useful. Now I also believe tat if background checks are going to be mandatory then they should be free. No Cost. Kinda like Photo ID's for voter registration. Free!

I can see a few different ways that checks can be done and none require gun registration. Because a background check should be done on the person, not the firearm.

As I suggested and was told it's been suggested before but make Backgrounds Check Mandatory for everyone, gun owners and non-owners alike. Or there could be a nation wide Universal check that once done a license such as a CCW or Drivers License is issued that proves you have gone thru a check and have passed. Then if a sale is done then all that needs to be shown or exchanged is that ID number. No gun serial numbers involved.

As you have suggested about going thru an FFL all the ones I've talked with will not do a transaction between private parties because that puts them in the middle and involves to much paper work because they never own the gun. Same thing they do not want to do a consignment either. At least that's what I've found locally.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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.

We need someone in the business to answer this. If I buy something at HEB (Texas supermarket) and want to return it without a receipt, they will run the card I used to pay and come up with the sale. How long do they keep those records at the central info site they use?

No record of anything ever goes away. If I buy a gun from Brownells with a card, that will exist forever. So I should freak out if I buy from a individual and they run a mutually agreed on NICS check?

 

[rickyrick]

I miss HEB lol,

Now I live in PNW, the store of the land is Fred Meyer. I can see all my purchases online for the last several years.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not to divert but I moved from Fred Meyer land to HEB land. When I moved OR was shall issue and TX had no concealed carry and must have been a socialist state (Haha).

How could you move to a socialist state? Major promotion and raise!

Ok, back on topic after Ricky and I shared. My bad.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .As I suggested and was told it's been suggested before but make Backgrounds Check Mandatory for everyone, gun owners and non-owners alike. Or there could be a nation wide Universal check that once done a license such as a CCW or Drivers License is issued that proves you have gone thru a check and have passed. Then if a sale is done then all that needs to be shown or exchanged is that ID number. No gun serial numbers involved.

While this strikes me as somewhat less onerous, I need to think on it a bit. The only things that come to mind are: (1) it would have to be a periodic check, which carries a certain amount of administrative cost; and (2) that would mean adding those administrative costs for some 200 million Americans who don't own guns.

There's also a certain Big Brother-ish feel to having the gov't root around through my background periodically, "just because." If I'm not buying a gun or applying for a job, I'm not sure I like the idea of having to get a background check.

As you have suggested about going thru an FFL all the ones I've talked with will not do a transaction between private parties because that puts them in the middle and involves to much paper work because they never own the gun. Same thing they do not want to do a consignment either. At least that's what I've found locally.

I'm very sorry that you're in that situation. It stinks.

 

[USNRet93]

I mean, if you really wanted UBCs and thought they were an important gun control policy, your biggest obstacle is gun owners who fear they will be used for registration. As Colorado demonstrates, it is entirely technologically possible to take that issue off the table entirely (although Colorado didn’t do that). Instead, gun control groups say “Don’t be silly. Nobody wants to take your guns. Fill out the form.”

Then there has to be some solution. There is no doubt UBC keeps guns out of the hands of those who probably shouldn't have them. BUT the 'they are gonna take all our guns' is a sound bite that does nothing but rile up both sides of the gun spectrum. Seems both sides of the issue talk past one another....This conflict has been around for decades, is very emotional, maybe there isn't any middle ground...but UBC means 'confiscation is right around the corner'..don't buy that.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Is confiscation a couple of decades from now more palatable to you?

The whole point of our system of government is checks and balances. If we remove the checks, we can have the greatest, most well-meaning politician in the world in charge. Maybe we’ll have a virtuous, amazing, culture and that will continue for generations. But eventually a bad guy will get in and they’ll have unchecked power.

The Constitution was intended to replace relying on virtuous men with relying on human nature so the thieves would keep the other thieves in check for their own personal benefit.

Arguing “Confiscation isn’t right around the corner” while simultaneously giving politicians tools that enable confiscation is just a minor variation on the “Nobody wants to take your guns” shtick. Also see this more updated version.

 

[TomNJVA]

As I suggested and was told it's been suggested before but make Backgrounds Check Mandatory for everyone, gun owners and non-owners alike. Or there could be a nation wide Universal check that once done a license such as a CCW or Drivers License is issued that proves you have gone thru a check and have passed.

Force everyone in the country to submit to a background check?! In addition to the millions of outraged citizen who would vehemently object and outright refuse, I think you would face a few other issues, such as:

1. It is unconstitutional, violating my 4th Amendment rights.
2. It would cost a fortune, in time, money, and resources.
3. The data of citizen status would continuously change by the thousands every week with court convictions.
4. Criminals will still get guns - always have and always will.

What next, tattoo each citizen's background approval number on their forearms?

 

[zukiphile]

Then there has to be some solution.

As a general proposition, rights don't need a solution, and one should suspect the intentions of those who would "solve" them.

