Universal Background Check and Universal Gun Registration-Breitbart

[sigarms228]

I think, like Castro, the ? asked is why did he pass the BGC.

I have no idea what you are talking about in the context of my response of registration being needed per gun grabbing politicians as a vehicle to enforce compliance of UBC by individuals engaging in a private sale of a firearm, though IMO that is a smokescreen for why gun grabbing politicians really want registration.

 

[DaleA]

Spats McGee---thanks for the link to "Nobody wants to take your guns..." in post #67.

https://thewriterinblack.blogspot.com/2014/09/nobody-wants-to-take-your-guns.html

It's nice to have the list available.

 

[Spats McGee]

My pleasure. I have that one bookmarked.

Let’s be clear, though: I’m really not convinced that registering gun owners (like IL) is any better than registering the guns. (In reference to the last couple of pages of posts.)

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Ahhh, the interweb. Glad you know exactly what my concerns are from a few posts on a gun forum. I’d say ‘listening’ is a two way street.

First, I didn’t say I knew what your concerns were. I said you were dismissing mine. We discussed why registration and record keeping of firearms isn’t necessary to background checks; but remains a feature of every system voted on. We’ve discussed using those lists to enact bans as well as actual legislators at the state and federal level advocating for confiscation and bans.

Your response thus far has been “Well, that doesn’t mean confiscation is right arpund the corner.” And you pretty much continue to advocate for additional, and in my view, unnecessary, gun control. There is no solution where I compromise more of my rights. I’m not a criminal. Laws that target me will therefore not solve crime.

I have more respect for Diane Feinstein than I do for the people who claim to be on my side and can’t compromise fast enough whenever the media screams about gun control. At least she knows where she’s going and how she plans to get there.

 

[rickyrick]

My favorite line is “I’m a citizen, not a suspect”

 

[44 AMP]

to further stir the pot, what happens if we do get some "master" UBC, everything run through one system, and that system goes down, crashes is hacked, or some future decision defunds it? And I don't mean for a few hours or a couple days but for an extended period of time, and, despite all clamor, the government doesn't fix it???

To comply with law, all transfers would have to be put on hold, for the duration of the problem, right? At what point is a right delayed legally a right, denied??

 

[Spats McGee]

I'll stir it by adding one more thing: Haynes v. U.S. is still out there.

We hold that petitioner's conviction under the registration clause of s 5851 is not properly distinguishable from a conviction under s 5841 for failure to register, and that both offenses must be deemed subject to any constitutional deficiencies arising under the Fifth Amendment from the obligation to register.

Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 95, 88 S. Ct. 722, 729, 19 L. Ed. 2d 923 (1968)

I believe that the A5 bars the prosecution of prohibited persons for failing to use a UBC. If Haynes couldn't be convicted for failing to register an NFA firearm, because the obligation to register violated his A5 right against self-incrimination, then prohibited persons cannot be be convicted for failing to go through a UBC.

If violent felons cannot be convicted for failing to do a UBC because of the A5, and the mentally ill cannot be convicted for failing to do a UBC because of the A8, then we're pretty much left with statutes that are incapable of targeting anyone but law-abiding gun owners.

 

[USNRet93]

I have no idea what you are talking about in the context of my response of registration being needed per gun grabbing politicians as a vehicle to enforce compliance of UBC by individuals engaging in a private sale of a firearm, though IMO that is a smokescreen for why gun grabbing politicians really want registration.

My point is the 'thinness' of the present BGC 'system' and how it often misses those who probably shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, but do and then produce mayhem.

UBC background check discussion, was discussing..

 

[USNRet93]

First, I didn’t say I knew what your concerns were. I said you were dismissing mine. We discussed why registration and record keeping of firearms isn’t necessary to background checks; but remains a feature of every system voted on. We’ve discussed using those lists to enact bans as well as actual legislators at the state and federal level advocating for confiscation and bans.

Your response thus far has been “Well, that doesn’t mean confiscation is right arpund the corner.” And you pretty much continue to advocate for additional, and in my view, unnecessary, gun control. There is no solution where I compromise more of my rights. I’m not a criminal. Laws that target me will therefore not solve crime.

I have more respect for Diane Feinstein than I do for the people who claim to be on my side and can’t compromise fast enough whenever the media screams about gun control. At least she knows where she’s going and how she plans to get there.

