Are there any workable universal background check scenarios?

[j1mmyd]

Instead of fighting against all these "reasonable" (<-- sarcasm) calls for background checks, might there be a way to turn the tables by insisting on improvements to the current system as a precondition to implementation?

If you're of the belief that any background check is unacceptable, this discussion is not for you.

I'm not against UBCs out of fear of a national registry or confiscation list, but because the current system is inefficient and quite broken. It is too easy for an expanded one to be used to throttle legitimate transfers at the whim of bureaucrats.

I don't present this as complete or even thoroughly considered. I'm just tired of the Antis always claiming the moral high ground and painting us as obstinate and extremists and I'd like to force them to put some skin in the game.

I'm not strongly for or against any of the ideas below, but I'm curious what others think. For some reason (more sarcasm) I'm having trouble swallowing the polls showing that 91% of us favor UBCs.

1. Make NICS truly "instant". Pass or fail, period. Now, not later. If there is not substantiated derogatory information you clear immediately. If you're not cleared, you must be provided a reason *in writing* within 10 days and access to an appeal process.

2. Make it open to all registered users, not just FFLs. I think most of us want to know we're not selling to a dirtbag. I'd actually prefer this to meeting in parking lots and taking pictures of each other's drivers licenses and CHPs.

3. Make it optional for private transfers for a 3 year "pilot" and stipulate that a measurable level of efficiency must be attained prior to any discussion of making it permanent. If done properly, this could be our "ace in the hole". I think we all know that even making a sandwich efficiently confounds most federal agencies.

4. Allow an individual to obtain a coded certificate of sorts that is valid for 24 hours. They could present this certificate and valid (in form and number) ID to a seller who would verify the code prior to conducting the transaction. This is not unlike online employment verification systems that actually work pretty well. Handy at gun shows. Used for multiple purchases.

5. Take back some of the ground we've already given up. Require review of the NFA rules and procedures for SBR, SBS and suppressors. As we already know, criminals and the deranged don't ask permission. Stop punishing us because some politicians watched some Al Capone movies decades ago.

6. Reciprocity for concealed carry permits? Surely if they think the Feds have the authority to regulate purchases, then why not interstate transportation of concealed firearms. Is this a bridge too far?

Each of these will sure have its shortcomings, but I'd be more likely to have a discussion along these lines than as its currently being framed. If nothing else, putting something like this in front of them forces them to be the ones to reject our offer instead of the other way around.

[arkypete]

Since the Progressives have no interest in preserving the 2nd amendment. The UBC idea is just another'reasonable' move to make to move towards the goal of disarming the citizens of the US
What I'd like the Progressives do is get all the current and potential gun theives to register and under go a back ground check. This way the theives will be properly approved for stealing the weapon.
This would be reasonable, don't you think?

Jim

[j1mmyd]

I think that's exactly the kind of snarky counterpoint most of us tend to offer and one that they can immediately point to as absurd. You're extending their logic to an extreme that makes it indefensible. I'm saying we should instead counter with realistic and equally "reasonable" ideas that put them on the defensive.

[FiremanBob]

The straight, serious answer to your question is, No.

Why should you want to give an inch on this issue? There are too many aspects of our lives that are not the government's G-D business, but the federal government has usurped our rights and stuck its nose in them anyway. It is self-defeating for you to consider giving in to them in any way.

If this answer is not in keeping with your "rule" on the thread, that is because the thread is based on an invalid premise.

[j1mmyd]

That's in line with my actual personal position. We have compromised too much already and that further compromise only weakens us. While this position is morally and technically correct, its easily twisted in the media.

I'm interested in exploring ways to use their tactics against them. If you want "X", we can talk about that after you fix "Y" and give back "A". The whole point is to only *seem* "reasonable" - "for the children"... Make them say no to something so we can paint them as opposed to our reasonable reforms.

[DryBones]

Just wish there was a way to do something about the a$$hats that will sell to anybody in a parking lot, no questions asked. Every time I see a 60 Minutes piece where they profile this behavior I cring.

[VBshooter]

FiremanBob wrote ;The straight, serious answer to your question is, No.

[j1mmyd]

Well, that's the problem they *claim* they're trying to fix with mandatory UBCs. Technically I don't have to ask any questions now, but I choose to and insist on ID on both sides. I've had someone tell me its not required and refuse. That may be, but its responsible and currently my choice, so they can keep the cash and go away mad.

[ShotgunBlast]

Well, that's the problem they *claim* they're trying to fix with mandatory UBCs. Technically I don't have to ask any questions now, but I choose to and insist on ID on both sides. I've had someone tell me its not required and refuse. That may be, but its responsible and currently my choice, so they can keep the cash and go away mad.

