Universal Background Checks sans registration

[USNRet93]

The poster specifically mentioned 'confiscation'..

Gonna be alot of $, time, manpower to 'chip away', bit by bit.., 'until they are all gone'...

Lets say 20,000 PER MONTH..1600+ years..200,000 per month? 166 years..

Look, I lament some of these trends also but 'confiscation' is turning into a sound bite..

Bloomberg gets mentioned a lot but his proposals..same as the comments by the 'guy in the big chair'..

UBC, RFL, 21 age limit, AW ban..

n a publicly televised meeting with lawmakers Wednesday, President Donald Trump took a moderate tone on gun control, telling members of Congress that they should not be afraid to defy the National Rifle Association in passing a comprehensive school safety package.

At one point, Trump urged taking guns away from anyone who could be considered dangerous, even before they have to he opportunity to defend themselves in court. “Take the guns first, go through due process second,” he said.

In his meeting Wednesday, Trump encouraged lawmakers to pass a comprehensive bill that would expand background checks and raise the age limit for purchasing weapons to 21. The NRA has said it opposes raising the age limit for buying guns.

He told Republicans not to incorporate legislation that passed in the House of Representatives last year that would expand provisions for carrying concealed firearms because it would never pass. He also said lawmakers should not bother including a ban on bump stocks — accessories that dramatically increase semi-automatic weapons’ potential rate of fire — because he would enact a ban through Executive Order.

In regards to strengthening background checks, Trump specifically urged that lawmakers merge two ideas: the bipartisan proposal from Senators Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin, which expands background checks on gun sales and the Fix NICS Act, which would hold federal agencies accountable for failing to upload relevant records for background checks.

 

[Jim Watson]

I'll wade into this..how exactly do you confiscate about 400 MILLION guns?

You don't. You totally ban possession of a class of gun - "assault weapon", "Saturday night special". You will get a few surrendered voluntarily. You will pick up some more when somebody gets SWATted or Red Flagged or in conjunction with investigation of some other charge. The rest go underground, not visible to the policymakers. Problem solved, next category.

 

[American Man]

Even with the most extensive background check that could be dreamt of, of which you would be issued a Halo that designates you as safe to the world, who here would change the way they do anything? Who would feel safer and why? If you are being lulled into some compromise, you might want to snap out of it... and maybe explain how you would really be safer than you are now. And spare me the, "at least a felon will not be able to just walk into the store and buy a gun" crap. That is the minimum that is supposed to be prevented by NICS and the Gov't can't even seem to do that right in some cases.

I wouldn't change a tactic or lower my level of guard, or paranoia as I believe some call it. Democrats want Comprehensive immigration that includes a pathway to citizen ship for all illegal aliens with no restrictions on those who come in after. What is the point of compromising with them on anything with that? Didn't they make a sucker out of Reagan bigtime? Now they want UBCs that will give them the advantage they want with their dream of registration and dreams of confiscation. None of this is being done to protect anyone. None of this is to save school children from Adam Lanza types. The only concern from the left is putting more pressure on our necks or lay more groundwork for the foundation that will put more pressure on our necks.

Some people think the current system works... but for who?

I say a NICS check to make sure a felon can't buy a gun from a dealer is about the best this country is ever going get... and this will only cause a felon get their gun somewhere else... for cheaper. But if people really want to irrationally feel that there is a safety net out there, well, NICS is the best they're going to get... sweet dreams to them.

UBCs are nothing but a cudgel to bash law abiding citizens into giving up more rights in the name of common sense and what you get in return is nothing... you won't be safer, crime will not go down, but there will be more opportunity for you to become a felon.

I say all additional efforts should be made into making targets harder and every effort put elsewhere is negligent and a dereliction of duty.

I'll point out the obvious. What states have the tightest restrictions, regulations and laws? What states have the highest crime rates and least freedom? And we're supposed to follow their lead?

 

[44 AMP]

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” he said.

