Defensive Carry banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

UBCs, A Line in the Sand

11K views 203 replies 58 participants last post by  OD* 
#1 ·
Universal Background Checks have become the battle cry for all sides of the gun argument in this country. Several states have either passed them or have referendums pending for upcoming elections. Nothing gets an argument going quicker than another cry for more gun legislation, and UBCs are the most-commonly-cited measures.

I have purchased quite a few firearms in my life, and every one of them since about 1995 has been done in conjunction with a background check. Once, in 2008, I had a three-day wait. It was irritating, to be sure, but a one-time occurrence. Other than that, fill out the form, wait a few minutes, then complete the transaction.

What ill effects would the implementation of UBCs have on me here in Hooterville, Ohio? I'm already on the gun owner/carrier registry as a Concealed Handgun License holder. UBCs won't change that. I bought nearly all my guns utilizing already-existing background checks, so no changes there.

Why do Second Amendment advocates everywhere want me to expend time, expense and aggravation opposing UBCs? What is the actual downside to adding that which, according to the talking heads on our side only account for about seven percent of all gun sales?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
well, how about the botched version of it here in Colorado that won't even let me heir my guns to my kids? or the conjoining "high capacity" laws that accompanied them so I must, apparently, destroy (or surrender?) all my "hi-cap" mags before I die since I can't bequeath those to my children either?

How about the fact that our new P2P laws here in colo are so screwed up that sheriff's are saying they think they are technically breaking the law by issuing weapons to officers w/out a check?
(I can't find that article easily now)

How about the Colorado woman involved in a car accident, had her legal CCW weapon taken in for safe keeping by the sheriff's, and then could not get possession of her weapon again?
Colorado Woman Can't Get Her Gun Back, Thanks To New Law | The Daily Caller

how about that Colorado laws are so botched that I am technically breaking the law by allowing my wife to fire a gun purchased in my name? and vice versa?

How about the fact that to cover that many exceptions the law would have so many holes in it it would be completely pointless?

How about the fact that these laws are completely un-enforceable?

....unless there is a complete nationwide *above the table* gun registry?


Is that enough? or are you still okay with the "mild inconvenience" ???
 
#3 ·
I live in Ca. Where Background checks have been the law of the land since I bought my first gun in 1996. 3 days is just a fact of life here. However it has not stopped me from buying any gun I have wanted. (Ca legal gun). I have also never needed to buy a gun spur of the moment. I just plan accordingly. I don't mind the check as I am a person of good moral character and have nothing in my past hat would prohibit me from purchasing a firearm or obtaining my CCW ( even in Comifornia)

I see your point Mike. It is really a non sequitur argument. Although some will always take the slippery slope side (but that can be argued for or against any point on any side of any question).
 
#4 ·
Halting the ability of Joe Schmoe from acquiring a defensive tool if rapidly needed ... if for whatever reason the system's down, the gubmint says no, or the stars align badly.

"System" issues, such as incorrect association of another person with a given person's name/data, along with the potential nightmare to clear up that bad reference and/or bad data. Indeed, all it would take to nix 80% or more of the transactions (for a time) would be to "zap" the system and make it unresponsive.

Who knows how much circumvention of the tracking/tracing controls are done, on a daily basis. Some FFL's we're aware of speak loudly, from time to time, about how years' worth of data is trundled out when the BATFE wrangles over a year's transactions during the audits. Where does such data come from, if specifically denied lawful authority to capture years' worth of data, hm? Abuse and malfeasance, breach of oath, and all that? Ya think?

Plus, anyone grousing loudly enough is very possibly going to come to the attention of one of the "list" makers, somewhere, being deemed a threat simply due to grousing about an armed citizenry being impeded. And who knows who makes such lists, what it takes to actually get proclaimed a threat, etc.

The simple fact that it's an impediment to whomever is looking to transact, getting in the way of a person's transaction, inflicting costs upon the person, inflicting time delays upon the person. Doesn't matter that it's "minimal" in the eyes of some or that the risks of abuse or mistakes are relatively few and far between along with being unlikely to last long.

It's infringement, pure and simple. In the same way it would be for people being forcibly required to "buy a vowel" before speaking, showing just cause for acquiring a pencil or selling a computer, etc. In addition to being against the sworn oaths of every public servant hired by the people to actually protect, defend and uphold the Constitution.

Plus, in the long run, allowing that slope to get ever more slippery risks the very foundations of the rule of law. While it might be possible for an average person to ignore all the rest, nobody's going to be capable of ignoring the Orwellian, Georgian future such a path ultimately has in store.

Folks so desiring such a path won't see it. Folks incapable of seeing beyond the time involvement won't see it. Folks unwilling to listen to the legitimacy of the risks won't see it. Folks believing the quips from the Court indicating a continuing willingness to circumvent and sidestep the Constitution's controls won't listen to it.

Off the top of my head, that's a start. I'm sure there's more.
 
#5 ·
I remember when 4473s were the outrage of gun owners. I was upset because I could not mail order a surplus 1911 or 03 Springfield anymore. Before the 1968 act, a sworn statement, to your age, was all that was necessary to mail order anything, except for the 1934 NFA act items.

To answer your question, "Nothing is EVER enough". Although the UBC sounds like a good idea, it will morph from a lizard to a dragon.

Today's culture only cares about NOW. A patriot cares about 100 years from now.
 
#45 ·
I too grew up before 4473, background checks and FFLs, at 12 years old I could walk into any hardware store and for 69 cents purchase a box of 22LR or for a dollar walk out with a box of 20ga shells. Try doing that now then tell me our rights have not been infringed upon.
 
#6 ·
UBC's are yet another control, and as noted in Washington State, you have to technically and legally go though a UBC to let your buddy, spouse, whoever, borrow your firearm (hunting rifle or shotgun for example), or even shoot one of them at the range. I do believe nail guns were included in that bills description.

Govt trying to regulate private sales is a slippery slope with precedence.

It should not matter what the 2A law or regulation they are trying to pass, no more giving up ground - even on 7%.
 
#8 ·
UBC's are yet another control, and as noted in Washington State, you have to technically and legally go though a UBC to ...
The long and short of it: protected liberties via government permission, doled out when the "rulers" approve of it.

Fool about down that path at our peril. Caution is due.
 
#7 ·
The notion that we should have to ask the government's permission in the first place is where we went wrong. Expanding that to individual sales takes the asinine concept and doubles down on it. Furthermore, the more time the anti-gun morons spend trying to get this passed, the less time they have to go after their more grandiose schemes. I say stop them here and begin turning it back from here, rather than giving the spoiled children yet another unwarranted treat.
 
#20 ·
Yep....

I do not want to give up one more inch. 21,000 laws on the books already. Enough.......
 
#36 ·
No, as antagonizing as I can sometimes be, my questions here are legit. Aside from the slippery slope and the overkill achieved in some locales, background checks have always been a part of the norm for me, and have never posed any lasting difficulties or more-than-momentary inconveniences.
 
#11 ·
What harm? If a record of the checks is kept, then the government has a list of gun owners. Some worry this makes rounding up the guns inevitable. But if the government does not keep records of the check, then I see no problem. While in theory the federal government does not keep these records, I understand a number of individual states do keep a record of each firearm and its owner. That goes much further than any background check.

Even so, how serious can that be considering how many of us here have our guns listed in our signature, and possibly on Facebook, are members of the NRA or similar organizations, subscribe to gun magazines, etc. Not exactly a secret, is it?

As it stands now, the check only takes a few minutes. Nothing like a government security clearance. Not even close to any commercial background check as part of a job or contract. Hey, for many jobs, I have gone and peed in a cup to prove I don't do drugs as part of the hiring process. Maybe the checkbox on the current form is nothing more than an intelligence test? Nobody has asked me to pee in a cup for a gun purchase, or for a carry permit.

The current system is a muddled mess, but the key text does not say "an unregulated militia, …"
 
#14 ·
I personally do not have a problem with universal background checks per se.

I just think that A. it's unenforceable against the people it's aimed at, and therefore a pointless burden on law-abiding citizens, B. likely to be executed in a manner that involves something that I do have a problem with, like the government compiling a list of buyers, and C. not likely to be implemented in a competent manner given almost literally everything else that the government does.
 
#16 ·
^ That's another aspect: the pointlessness and ineffectiveness = $$ ill-spent if the goal is in fact "crime control."

Beyond the wasted $$, one has to wonder that if it's not for "crime" control then what could it possibly be for?

Citizen control, perchance?
 
#19 ·
I say absolutely not. We already have laws that punish the criminal misuse of guns and knives.
Or, more specifically, we have statutes that cover criminal violence and impending threat of violence. It's not about weaponry, let alone about mere possession or carrying or ownership.

At least, it shouldn't be about the tools. It should strictly be about the people committing the harms. And the statutes covering murder, robbery and the rest already do that. It's simply our extreme inability and/or unwillingness to hold folks accountable for such bad acting is what undermines it all. Never were able to magically see via a crystal ball who the bad actors were, prior to acting badly; and we never will. No new "wishful thinking" legislation will ever change that.
 
#18 ·
Why do Second Amendment advocates everywhere want me to expend time, expense and aggravation opposing UBCs? What is the actual downside to adding that which, according to the talking heads on our side only account for about seven percent of all gun sales?

If you aren't opposed to UBC then you are part of the problem.


Right now...it is not illegal to do a private transaction. Therefore, the background check doesn't really have the teeth that the ANTI's want it to.


The next battle will be for the Universal Background Check. It will be touted as something necessary to do for our safety.

There can be no real gun control until it is instituted. ONLY when the government makes the private transactions illegal, will they have the legal prerogative to enforce it.

UBC...think about it. You cant even give your WIFE a gift of a gun without her going through a background check...a check that will have to go through an FFL that YOU will have to pay for because it is the same as a transfer.


When it is passed, and I have no doubt that it will be because people have been brainwashed into thinking it is needed for our own safety....it will be a CRIME for anyone to have a gun that hasn't been properly transferred.


Consider that there was NO background check, NO Federal Firearms Licence required until 1968.


For those that are naive enough to think its no big deal, every gun, serial number, time and place is placed in a federal registry...and while there are laws against a registry now, even so, the ATF has all the data they need to do a trace. Its never a big deal,until one day you wake up and some politician has decided that because no one else in the world can have them, we dont need them either....and private ownership of firearms is no more.


UBC's are but one step to total control.
One step towards confiscation.

If you aren't smart enough to see that, then there is no further use in arguing against it and dont bother whining about it when the day comes that you have to turn them all in.
 
#68 ·
UBC's just don't do what the supporters claim to do, and they do so at massive cost and inconvenience of the law abiding. It is sold as an ultimate solution for a base level problem (eliminate evil), a panacea for the "victims" of today. UBC's solve nothing. Nothing. Nothing at ALL.

That is enough, in my book, to oppose, not even considering the fact the supporters of UBC's are lying despicable shills for the likes of the the disgusting mouth-breathing moronic neanderthal leaders.

DingBat, HotGuns and numerous other esteemed members and commentators, summed up my feelings quite well.

I don't believe Mike is that dumb...
Where's the evidence?

It's not this thread! :rofl:
 
#22 ·
Universal Background Checks will do nothing but make the anti-gun grip tighter around our necks. And get the anti-gun people closer to their goal, take them all away and make them all illegal.

It's not a slippery slope and it's not a straw man argument. They have been picking away at our rights, a little at a time. Cali is a perfect example of this.
 
#29 ·
They have been picking away at our rights, a little at a time. Cali is a perfect example of this.
Oh, the state level of regulation. Now that is a true mess. Lets not forget New York, and Rhode Island is also deserves a spot on such a list.

I'm going to NY soon, and have business there. So while FOPA would in theory protect me while traveling through, it doesn't when I have reason to be there. But rather than re-hashing the "affirmative defense" clause, lets consider PA. There is no place I can store the gun for pickup after I return from NY.

While each state may argue its own laws are reasonable for their own environment, the combination of laws in adjacent states effectively eliminated my R2KABA on this trip. They will stay in a safe place in my home state.

The TN requirement to use NICS worked fine for me, I didn't see it as limiting my rights at all. It isn't the problem. And since I don't live in NY or PA, I have no say in making it possible to exercise my right there without risking arrest for civil disobedience (by bringing my weapon), which in and of itself would cost me the very right I should be able to exercise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike1956
#30 ·
Universal Background Checks have become the battle cry for all sides of the gun argument in this country. Several states have either passed them or have referendums pending for upcoming elections. Nothing gets an argument going quicker than another cry for more gun legislation, and UBCs are the most-commonly-cited measures.

I have purchased quite a few firearms in my life, and every one of them since about 1995 has been done in conjunction with a background check. Once, in 2008, I had a three-day wait. It was irritating, to be sure, but a one-time occurrence. Other than that, fill out the form, wait a few minutes, then complete the transaction.


What ill effects would the implementation of UBCs have on me here in Hooterville, Ohio? I'm already on the gun owner/carrier registry as a Concealed Handgun License holder. UBCs won't change that. I bought nearly all my guns utilizing already-existing background checks, so no changes there.

Why do Second Amendment advocates everywhere want me to expend time, expense and aggravation opposing UBCs? What is the actual downside to adding that which, according to the talking heads on our side only account for about seven percent of all gun sales?
What ill effects you ask? You already answered your own question. And, if you don't see the problem, you are part of it.
 
#31 ·
Under UBC: So I bought our Glocks under my name. Home invasion occurs, she uses Glock to stop the threat. That was an illegal transfer?

Yea, no. We've given enough ground. This is death of the 2nd Amendment by 1000 cuts. Im done. No more.

They will always want one more thing after every overhyped, is-the-head-dead-yet killing.

They ignore every DGU: https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/

Here is a list of all the PoS killers that passed the background check. Anti's only logical endpoint is banning guns.

Attackers and alleged attackers have passed background checks for their guns. These include Vester Lee Flanagan (Virginia) John Russell Houser (Lafayette), Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez (Chattanooga), Dylann Roof (Charleston), Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi (Garland), Jared and Amanda Miller (Las Vegas), Elliot Rodger (Santa Barabara), Ivan Lopez (Fort Hood 2014), Darion Marcus Aguilar (Maryland mall), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School), Paul Ciancia (LAX), Andrew John Engeldinger (Minneapolis), Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard), Tennis Melvin Maynard (West Virginia), Wade Michael Page (Sikh Temple), James Holmes (Aurora theater), Jared Loughner (Tucson), Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood 2009), Jiverly Wong (Binghamton), Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Naveed Haq (Seattle), and Mark Barton (Atlanta).
 
  • Like
Reactions: OD*
#32 ·
Under UBC: So I bought our Glocks under my name.
NOT ONLY THAT. Gramps has surprised me with presents upon occasion. Yes, guns: NOT ROSES! And how many of "youse guys" have written posts about your wonderful wife gifting YOU with a new gun? Under UBC THAT WOULD BE TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL.

AND -- we have friends coming to visit. The highlight of their weekend visit is gong to be shooting each other's guns. Under UBC THAT WOULD BE TOTALLY ILLEGAL.

Some of you say it doesn't matter. I say it matters very, very much!

Granny says - she also shouts it from the rooftops when necessary.
 
#39 ·
It'll be inconvenient all right when it no longer becomes legal to own weapons.

Socialism usually doesn't happen over night.

It happens one step at a time and once it starts it never stops. What may seem like a minor inconvenience today for you, will at some point be a major inconvenience for your kids.
 
#41 ·
And from what I have experienced, I think NICS, in and of itself, falls within constitutional bounds.
I have several customers that would argue that.

Its all fine and dandy until you get denied for no reason and you cant get your stuff due to their mistake and the burden of proof is on you too prove that you are INNOCENT.


Whats constitutional about that?
 
#43 ·
Its all fine and dandy until you get denied for no reason and you cant get your stuff due to their mistake and the burden of proof is on you too prove that you are INNOCENT.
Same issue with credit reports, and identity theft. Burden of proof is then on the victim. It sucks. So would 15 to 40% more gun crimes if we scrapped background checks. Which sucks more?

And on edit: You would probably have fewer unhappy customers if the NICS system was more than 10% funded. Even at 100%, there would probably still be errors, but we get what we pay for. It works pretty well for 10 cents on the dollar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top