Do you oppose a federal UBC?

1
I read the 2d Am. as describing a legitimate civil right and as part of a Constitution that should restrict federal authority. I am aware that there is some diversity of opinion on that here.
whitey wrote:
zukiphile wrote:Will any of you be surprised if HRC establishes UBCs by executive order?
Some of us could give two shits either way. A UBC or lack of one doesn't pay my bills or build my retirement.
I am curious about whether people here:

1. Oppose a federal UBC* generally,

2. Oppose a federal UBC only if it is imposed by Executive Order, or

3. Support the idea of a UBC.

Would anyone else care to state his position?

_______________________________________________________________
* For the purpose of these questions, a federal UBC is a universal background check, a check on all firearm transfers between all parties, federally licensed or not, which check would be performed by some agency of the federal government.
Last edited by zukiphile on Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

2
zukiphile wrote:I read the 2d Am. as describing a legitimate civil right and as part of a Constitution that should restrict federal authority. I am aware that there is some diversity of opinion on that here.
whitey wrote:
zukiphile wrote:Will any of you be surprised if HRC establishes UBCs by executive order?
Some of us could give two shits either way. A UBC or lack of one doesn't pay my bills or build my retirement.
I am curious about whether people here:

1. Oppose a federal UBC generally,

2. Oppose a federal UBC only if it is imposed by Executive Order, or

3. Support the idea of a UBC.

Would anyone else care to state his position?
Well, you asked....

Given that there are classes of folks that are denied ownership of guns (which some diehards would argue goes against 2A, but they always change the subject when asked if prisoners should be allowed guns), then there MUST be a way to fairly check if you are one of them. Society has a duty to police itself. Put me down as No. 3
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo.
Image
Image
Image

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

3
SailDesign wrote: Well, you asked....

Given that there are classes of folks that are denied ownership of guns (which some diehards would argue goes against 2A, but they always change the subject when asked if prisoners should be allowed guns), then there MUST be a way to fairly check if you are one of them. Society has a duty to police itself. Put me down as No. 3
Ditto. :thumbup:

The 2A has been updated many times throughout our history as technology advances. Now we live in the computer age which makes a UBC practical.

The Constitution is a living document. We have issues today which were impossible for the founders to foresee. We need to keep up with the changing times.

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

4
They wouldn't need to have federal UBC legislation if they opened the system up to general use right now. Most people don't want to sell to felons and would use the system over time if they simply let us.

As proposed no. It won't solve the problems they say it will, and there is no way to enforce it anyway without a total gun registration system. How would anyone know if the gun in my possession was purchased with a UBC if they can't match a serial number to me or a previous owner? I'm not going to bother paying a 3rd party to run a background check (and in CA wait some predetermined random amount of time) if I buy a gun from a friend or relative. I'll simply give them the money and they'll give me the gun. To prove it wasn't mine to begin with will require a registration system with is not part of the UBC proposals.

Since I'm against registering and licensing schemes to posses guns, a UBC is a unjustifiable expense for the close to zero return it will have on the nations problems. It's just another in a long line of incremental steps to some other purpose.
Last edited by inomaha on Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Brian

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

5
zukiphile wrote: I am curious about whether people here:

1. Oppose a federal UBC generally,

2. Oppose a federal UBC only if it is imposed by Executive Order, or

3. Support the idea of a UBC.

Would anyone else care to state his position?
As with most things, the devil is in the details, and I remain skeptical of it's efficacy. Additionally, the sale of the UBC to the American people hinges on several incorrect bits of data:

1) The claim that 40% of all gun sales are done via private party
a) We actually have data on this, beyond the wild guess that was made during the single study that claimed it. In CA and CO, the numbers are anywhere from 7% to 20%.

2) That largely criminals are acquiring their firearms through people who would comply with the law.
b) A large majority are procured via straw purchase (already illegal), theft, or street sources. None of these sources would be impacted by a UBC

3) As with most other regulatory arguments, the total number of gun deaths is cited rather than simply the murder rates
a) Suicides make up 2/3rds of gun deaths. It's disingenuous at best or straight up lying to lump them in and say they would be impacted by this regulation. It would have ZERO impact on this important issue

4) It's commonly cited as a fix to keep mass shooters from getting guns
a) Mass shooters, from all of the records we have seen in the last several years, are acquiring their guns through an FFL rather than a private party. Which means that not only are we legislating based on a false premise of solving the issue, but we're also doing so for statistical outliers, when resources to push for this legislation would be more impactful by redirecting those resources to different areas.

