Universal Background Checks for gun purchases

[Brooklyn]

Seriously? How naive can you get?

That a person is not associated with any specific purchase doesn't matter. What matters is that the person is associated with the interest to receive a firearm. This would be known because the very purpose of the system is to provide background checks for the purpose of firearm transfers.


Either the system returns, to the person who is perfoming the inquiry, a complete history of the person being inquired about for the purpose of evaluation at the point of request, in which case what you're talking about is a serious privacy issue (because this is supposed to apply to every firearm transfer, from anyone), or the system comes back with a "prohibited" or "not prohibited" answer, in which case, the system has to know what the purpose of the request is because the nature of the clearance depends on it.

Either way, the "general utility" claim you speak of here is false comfort, if not outright false.


Obfuscation doesn't help. Why? Because no matter what, there exists a frontend to the system. That frontend is what will be receiving the initial request, and that initial request must contain the identity information of the person being checked. That, or a proxy in front of that, is where the record will be taken from.


Oh, I agree. And I'm telling you: the UBC problem is not the right problem to "solve".


You can solve the problem by enacting further restrictions, or you can solve the problem by liberating people. Guess which I prefer.


Whether or not someone is "prohibited" depends on what is being prohibited. As such, the system you're talking about here either has to know what the check is being used for, or it will be known that it is for the purpose of a firearm transfer.

This system, if it is designed strictly around the characteristics of firearm possession prohibition, will not save employers from performing a real background check, nor will it save any other entity from doing the same, because different entities have different requirements.

Indeed, if anything, it will make background checks even more ubiquitous than they already are, which means that those who fail it will be even less able to do anything than they are already.


No, it's not. It's not because people in free states do not need to fill out any kind of paperwork, nor perform any kind of background check, in order to lawfully transfer firearms. This system would make those transfers unlawful.

You might avoid some paperwork when purchasing from a FFL. It might temporarily make things better for people who live in the few states that aren't free. It will permanently make things worse in the free states, and will eventually make things worse everywhere as the changes I outlined as being a consequence to this are eventually implemented.

You will have permanently made government assent a prerequisite for "keep" in exchange for the possibility of temporarily gaining some as-yet-undefined liberty which also turns on the assent of government. That is not a net win. It is a net loss.

Look I am not going waste time on this.

Person to person sales are only lawful to non prohibited persons. And only to residents of the same state. Failure to verify state of residence is a crime.. Likewise a transfer to a prohibited person.. All this does is make such a check possible since the Fed does not have jurisdiction. That's not changing.

Moreover your failure, willful failure, to understand that all firearms transfers are in fact regulated now under federal law even is what you call free States is frankly inexcusable..
What we have now is this.. The states that are "free" fail to provide a mechanism for complying with federal law. They do not make lawful any unlawful transfer.

My proposal will not add any new restrictions.. Nor will it require any paperwork.. Unless and until you are accused of an unlawful transfer... Then it provides a safe Harbor and bar to prosecution.. Which must be provided federally..

Since criminals can not be compiled to comply under 5a..there is no point in making the UBC mandatory.. All carrot.. no stick and no increase in restrictions.

The result is that nearly all lawful transferees will use the UBC system and if some maverik decides not to, the only penalty is that he risks a felony charge If he runs afoul of existing and long standing federal regulations.. JUST LIKE NOW.

Just once it would be nice let our oposition defeat us instead doing their work for them.

As for the rest.. All that is needed to eviscerate the value of any list of vetted identities is the actual or potential use for other purposes . And that's before we use deliberate disinformation.


Hell the msp database here in MD is already nearly useless, and no real attempt is being made to degrade it.

Since you like to argue I will leave you to it. My purpose is to solve problems.

In his case..

1. We bleed support everytime we oppose UBC..
2. There is no safe Harbor for non for transfers even where Legal

3. I can get major concessions in exchange for letting them claim a win.

4. The Republicans will not vote against UBC.. They have said so to our faces.
5. The Republicans are starting to see us as a liability. Frankly they are right.

6. We can NOT expect the court to do it all.

Carry on.

 

[kcbrown]

Look I am not going waste time on this.

Person to person sales are only lawful to non prohibited persons. And only to residents of the same state. Failure to verify state of residence is a crime.. Likewise a transfer to a prohibited person.. All this does is make such a check possible since the Fed does not have jurisdiction. That's not changing.

So your proposal is to make the background check available but not mandatory? That's not "universal" background checks, then, is it? The opposition will never go for anything less than mandatory UBCs.

Moreover your failure, willful failure, to understand that all firearms transfers are in fact regulated now under federal law even is what you call free States is frankly inexcusable..

Oh, I understand that just fine. I was assuming, because to assume otherwise would be ludicrous, that your proposal involved mandatory checks, not optional ones.

My proposal will not add any new restrictions.. Nor will it require any paperwork.. Unless and until you are accused of an unlawful transfer... Then it provides a safe Harbor and bar to pros ecution.. Which must be provided federally..

I do agree that it would work for providing a safe harbor, but in exchange for that, it would then record all who are interested in receiving a firearm.

Since criminals can not be compiled to comply under 5a..there is no point in making the UBC mandatory.. All carrot no stick and no increase in restrictions.

You say this when a firearm transfer at an FFL already mandates a background check and, further, all transfers require such checks in states such as California?

Either mandatory UBCs violate the 5th Amendment, in which case states such as California are already in violation of it and federal law violates it in the context of FFLs, or they don't, in which case the opposition will clearly demand that they be mandatory, and will refuse to back anything less.

The result is that nearly all lawful transferees will use the UBC system and if some maverik decides not to, the only penalty is that he risks a felony charge If he runs afoul of existing and long standing federal regulations.. JUST LIKE NOW.

Just once it would be nice let our oposition defeat us instead doing their work for them.

You assume the opposition is composed of a bunch of idiots. I don't. It is because we assume the opposition is composed of a bunch of idiots that we are losing. You're just making the same mistake we've been making all this time. Time to do something different.

As for the rest.. All that is needed to eviscerate the value of any list of vetted identities is the actual or potential use for other purposes . And that's before we use deliberate disinformation.

And then you run squarely into the issues I raised.

It's called probable cause for a reason. Deliberate disinformation will get you nowhere unless the disinformation exceeds the valid information. With a firearm inquiry rate through NICS alone of 21 million per year, you'll have your work cut out for you with respect to supplying disinformation, seeing how you'll have to use the identity information of real people in order to accomplish it.

Hell the msp database here in MD is already nearly useless, and no real attempt is being made to degrade it.

Useless for valid law enforcement purposes, perhaps. But useless for malice? I very much doubt that.

Since you like to argue I will leave you to it. My purpose is to solve problems.

My purpose is to ensure that the right problems are solved in the right way. You're not doing that with this. And you are completely ignoring the long term consequences of implementing this, most especially the nature of the changes to it that will inevitably follow.

I can get major concessions in exchange for letting them claim a win.

Can you now?

Prove it. What concessions? On what? On anything that will increase liberty? Or only on things that would otherwise damage us further?

The Republicans will not vote against UBC.. They have said so to our faces.

Of course they won't. They are just as content to enact additional restrictions as the opposition is. They only differ on what restrictions to enact, not whether to enact restrictions.

6. We can NOT expect the court to do it all.

Just now figuring out that the courts aren't behind us, are you? I've been saying this for a very long time, as you well know. Well, better late than never, I suppose.

I agree, we cannot expect the court to do it all. But legislation without court support has no staying power. That means, in the end, we need the courts to support us no matter what we do legislatively. Anything less makes any legislative win temporary. Why do you think the Civil Rights Act has actual staying power? It's precisely because it was crafted in the context of the court decisions that preceded it, and was strengthened by court decisions that followed it. We don't have that at all. Rather, what we have is a pair of decisions that the Supreme Court has effectively abandoned.

And you want to play legislative games in that context?

 

[Brooklyn]

Start taking me at my word.

You think I called it bait and switch for no reason?

You think I have been talking of con con because I intend to rely only on the courts..

We get from each method all that we can... They are symbiotic . But we can't concede any of the methods..

Politics is what it is.

Nothing we propose forces a concession... Because we can always walk away and still benefit in terms of Pr..

But don't worry we are not smart enough to win.

Just wait til some kid is killed by some teachers AD.... Then you will know what a temporary political gain looks like.


Within 5 years I will know if the pro 2a movement will still be viable.. We may not have 5 years.so I may be able to retire from the fight sooner.

Political realities can not be ignored.. The movement grows up or it dies..

I will have done all I can.. That's going have to be enough... If freedom is to die in this country I may as well enjoy what time I have felt.

The challenge is laid.

 

[mxrider]

This whole debate truly has no correct answer. Increase freedom by doing away with all bgc and you open up the FFL's to purchases from prohibited persons (and yes it will happen more than what's being purchased on the black market), or have UBC which creates a purchase inquiry list of all of us thereby giving the government where to collect.

While Brooklyn's idea of a NICS that is not savable has merit, someone will create something that would save the front end input. If there was a way to truly make this anonymous, I think we actually have something. Do away with the 4473 and then there is no registration history. Obviously, the FFL would have to have SOMETHING to show they ran the check and all was good which then begins the traceable info.

 

[Brooklyn]

It does not need to.be anonymous. It needs to be inadmissible as evidence..thats an improvement over 4473

A,check does not mean a sale. It will be used at min to vet renters of guns students of training..etc.

So a list of querries does not give a list of owners. No global list of firearms ..

If private parties use the system.which they can because its all public data.. ( there is no reason to store the raw data only the fact that they are prohibited) there is not trail to follow..
The key is to introduce noise to the inputs..this will allow..verification of a known transaction but not allow the input to provide confirmation of an unknown transaction.

The real issue is not this specific proposal...but general question of wether we act or allow others to act upon us.

 

[Minuteman]

How do we do Fact-to-Face sales now? As long as its legal to do so (most long guns), we don't have to go through FFL or MDSP; I see nothing wrong with that. I usually only buy/sell to people I know very well, I personally know their history and know they are not prohibited. Otherwise you can ask for a voter registration, or some proof that they have passed a background check. Also a good idea to make the exchange at a local police station, I know AA County now offers/recommends this. Most perps won't get within a mile of a cop. When I don't know the person very well I'll ask one of my police buddies to come along, I let the buyer/seller know this, and if they object, its never happened, but would set of bells.

 

[Brooklyn]

How do we do Fact-to-Face sales ?As long as its legal to do so (most long guns), we don't have to go through FFL or MDSP; I see nothing wrong with that. I usually only buy/sell to people I know very well, I personally know their history and know they are not prohibited. Otherwise you can ask for a voter registration, or some proof that they have passed a background check. Also a good idea to make the exchange at a local police station, I know AA County now offers/recommends this. Most perps won't get within a mile of a cop. When I don't know the person very well I'll ask one of my police buddies to come along, I let the buyer/seller know this, and if they object, its never happened, but would set of bells.

Feel free..to keep.on doing so. I will not . Besides the fact that many folks are now ,unknown to them ,prohibited persons..

Frosh is now AG..

To me its all risk no reward. You can.bet I am not alone in that belief.

The main idea is no more 4473 for any transfer..ffl or not.

.

.

 

[BeoBill]

For those who ARE fans of the UBC, please ponder these highly probable outcomes:

- The procedures will be devised by ignorant anti-2A political hacks.
- The data base will built by the lowest, politically-connected bidder.
- Nobody knows who will actually operate and maintain the data base.

Sleep well...

 

[Armati]

For those who ARE fans of the UBC, please ponder these highly probable outcomes:

- The procedures will be devised by ignorant anti-2A political hacks.
- ...

The situation we are seeking to avoid. My point is that WE should be crafting the legislation WE want to be governed by. Take the issue away from the antis.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[BeoBill]

The situation we are seeking to avoid. My point is that WE should be crafting the legislation WE want to be governed by. Take the issue away from the antis.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Then you're suggesting that we can write national-level legislation without the use of Senate and House staff? How will we find the resources to identify, cross-reference and compile changes to all the other existing laws that are affected by our Bill?

 

[Brooklyn]

For those who ARE fans of the UBC, please ponder these highly probable outcomes:

- The procedures will be devised by ignorant anti-2A political hacks.
- The data base will built by the lowest, politically-connected bidder.
- Nobody knows who will actually operate and maintain the data base.

Sleep well...

It's already being done. Get in the game or this is exactly what will happen.

Here's the funny part.. I really don't care... All my guns are papered.. I gain nothing by preventing what I know is coming..

It really is going to be up to the community..

 

[Brooklyn]

Then you're suggesting that we can write national-level legislation without the use of Senate and House staff? How will we find the resources to identify, cross-reference and compile changes to all the other existing laws that are affected by our Bill?

Leave that to the National organizations.. All we need to do. Is provide input and support.


But we need to start thinking about what we want..

Saf is very approachable.

This is the real question.. Do we want to have a voice in making policy or do we just whan to be the no no no chorus?

 

[kcbrown]

The situation we are seeking to avoid. My point is that WE should be crafting the legislation WE want to be governed by. Take the issue away from the antis.

Right. But it has to be legislation we actually want to be governed by, yes?

Why would we want to be governed by legislation that gives the opposition arbitrary power? Isn't that exactly what mandatory UBC would be? After all, we don't actually control what determines whether or not someone passes the check.

Doesn't UBC amount to another knob that the opposition can turn to violate our right to arms? In light of their actual goals, how could it be anything else if it's something they actually end up agreeing to?

If we were talking about a situation where their disarmament goals weren't clear, then the political cost to them of backing away from a UBC system that has the properties that Brooklyn is after would be high. But that ship has sailed. The Democrats are now on record as desiring actual disarmament, by way of their reference to what Australia has.

And that logically means that if they actually agree to support something, it must be because they see it as a means of disarmament.

Like I said, these are scorpions we're dealing with here. They will sting us on the other side of the river.

I'd be more in agreement with the approach you guys are proposing if we were out of other options legislatively, but where's the evidence that our legislative backs are truly against the wall?

 

[kcbrown]

Start taking me at my word.

You think I called it bait and switch for no reason?

I know you believe it's a bait and switch. The problem is that the people you're talking about pulling a bait and switch on have been doing that very thing for decades (how do you think we got to where we are now?), and they are much better at it than we are.

So this seems to be more about our assessments of the enemy than anything else. I assume the enemy is highly competent, because the evidence supports that and because it's at the very least the safest assumption from a planning standpoint. You appear to assume that the enemy is incompetent.

Like I said, we've been losing for a reason, and much of that has to do with the fact that we've been assuming that the enemy is composed of a bunch of idiots, when they actually aren't. Underestimating the enemy is a near-guaranteed way of losing.

You think I have been talking of con con because I intend to rely only on the courts..

No, on the con-con, I think we're basically in agreement. But I've been getting mixed signals from you on that. I do know that the behavior of the courts is going to be one of the drivers of that.

We get from each method all that we can... They are symbiotic . But we can't concede any of the methods..

Politics is what it is.

Nothing we propose forces a concession... Because we can always walk away and still benefit in terms of Pr..

And if it weren't for the fact that the Democrats have already admitted that their goal is disarmament, I might agree with you. But they've already gone on record on that. In the face of that, where's the PR benefit to be had from the legislative games that you seem to have in mind?

Political realities can not be ignored.. The movement grows up or it dies..

I will have done all I can.. That's going have to be enough... If freedom is to die in this country I may as well enjoy what time I have felt.

The challenge is laid.

On this I am in full agreement with you. We need to start playing smartly. That won't happen until we start assuming that the enemy knows everything we know. The plans we lay have to work regardless of what the enemy knows. But I see no real effort being directed towards that. We seem to cling to the same assumptions we made when we began all this, that the opposition is stupid. And that is what will do us in.

 

[Armati]

I hope to give a more detailed concept latter, but in short, image a guy carries something along the lines of a Militia ID. He can buy, own, and carry firearms. IDs are issued by individual states. UBC is met. CCW is met.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Minuteman]

I hope to give a more detailed concept latter, but in short, image a guy carries something along the lines of a Militia ID. He can buy, own, and carry firearms. IDs are issued by individual states. UBC is met. CCW is met.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Good start.

Well, right now we have that, people with HQL's have been cleared. Folks with active and retired military and police ID don't need an HQL to buy a gun. People with CCW cards from other states you know are already cleared. Not sure we need UBC.

 

[TheBert]

I hope to give a more detailed concept latter, but in short, image a guy carries something along the lines of a Militia ID. He can buy, own, and carry firearms. IDs are issued by individual states. UBC is met. CCW is met.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Should I have to present ID when I register to vote or when I vote? Why do I have to request and receive government permission to purchase a firearm?

If I want to exercise my 5A rights all I have to do is say lawyer and keep my mouth shut.

 

[MigraineMan]

Should I have to present ID when I register to vote or when I vote? Why do I have to request and receive government permission to purchase a firearm?

You do present ID when you vote (at least here in Maryland.) You have to state your name, out loud, to the election officials. That's an opportunity for your neighbors to chime in and say "Hey, that's not John. Q. Public!" and challenge your identity. (This works better in small towns.) Not a tremendously robust method of identification, but you do identify yourself.

The problem occurs when we have laws that say "You, Mr. Felon, are prohibited from owning firearms." At that point, you now have two classes of citizens - prohibited and non-prohibited.

The Militia Card is an interesting concept. Issue one to everyone at the age of ascension - on their 18th birthday. You've got it, and can demonstrate "non-prohibited" status without pesky electronic data collection oversight. With an appropriate conviction, the courts take it from you. If it expires, you perform the background investigation once to renew, not on each instance of a potential purchase or transfer.

 

[Armati]

Should I have to present ID when I register to vote or when I vote? Why do I have to request and receive government permission to purchase a firearm?

If I want to exercise my 5A rights all I have to do is say lawyer and keep my mouth shut.

You shouldn't, but you do. So your choices are, continue to let others pass laws against you or take control of the debate and shape the laws into something you can live with AND gain more rights in the process.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Applehd]

The Militia Card is an interesting concept.

I believe it has already been mentioned, but I will highlight it once again... this is already being accomplished by way of the HQL... now to re-word the statute to reflect same...