I wonder how those millionaire/Billionaire people would feel if we applied the same process to their MONEY????

Accused/under investigation of a crime, (any crime) FREEZE THEIR ASSETS. ALL OF THEM. EVERY SINGLE PENNY. After all, they could use their money to flee the country, or buy guns, or hitmen, or even lawyers!!

Ok, maybe not ALL their money, allow them a Federal minimum wage allowance, to "live on" but take away EVERYTHING else, until AFTER "due process" Just to teach them a lesson.

People are willing and happy to support the most outlandish and restrictive laws, WHEN they believe the consequences will never apply to them, personally.

I will say it again, and again though the powers that be don't listen. IF a person is such a risk to public safety you feel you need to take their guns away,. you need to take that PERSON away. (lock them up).

Sure, we'll all be safe if you take some wackjob's guns but leave them on the street where they are able to hijack airplanes with boxcutters or burn down a nightclub with a gallon of gasoline....or commit other crimes of violence with means other than firearms. IF the risk is there, lock up the person, not their property. anything else is just BS.

 

[DaleA]

I will say it again, and again though the powers that be don't listen. IF a person is such a risk to public safety you feel you need to take their guns away,. you need to take that PERSON away. (lock them up).

If people can't understand this simple fact I despair.

Sure, we'll all be safe if you take some wackjob's guns but leave them on the street where they are able to hijack airplanes with boxcutters or burn down a nightclub with a gallon of gasoline....or commit other crimes of violence with means other than firearms. IF the risk is there, lock up the person, not their property. anything else is just BS.

Gosh, do you think we could get the Gonzales Girl to support this "common sense" conclusion? She likes calling BS...

 

[bn12gg]

Imo, every hand gun that passes from one individual ownership to another, including a family member, should go thru a background check. Just simple common sense.

.02. David.

Ps. I am NRA

 

[44 AMP]

why?

(sharpens knives, on which no background check was ever done, and waits for a reply....)

 

[USNRet93]

Democrats want Comprehensive immigration that includes a pathway to citizen ship for all illegal aliens with no restrictions on those who come in after.

BUT

Two Republican senators introduced a slimmed-down version of the Dream Act on Monday, hoping to offer a more conservative option to grant a pathway to citizenship to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, but with more strings attached and over a longer time frame.

U.S. President Donald Trump is offering a path to citizenship for up to 1.8 million young illegal immigrants but insists on measures that would curb some legal immigration programs and provide a border wall with Mexico, senior White House officials said on Thursday.

 

[American Man]

BUT

What I was getting at is why compromise with a bunch of ideologues who are not really offering us anything? What is the compromise?... burdensome bureacracy for what benefit?... public safety? As far as Reagan, he got played, but Trump is not going to be played... which is why the ideologues will use their "It's Comprehensive or it's Nothing" excuse and any meaningful solutions will never go anywhere. Same as with UBCs... the ideologues only want a new database they can use to weaponize when they have their own in the white house. They don't care about anything else... just the New Weapon to target Americans... and I'm sure they'll bring Lois Lerner out of retirement to get the new weapon off the ground and running.

All a correctly functioning new Halo Issuing UBC database/system/dream will do is give someone a false sense of security that SOMETHING (or ANYTHING) is being done. At best it will cause some prohibited person to get their guns illegally... pretty much the same system already in place that the criminals use.

Why not have breathalyzers hooked up to every single automobile engine? Even for those who don't drink. Won't that stop drunk driving? Apparently to some who think a background check for every firearm.. or actually they stated "hand gun"... which is probably what their party line email talking points of the day stated, should have no problem with the check just giving a "hand gun" to their brother or mother. Meanwhile, since the last felony I did not commit, I haven't not committed a felony since then either... but that's ok, it's not a burden or insult to me... I should be happy about going through another pointless background check... hell, I should even be happy about paying for it.

 

[Tom Servo]

Just simple common sense.

Saying something is common sense doesn't make it so. We've had the Brady background-check system for over 20 years now. There have been innumerable studies, and nobody's been able to show that it had any measurable effect on crime, much less the huge declines we were promised.

If the system doesn't do any good, it doesn't seem very sensible to expand it.

 

[reynolds357]

I'll wade into this..how exactly do you confiscate about 400 MILLION guns?

one at a time.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I'll wade into this..how exactly do you confiscate about 400 MILLION guns?

Well, first you need to figure out who owns what (i.e. Australia-style). When you do it backwards (confiscate before registration, i.e. New Zealand-style), it doesn’t work so well, even in a country with a tiny population of gun owners, licensing, and extensive regulation.

 

[HiBC]

How about once they pass the law

OK,you hold out. You keep your guns. You get caught with them,you are a felon. That has you looking over your shoulder. You are living in hiding.

How much of owning your guns is being able to take them out and shoot them?

How is that going to work out for you? If the penalty is a felony,where can you go shooting where you know for sure you will be undetected?

We won't even talk about ammo after gun confiscation.

OK,there are a few individuals here who have a comfort level with with increased gun laws. You can think and feel however you want.I support your freedom to do that.
I don't want to impose upon you or control you.
In the state of Colorado,where I live, the Narcissists who consider themselves the enlightened elite don't seem to share that concept. They are all about imposing and controlling.And taking.


But you are one person,one vote,and not one bit more significant than I am.

Despite the fact that some people talk about "Our Democracy" ,we are a Constittional Republic,not a Democracy. We are not ruled by a man (or Woman) We are not ruled by a mob of men or women.Not tyranny of the majority Or poll results.

We are governed by Constitutional Principles which protect the Individual Liberty of the minority of just one citizen. That includes my right to keep and bear arms.

Those Rights are not yours or mine to fool with. They are a legacy for our children and grandchildren.

I know where those Rights came from. Its a Higher Authority than government.

 

[kmw1954]

UBC without Registration?

I have brought up this thought a few times and have either been ignored or fully torched, But I believe like AMP44 in post #9 that it is fully possible but will never happen because registration is what the Gun Control groups ultimately want and then total gun elimination. I also agree with Spats last paragraph and last sentence in post #25.

Now I also have a little different approach than a UBC which would be a Universal or National FIOD Where one would apply and proceed through a comprehensive background check just one time. One wouldn't even need to be a firearm owner to posses a UFOID card, but by having one it would show that the holder is not a restricted person. Then one would just need show this card whenever a purchase is made and at the same time the seller could also provide one so I as the buyer can have somewhat of an assurance that I am not buying a gun that was just used in a robbery or murder.

We are advancing enough in security ID procedures that a quick search by the police could return if a person possessed a FOID and if arrested they would be forfeited their card and investigated then as to if they actually own any firearms.

This UFOID could also be set up to allow different levels such as plain ownership, Concealed Carry, or fully automatic firearms. Then this card would also be valid in any of the 50 CONUS...

I thought the whole idea of a UBC is to check the person as to their ability to legally posses a firearm and not a means to registration.

An example for me would be an argument I had with my auto insurance company. I had an old truck that I carried liability insurance on and I got rid of it and replaced it with a newer SUV, again with just liability coverage and my rate went up $300.00 per year and I asked why. They told me it was because of the model of the SUV. So I again asked WHY. You are covering me and my driving record not the car model. I still have the same driving record. Also with this coverage you are not going to repair or replace this car if it get wrecked. They couldn't give me an answer to that. I am now looking for a new insurance company.

 

[Spats McGee]

Imo, every hand gun that passes from one individual ownership to another, including a family member, should go thru a background check. Just simple common sense.

.02. David.

Ps. I am NRA

I'll echo others' sentiments.

• Why?
• Claiming it's 'simple common sense' doesn't make it so.

 

[Spats McGee]

....Now I also have a little different approach than a UBC which would be a Universal or National FIOD Where one would apply and proceed through a comprehensive background check just one time. One wouldn't even need to be a firearm owner to posses a UFOID card, but by having one it would show that the holder is not a restricted person....

Realistically, the odds of non-firearm owners getting UFOIDs approaches zero. This mechanism, then, becomes a registry of gun owners. No, thank you.

....Then one would just need show this card whenever a purchase is made and at the same time the seller could also provide one so I as the buyer can have somewhat of an assurance that I am not buying a gun that was just used in a robbery or murder....

You've already said that under your proposed sysem, the gun wouldn't be checked. So the buyer really doesn't get much of an assurance. Really, what the buyer can count on is the following: (1) at the time of the issuance of the UFOID; (2) the seller had not been done something or been through some process subsequent to issuance that resulted in revoking and confiscating the UFOID.

....This UFOID could also be set up to allow different levels such as plain ownership, Concealed Carry, or fully automatic firearms. Then this card would also be valid in any of the 50 CONUS...

I thought the whole idea of a UBC is to check the person as to their ability to legally posses a firearm and not a means to registration....

As I mentioned above, what you're proposing is a means to register gun owners rather than guns. That really doesn't give me any warm fuzzies, either.

 

[USNRet93]

In the state of Colorado,where I live, the Narcissists who consider themselves the enlightened elite don't seem to share that concept. They are all about imposing and controlling. And taking.
Not the governor, it seems.

Rep. Jared Polis says he thinks banning weapons possessed by law-abiding people violates the Second Amendment: "I believe it would make it harder for Colorado families to defend themselves and also interfere with the recreational use of guns by law- abiding Coloradans," Polis said. "If we want to reduce violence, we should invest in improving our schools to ensure that young people have jobs and do not turn to gangs, crime or violence of any form, and improving access to mental health services."

The governor has mentioned nothing that the POTUS hasn't mentioned..UBC, RFL, 21yo to purchase, AW ban(with grand father clause)...

 

[kmw1954]

Spats I also mentioned that a UBC is supposed to be about the person making the transaction and not the item being bought or sold so how is that different than what I suggested? The individual is processing through a Check only their way they have to do it every time they make a purchase and then pay a fee also. Sounds to me like a revenue generator.

Also as has been brought up, times and societies change, populations and voters attitudes change. At some point something is going to happen, may not be tomorrow or not this decade but it will happen at the present speed and course we are on now. So ask yourself which way would you want it to be? No this does not give me the "Warm Fuzzies" either and I just hope that I will be passed on when we as a society finally arrive at this point.

As far as FOID holders not owning guns, Why Not? Long ago I lived in Illinois and had a FOID, got divorced and sold all my guns though I still had my card. My older brother also now has an FOID and no longer possesses any firearms because of physical limitations. small sample size but a valid sample all the same.

 

[44 AMP]

Originally Posted by kmw1954
....Now I also have a little different approach than a UBC which would be a Universal or National FIOD Where one would apply and proceed through a comprehensive background check just one time. One wouldn't even need to be a firearm owner to posses a UFOID card, but by having one it would show that the holder is not a restricted person....

NO!! No, no, no! NO APPLY!!! IF you are going to do it, and do it nationwide, (trampling over STATE's RIGHTS in the process), then you do it to every freakin body in the country.

This is not a matter where "mother, may I?" is the proper response. Look, if you want to go cap in hand, bow your head, tug your forelock, kneel before the laird, and ask for permission to exercise your Constitutional rights (ANY OF THEM), you go ahead, but don't be telling the rest of us this is what we should do. Oh, and by the way, your lordship, would you be giving me a card proving I asked permission, and you granted it???

NO!

Show your card so you can buy? Or TRANSFER?? Again, this is PROOVE YOU ARE INNOCENT, so you can exercise a fundamental natural right?
And, it goes even further than that. As mentioned, while there will be a relative handful of people who APPLY for the card and don't have guns, those will be people who think they might someday want a gun, or as you mentioned, people who had guns and later sold them off and didn't replace them. The rest of the country, those people who don't have guns, and aren't planning on having guns simply WILL NOT APPLY. And therefore, yes, it creates a de facto registration of gun owners.

And, you know, once you're on the list, you're on the list....
The nightmare scenario is a gang of masked men, wearing black uniforms, coal scuttle helmets, combat boots (because jackboots are out of fashion) carrying German made submachine guns, kick in your door at 3AM, drag you and your family out of bed, prone you out on the cold ground, handcuffed while the ransack your home looking for your guns. Not finding any (you say you got rid of them years ago, they think you're lying and just more clever than most at hiding them), they literally tear your house apart brick by brick. After several hours, where you're not arrested, you don't get to call your lawyer, or do anything but watch helpless (maybe they stomp your kitten to death...) They finally let you go and leave, because they couldn't find any guns. No apology, nothing. They'll leave you with your house torn up, front door broken off the hinges...AND, that's if you are LUCKY enough not to be killed and your house burned down!

Don't think it can happen in the USA??? go read your history (what hasn't been "corrected"), it has happened.

Want a REALLY scary thought to add to that??? Afterwards, you do get ahold of your lawyer, you want something done!!! The lawyer checks with the police, and all govt agencies, and they all say "we didn't do that!" Come in and file a crime report.....

What might happen if the list of FOID holders (like CCW holders or any permit holders) gets stolen/hacked, released on the web, or otherwise available to the criminal underworld??

Sure, times change, attitudes change, and we all hope to be led into a brighter tomorrow. But when it comes to gun control we aren't being led, we are being driven, and just because you're in the front of the pack doesn't mean those in the back don't feel the whips.

I don't mean to pick on you, specifically, I'm just saying some extreme things to make a point. IF we don't stop it now, we ARE going to suffer, more, later.

Their foot IS in the door, the camel's nose is under the tent, we have very little chance of undoing what has already been done, (and in some places, done for generations) but we should not be helping them or just meekly allowing them to continue.

do you know the difference between a serf and a slave?

The spelling.

 

[Spats McGee]

Spats I also mentioned that a UBC is supposed to be about the person making the transaction and not the item being bought or sold so how is that different than what I suggested? The individual is processing through a Check only their way they have to do it every time they make a purchase and then pay a fee also. Sounds to me like a revenue generator.

I think I know which statement of mine you're talking about, but am not entirely certain. You said, and I'm going to edit to narrow the focus and underline for emphasis:

.....comprehensive background check just one time.....show this card whenever a purchase is made and at the same time the seller could also provide one so I as the buyer can have somewhat of an assurance that I am not buying a gun that was just used in a robbery or murder.

Under this system, the buyer has no way of knowing whether the gun 'was used in a robbery or murder.' That was the point I'm trying to make. You could be relatively certain that the buyer had not committed such a crime as of the time this UFOID was issued, but that's all you'd know. Let's say that I get this UFOID and decide to kill my second cousin. Seventy-two hours later, I sell the gun in a private sale. Present my UFOID card, sell the gun and the seller has no way of knowing that it had, in fact, been used in a murder.

Also as has been brought up, times and societies change, populations and voters attitudes change. At some point something is going to happen, may not be tomorrow or not this decade but it will happen at the present speed and course we are on now. So ask yourself which way would you want it to be? No this does not give me the "Warm Fuzzies" either and I just hope that I will be passed on when we as a society finally arrive at this point.

I'll pass on trying to appease the antis. They're like the Terminator. They don't know mercy. They don't know pain. They will never stop.

As far as FOID holders not owning guns, Why Not? Long ago I lived in Illinois and had a FOID, got divorced and sold all my guns though I still had my card. My older brother also now has an FOID and no longer possesses any firearms because of physical limitations. small sample size but a valid sample all the same.

But you were a gun owner, as was your older brother. What possible reason would drive someone who had no intentions of owning a gun to get one of these UFOIDs?