There's a big difference between two private parties CHOOSING to get the government involved in a transaction by meeting up at a FFL and the government FORCING it to be involved in a transaction. I too like the environment to be able to sell to someone no questions asked in a private transaction, but I feel as the seller I have some level of responsibility to ask a few questions and/or see some ID. If someone doesn't like my questions they can take their money elsewhere. That doesn't mean I'm going to force my beliefs on someone else and tell them how to do their private transactions.

As for the original question, I don't see how this works without registration. Since we have no registration in VA if UBC were to happen, wouldn't private sales continue on like they normally do? "That gun? I sold it to him before UBC was in place." How do you enforce UBC without registration?

[scott9050]

You have:
Several state legislatures trying to ban all modern firearms.
A child being charged with felonies for shooting a BB gun and accidentally hitting a car.
Children being suspended from school for making pop tart guns and saying "bang".
Civilians being fingerprinted and being required to be licensed and made to take a class before even being considered for a gun.
A man put into prison for 7 months for transporting his own firearms while moving legally in New Jersey.
Cops being thrown out of restaurants for carrying guns.
A state revoking firearms permits because their owners are taking anti anxiety meds.
Same state trying to confiscate a mans firearms collection because his son made a comment at school.
Anti gunners trying to make lead ammo illegal.
Firearms owners being demonized by the main stream media even though members of their own party are the ones committing 90% of violent crime.
Evangelical Christians being called a hate group by the military.

I am sorry, I will not give one damn inch to these people, those who would trample my rights and spit on my family. They already believe that we, the backbone of this country, are evil backwards people who must be brought under control no matter what the cost.
There is no negotiation, any giving of ground makes them try and take more as has been experienced by out budget crisis.
And believe me this is about control and has nothing to do with violence. Just look at the turning of the head to violence in certain communities that are already under their direct control.

[j1mmyd]

I'm going to leave this alone for a while. My question wasn't about whether or not we support UBCs. The poll thread clearly shows we're 100% against - and that includes me.

Its about tactics. They will keep beating us at checkers until we figure that the game is really chess.

[TallEd]

The federal govt should stay out of it, period.

Also, I have never seen any statistics on guns that were sold privately then used in crimes. I don't know what problem anyone hopes to solve with more background checks.

[grumpyMSG]

I really don't have a dog in this hunt, I haven't done a person to person firearm sale as a seller. I have however purchased one from somebody I used to work with to help him out. I won't buy tools from somebody I don't know, I won't buy guns either. I have a couple of simple ideas, that I would be willing to see implemented:
1. If a state wants to regulate the conduct of people at gun shows that is the state's prerogative, they are not a guaranteed right under the Constitution. If they wanted to make all sale go through a licensed firearm dealer at the shows that is the state's choice (see 2).
2. If a state says private sales from person to person must go through a licensed firearm dealer, that is not a violation of the Constitution either. That would create opportunities for entrepreneurs, "We do transfers for $20+2", they do 15 minutes of work and make $20. That might be more for Northern VA, but hey you, choose to live there...

Now comes their turn for concessions:
1. Require the prosecution of people who were clearly unqualified to purchase firearms, this crap of "We prevented 87,000 felons from getting firearms" and the prosecuted 112 of those "felons" is over. I can understand not prosecuting a person who said he was born in Chesterfield county but was actually born in Richmond. Just like the border being secure argument, as the trigger in the immigration debate. Prosecuting violations comes first.
2. Require the prosecution of the FBI/ ATF/ DEA personnel who stopped the enforcement of the laws during "Fast and Furious". They actually stopped people who were trying to prevent gun trafficking, they green-lighted the sales of firearms to felons. They need to be prosecuted under the "Color of Law" statute: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate ... lor_of_law
3. Given all the worry about the creation of Federal databases of gun ownership, when background checks are requested, no record of firearm type or serial number is recorded during the check. If it is going through a dealer, They must use a subpoena with a name and date,to get information from the dealers log. The dealer can open the log to the specific page and observe the agent. It would be unlawful for the ATF to go into dealer every few months and photocopy the log.
4. If the Federal/state government wants to have the "Universal" check system, they need to create a system that potential seller can call up, give his name, the buyer's name,both address, and drivers' license info and get a sell/ no sell response. There will be no request for firearm information. There is no fee for using this system. This will be funded from general revenues. It is intended to protect all citizens, it must not be funded by an additional fee/ transfer tax on the sale of firearms through dealers.

Steps 1 and 2 in the concessions have to happen before you can have step 4 in the concessions section.

[jdonovan]

1. Make NICS truly "instant". Pass or fail, period. Now, not later. If there is not substantiated derogatory information you clear immediately. If you're not cleared, you must be provided a reason *in writing* within 10 days and access to an appeal process.

For all regulated items including title 2, and Re-open the registry. Remember compromise means neither side is completely happy.

4. Allow an individual to obtain a coded certificate of sorts that is valid for 24 hours. They could present this certificate and valid (in form and number) ID to a seller who would verify the code prior to conducting the transaction. This is not unlike online employment verification systems that actually work pretty well. Handy at gun shows. Used for multiple purchases.

Make it 7 days, and it becomes more interesting.

6. Reciprocity for concealed carry permits? Surely if they think the Feds have the authority to regulate purchases, then why not interstate transportation of concealed firearms. Is this a bridge too far?

Depends... do you support states rights, or federal preemption where no authority to do so exists?

[FiremanBob]

Actually, under the Fourth Amendment, private sales of firearms, like private sales of any other personal property, are protected by the Constitution and the state has no power to regulate them.

[ShotgunBlast]

Now comes their turn for concessions:

And that's where progressives stop reading. Honestly, I think you can count the number of times the government has given back something on one hand. For a group that ultimately doesn't want ANY guns, there is no give and take. It's take a snip here, and another snip next legislative session, and another snip the session after that. Like boiling a frog alive, one degree at a time so they don't notice.

[gunderwood]

Reasonable counter proposal.

Whereas the current background check system has failed to stop the school shootings, etc.

Whereas the violations of the current background check system are not actively enforced and are a trivial percentage of all background checks.

Whereas the Federal Government has actively circumvented the current background check system to walk firearms to dangerous criminals and the drug cartels for political purposes.

Whereas the BATFE's own stats demonstrably show that the current background check system is an abject failure.

Whereas the current background check system has utterly failed to perform any and all functions as originally proposed.

Propose that current the background check system Federally mandated on all FFL sales be revoked in it's entirety and all records held by the Federal Government and any FFL dealer be immediately and permanently destroyed.


That's the REASONABLE thing to do when the system has so utterly failed. It's insanity to think more of the same will do jack squat.

[Wallace]

The argument about keeping the feds out of the deal is a lost battle. It was lost as soon as they implemented NICS, the fire arms act from the 60's, and the firearms act from the 30's.
We are 150+ years into unconstitutional actions from the federal gov on the issue of fire arms,personal freedom, taxes ect ect ect.

Does anyone here honestly believe it will ever get any better?

In twenty years there will be a national sharp and blunt object registry, and a one gallon of gas per month limit. All while we keep wasting our time waiting for a politician to fix something.

Either the People come up with something, or something will be forced on them.

[Reverenddel]

Well, How about de-regulation if they pass the UBC?

I can own a machine gun, over 50 cal, or chain gun without going thru a ton of paperwork.

I can carry anywhere inside the USA. No questions asked, any way I want. Period.

I can TRADE my firearms to someone without a UBC, because it's simply "Tit-for-Tat".

Won't happen.

Anti-gunners want us disarmed, and controlled, like Pitbulls in pretty pink bows.

As George Clinton says "FUNKTHATMESS!"

[rustygun81]

All the press about 90% of GP / 80% of Gun Owners supporting Universal Checks struck me as dubious. I am also worried that if we do not find a compromise we can live with on this, we will get a worse result later if/when the next tragedy occurs. The following is the body of the letter I have sent to our reps this week.....

I am a gun owner and an NRA member. I agree that we should look for ways to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill that do not excessively compromise our 2nd Amendment rights. However, the current proposals for “universal” background checks are unacceptably intrusive. I find the poll results quoted by the news that say 90% of Americans to support universal background checks to be highly dubious.
In order to be acceptable any new background check legislation would have to
1) Be applicable only to sales or barters of firearms. The inclusion of the term “transfer” is onerously intrusive.
2) Include broad exemptions for family members -- i.e. unlimited in the generational dimension, and include at least 2 degrees of separation by marriage. (father- in- law to son- in- law, uncle to niece)
3) Included exemptions for sales and barters between strangers that have had a background check in the last five years, as proven by the possession of a Concealed Weapons Permit and corresponding photo ID.
4) Not establish a de facto gun registration & tracking system.
The failure to include any of the above exemptions would render the bill to be unacceptable.
In addition, in order for any such legislation to prevent future tragedies, it needs to include provisions for mentally ill young men to show up in the system. Otherwise this all becomes a farce in which the rights of a large number of law abiding citizens are being traded away for political theater.