 

[kmw1954]

Kind of a conundrum isn't it.

I have a Right to Qwn a gun. Correct?

I have a right to not be murdered by an unstable nut with a gun, Correct?

Which Right outweighs the other?

 

[zukiphile]

Let me suggest that it isn't a conundrum, and that a problem inheres in the analysis implied.

I have a right to not be murdered by an unstable nut with a gun, Correct?

Which Right outweighs the other?

Constitutional rights are rights one holds against the government. You have a right against certain government searches and seizures, and a right against government takings without process and compensation.

Neither you nor I have any analogous right not to be murdered by an unstable nut with a gun. For us to have that right, the government would need to have a corresponding duty to prevent such a murder. Neither the federal nor state government have that duty.

If we wander down he path of balancing tests for the preservation of constitutional rights of individuals against the government, the destination will be that they are gone. At some point, someone is going to identify some purported worthy goal that outweighs the mere right of an individual to be free of state power, and the only remaining issue is whether he will be able to get enough people to agree with him who've passed the rigorous requirement that they are over 18 and still draw breath.

 

[rickyrick]

If someone is ever going to commit murder, have tendencies to murder. They are going to do it regardless of the tool availability.
Almost everyone lives their life without committing murder or assault. We don’t assume (or shouldn’t) a crime will be committed at some point in the future. I don’t think most crimes for which punishment has been completed should be used to take rights away from individuals either.

 

[44 AMP]

I have a right to not be murdered by an unstable nut with a gun, Correct?

who told you that???

because, you don't...

Not under our legal system as it exists today..

 

[Spats McGee]

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

Let's take a quick peek at that, shall we?

(1)(a) On and after July 1, 2013, except as described in subsection (6) of this section, before any person who is not a licensed gun dealer, as defined in section 18-12-506(6), transfers or attempts to transfer possession of a firearm to a transferee, he or she shall:
(I) Require that a background check, in accordance with section 24-33.5-424, C.R.S., be conducted of the prospective transferee; and
(II) Obtain approval of a transfer from the bureau after a background check has been requested by a licensed gun dealer, in accordance with section 24-33.5-424, C.R.S.
Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-12-112 (West)

Subsection 6 exempts certain transfers, but I don't want this to turn into a novel, so let's just go with the premise that it's a transfer between two individuals unrelated to one another, and that it's a sale. Thus, a UBC would be required.

Now, I couldn't figure out, at least not quickly, what information would go into this mandatory background check, so I went to the Colorado Bureau of Investigations web site and looked at its FAQ:

Can individuals run a background check on persons to whom they are transferring firearms?

NO, effective July 1, 2013 (HB13-1229) a background check is required for all private transfer of firearms which must be conducted through a licensed firearm dealer (FFL).

Source: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cbi/firearmsfaqs

Hmmm, . . . . I then took a look at the issue of what records must be kept by the aforementioned FFLs:

Every individual, firm, or corporation engaged, within this state, in the retail sale, rental, or exchange of firearms, pistols, or revolvers shall keep a record of each pistol or revolver sold, rented, or exchanged at retail. The record must be made at the time of the transaction in a book kept for that purpose and must include the name of the person to whom the pistol or revolver is sold or rented or with whom exchanged; his or her age, occupation, residence, and, if residing in a city, the street and number therein where he or she resides; the make, caliber, and finish of said pistol or revolver, together with its number and serial letter, if any; the date of the sale, rental, or exchange of said pistol or revolver; and the name of the employee or other person making such sale, rental, or exchange. The record book shall be open at all times to the inspection of any duly authorized police officer.

Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-12-402 (West)

I find it interesting that the above section (enacted in 2018) does not seem to include long guns, but I'm also fairly sure this is registration.

 

[kmw1954]

Seems I read somewhere about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and Unalienable Rights. Actually believe this is what this Country was founded upon.

 

[44 AMP]

Would the book required by Colorado law be a separate book than the "bound book" required by Federal law for FFL dealers??

I'm far from an expert on these matters, seems to me the CO law requires a lot more information be kept than the FFL dealer's 'bound book" of inventory transfers, so I'm thinking they would need to be two physically separate volumes.

is that right?

I agree, the information required, in a book, open at all times to the inspection of any duly authorized police officer IS a registration. It's just not an efficient mass data sharing one. The investigator in Denver may have to go to Boulder to the dealer's location, but when he gets there, there IS a registration waiting, "open at all times" for his inspection.

one would hope that investigators would be considerate enough to visit during normal business hours, but it seems that the law requiring "open at all times" does give them the authority to drag an FFL out of bed in the middle of the night and open their shop to provide access if they so demand..

lovely law...I suppose...

 

[rickyrick]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not in the constitution. It was written for foreign governments explaining our intentions.

 

[raimius]

KMW, my right (and yours) to own firearms does not infringe on any of our other rights.
If you, criminally assault me with a deadly weapon, you have wronged me by your actions, not your civil rights.