I'm not 'advocating' for anything but discussing what I see today in Colorado. I, like plenty of others, see UBC as a good idea to try to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. I don't think registration is a necessary part, never said it was nor advocated for that. BUT the question is..is real, effective UBC 'worth it' if it includes local FFL record keeping of people who purchase guns??..
I don't know the answer, 'worth' is a big word.
Yes, some politicians are nefarious in their intent..speak with forked tongues(both sides of the isle)...But trying to keep a gun out of the hands of people who clearly shouldn't have them, I think is a decent goal.

 

[zukiphile]

To comply with law, all transfers would have to be put on hold, for the duration of the problem, right? At what point is a right delayed legally a right, denied??

That's the issue Gura raises in Atlas Brew Works. https://gurapllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1-Complaint_Atlas-1.pdf

Atlas has a 1st Am. right, but is subject to prosecution for exercising it in the face of indefinite postponing of approval to exercise it.

We effectively have a continuous UBC now. If you are out in the world not serving a sentence or subject to parole conditions, or not an adjudicated incompetent, and not already the subject of a TRO, this means that no one has presented a compelling reason to any competent authority to abridge your civil liberties.

An additional requirement of action and FFL record keeping by government or its agents and licensees even amongst individuals who are not federal licensees is registration in fact.

 

[sigarms228]

My point is the 'thinness' of the present BGC 'system' and how it often misses those who probably shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, but do and then produce mayhem.

UBC background check discussion, was discussing..

And nothing would change with UBC as it will fail as much as the current system and those that don't want to get a background check to obtain a firearm for criminal use will simply use a straw purchase, find some private party to get the firearms they want, take it from someone else by violent force, or resort to firearm theft.

Look at Parkland. Everything failed - the background check, the armed RSO, school security, school policies, school board policies, local social services, local mental health professionals, the FBI, local police policies, Sheriff police response. The ONLY thing that would have save lives would have been an armed teacher like if that hero coach had a pistol on him that gave up his life to protect students.

But what are the proposed solutions by the politicians? Same old lets ban guns and further infringe on the Second Amendment Rights and safety of law abiding citizens.

 

[44 AMP]

keep a gun out of the hands of people who clearly shouldn't have them,

We say this all the time. The other side says it all the time. It's just basic common sense, right? OK, now WHO are the people who "clearly shouldn't have a gun"???

That seems like such a simple answer, but is it, really?

Reason says the most important people to keep away from guns are those who have proven they will use guns to harm others for fun and profit. Not, may, or might, or could, but DID use guns to cause criminal harm to others.

in 1968, in the midst of a period of intense, and often violent political unrest, and following some shocking political assassinations, we passed a law that did that. And it did a LOT more.

For the first time in our nation's history, the law created classes of prohibited persons. Broad classes, which included not just those who "clearly shouldn't have a gun" but everyone in that class, no matter what put them there. Felons, underage, and mentally incompetent were, and are very broad classes. The only part of those where the individual's actual actions mattered was mentally incompetent. Under the law, each person deemed incompetent was judged individually. Underage was a simple blanket prohibition, with no exceptions, and felon was also a blanket coverage, no matter what it was that put you in the felon group, you were then forever after, a prohibited person. Mass murderers and those who got a felony conviction for having a forbidden plant in their yard were exactly the same under the law.

A few decades later, we added misdemeanor domestic violence conviction to the list of things that got one a lifelong prohibited person status.

What is going to be the next thing that gets you into prohibited person class? Not "liking" someone of Facebook? NRA membership??? voting for the "wrong" party?? Not being "socially conscious" enough?? Being put on a secret list?? Not wearing the required yellow star or pink triangle???

Gone is the presumption of innocence, we're ALL guilty until/unless we prove otherwise, with a "clean" background check. And we've discussed at length the reality of what that's worth.

 

[kmw1954]

44 you bring up many good and valid points. There are many pro's and many con's to the question so what is the answer? The solution?

I have mentioned clearly I think that I am a Right to Lifer, especially my own. Although I also believe in Capital Punishment. That some acts are so heinous they deserve no leniency. If a human is that damaged and violent that they could never be allowed back into civilization then why allow them to continue living?

Once again I will openly admit that I do not have the solution, only more questions though I am enjoying and learning from this discussion and debate.

