The case for Background Checks WITHOUT a Registry

Post all political posts here.

Moderators: Hobie, AmBraCol

Forum rules
The rules are simple...
- no advocation of violence to anyone
- no cursing

Violation of the rules will result in deletion of the topic.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 25119
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

The case for Background Checks WITHOUT a Registry

#1 Post by AJMD429 » Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:24 pm

The word is circulating among firearms advocates that “You can't have a Background Check without a Gun Registry,” and I think this is a dangerous, and defeatist line of thought. I've heard many hard-line pro-gun speakers voice this thought, and I believe they are on the wrong track. Blanket opposition to 'background checks' is not going to prevent passage of a bill, but we can mitigate the damage IF we push back hard and fast.  

Here is why I don't believe that a Gun Registry has to be part of a Background Check:

First of all, many of us have various sorts of 'background checks' on a regular basis, and there aren't even any firearms involved.
  • We get a prescription filled, and the pharmacist checks against a state database of drug abusers.
    We purchase something with our credit card, and the seller verifies that we are good for the money.
    We board an airplane, and the TSA checks to see if we are a prohibited flyer.
None of those involve any firearms, so obviously don't involve any 'gun registry'.

Here is one way a registry-less Background Check could work if Sally Seller transfers to Paul Purchaser:
  • Sally wants to sell a firearm to Paul.
    Paul provides Sally with his Identifying Information (i.e. Name, Birth, Address, SS#).
    Sally calls the NICS, and provides the Identifying Information.
    Sally is issued a Transaction Approval Number, good for the date of the sale.
    Sally records the Date, Transaction Approval Number, and Name of the Purchaser.
    Sally can and should record the firearm identification for her own records, to protect herself.
    Paul copies the information for himself, along with the name of the Seller.
As of now – the Background Check HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. 
THIS is the alleged goal (and the ONLY goal) of the people who say 'background checks' would make us safer.

Objections that come up:

"Not everyone will participate” Guess what, I'll tell you a secret – that is true now, and will ALWAYS be true. The true criminals evade and disobey ALL laws. Our goal should be realistic – to assure that as many firearms sales as possible are made with background checks. This would absolutely meet that goal, because nobody wants to be the last owner of record for a firearm later used in a crime, and nobody wants to inadvertently sell to a criminal. Mandating sales through FFL dealers with inclusion into a federal gun registry would still not capture the 'prohibited possessors' or criminal purchases – those individuals simply steal or use the black market, the same place they get their drugs in most cases. 

“It is unenforceable” The question would be, who are we enforcing this against, and there are different answers, but I think none of them lead to an enforcement dilemma. There are several scenarios:
  • Suppose Paul is behaving questionably – if that's the case, the officer involved can simply to a current NICS check, and if Paul is indeed a 'prohibited possessor' then the officer can arrest him right then and there. It doesn't matter where the firearm came from; even if purchased from an FFL Paul would still be arrested. With a private sale, this would still be true whether or not there was a background check, and would be true even if the NICS check was ok at the time of sale. The only difference the latter would make is if the NICS check was done and Sally has that Transaction Approval, it would keep her from getting in trouble (which is a very strong motivation for Sally to use the NICS and insist on a background check before she sells a firearm).

    Suppose a firearm is being 'traced' (which is rarely pivotal in law enforcement, according to the FBI), and the trace goes from manufacturer, to wholesaler, to FFL retailer, then to the first individual who purchased the firearm, Fred. If Fred is no longer in possession of the firearm, he must therefore have transferred that firearm to someone else. If Fred has a date and Transaction Approval number, it means he transferred the firearm with a background check, and he is ok. Under this appropriate warrant, Fred can, should, and must provide the identification of who he sold the gun to, and so on down the line of transfers. Not a perfect or easy system, but actually far better than what the police have to work with today. If Fred did not do a NICS background check, he could be charged with transferring without a background check. (Note that if Fred is just a lousy bookkeeper, NICS could still pull up any checks he ran and the date, so he could at least prove he did a check and stay out of trouble).

    Suppose Melvin, who is not breaking any laws, is in possession of a firearm which may or may not have been transferred to him/her with a background check. That would be most of us today. First of all, that is not an 'issue' because most of us do not commit crimes with our firearms. Eventually when Melvin wants to transfer his firearms to someone, even a friend or relative, he can still call up NICS and do a background check. Melvin would be motivated to do so because failure to do that would incur legal penalties if later found out. He would not fear doing so, nor would his prospective buyer, because the firearm in question wouldn't be entered into any 'registry', so a corrupt government in the future which decided to arbitrarily confiscate firearms would not have that list.

    Suppose Harry is 'found with a gun' and it was one he purchased years ago, before any new laws requiring 'background checks' – is that a problem...? Again, if the officer runs a NICS check on Harry now, and he has become (or always was) a 'prohibited possessor', it doesn't matter – he is now in violation, and will go to jail. If Harry bought his firearm legally 10 years ago, he is still in trouble. If he stole it, or bought it on the black market recently, he is still in trouble, and in the latter case, if Harry squeals on his source, that person is also in trouble. If Harry bought his firearm recently, and skipped the background check, again if he squeals on the seller, the seller is in trouble. Of course Harry might lie (criminals do that) and say he just found the gun under a rock, but he could do that regardless of ANY new laws. Finally, if Harry bought the firearm recently and passed a NICS at the time of sale, but only became a prohibited possessor after that, the seller is protected, as they can document that whatever they sold us on the NICS date was an approved sale, but Harry is still in trouble.
This may seem complicated, and unfortunately, most gun-control fanatics don't have the patience to think very in-depth about the topic – they just want to “do something” - mostly to feel good about themselves, or virtue-signal to their peers. Still, some actually care about end results, and would like legislation that stands some chance of helping, and minimizes risk of abuse. 

What WE have to do is educate our legislators, AND our peers in the pro-gun community, as to how EASY it would be to open up NICS to private sales, and NOT create any federal gun registry...!!! 

The other part of the discussion, for the few legislators and 'concerned citizens' who have the attention span and intelligence to grasp it, is to educate them as to just WHY a federal gun registry is so very dangerous. Unfortunately, the concept of genocide, though an ongoing and consistent cause of over 4,000 innocent lives lost worldwide every single day, is so remote from those who live in the U.S., that they usually can't even conceive that it could ever happen. I just remind them that three generations ago the good citizens of Germany would have said the same exact thing. 

Anyway – PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS and share this information – they MUST get a handle on this BEFORE all the back-room deals and compromises, because after that, any changes to the legislation will be extremely unlikely. 

HERE is where you can find your legislator contact information - https://gunownersaction.org/legislator-lookup/
  • After you enter your zip code, the page will list your legislators.
    On the far right the black button says 'contact', but just to the left are the Twitter and Facebook logos.
    by those logos is a 'globe' symbol and that is the link to where you can email them.
While you're at it, use those links to send the same information to President Trump. 

Heck, send it to GOA and the NRA too – they may need encouragement to stand firm.

For that matter, go ahead and send it to your state legislators; I'm sure they will be bitten by the "just do something" bug.

Remember, Lyndon Johnson actually got this right when he said: 

"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "

User avatar
FWiedner
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8418
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: The case for Background Checks WITHOUT a Registry

#2 Post by FWiedner » Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:37 pm

.
A registry of potential owners is as bad or perhaps worse that a registry of guns, and that is precisely the function that NICS accomplishes. RIGHT NOW.

The goal can only be a more invasive 'background' check, the purpose of which is to expose and document even more sensitive personal information to government perusal.

Right now we register potential owners and firearms every single time we purchase a firearm from an FFL. Don't kid yourself.

IMO, the laws in place even at this time are a violation of our rights, and the spirit and the letter of the law.

Anything new is simply tightening the noose.

:|
Government office attracts the power-mad, yet it's people who just want to be left alone to live life on their own terms who are considered dangerous.

User avatar
Grizz
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 6955
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:15 pm

Re: The case for Background Checks WITHOUT a Registry

#3 Post by Grizz » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:01 am

THIS IS THE PROBLEM AS I SEE IT:

THE RIGHT TO OWN AND USE FIREARMS IS GIVEN BY GOD, AND PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

TO SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN REGISTER GUNS, OR OWNERS, OR TRANSACTIONS,

IS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF SAYING YOU CAN VOTE IF YOU OWN PROPERTY, ARE MALE, AND KNOW BASIC AMERICAN HISTORY AND CIVICS.


IOW, IT IS A BARGAIN WITH THE DEVIL ITSELF, AND THERE IS NO WAY TO NICEIFY THAT. STANDING FOR

A COMPROMISE ON BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS IS NOT A STAND AT ALL . . .


IMHO, grizz

User avatar
OldWin
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3080
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:38 pm
Location: Maine

Re: The case for Background Checks WITHOUT a Registry

#4 Post by OldWin » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:16 pm

What I don't get with the background check thing is what about the millions of "pre background check" guns already out there?
If I take a gun I've had for 20 years and sell or give it to someone, they can say THEY have had it for 20 years.
"Oh Bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered another round.

User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 25119
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: The case for Background Checks WITHOUT a Registry

#5 Post by AJMD429 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:29 pm

OldWin wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:16 pm
What I don't get with the background check thing is what about the millions of "pre background check" guns already out there?
If I take a gun I've had for 20 years and sell or give it to someone, they can say THEY have had it for 20 years.
Yep. There would be no way to prove that one way or the other.....BUT it wouldn't matter, IF the real focus is on "background checks being done" versus "where did that gun come from?" (And of course the antigunners lie about the real focus)

If someone has a gun and is not a prohibited person, nobody should care a bit, if we are to believe what the anti-gunners say ("you can keep your guns"...kind of like "you can keep your doctor" :wink: ). If someone has a gun and IS a prohibited person, arrest them, and if they squeal on where they got it, arrest that person too, unless they DID a background check and it was clean.

Again - the focus is supposed to be on the person, not the gun...
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "

User avatar
FWiedner
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8418
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: The case for Background Checks WITHOUT a Registry

#6 Post by FWiedner » Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:06 am

JMO, if a "prohibited" person buys a gun from a seller who doesn't know that person is prohibited, it should be on the buyer for breaking the law not the seller.

I'm not a cop. It's none of my business what your legal status is. If you got problems with the law, they are your problems.

But the law wants to drag as many people into the system as possible. You are your brother's keeper. If you don't play the part, then the state will become yours.

:|
Government office attracts the power-mad, yet it's people who just want to be left alone to live life on their own terms who are considered dangerous.

User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 27428
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Spanaway, Washington

Re: The case for Background Checks WITHOUT a Registry

#7 Post by Blaine » Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:49 pm

I used to have several firearms that were not traceable. They were all lost in a boating accident. In Puget Sound. In 480 fathoms of water. :cry: :cry:
A Man's Manners Are A Mirror In Which He Shares His Portrait. :idea:
Some People Just Need An Azz Kicking. :lol:

User avatar
FWiedner
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8418
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: The case for Background Checks WITHOUT a Registry

#8 Post by FWiedner » Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:22 pm

BlaineG wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:49 pm
I used to have several firearms that were not traceable. They were all lost in a boating accident. In Puget Sound. In 480 fathoms of water. :cry: :cry:
Until those arms are located and accounted for... You're GUILTY.

:idea:
Government office attracts the power-mad, yet it's people who just want to be left alone to live life on their own terms who are considered dangerous.

User avatar
Blaine
Posting leader...
Posts: 27428
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Spanaway, Washington

Re: The case for Background Checks WITHOUT a Registry

#9 Post by Blaine » Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:55 pm

FWiedner wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:22 pm
BlaineG wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:49 pm
I used to have several firearms that were not traceable. They were all lost in a boating accident. In Puget Sound. In 480 fathoms of water. :cry: :cry:
Until those arms are located and accounted for... You're GUILTY.

:idea:
Clearly, I was tongue in cheek, but I don't see how your statement could hold?
A Man's Manners Are A Mirror In Which He Shares His Portrait. :idea:
Some People Just Need An Azz Kicking. :lol:

User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 25119
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: The case for Background Checks WITHOUT a Registry

#10 Post by AJMD429 » Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:08 pm

The government would do like in other nations; announce an (unconstitutional) 'buyback' (of something they never owned), and after a set time to comply, come after those who had (arbitrarily) 'illegal' guns in the (legislatively prohibited) federal gun registry (that they first denied having, then bragged about, and said they would not discontinue), that they promised (fingers crossed) they would never take away (kind of like 'you can keep your doctor'). If a person denies having those guns, then is found with them later, off to jail. If you are a 'danger to society' (pro-gun activist) then they might frame you, set you up, or otherwise be creative in finding a reason to arrest you. That's the way they've done it in other countries. They would use non-local police who don't know you, and likely send them in with caution that you were 'armed and dangerous' or 'has a hostage' or something to get them revved up and ready to shoot if you do the least wrong thing. Someone with an auto-sear in their pocket to drop so another agent can 'find' it is all they need, maybe some heroin with it for good measure.

So far U.S. cops don't do much of that, but under another Democrat you bet they would....!
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest