Universal Background Checks for gun purchases

[concerned citizen]

There has to be a way to stop the infringement and start the liberation. With all the terrorism threats I feel that we need to convince the people that citizen first responders (concealed carriers) are a much better option than waiting 20 minutes for the police to arrive. All the hoops we have to jump through just put people in more danger. Gun free zones, hqls, ubcs, all just make it easier for the wolves to harm the sheep. We need more sheepdogs.

 

[Brooklyn]

You guys do understand the basic principles of negotiation?

I think not.

You have to be willing to give up something that you are willing to part with to get something you really want. Play chess? Ever been with a woman? Are you married? Have a job? This is sort of the way the world works.

Hear is a fact, right now you have to go to an FFL to buy a gun. You have the HQL (which doesn't apply to me BTW). You do not have National CCW. You already have to prove you are not a criminal every time you try to buy a gun. I am not sure why this is even an argument.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Actually we give up nothing..its a pure bait and switch..

They get to.claim victory but we win.

It will not happen util after the old guard dies off. By then we may have nothing to bargin with ..

But maybe the courts will save us from ourselves.

 

[Brooklyn]

Disclaimer (yes it's in my sig, but what the heck)
****This is MXRider speaking and not on behalf of ANY organization*****

This is a situation that there is truly no correct answer. While I like the idea of a background check to prevent unauthorized persons from obtaining a firearm, I also know that those same individuals will just go to the black market to obtain them. So, if we get rid of the background check, will this ultimately result in MORE prohibited people obtaining firearms through FFL's? That is the part that I personally struggle with. Deep down inside I know that those that are determined to get their hands on a firearm will do so by whatever means are available (black market etc.) so what is the point? I struggle with this each and every day and I don't think there is a "right" answer to this paradigm.

Ubc is a red herring. Everyone knows it will not work...but it gives them.an excuse to compile lists. Just like before instant check it was an excuse for waiting periods.

Now if we van give them ubc but also make it physically impossible to compile such a list thats a win.

If we lose on.ubc ...and we may if there's another exploitable event. Then we will get stuck with the worst possible system
Now if you really think the court will strike ubc as not narrowly tailored and thus not conistent with SS then roll.the dice winner take all.

As opimimistc as I.am I like to have a,plan B.

That means proposing a better system than they will..and getting it passed so they cant..


Its also the only way we can grow our movement.. folks are not going to want to stand with us..if we just stamp our feet and say no

 

[Armati]

Actually we give up nothing..its a pure bait and switch..

They get to.claim victory but we win.

It will not happen util after the old guard dies off. By then we may have nothing to bargin with ..

But maybe the courts will save us from ourselves.

We are on the same page.

By controlling the debate we take the issue away from them. We are no longer fighting against the antis but using their own argument to create a regulatory environment that benifits our side.

I am talking about legislation as comprehensive as the NFA and the GCA. Not adding new laws on top of the old laws but rewriting the law completely.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Brooklyn]

We are on the same page.

By controlling the debate we take the issue away from them. We are no longer fighting against the antis but using their own argument to create a regulatory environment that benifits our side.

I am talking about legislation as comprehensive as the NFA and the GCA. Not adding new laws on top of the old laws but rewriting the law completely.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

It's not going to happen. Our side is not up to the challenge. Question is do we keep wasting our time or just spend more time at the range?

If freedom is going die perhaps we should just kick back and enjoy the ride

 

[kcbrown]

Actually we give up nothing..its a pure bait and switch..

It is pure bait and switch. But the bait and switch is on their end, not ours. We give up plenty with UBC.

 

[kcbrown]

Ubc is a red herring. Everyone knows it will not work...but it gives them.an excuse to compile lists. Just like before instant check it was an excuse for waiting periods.

Now if we van give them ubc but also make it physically impossible to compile such a list thats a win.

You design databases and such for a living. I've done the same, and work in the same field. And I'm telling you, you cannot make it impossible to compile the list of people here because the person is the very thing that is being checked by the system, and the system has to know what person it is you're talking about in order to function at all.

All inputs into a system can be saved. This is something you simply cannot avoid. And because the person being checked is a mandatory input into the system, that is a list that can, and therefore will, be compiled.

 

[kcbrown]

We don't need your permission.

Not saying you do. I am saying that it's something I can't get behind, and why I can't get behind it. You can disagree with my reasoning, or not (and if not, then either there is an error in it that you should point out, or you disagree on the basis of something other than reason). You can disagree with my values, or not. But if you agree with both, then the conclusion is inevitably what I described.

 

[Brooklyn]

You design databases and such for a living. I've done the same, and work in the same field. And I'm telling you, you cannot make it impossible to compile the list of people here because the person is the very thing that is being checked by the system, and the system has to know what person it is you're talking about in order to function at all.

All inputs into a system can be saved. This is something you simply cannot avoid. And because the person being checked is a mandatory input into the system, that is a list that can, and therefore will, be compiled.

OK one more time..THERE IS NO LIST OF APPROVED PERSONS ONLY PROHIBITED PERSONS. A REQUEST TO VET A PERSON IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY SPECIFIC PURCHASE NOR IS ANY ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE REQUIRED TO ALLOW VETTING.

THUS NO EVIDENCE TRAIL IS CREATED. MOREOVER SUCH A VETTING SYSTEM WILL HAVE GENERAL UTLITY FOR ALL KINDS OF PURPOSES... EMPLOYMENT CHEACKS ROADSIDE WARRENTS AND SO ON FUTHER DILUTING ITS UTILITY AS A LIST OF GUN OWNERS.

I PERSONALLY CAN THINK OF DOZENS OF WAYS TO FUTHER DILUTE IT VALUE...

AND THAT ASSUMES WE DONT USE ONE TIME TOKENS TO MASK THE ACTUAL ID BEING CHEACKED FUTHER COMPLIATING THE ISSUE.


If you set your mind to solving the right problem you might get somewhere..

the problem right now is that anyone doing a face to face transfer where still lawful is risking a felony.. Moreover there is no way for a trainer to avoid the same risk..

Likewise every job requiring vetting requires and expensive time consuming process.

A list of prohibited persons will serve in a very narrowly tailored way a large set of ligitamate government interest which are presently served at far greater risk to privacy.

And even a poor implementation of this scheme is less intrusive than the current one.


NO MORE 4473. Period.

 

[MDFF2008]

Disclaimer (yes it's in my sig, but what the heck)
****This is MXRider speaking and not on behalf of ANY organization*****

This is a situation that there is truly no correct answer. While I like the idea of a background check to prevent unauthorized persons from obtaining a firearm, I also know that those same individuals will just go to the black market to obtain them. So, if we get rid of the background check, will this ultimately result in MORE prohibited people obtaining firearms through FFL's? That is the part that I personally struggle with. Deep down inside I know that those that are determined to get their hands on a firearm will do so by whatever means are available (black market etc.) so what is the point? I struggle with this each and every day and I don't think there is a "right" answer to this paradigm.

But is everyone savvy enough to find the black market? Determined enough? It's easy to say "oh they will just get a gun" but does every one know where to find an illegal gun? Is a street dealer going to trust a clean cut white boy or is he gonna think he's a UC?

You are right. You can never stop someone who is hell bent on getting a gun and hurting themselves or others, they will adapt and find a way.

But that doesn't cover everyone. And you must consider not every criminal is smart. Some will be dumb enough to try to buy a gun and fail the BC. This provides an opening for LE to intervene.

IMO, an instant background check doesn't place an undue burden on the right. I think we miss opportunities to build good will when we say "ehh, a criminal might find a way around so why bother?"

There are options that protect the right while protecting public safety.

Why can't I access my file on NICS? Why can't I print out a certificate saying I am able to buy a firearm? Not one that says I bought one, just one that says I can.

Why can't we just code it into our DL's for everyone?

 

[paperwork351]

My boss has latched onto "reasonable restrictions" from Heller. I can't come up with an argument against UBC. He is a NJ democrat. Also blah blah standard capacity and rifle bans. I think I should give up but I need the debate practice.

 

[MDFF2008]

My boss has latched onto "reasonable restrictions" from Heller. I can't come up with an argument against UBC. He is a NJ democrat. Also blah blah standard capacity and rifle bans. I think I should give up but I need the debate practice.

Thats kinna why UBC polls well. It seems like a no brainer to even moderates.

 

[BeoBill]

Ubc is a red herring. Everyone knows it will not work...but it gives them an excuse to compile lists...

BINGO!

 

[TheBert]

Only emails...

There is a reason that the White House's email systems have been screwed up from one end to the other. They hire the guys and gals who graduate last in their class to design, build and operate the emailsystems.

 

[Brooklyn]

Thats kinna why UBC polls well. It seems like a no brainer to even moderates.

Build the ubc system that works for us.

The issue is the way the current system works is an undue burden ..

Lets start with making it free to.the user since it is clearly a public good in the general public interest.

Then attack the 4473 5a grounds..

Then propose the streamlined solution to make it.pass strict scrutiny..

Do this or we are only one or two sufficiently exploitable tragedies away from.having it done to us..

Unless you can guarantee a good result from the courts.

 

[Brooklyn]

BINGO!

Thats why we create a system which makes such lists impossible or useless...they either walk away ..a,temporary win or they take the bait and we get a less burdensome system even if it is universal..

More importantly we gain support by pealing away a lot of easy support for the opposition.

 

[Brooklyn]

It is pure bait and switch. But the bait and switch is on their end, not ours. We give up plenty with UBC.

Wrong.. but we probably are not up to the challenge..

Of course if we were we would have won.by now.


Only our side could be outflanked by the likes of Bloomberg..

 

[MDFF2008]

I agree with you.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Lets get this right . Abortion is now called woman's health, you dont have to be able to read or be a citizen to vote and you want UBC. Young people think censorship is ok. You think you cannot yell FIRE in a theater. YOUR STUPID.

 

[kcbrown]

OK one more time..THERE IS NO LIST OF APPROVED PERSONS ONLY PROHIBITED PERSONS. A REQUEST TO VET A PERSON IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY SPECIFIC PURCHASE NOR IS ANY ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE REQUIRED TO ALLOW VETTING.

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.

THUS NO EVIDENCE TRAIL IS CREATED. MOREOVER SUCH A VETTING SYSTEM WILL HAVE GENERAL UTLITY FOR ALL KINDS OF PURPOSES... EMPLOYMENT CHEACKS ROADSIDE WARRENTS AND SO ON FUTHER DILUTING ITS UTILITY AS A LIST OF GUN OWNERS.

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. And either way, the person who is being asked about will be recorded, and if the purpose of the request has to be included in the request, then that will be recorded as well.

No, you cannot escape the fact that the inputs into the system in question are going to be logged and saved forever, if not by the system itself then by something that acts as a frontend to the system. THERE IS NO WAY THIS WILL NOT BE HORRIBLY ABUSED IN THE END.

AND THAT ASSUMES WE DONT USE ONE TIME TOKENS TO MASK THE ACTUAL ID BEING CHEACKED FUTHER COMPLIATING THE ISSUE.

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. Something has to inform the system of who to inquire about. It is a necessary input into the system for the system to function at all. That is why your claim of there being no trail is a false one. It cannot be any other way.

If you set your mind to solving the right problem you might get somewhere..

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

the problem right now is that anyone doing a face to face transfer where still lawful is risking a felony.. Moreover there is no way for a trainer to avoid the same risk..

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

Likewise every job requiring vetting requires and expensive time consuming process.

A list of prohibited persons will serve in a very narrowly tailored way a large set of ligitamate government interest which are presently served at far greater risk to privacy.

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.

And even a poor implementation of this scheme is less intrusive than the current one.

No, it's not. The reason it's not is that 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.

And most amusingly, you are proposing that we trade away liberty on the basis that doing so will make things more convenient. Whose side are you on, anyway??