Do we tear it all down and start over? Eliminate the things that do not work and build on those things that mostly work? No one is ever going to think the system perfect unless unfettered ownership on one side or complete removal by the other. At least that's the way I see it.

 

[sigarms228]

One only has to look to London to see that a total ban on handguns by non LEO/military subjects has not stopped murders and violence. Knives are now the weapon of choice for murdering and acid thrown into the face for general terrorizing. I think London has already banned knives with sharp tips but that has not stopped the violent from making their own sharp tipped knives. Evil will always exist and always find a way. The worst school massacre in US history did not involve firearms.

 

[USNRet93]

The ONLY thing that would have save lives would have been an armed teacher like if that hero coach had a pistol on him that gave up his life to protect students.

m
IF the FBI, after receiving warning signs about Cruz, had put a hold on his ability to buy the gun used the whole thing may have not happened. Could he have optained a gun illegally? Perhaps but it would have been harder. So probably armed teachers might not be the only thing...

 

[zukiphile]

Could he have optioned a gun illegally? Perhaps but it would have been harder.

Why?

 

[USNRet93]

Why?

Why what? Why is it harder to get an illegal weapon off the street than going into a LGS, doing the BGC, paying for it and walking out?

 

[5whiskey]

IF the FBI, after receiving warning signs about Cruz, had put a hold on his ability to buy the gun used the whole thing may have not happened.

Hmm... How about the FBI or local LEO actually investigate the individual. My state now has a law regarding threat of mass violence against the school. Cruz stated that he wanted to be "a professional school shooter" on an open forum (youtube I believe). Someone provided a tip to the FBI specifically stating that they were worried that he would slip into a school and shoot the place up months before he actually did. I can say that I would not disagree with barring him in NICS after that comment and the ensuing investigation and judicial hearing that should have happened... but I also wouldn't disagree with him being bonded in jail either. Alas, said investigation never materialized. That would've probably gone a lot further to prevent the shooting, as just flagging him in NICS doesn't solve any potential previously owned firearm, straw purchase, "street" purchase, or other illegal means of obtaining a firearm. Read the linked article. This kid telegraphed his move months in advance and it went ignored by the FBI, the BCSO, and any other LEO agencies with jurisdiction. MANY people sounded the alarm on this kid. Being up in arms over firearms in general in this particular shooting is disingenuous, IMO. The masses should bear torches and pitchforks in the halls of the agencies charged with investigating and protecting the public that dropped the ball.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/us/fbi-tip-nikolas-cruz.html

 

[zukiphile]

Could he have optioned a gun illegally? Perhaps but it would have been harder.

Why?

Why what? Why is it harder to get an illegal weapon off the street than going into a LGS, doing the BGC, paying for it and walking out?

Cruz didn't use an illegal weapon. Why would it have been more difficult for someone who had resolved to return to his high school and shoot people to sidestep a background check, and purchase a weapon illicitly?


Just contemplating the scale of the prohibited behaviors, premeditatedly shooting people seems much more grand than not doing some paper work. Where an individual contemplates a dramatic felony, is it reasonable to suppose that record keeping will thwart him?

 

[sigarms228]

If Cruz's father had used a condom. You are talking about hypothetical and I am discussing what really happened.

I have been involved with some local government agencies and I was certainly not impressed with their efficiency, competency, and their culture of protecting their own. The FBI since 2016 has been exposed with a lot to desire to say the least. I can't imagine the effectiveness of background checks will improve much if at all.

No amount of laws, mental screening, or gun bans are going to prevent school shootings as they are mostly easy soft targets yet most simply hang a "no guns allowed sign" on the door. I am stunned after the Florida shooting at the almost total lack of anything as far as hardening the schools. Ted Cruz and President Trump were about the only ones and yet the democrats only blamed the NRA and talked about UBC and more gun bans. It is really up to the local school districts and the tax payers in those districts but they mostly don't want to spend the money via increased local taxes. Having proficient armed teachers who want the responsibility is most likely the best solution that will cost very little. Even the Colorado mass shooter drove past several movie theaters to get to one that had a no guns allowed policy. If the voters, politicians, and administration in the school districts don't want armed teachers or don't want to pay more taxes to harden the schools then it is on them if they have a mass shooting at one of their schools and they have to live with the deaths of their children and teachers knowing they did nothing to try and prevent it.