Coburn Proposes UBC Bill for DIY Checks

[Jakeiscrazy]

So here is the concept the buyer enters his info gets a unique identifier that allows him to proceed with the purchase. Seller verifies identifier maybe with a phone call or online and can then sell to said individual. There is no record of if a gun is purchased or not and no bill of sale would be required. There would be no record that purchase ever happened at all and private sales are private. Thoughts? And yelling "no comprise" is not a legitimate rebuttal that's what you say when you run out of real points to make.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/0 ... s-hate-it/

[WRW]

How is it insured that there was a background check without the paper trail?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Jakeiscrazy]

How is it insured that there was a background check without the paper trail?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

There may be paper trail of a background check but no trail of whether or not a sale is conducted since the check is done prior to sale and if asked about a past gun sale from an FFL you could say "I sold it to a private seller who had an approved background check. I don't recall the name."

[SpanishInquisition]

Does nothing to inhibit buyer from "borrowing" a unique identifier.

This is just throwing money at a nonexistant problen and yet another failure by Washington to identify the real problems.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[WRW]

I like that, but I guarantee it won't fly. Why wouldn't the initial purchase from the FFL utilize the same procedure?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[j1mmyd]

As long as it's voluntary for a 3-year pilot period, I'd use it for private sales. Thing is, I also want NFA to become "instant" (at least for CHP/CCW holders) and would like to see that a requirement before making this mandatory.

[Jakeiscrazy]

Does nothing to inhibit buyer from "borrowing" a unique identifier.

This is just throwing money at a nonexistant problen and yet another failure by Washington to identify the real problems.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

You %100 right but when the politicians want to claim the did something and UBCs are what they want to push, make this the bill.

[Jakeiscrazy]

As long as it's voluntary for a 3-year pilot period, I'd use it for private sales. Thing is, I also want NFA to become "instant" (at least for CHP/CCW holders) and would like to see that a requirement before making this mandatory.

Yeah I think even voluntary it would be commonly used.

[gunderwood]

Neither of the two computer transactions with the "FBI website" are anonymous. It's been demonstrated many times over that it takes very little effort to uniquely ID a computer and the users on that computer to a high probability. For example, here is one such test run by the EFF: https://panopticlick.eff.org

In reality, that test is basic yet it comes up with many bits of ID information. Most computers I've seen are around 20-25 bits; my test came up at about 22 bits which is approx. 1 in 4M unique. Enough to uniquely ID most people or get very near it (if that hasn't sunk in, realize that 22 bits is approx. enough to uniquely ID every NRA member). In the long term, you might as well tell the FBI exactly who bought what and register it.

Besides, if the code is purchase/transaction unique (like the current BCs are), the FBI would know if that code was used or not, thus conveying the information about the transaction. I'm certain that any attempt to avoid either of these tracking issues (e.g. obtaining a code every week regardless if you intend to use it, perhaps even pretending to be a buyer by using the code, etc.) will be illegal and almost certainly a felony. If the code is not transaction unique, it's effectively firearm owner registration.

It's very simple, if you can/must uniquely ID both parties of the transaction to a third party, that third party WILL be able to figure out the transaction. This is particularly harmful when any other transaction is illegal because that makes it defacto registration. We haven't even discussed the interesting attacks against such a system, transaction timing per se (look at TOR attacks).

Coburn's idea is effectively firearm registration any time the FBI or an administration wanted it to be...and you'd never know the difference. The whole idea is predicated on the assumption that Internet transactions are anonymous...and they are not.

[gunderwood]

As long as it's voluntary for a 3-year pilot period, I'd use it for private sales. Thing is, I also want NFA to become "instant" (at least for CHP/CCW holders) and would like to see that a requirement before making this mandatory.

Yeah I think even voluntary it would be commonly used.

I wouldn't touch it with a 10ft pole because it is technically firearm registration, it just doesn't look like it if you are really tech savvy.

[gunderwood]

What he's looking for is the holy grail. A way to provide a completely anonymous transaction, with authenticated parties. In most transactions we use a trust third party to achieve authentication, but it's only limited anonymity. For example a credit card transaction that in theory only you, the merchant, and the credit card company should ever see. The CC acts a trusted third party and authenticates the transaction, but in order to do so they in effect know nearly everything about the transaction. Nearly all financial transactions work this way.

Two exceptions in the financial markets that I can think of right now are Bitcoins and money wires. Money wires are fraught with fraud and Bitcoin achieves anonymity because the creators made sure that identities are not part of the transaction (kind of a requirement if you're wanting a BC). i.e. you have an encrypted wallet and a passphrase. Whomever has that information, owns the Bitcoins. It's very much like cash in a locked box, whomever possess the box and has the key to open it owns the cash.


Edit: Even the legendary Hawala networks are essentially a trusted third party arrangement, although a sophisticated one. However, like all third party transactions, the third party must keep details records to verify the validity of the transaction. Gain access to the records and the transaction looses it's anonymity.

[VBshooter]

NO!

[Swampman]

NFW!

[grumpyMSG]

Coburn's idea is effectively firearm registration any time the FBI or an administration wanted it to be...and you'd never know the difference. The whole idea is predicated on the assumption that Internet transactions are anonymous...and they are not.

I don't understand how you can continue to say it is firearm registration if no information about the actual firearm is given or recorded. I would however agree that it could lead to a list of potential owners, and be considered owner registration. Going back to what I said in similar thread, many folks willingly choose to participate in various governments' programs that would lead to the governments having even more information. Aren't folks who have a Concealed Carry Permit, owning a short barrel rifle or suppressor, or setting up a firearms trust giving similar or more detailed information?

[thekinetic]

How about if you already have something that requires a background check (such as an FFL, a CCP, or security clearance) you do not require a background check to purchase a firearm. It would be an easy alternative to the current system while still maintaining the intergrity of the current system.

Personally a unique identifier option is an idea that sounds good but could easily be abused or fail to work. Such as with prepaid cell phones, they are non traceable and the call could be received in the store at the time of purchase then passed off to their "friend" to purchase a different gun. Or in my case where I live with my parents (don't ask) and thus I use their number and so cannot be tied to it.

[GeneFrenkle]

Dudes.... seriously.... what practical problem is being solved by this? Look at CHP, voter registration, DL, FFL, consignment, etc. There is such a thing as diminishing returns as well as exponential costs for ever increasingly higher "quality control". Even Justice/NICS says it's not a significant problem. This will never prevent criminals from getting stuff.

[kelu]

that would work, but with one condition: let NRA to run the program

[Wallace]

I say we just sit on our hands, wait for the Liberals to get control of all branches of government and just take what they give us. That seems to be working so far, why waste time trying to be foresighted and reasonable.

[UnderwaterMike]

And yelling "no comprise" is not a legitimate rebuttal that's what you say when you run out of real points to make.

Your premise is flawed, in that you assume that a check is inevitable and/or the appropriate thing to do. (That's my impression of what you wrote, at least.) I would not use this system unless there was a significant benefit accrued to me as a seller, and currently I don't see any such benefit being offered.

[Reverenddel]

I like KELU's response!

SURE! BACKGROUND CHECKS! None are RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT! ALL ARE RUN BY THE NRA!!!!

And with that compromise? NFA items no longer require to be signed off by CLEO's, and the Class III stamps are available at gunstores for instant issuance!

MU...wait for it... HAHAHAHAHAHA