This all said, I live in a state that has UBC's. Hasn't ended the world. However, although the slippery slope an overused trope, CA has most definitely not stopped with UBC's- now we're on UBC's for ammo, confiscating magazines in excess of 10 rounds, limiting the type of pistol that one can buy to ones that have a technology that doesn't exist, and a whole host of other ill-informed ideas.

So for these reasons, I'm generally more against them than I am for them.

In theory with the right implementation I could see them having minimal impact, but not if one has to go through an FFL. If it's mandatory, then there is no charge, it's web based, and one can submit your data first to obtain an approval number to forward to the seller, who can verify it before meeting you, then check your ID when you get there.

OR if it was tied to a universal concealed carry permit, with states not having the ability to deny without just cause, and the removal of suppressors from the NFA. If we had those two points as part of the negotiation, I could far more easily be persuaded to support it- but that's not what's been put on the table.
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

6
I neither oppose nor support it. I see the merit in doing background check for every gun transaction, but I fail to see how it would reduce 'gun violence' in a statistically significant amount.

It actually makes gun stores and FFL holders more profitable, as it makes private sales more cumbersome and less profitable overall. One more layer of bureaucracy like liquor licensing, that serves little purpose and even less benefit to society.
Last edited by Stiff on Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Glad that federal government is boring again.

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

7
shinzen wrote:...
3) As with most other regulatory arguments, the total number of gun deaths is cited rather than simply the murder rates
a) Suicides make up 2/3rds of gun deaths. It's disingenuous at best or straight up lying to lump them in and say they would be impacted by this regulation. It would have ZERO impact on this important issue
...
Magazine capacity limits won't have an impact on suicides either. They probably won't have much of any impact on homicide rates as those are committed with handguns firing fewer rounds.
Brian

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

9
inomaha wrote: Magazine capacity limits won't have an impact on suicides either. They probably won't have much of any impact on homicide rates as those are committed with handguns firing fewer rounds.
Totally agreed- but was trying to keep it on the original question posed by the OP :D
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

11
in principle, it sounds fine. on the down side it wouldn't accomplish mush(sic), and would be largely unenforceable. solution in search of problem.

however, in the Spirit Of Compromise (registered trademark) i would require:

must be "shall issue", with substantial penalties for non-complying agencies.
must supercede all state ordinances.
no lists may be kept which could be used as a gun registry.
system must be accessible to individuals, free of charge, without requirement to go through an FFL.
state and local authorities must provide timely and complete updates to federal databases.
there must be an appeal process if a prospective purchaser is denied.

maybe a couple of other things, i've only thought about this for a couple of minutes.

and no, EO is not the way to do this. at all. an EO would simply subvert the democratic process and inflame passions.
i'm retired. what's your excuse?

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

12
lurker wrote:in principle, it sounds fine. on the down side it wouldn't accomplish mush(sic), and would be largely unenforceable. solution in search of problem.

however, in the Spirit Of Compromise (registered trademark) i would require:

must be "shall issue", with substantial penalties for non-complying agencies.
must supercede all state ordinances.
no lists may be kept which could be used as a gun registry.
system must be accessible to individuals, free of charge, without requirement to go through an FFL.
state and local authorities must provide timely and complete updates to federal databases.
there must be an appeal process if a prospective purchaser is denied.

maybe a couple of other things, i've only thought about this for a couple of minutes.

and no, EO is not the way to do this. at all. an EO would simply subvert the democratic process and inflame passions.
Hmmm... Not sure where the "must issue" came from in a discussion on background checks, unless it's just a piece of candy you want thrown in :)

"No lists" is a moot point with 4473's around.

But on the EO side - totally agree.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo.
Image
Image
Image

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

13
I am on my phone. So if his was a poll my bad. None of those choices reflect my personal views.

First what would a UBC constitute? For context, I live in MA. We have what amounts to a private sale UBC (it's actually a step removed, but you have to electronically validate the sale which validates our permits are still valid, which implies we have done nothing bad that would have caused us to lose those permits, which implies we would pass the background check at the time of the sale, it's a wee bit more nuanced than that, but I can argue details later).

So I have a way to validate that the personal sale I am about to engage in is not to a prohibited person.

I would love to see the 4473 system available to you and me. I would love to have that mechanism regardless of where that person lives. It would give me peace of mind. For the very narrow set of circumstances under which I might transact business with a possibly PP.

If you can make it inexpensive, non intrusive, and none registration driven. Just pass/fail/defer I think that would be a good thing.

The devils in the details. The details usually suck. What problem does it solve? Is that problem just angst or does it represent something that really happens? As has been mentioned the 40% figure is bullshit. I want laws to solve problems. Not prevent fantasy.

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

14
I am on my phone. So if his was a poll my bad. None of those choices reflect my personal views.

First what would a UBC constitute? For context, I live in MA. We have what amounts to a private sale UBC (it's actually a step removed, but you have to electronically validate the sale which validates our permits are still valid, which implies we have done nothing bad that would have caused us to lose those permits, which implies we would pass the background check at the time of the sale, it's a wee bit more nuanced than that, but I can argue details later).

So I have a way to validate that the personal sale I am about to engage in is not to a prohibited person.

I would love to see the 4473 system available to you and me. I would love to have that mechanism regardless of where that person lives. It would give me peace of mind. For the very narrow set of circumstances under which I might transact business with a possibly PP.

If you can make it inexpensive, non intrusive, and none registration driven. Just pass/fail/defer I think that would be a good thing.

The devils in the details. The details usually suck. What problem does it solve? Is that problem just angst or does it represent something that really happens? As has been mentioned the 40% figure is bullshit. I want laws to solve problems. Not prevent fantasy.

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

15
I have nothing against Universal Background Checks (UBC) but am also with Lurker who thinks that supporting UBC can be useful in exchanging for something else we want, such as full recognition of our existing concealed carry licenses in all states.

That being said, I don't do face-to-face sales anyway, both for logistical and other reasons. First, logistical - I don't want a buyer I don't know in my house and I sure don't want to meet him somewhere else he might suggest. Second, I don't want to be the last person who holds the official transfer paper in case my FTF buyer becomes a seller or theft victim to someone who comes under police investigation. ("Mr. Jaywalker, this is Detective Jones with the local police department and we'd like to know if you still own a Glock Model 17 with this serial number. If not, who and when did you sell it? Oh, you can't recall? Would you mind coming down to the station for a short talk?") That's just me, though, and I don't insist everyone do it my way.
Last edited by Jaywalker on Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary and those who don't.

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

16
Inquisitor wrote:I would love to see the 4473 system available to you and me. I would love to have that mechanism regardless of where that person lives. It would give me peace of mind. For the very narrow set of circumstances under which I might transact business with a possibly PP.
This would be the best use of a UBC, I think. Total transparency. But that would also mean that that info would be available to everyone. It easily could be misused.

There's really no good solution given the context: After 1936, agencies and laws existed and continue to exist, so the system is there. Probably UBC will remain restricted to those who "need to know," that is, licensed gun sellers and so on. Keeps in place the status quo so no new things really need to be done. Just more records to keep. It's a bad solution. I think that's what will happen.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

17
CDFingers wrote:
Inquisitor wrote:I would love to see the 4473 system available to you and me. I would love to have that mechanism regardless of where that person lives. It would give me peace of mind. For the very narrow set of circumstances under which I might transact business with a possibly PP.
This would be the best use of a UBC, I think. Total transparency. But that would also mean that that info would be available to everyone. It easily could be misused.

There's really no good solution given the context: After 1936, agencies and laws existed and continue to exist, so the system is there. Probably UBC will remain restricted to those who "need to know," that is, licensed gun sellers and so on. Keeps in place the status quo so no new things really need to be done. Just more records to keep. It's a bad solution. I think that's what will happen.

CDFingers
In MA we login. It's a cooperative adventure. Nobody can just run my permit without me present. Need the permit and my pin. That obviously isn't something that would satisfy my above criteria for a national system.

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

18
Federal UBC is aspirational. Could it happen? Sure. Would it happen? I have my doubts. In this day/age, most of us are/would be concerned with, "What happens with that info once the Feds have it?"

To that, I can see the concern and push-back. I have more issues with wrongly accused people getting put on the "No Fly" list rather than UBCs, but everyone has to have something to disagree with.

On a personal note, having TSA Precheck/Global Entry Status and a Texas License to Carry, I have been vetted/scrutinized by state/federal authorities for a while. If it means I can fast-track it through airport security and the Border Patrol, along with lawfully carry a firearm and buy one with no NICS check....you can UBC me up the ying-yang.

"Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty."
LGC Texas - Vice President

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

19
SailDesign wrote: Hmmm... Not sure where the "must issue" came from in a discussion on background checks, unless it's just a piece of candy you want thrown in :)
ok, poorly worded. :sorry: no, no candy. like the current NICS system, no arbitrary denials or over-long delays defaulting to prohibited status..
SailDesign wrote: "No lists" is a moot point with 4473's around.
no centralized electronically searchable database
SailDesign wrote: But on the EO side - totally agree.
well, there's something. IMO, the current NICS system is tolerable. there are people out there who shouldn't have guns. the basis for federal gun restrictions, i believe, is the interstate commerce part of the constitution, which justifies federal regulation of interstate gun sales, not what individuals can or should have guns, or what kind of guns, or sales within a state. so IMO, legalistically speaking, (no, i didn't stay at a holiday inn) the current system is already an infringement. but ok, that horse left the barn a long time ago, and maybe it's a good thing. but to those of us who think we see a trend in ever-increasing restriction, call it a "slippery slope" to coin a phrase ;) , ANY further federal regulations are a danger sign. we have very good reason to suspect that they're not going to stop with a UBC. or an "AWB". or magazine limits.
so if we're asked to implement something like this on a national scale, they're going to have to let us keep (notice, not "give" us) some assurances that there's an end to all this restriction other than disarmament. which is why i would want any national UBC to be extremely limited, with commitments in law to protect your and my individual rights, from, yes, government.
i'm retired. what's your excuse?

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

20
3. Support the idea of a UBC. and federal FOID* card
wouldn't mind seeing all weapons microchipped for ID and tracking.

(*FOID https://www.ispfsb.com/public/FOID.aspx on a federal level various databases could be used to find cheaters.
now that all the honest gun owners have a card saying they're honest, can we please get on with rounding up all the illegal guns and owners. if a badguy gets busted for a gun crime can we make sure that some bumblefuck prosector doesn't let them go home on a $2000 bail. oh geez, I gotta stop, feel a rant coming on. have a nice day.)

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

21
gungun wrote:oh geez, I gotta stop, feel a rant coming on. have a nice day.)
i barely stopped myself before going off on letting prohibited people walk away after trying to buy a gun, so yeah on that point, :beer2:

otherwise, #1, generally opposed. ( just in case you missed my earlier rants) :love:
i'm retired. what's your excuse?

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

22
gungun wrote:3. Support the idea of a UBC. and federal FOID* card
wouldn't mind seeing all weapons microchipped for ID and tracking.

(*FOID https://www.ispfsb.com/public/FOID.aspx on a federal level various databases could be used to find cheaters.
now that all the honest gun owners have a card saying they're honest, can we please get on with rounding up all the illegal guns and owners. if a badguy gets busted for a gun crime can we make sure that some bumblefuck prosector doesn't let them go home on a $2000 bail. oh geez, I gotta stop, feel a rant coming on. have a nice day.)
Be easier to just microchip all people at birth, with an on-off switch to be used when they misbehave.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
- Ronald Reagan

Re: Do you oppose a federal UBC?

24
gungun wrote:3. Support the idea of a UBC. and federal FOID* card
wouldn't mind seeing all weapons microchipped for ID and tracking.

(*FOID https://www.ispfsb.com/public/FOID.aspx on a federal level various databases could be used to find cheaters.
now that all the honest gun owners have a card saying they're honest, can we please get on with rounding up all the illegal guns and owners. if a badguy gets busted for a gun crime can we make sure that some bumblefuck prosector doesn't let them go home on a $2000 bail. oh geez, I gotta stop, feel a rant coming on. have a nice day.)
Yeah, I resonate here. Do stuff or pay bucks to exercise a right--some problem there. If you're "doing nothing wrong" you're fine. Something wrong there, too. If there's an infraction, there's a punishment. Some trouble there too from for profit prisons. Dang. I feel a range trip gestating.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest