Universal Background Checks - a Trojan Horse

[android]

Even people that own guns are really stupid about this.

I have a friend that is for bg checks. While she was in the hospital getting cancer treatment and away from her home for several months, she gave her guns about 10 or so to her son in law for safe keeping.

I told her that was a transfer and under the bg check law she supported, she would have to do 4473s and pay a FFL to xfer them and then xfer them BACK to her when she got out of the hospital.

She still didn't get it. She thought what she did was OK and wouldn't be affected. Yeah, she would probably get away with it, but it would be ILLEGAL.

[Middle Age Russ]

Gun owners are a much more diverse group than many of us consider. On this board, most members seem to grasp the significance of words and phrases often used by "gun control" activists, pollsters and the media. The issue is that huge numbers of gun owners seem to miss the nuances we often pick up on. The average Joe living a happy, comfortable life in the US cannot fathom that "universal background checks" might ever be a problem -- until it becomes one when a friend or family member ends up incarcerated for improperly loaning or transferring ownership of a gun to someone. Therefore, they are quick to hop on the band-wagon of 'common sense" initiatives like universal background checks, effectively providing ammunition to folks truly interested in confiscating their property and force options. The devil is in the details, and he is constantly paving roads for us to travel.

[TVegas]

With my moderate understanding of how possession and title differ under the law, I would think that the whole issue could be circumvented by only requiring background checks on all transfers of title. If you loaned a gun to someone for use or safekeeping, you have only transferred possession, not title. If you give it to them for them to keep as their own, then that's a transfer of title. I know people will argue that this leaves too much room for interpretation, but this subject has been decided by courts for hundreds of years.

Of course I only say this in the event that universal background checks come up as a serious possibility in the legislature.

[gthaustex]

with MiddleAgeRuss...

Look at the numbers of guns and gun owners in the US. Then look at the number that belong to any gun organization, such as the NRA. Then look at the number that actually stay informed by reading and frequenting boards such as this one. Look at the number of CHL holders who have permits, vs. those who actually carry on a regular basis.

In every case, the numbers of people decrease from a lot to a little as the knowledge of issues increases....an inverse relationship, unfortunately...

[ScottDLS]

With my moderate understanding of how possession and title differ under the law, I would think that the whole issue could be circumvented by only requiring background checks on all transfers of title. If you loaned a gun to someone for use or safekeeping, you have only transferred possession, not title. If you give it to them for them to keep as their own, then that's a transfer of title. I know people will argue that this leaves too much room for interpretation, but this subject has been decided by courts for hundreds of years.

Of course I only say this in the event that universal background checks come up as a serious possibility in the legislature.

In that case what's the point of the universal background checks at all? How many people have committed crimes with guns they would have been denied through checks on private sales? I suspect very few. It IS a trojan horse an further advancement toward registration which will facilitate confiscation.

Also, it's arguably NOT a federal issue to interfere in non-FFL intrastate transfers. That's why it wasn't already in the GCA '68. I have no doubt today's SCOTUS would allow it, but it's still unconstitutional IMO.

No more federal gun legislation is needed. IMO there should be less, starting with the NFA.

[TVegas]

With my moderate understanding of how possession and title differ under the law, I would think that the whole issue could be circumvented by only requiring background checks on all transfers of title. If you loaned a gun to someone for use or safekeeping, you have only transferred possession, not title. If you give it to them for them to keep as their own, then that's a transfer of title. I know people will argue that this leaves too much room for interpretation, but this subject has been decided by courts for hundreds of years.

Of course I only say this in the event that universal background checks come up as a serious possibility in the legislature.

In that case what's the point of the universal background checks at all? How many people have committed crimes with guns they would have been denied through checks on private sales? I suspect very few. It IS a trojan horse an further advancement toward registration which will facilitate confiscation.

Also, it's arguably NOT a federal issue to interfere in non-FFL intrastate transfers. That's why it wasn't already in the GCA '68. I have no doubt today's SCOTUS would allow it, but it's still unconstitutional IMO.

No more federal gun legislation is needed. IMO there should be less, starting with the NFA.

I agree completely! I was not suggesting that as a reason to have universal background checks. I was simply offering a solution to some of the issues if they were ever forced on us.

However, I would have to disagree with the idea that very few crimes are committed with guns from private sales that would have been denied. Virtually all guns in crimes were obtained from friends or family that sold or gave guns to the criminal. Others were from street sales or stolen. Most criminals have long criminal histories. As a result, if those sales "required" background checks then they would likely be denied.

I'm not saying that would prevent anything though. We already know that criminals don't obey laws. Private sales that are used for crime would still go on regardless. That's when they would push for registration and later confiscation.

I'm agreeing with you though. We don't need any additional laws. Just better enforced ones.

[cb1000rider]

I think we need a way to tell that the guy that we sell a gun to isn't a felon. I also think we need a way to tell that the gun we're buying isn't on a "stolen" list somewhere. The access required to check those things is relatively trivial and doesn't look anything like "universal background checks".

We don't need new laws. We need access (red light / green light) to the data that our government already has. We own it. What will enforce use of this is civil culpability if you sell a gun and don't check...