Universal Background Checks Explanation?

[Ninety9Soulz]

Hello all, we have all been hearing about these proposed "Universal Background Checks", but what exactly does this mean? How do they differ from our current system? I've put off reading about this subject, but would rather not look to articles from mainstream media for explanations as I trust my fellow MD shooters much more. So could someone help me understand this and why so many gun owners are against them?

 

[jkray]

Someone else may correct me but I believe it is referring to when performing FTF sales (in MD of unregulated long guns, other states anything at all) every buyer must submit to a BG check. Meaning that if you wanted to sell your Guerini over under sporting clays shotgun to me, in order to transfer it to me a background check would need to be performed.

 

[occbrian]

Someone else may correct me but I believe it is referring to when performing FTF sales (in MD of unregulated long guns, other states anything at all) every buyer must submit to a BG check. Meaning that if you wanted to sell your Guerini over under sporting clays shotgun to me, in order to transfer it to me a background check would need to be performed.

Correct.

 

[SpecialJ79]

Here in MD, if you purchase from an FFL, or if you purchase ANY regulated weapon... you are required to go through the background check. Unregulated long guns and shotguns may currently be sold face to face, without the involvement of an FFL. If UBC's pass... then ALL weapons transfers will need to be done thru FFL, or in this sate the MSP would suffice. What that means is they would need to know exactly who has what. A registry of sorts. I won't get into pro's and con's of a registry... But it would also mean that you couldn't, for instance, gift/transfer a child, or sibling, or hell anyone, a firearm of any kind without going through a BC.

 

[dist1646]

Background checks do not work. A person could pass a background check and commit a crime later on. Look at how many of these shooters have already done that. There is no way to predict what someone may or may not do in the future.

 

[Ninety9Soulz]

Someone else may correct me but I believe it is referring to when performing FTF sales (in MD of unregulated long guns, other states anything at all) every buyer must submit to a BG check. Meaning that if you wanted to sell your Guerini over under sporting clays shotgun to me, in order to transfer it to me a background check would need to be performed.

Thank you for the response, that makes it a lot easier to understand. Obviously I'll have to do more research to really formulate an opinion on this, but based on face value I actually think this is a good idea.(I may change my mind drastically after some more insight lol)

 

[Mooseman]

 

[sigdad]

I will say that the NRA's blanket no doesn't sit well with me. Wouldn't they get a lot more traction by agreeing with it but with conditions? No gun registration and so forth? And yes, just the existence of the check will tell the govt that person probably now owns a gun but that happens now dealer purchases anyway. The positive press the NRA would gain would seem to be immense and it would help them in the court of public opinion for the other issues.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Hotrod Diesel]

Background checks do not work. A person could pass a background check and commit a crime later on. Look at how many of these shooters have already done that. There is no way to predict what someone may or may not do in the future.

OP please read and consider this.


Keep in mind most crimes committed involving guns are commited by people who cannot legally buy guns, Their guns are bought illegally on the streets. It could prevent law abiding citizens from unknowingly selling firearms to prohibited persons, HOWEVER it will not prevent criminals from getting guns. Law abiding citizens are already going to take precautions when selling a firearm FTF.

How is requiring you to pass a background check when buying a rifle from me, going to prevent bobby three socks from buying a fowty from tony the greek on north ave? People already make illegal transactions, what does this change?

 

[adit]

I will say that the NRA's blanket no doesn't sit well with me. Wouldn't they get a lot more traction by agreeing with it but with conditions? No gun registration and so forth? And yes, just the existence of the check will tell the govt that person probably now owns a gun but that happens now dealer purchases anyway. The positive press the NRA would gain would seem to be immense and it would help them in the court of public opinion for the other issues.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

No it i should be a blanket No.

Every inch that is given you will never get back. A little here and a little there will eventually lead to the end of 2A.

 

[NateIU10]

No it i should be a blanket No.

Every inch that is given you will never get back. A little here and a little there will eventually lead to the end of 2A.

Agreed. Increased costs, paperwork, and governmental intervention. No thanks, not when the benefits are negligible at best in my opinion.

 

[aquaman]

I will say that the NRA's blanket no doesn't sit well with me. Wouldn't they get a lot more traction by agreeing with it but with conditions? No gun registration and so forth? And yes, just the existence of the check will tell the govt that person probably now owns a gun but that happens now dealer purchases anyway. The positive press the NRA would gain would seem to be immense and it would help them in the court of public opinion for the other issues.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

LOL. no

You can't compromise with people who want to strip you of your rights. They have admitted to it for Christ's sake. Trying to seem 'reasonable' and 'crossing the isle' lead to ruin.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=110533

read the story in that link, if that doesn't scare you I don't know what will. And things like this and worse happen in California DAILY

 

[Gbh]

the NRA makes the points:

Criminals don't follow laws

The NICS system cannot handle the volume created by universal background checks.

Both good points. We are facing the same issues in Merryland with licensing and training.

 

[DC-W]

 

[zombiehunter]

Thank you for the response, that makes it a lot easier to understand. Obviously I'll have to do more research to really formulate an opinion on this, but based on face value I actually think this is a good idea.(I may change my mind drastically after some more insight lol)

Yeah, everyone thinks you're a shill now.

The arguments against it:
1. It's private property what business is it of theirs to whom I'm buying and selling
2. They can't keep up with the regulated checks as it is
3. Too easy to go from here to "National Registry"
4. Ever see someone with a clearance try to get NICS cleared? Usually comes back "Delayed" (My understanding from speaking with a few FFLs and personal experience, not fact, just anecdote). So if you work a white collar job with a TS clearance and go to the range with your VP who also has a TS clearance and he's like "man I loved that ______" now you're stuck waiting for NICS to figure everything out
5. While it's doing that you're stuck with a gun you can't sell
6. Bad guys steal shit, how is this helping the ACTUAL PROBLEM?
7. More punishment for the law-abiding while doing nothing for the ACTUAL PROBLEM

Questions?

 

[zombiehunter]

I will say that the NRA's blanket no doesn't sit well with me. Wouldn't they get a lot more traction by agreeing with it but with conditions? No gun registration and so forth? And yes, just the existence of the check will tell the govt that person probably now owns a gun but that happens now dealer purchases anyway. The positive press the NRA would gain would seem to be immense and it would help them in the court of public opinion for the other issues.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

^^this guy Read this:

No it i should be a blanket No.

Every inch that is given you will never get back. A little here and a little there will eventually lead to the end of 2A.

The "ok, we'll give a little to seem reasonable...because we are reasonable" attitude has gotten us where we are today. Patchwork laws that make you a felon if you drive 50 miles in one direction over another. Not to mention the NICS system which sounds good on paper but in reality is all buggered up and even when it works...where are the prosecutions?

None of these things address the actual problems: revolving door justice system. Mass shootings are a statistical anomaly and you're never going to solve evil people doing evil things unless you're there and you're the one to put a bullet behind their ear. The criminals out on PBJ for gun crimes...that can be addressed...and it isn't.

They're going after an object used in 1-2% of murders instead of the murderers themselves...there's no logic there.

 

[knownalien]

1) tell me what high profile crime would have been prevented by UBC's?

2) it is already illegal to sell to someone you believe/know to be disqualififed

3) criminals will NOT go through UBC's, so nothing is solved.

4) while not an abnormally bad idea, they want to tie in "mental health" as an aspect of the "check" and as I have stated, this is too new of a field to be used as a blanket disqualification. then later, lists that people are on and don't even know it . . . like the no-fly list. Eventually there will be a "no-firearms" list.

 

[Ninety9Soulz]

Yeah, everyone thinks you're a shill now.

The arguments against it:
1. It's private property what business is it of theirs to whom I'm buying and selling
2. They can't keep up with the regulated checks as it is
3. Too easy to go from here to "National Registry"
4. Ever see someone with a clearance try to get NICS cleared? Usually comes back "Delayed" (My understanding from speaking with a few FFLs and personal experience, not fact, just anecdote). So if you work a white collar job with a TS clearance and go to the range with your VP who also has a TS clearance and he's like "man I loved that ______" now you're stuck waiting for NICS to figure everything out
5. While it's doing that you're stuck with a gun you can't sell
6. Bad guys steal shit, how is this helping the ACTUAL PROBLEM?
7. More punishment for the law-abiding while doing nothing for the ACTUAL PROBLEM

Questions?

A "shill"? Take a look at my YT channel of the same name, I'm on a separate video right now dispelling a myriad of different gun control myths relating to things such as confiscation.

I openly stated I am not knowledgeable on this portion of the subject and simply stated my initial reaction to someone's explanation, to possibly open up FRIENDLY discussion.

 

[danb]

it might pass just because senators want to look like they are DOING something, but if one can smuggle drugs and people, and launder money and guns, and 3d-print or CNC an untraceable receiver, I think that this just ends up being a speed bump for people who already follow the rules.

its a rock in a river, and the flow will just be diverted around it.

 

[Ninety9Soulz]

OP please read and consider this.


Keep in mind most crimes committed involving guns are commited by people who cannot legally buy guns, Their guns are bought illegally on the streets. It could prevent law abiding citizens from unknowingly selling firearms to prohibited persons, HOWEVER it will not prevent criminals from getting guns. Law abiding citizens are already going to take precautions when selling a firearm FTF.

How is requiring you to pass a background check when buying a rifle from me, going to prevent bobby three socks from buying a fowty from tony the greek on north ave? People already make illegal transactions, what does this change?

Those are good points, I wasn't under the impression it would make a *substantial* dent in the problem, but could simply weed out a few of them. But I didn't consider the problems that actually come *with* it, and it definitely doesn't seem worth it now.