Previous Post
Next Post


By BlinkyPete

In the highly unlikely event I win one of the P320’s in this contest, I won’t be able to accept it. I’d probably ask them to donate it to the NRA or 2nd Amendment Foundation for an auction or raffle, but despite the fact that I am not a prohibited person, the gun cannot be legally transferred to me. Why, you ask? Well, the problem started in June of 1992, about two weeks shy of my 10 birthday . . .

I have no recollection of what I was doing in late June, 1992 – probably taking in the staggering payload of summer freedom I’d recently acquired the way most 9-year-olds would be. That’s not important though – what is important is that across the state a twenty-something year old man I’ve never met was doing something he’d done dozens of times in his life – he was being arraigned for a violent crime, which he would plead guilty to shortly thereafter. As it happens, he has the same first and last name as I do.

Some time in 2009 a clerk in a district court in central Massachusetts shoved the other me’s record from 1992 into a file containing my own lurid history with the court – one dismissed count of public drunkenness – and sent it off to the FBI for inclusion in NCIS. I had passed several background checks already by that point and I passed another in 2010 for two rifles, another in 2012 for my concealed carry permit in New Hampshire, and then once again in January 2013 for a neat tactitool pistol.

March of 2013 was another story. We were all still wondering if a new Assault Weapons Ban would slither its way through, and when I found a gun I had wanted for a long time – a SCAR – at a reasonable price, I jumped on it. I was stunned when, after a three-day delay, I failed the background check.

My journey through trying — and to this day still failing — to fix the issue for over a year could fill a book. In short, it has involved four rounds of correspondence with the FBI – requesting my history, going to my local police department to be finger printed, sending those prints off, being told that they don’t have the other me’s prints to compare them to, sending court documents off, being told they aren’t acceptable because they didn’t come from the court, etc, etc, etc. My take away – the FBI doesn’t have great customer service.

Eventually I lost heart. Work and family took over and I temporarily gave up, having spent my SCAR money on something else and not having more for a new gun anyway. Some day I’ll hire a lawyer to fix this mess for me, but at the time of this writing, it’s not in my best interest to attempt a transfer, even if NH does run its own background checks for pistols, and I could potentially pass it.

The process has been massively frustrating, but the worst part — the very worst part — is that it hasn’t done a damn thing to make one person safer. The crime the other me committed, which is currently on my record at NICS, was a violent battery. The person who committed it should not have guns. Yet, when the FBI finds out ‘I’ tried to acquire one, they declined the transfer…and that’s it. No investigation, no nothing. Not them, not the local police, not the staties. If I hadn’t reached out to NICS, I never would have spoken to the FBI. And if I were a violent maniac, I’d have gone on to find another way to get a gun, and probably used it.

But you read the title right – after all this, there’s a background check bill, a ‘universal’ background check bill that I do support, and I wrote it.

I’m no Dick Metcalf. I don’t support the 2nd Amendment, but…. I support the 2nd Amendment. Period. I’ve also written a “universal” background check bill, and I support it. Will all of you be happy with it? No. If you think civil war is imminent, and that you and your friends are going to win and begin a new republic, hit the back button, read something else and have fun with all that. If, however, you passionately, feverishly support the 2nd Amendment and gun rights for all, and want to preserve them for generations to come the way I do, read on.

Due to a clerical error, the FBI has suspended my right to legally buy guns. Going around NICS would be my only saving grace, so why the hell would I want to expand a system I know for a fact doesn’t work, and more importantly, does not save lives?

It’s simple. I want to take away the most powerful weapon our opponents have, minimize any damage it causes us, and ensure it brings with it more benefit than harm. Make no mistake about it – it could cause massive damage. Someday soon Washington will vote on an initiative for ‘universal’ background checks, and sure as you’re born, it’s going to pass. I don’t want it to; it was written by antis and serves their purpose, but there is almost zero chance that we will win.

What does happen in the unlikely event that we win? We will have spent millions fighting to keep a right we already had, and they will continue trying to take it away, both in Washington and the states with and without voter initiatives. In the highly likely event that we lose, however, they will try it in every state with voter initiatives. We may win in Alaska and Wyoming; you can count losses almost everywhere else. When the dominos begin to fall, they tend to keep on falling until all of them are down.

My solution: write our own universal background check bill and pass it at the federal level. One that is written for us, by us, and specifically overrides all state-mandated background check bills, while restoring many rights that have been taken away previously. With NRA support it would pass the house, and it would satisfy the senate’s need to do something! It could probably even pass with enough majority to override Barry’s potential veto, too.

Here is a rough outline of my bill:

“It is a violation of [this law] to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person, either knowingly or through failure to reasonably ascertain that said person is not prohibited, either through a NICS background check conducted by a FFL or verification that said person holds a state issued license or permit to carry or own a firearm. Any person who abides by this law shall be immune to criminal and civil penalties in perpetuity for actions by said transferee.”

Read that carefully, because this law does not criminalize individual transactions, trades or lending. None of the NRA’s concerns with Manchin-Toomey would be relevant here. You can trade, sell or give a firearm to any person who is personally known to you. You can trade, sell, or give a firearm to a stranger and if they aren’t prohibited, you haven’t broken a law. However, if you want to ensure said stranger is not prohibited and also immunize yourself from any prosecution for that person’s actions, you can conduct a background check at a dealer on a standard form 4473, to be maintained by said dealer, or by verifying that they have a CCL issued by any state.

“Holders of valid, state issued concealed carry or other gun licenses who have submitted to, and passed instant criminal background checks shall hereby be exempt from said checks for subsequent firearms purchases, as well as use of form 4473, either in dealer or individual transactions, except at the discretion of the transferor.”

Using the justification of reducing workload, and therefore increasing the accuracy, of the FBI by removing needless, redundant background checks, we say that CCL holders no longer need to take background checks at dealers either.

“A person who is denied a license or firearm by criminal background check shall have the right to appeal the decision through a court in the judicial district in which they reside. In cases of errors the court, and the FBI, is required to provide legal remedy or overturn said erroneous denial within 30 days of initial filing by the person denied.”

I can’t stress how important this is. I’m not simply being selfish here – I’m restoring due process for everyone. Furthermore:

“Any genuinely prohibited person shall no longer be prohibited for life, but instead has the option to petition a court in his or her judicial district to consider genuine reform, lack of danger to society or likelihood of recidivism. If said individual has been reformed and is no longer a danger to society, his or her rights shall be restored.”

This may need to specifically exclude certain people, but if you have a marijuana conviction, congrats, you’re no longer prohibited for life.

Obviously, the bill will also need to contain law enforcement provisions to fund gang suppression activities, metal health treatment and other things that, you know, might actually make a difference. At the same time, this is an opportunity to ‘clean up’ existing gun law. Here are a few ideas:

Pursuant to the National Firearms Act:

  • Silencers, or suppressors, shall no longer be considered an NFA item, but instead a separate firearm to be serialed and sold to end users as such.
  • Short barreled rifles and shotguns pose no unique threat, and are hereby stricken from NFA.

Pursuant to the Gun Control Act:

  • Transactions between individuals and individuals or dealers and individuals who reside in different states but are able to conduct face to face transactions are now permitted to do so, given that they follow all laws set forth in [this law], and all other Federal, local and state gun laws.
  • All import restrictions are hereby struck from the GCA.

What’s missing? Two obvious things, and I’ll explain why I didn’t include them. Striking down the Hughes Amendment to GOPA would be great. I want toys with giggle switches as much as anyone, and gun controllers would probably not fight it that much, provided machine guns ended up back on the NFA. The real fight would come from anyone who currently owns or sells any of the 180,000 prohibition-inflated pre-’86 guns would rather fight our rights than see that $20,000, 30 year old M16 drop to scrap value.

What about universal reciprocity? I’d love to see that too, but either this passes without it, or it dies with it. California and New York have 80 representatives between them, and every single one of them would vote against it, along with many others from Illinois, Taxachusetts and other permission states. If it somehow survived the house, Barry would veto it.

Many won’t agree with this. Robert, in his steadfast absolutism probably won’t, but if your mentality is all or none, history generally indicates you’re going to end up with none. I don’t know if I count as a 2nd Amendment absolutist, but I care deeply about our gun rights. This bill would pull the carpet out from the anti’s, make their most popular proposals unsustainable for ballot initiatives in any state that has them, improve our (and the NRA’s) public image and restore many of our fallen rights.

I call that a big fat win, and just remember, I’m still stuck in the belly of the beast.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Your premise, or premises, are absurd. The dominoes are falling to the right, not the left, and I’m not taking a step back because you are too lazy to fight the Feds.

    Step up, be a man and get your record straightened out.

    • You kinda just buzzed through that straight to the “reply” button, huh? Sounds pretty lazy to me, since your response has nothing to do with the context of the proposed bill above.

      Also, don’t you live in MA? You are indeed taking a step back, and it’s got nothing to do with anything above.

      • Well, I read it and I agree with Ralph. I don’t give ground to keep ground I already have. There are a lot of opportunities in this proposal, as written, for disconnects between State and Federal databases – lags and overlaps in statuses. If the government can’t even stick your paperwork in the correct file, how do you expect multiple agencies with no common infrastructure to coordinate files and statuses correctly. Have you ever heard of the no-fly list? No thanks, I’ll pass. Chains of my own choosing are still chains.

        • ” There are a lot of opportunities in this proposal, as written, for disconnects between State and Federal databases – lags and overlaps in statuses.”

          You don’t need to convince me that the government is incompetent, but where in this proposal do these disconnects and data bases come in to play? It’s simply a duplicate of the 4473 system we have now, but it exempts CCL’s from all additional background checks and gives denied persons genuine due process rather than begging the FBI to get around to fix errors.

        • I read the whole thing and I actually kind of agree with Blinky.

          Then again, part of what I do for a living is write policy in legal-ese and quite a few of the finer points of this post will probably be lost in the ensuing flame wars.

          • There are no “finer points” to gun control, even when all it is is appeasement in hopes of getting them to lighten up. It won’t work, and it will undermine us.

            We need to man up and be absolutists here! Shall Not Be Infringed means Shall Not Be Infringed!

        • I’m with Rich. Exploring and entertaining Constitutional nuances is how we arrived at this predicament of infringement in the first place. To win this war we need fewer finer points and but one blunt pronouncement: the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

        • A healthy dose of reality is a good way to avoid getting ambushed while blinded by zealotry.

      • “Also, don’t you live in MA? You are indeed taking a step back, and it’s got nothing to do with anything above.” – BlinkyPete

        Wow, hitting below the belt, huh? I guess that’s the only way you can win fights.

        • How is mentioning impending gun control legislation that’s almost certain to pass hitting below the belt?

  2. What an expert piece of comedy.

    He should get the P320 for that aspect alone . It’s hilarious, because the ISP (that’s Illinois State Police) testified that they had a five year backlog on warrants which had yet to be entered into the NICS system. Theoretically, I’d have half a decade if I broke the law in Illinois and decided to purchase a gun at an FFL.

    It’s all very possible that I, a man with a clear record, could commit several violent crimes today and still pass an FBI check at point of sale next Tuesday despite having active warrants for my arrest.

    Next, the law has already gone too far. A Universal BG check law would be used the same way it is in CA, where parking tickets from the Nixon administration would be grounds for an FBI denial , followed by a 90 day appeal which is legally only supposed to take 30 -but hey, children need protectin’ right.

    • ST’s response is irrational. Consider slicing and dicing the errors and omissions in NICS into two classes: those that hurt people who deserve relief; and, those that help criminals and crazies. BlinkyPete’s proposal augers for compelling governments to fix the first. He says nothing whatsoever about forcing governments to fix the second.
      It should be an easy political sell to get voters to support that governments fix errors and omissions that hurt people who deserve relief. To push for such change is a genuine good.
      The Anti’s will continue to push for the second; to get more criminal and crazy records into NICS. Gradually, they will succeed to some extent. Do we really want to stop them? Do we really want criminals and crazies to have access to the legitimate gun market? A few readers probably do want this; but, for the rest of us, we certainly don’t want to advertise to the general public that we want more guns sold to criminals and crazies.
      We should be telling the public that the background-check system probably won’t do much to reduce criminals and crazies access to guns. Might do a little, but not much. The background-check system probably won’t be cost-effective in reducing criminal and crazy access to guns. Yet, we PoTG are nearly-all law-abiding gun users. Go ahead, check our backgrounds. Just do it in an efficient way with a very low error rate. Don’t make us out to be criminals when we are not-criminals. Don’t impede innocent activities such as private sales and loans.
      We should bear in mind that we NOW HAVE a background check system. It might: stay the same; get worse; or, get better. We all agree that it MIGHT get worse. We should all agree that we need to reduce the risk of letting the background check political debate to slip out of our control and get WORSE. We may not agree whether we are satisfied with what we NOW HAVE or whether we would like a revised system which might be somewhat better than the one we have now.
      BlinkyPete is inviting us to consider the possibility that – by seizing the initiative – we are likely to: 1) head-off changes leading to a WORSE system; and, 2) improve the background-check environment within which we live. We would be foolish to summarily dismiss BlinkyPete’s invitation to consider these possibilities. It’s not absolutely obvious to me that the best strategy is to hold-out for the maintenance of the status quo.

      • Agreed. Acting like stubborn little girls won’t get us anywhere. Blows my mind that people here wouldn’t support the idea of getting a background check on someone who they didn’t know but were selling a weapon to anyway. Especially when we get easy access to suppressors and boomsticks.

      • The whole problem is that you cannot guess who WILL be the crazy guy, no matter what. It’s always the quiet neighbor guy who was always nice to everybody, not the rowdy guy who’s loud and obnoxious. I agree with the OP though, there are too many lifetime bans, and they add up to disarming as many people as they can. Instead of a 3 day option, it should be expanded up to 30 days, but a final determination is required. No more asleep at the wheel or indefinite delays. If the records have the person being a violent criminal, deny the transaction, otherwise, a proceed is required by law.

  3. They don’t have the other guys prints to compare them to?
    I can tell you with certainty, they do.
    For whatever reason, they just didn’t want to compare them.

    • Massachusetts presumably does; the FBI does not, nor did either record sent to the FBI (by the MA court that submitted them and again by me with the correction).

      • Blinky Pete,

        And that is the ginormous weakness with your proposal: you are counting on bureaucrats and government agents to be honorable, ethical, moral, motivated, competent, and properly resourced to do the right thing. If we could absolutely count on that 99.99% of the time, I can see some merit to your proposal. But we cannot count on that.

        That is why we must not rely on government employees to exercise our rights. Government is absolutely, positively in the wrong when it comes to firearm rights. I want to keep rolling back the current laws before we resort to “compromises”. (At least your proposal is truly a compromise versus proposals from gun grabbers whose idea of a compromise is that we give up a little instead of a lot.)

        • But it isn’t even really a compromise – it’s exactly an example of your last sentence, except it basically gives up nothing.

          I certainly agree on your first point, but I’ve added as much accountability and due process as possible.

        • Even the word “compromise,” in any other context, means “breached,” as in “security has been compromised.” I think in this case it’s just being used as a euphemism for just that. There has already been way too much compromise – there never should have been any kind of gun control enacted in the first place!

          Shall Not Be Infringed, remember?

        • Seems to me that the sort of relief BlinkyPete contemplates puts the burden-of-proof to the government. To illustrate, suppose Joe Schmoe has a NICS record that indicates that he has been indicted for burglary. That makes him a prohibited person. Joe protests that the indictment was dismissed. NICS says that they have no record to that effect. Joe tells NICS that he compels them to produce the proof from the court of record that the indicted is still pending or that he has been convicted. The court of record has 90 days to supply the proof; failing to do so results in the expungement of the record of indictment.
          Let’s suppose that government employees are incompetent. The 90 days expire and NICS is obliged to expunge the record. If NICS fails to do so Joe is entitled to a summary injunction from a judge to expunge the record. The path of least resistance is for NICS to expunge the record. NICS doesn’t really care whether Joe’s record is accurate or not. They just want to avoid having to fight with a judge.
          Will NICS get better in having more legitimate disabling records and fewer erroneous disabling records? Probably so. Governments will work on getting more disabling records (whether legitimate or erroneous). Governments will do NOTHING to reduce erroneous disabling records unless WE FORCE them to do so.
          The public should be expected to support the removal of erroneous disabling records. We are a just and fair people.

          • Or, suppose Blinky Pete writes legislation that abolishes the NICS and background checks completely, thus reinstating the Constitution’s prohibition on infringement of the right to keep and bear arms?

        • If you’re so gung-ho for it Rich, why don’t you write it? I’ve heard an awful lot of complaints from you and few solutions. If you do, please also take the time to explain how you’re going to get it passed, since your definition of infringement differs from most peoples, as well as every ruling on the 2nd amendment ever issued by SCOTUS. If it’s as easy as you seem to think it is, by all means, I’ll happily retract my own.

          • BlinkyPete seems to be getting to the root of the debate among us PoTG. We have proposals A, B and C. The absolutists object to each of these proposals on grounds of “shall not be infringed”. We understand this so far as these words go. And yet, we continue to live under laws that DO INFRINGE. We chafe under these laws. We live under unrelenting attempts by the Anti’s for still harsher laws.
            The absolutists urge – whether by express proposal or by implication – that the only bills we should support are bills that roll-back existing infringement(s). We probably would mostly agree to support any such roll-back; but how shall we get Congress to pass such a bill? A bill containing only roll-back(s) of infringements but zero other alterations. I haven’t seen political explanations as to why we think Congress will act in our favor on any such bill. How do we persuade a legislator that he should pass our bill that reads: ‘One for us, none for them; another for us, none for them; . . . ” Is this politically realistic?
            For it to be politically realistic we would need to convert a large number of legislators – including especially the leadership in the controlling caucus in each chamber – to an adamant pro-gun position. It would help to control the Oval Office as well. How long will that take? How many elections for Representatives? How many elections for President? How many elections for Senators? I’d like to see the absolutists lay out a detailed plan – election by election, district by district, State by State – showing when outright victories will be in our grasp.
            I’d also like to see the absolutists enumerate the rights we ought to strive to have restored, in the desired sequence. Should we go for repeal of the Hughes Amendment first? Last? What are the arguments to be used to persuade the uncommitted voters that NICS should be dismantled entirely; that the Feds should not have a database of the public records available for inspection in every county courthouse?
            As soon as we can see the proposals of the absolutists: X, Y and Z, then we can compare the political viability of A, B and C to X, Y and Z. I’m eager to debate this full array of proposals. With no detailed X, Y and Z proposals from the absolutists, my preference is to examine the A, BlinkyPete, and C proposals that strive to make politically-viable incremental restoration of our rights together with preferable re-configurations of laws that are arguably infringements.

      • The only way the NICS/NCIC could turn you down is because the other you is in their system. If he is in the system, his prints are on file. I would bet money on it.
        Most times it’s two letters or a letter and a number for each finger.
        Rahm Emanuel only has 9 identifiers…

        • I’m sure the other me is indeed in the system, but unfortunately that doesn’t matter. The FBI needs prints pertaining to the erroneous file. The file that was sent is just from his arraignment, not the arrest. It does have all his identifying information on it, so that should help clear it up, but they won’t accept it from me and the court won’t send it directly to them.

  4. Your situation does suck and as someone who has been a victim of mistaken identity I feel your pain. I was able to get it straightened out in time and with great pain, though it does occasionally rear its ugly head. Once you get into a mess like that there is no guarantee it won’t continue to haunt you later. Fortunately, it has not hampered my ability to acquire firearms but I did nearly miss out on an excellent job because of it.

    That said, I don’t see the inevitability of a Universal Background Check. Federal Gun Control has become a non-starter. While the Lame Duck in Chief can blather on all he wants, those that have to face re-election are running from new gun control bills. Only the deepest of deep blue states would dare pass a gun control bill now, especially after what happened in Colorado. Gun control bills are political suicide in most parts of the country.

    Also, background checks don’t work and the current system is expensive and pointless. While not widely covered by the media, Adam Lanza was stopped from buying a firearm earlier because he didn’t want to wait for the background check to clear. Apparently the very idea made him too nervous. The system worked! Well, at least until he killed his mother and stole her guns. The Washington Naval Yard Shooter had a history of violence, but no convictions. That still should have shown up in the investigation to give him Secret clearance. They still granted him clearance and base access. Background checks as they exist today do not work. Expanding an ineffective system won’t work and it seems people realize that.

    Keeping in mind. I say this as someone who used to be very much for background checks, but the evidence tells me they are pointless. Trying to compromise on this issue is like any other. We are better off holding the line. The antis can’t help but put something in the legislation that will require registration, which will kill the bill.

    • I initially asked if they would be willing to publish this as a two parter, since it is incredibly long in it’s current format. If I did it again I’d simply leave out my personal situation to just get to the meat of what I’m proposing, and more importantly –

      I said in the piece that I know for a fact that background checks do nothing. That’s not why I’m proposing it. I’m proposing it to A) Disarm the opposition, B)Nullify any impact the bill would have on us, but not prohibiting individual transfers, and C) Getting back other rights that have been taken away, like interstate sales and short barrel rifles being taken off NFA.

      • I wasn’t really focusing on that, I was just empathizing.

        I think your conclusion that a UBC is inevitable is flawed. That is like saying another AWB is inevitable or magazine limits are inevitable. I remember post-Sandy Hook a lot of gun rights folks were ready to compromise on magazine limits because they felt some gun control measure was “inevitable”, so many were willing to give in on ammunition capacity if it meant keeping their AK’s and AR’s. Except all of the Federal legislation was defeated. Viciously.

        It is only inevitable if we stop fighting. Gun control has been losing ground since the 90’s. It is a slow grind and sometimes offset by defeats. (NY, CA, MD, CO, etc.) but for the most part gun rights are far better today than they were 20 years ago and we can’t cede any ground. If we lose ground it should be because we fought our fight every step of the way.

        • I understand your point, but I think when the vote comes up in Washington in November it’s going to pass, either by a landslide or a single vote. If it does we can expect similar initiatives in every other state that allows them, if not, we’ll still have spent millions fighting to keep a right we already had. I’d prefer to have my cake and eat it too.

    • @Rob
      If anything we can say the CT 14 day waiting period stopped him not the prospect of a background check.

  5. Just remember that the only way to get them to actually vote for a bill we had a hand in writing is to agree that it’s a “good first step.”

    • It’s all about spin. There are enough Democrats in both houses who would happy enough to report they “did something” back to their constituents, possibly enough to override Barry’s veto (if he even bothered at this point). This also steps their efforts back a whole hell of a lot more than it does ours (if it even does at all – I don’t feel it does).

  6. My opposition of Background checks is very simple. It gives the government an opportunity to track gun owernership for later confiscation. The mere fact of making it illegal for government to maintain a list of gun-owners is of no consequence to government agencies who feel they have godly powers.

    I am completely oppose all forms of government background checks. Even with this current system at least people have deniability should it ever come down to confiscation. People can not say they legally sold their longguns, or they can purchase long-guns without govt knowledge. Take that away and govt gains more control over people.

    • My opposition of Background checks is very simple. It gives the government an opportunity to track gun owernership for later confiscation.

      Sigh. I feel like people are just reading the title and scrolling down to comment. Once again, this “Universal Background Check” bill does not criminalize individual transactions, it just further criminalizes transfers to prohibited persons. Furthermore, it excempts concealed carry holders from all additional background checks, either at FFL’s or with individuals. It gives the government no opportunity to track firearms purchases beyond people who choose to continue to use form 4473. I see no logical way someone could regard this as worse than what we have now.

      • Who is a prohibited person??? In NYC if you have too many traffic tickets they use that as an excuse to deny you your gun rights.

        How do you feel about filesharing? Ever buy a bootleg CD? In NYC that can land you a Felony charge too if you have a big enough collection.

        A guy like Bloomberg could determine that the act of breathing and holding a gun at the same time is a felony. Oh wait… he already did. Gun possession without Government approval in NYC makes you a felon.

        There is not one bit of “gun control” legislation that is every going to be in favor of gun rights.

      • I suspect you missed this part too:

        “Any genuinely prohibited person shall no longer be prohibited for life, but instead has the option to petition a court in his or her judicial district to consider genuine reform, lack of danger to society or likelihood of recidivism. If said individual has been reformed and is no longer a danger to society, his or her rights shall be restored.”

        I may have forgotten, but I also meant to put a time limit, meaning the court is compelled to hear and respond to your case in a given period of time or your rights are automatically restored.

        • My thought is that if a person is too dangerous to own a gun, they are too dangerous to be on the street.

          Once a person serves their sentence they should have all their rights restored.

          I am not naive enough to believe that the current penal system actually reforms anybody, but that is a different issue all together. The current system brands people so that it make it difficult for them to reenter society. The system in reality encourages “repeat business” for the cops, courts, lawyers and judges.

          Anybody getting labeled with a felony today can not expect to ever get a decent job, since almost all companies now automatically do background checks. Even if they don’t… the the internet make it simple enough for co-workers to do a search and start the gossip-mill. This is not specifically a gun-rights issue but it is part of the problem.

          The main part of the criminal problem today is that they have criminalized recreational drugs and created a very lucrative market where there would otherwise be none. 80% of crimes today are drug related… even when it is gang on gang violence they are usually battling over drug-turf. Legalizing all drugs would cause crime to drop by 80%. Of course the govt really does not want that because all the those cops, lawyers, judges, jailers would lose their jobs and have to resort to having to do real and productive work.

        • “My thought is that if a person is too dangerous to own a gun, they are too dangerous to be on the street. ”

          To some degree I agree with you, but it probably makes sense to accept that most people will not. I think restoration of rights does make sense, but that’s me.

          I also need to say you’re wrong on the felon thing. I happened to meet some guy at a wedding just last weekend. He’s a felon, and he’s a registered nurse. Whether or not he got his record expunged, I’m not aware. I also have a friend that got a serious misdemeanor expunged, so his record will not show up on employment screenings. Only the FBI can see it, and as it happens, only the FBI does NICS checks.

          I also agree for the most part on drugs.

        • I agree, Pocono. In that same vein, it’s time that convicted child molesters, who’ve served their prison time, no longer be barred from certain employment upon their release. You’re cool with them working at your kid’s school, aren’t you? After all, they’ve paid their debt to society.

          • Your proposal serves to illuminate the political viability of relief for felons; or lack thereof. The arguments for relief are compelling; yet, they will be given short-shrift by the public. We should advocate for relief beginning with Vets who have been summarily disabled without any adjudication by an impartial magistrate; simply by Executive action. The “Martha Stewart” case is worthy of illustration. The mother with a case of postpartum depression who now has been treated and has children to protect is worthy of illustration. A provision exists in the law for relief; it’s simply that the Anti’s have defunded it. It should not seem radical to restore funding to the relief process already in the law.
            It is COUNTER-productive to raise in the debate those individual cases where a murderer, armed robber, or drug dealer MIGHT have led a peaceful law abiding life for decades and deserves relief. If we want to guarantee that he never gets a hearing on his merits, then the thing to do is to raise the specter of Charlie Manson getting such a hearing.

      • BlinkyPete, how you can prove that you did the BC if later that person turns out to do something bad? How you know a firearm was transferred before the law took effect? How you know how many hands that gun changed. The only way a UBC will work is through registration. I have yet to hear a way to avoid registration but still be able to enforce the law.
        That is way the anti-gunners want to push UBC even though it does nothing to protect anybody.
        If I’m mistaken, and can be done without registration, please describe how.

        • I did describe how in the body above. You can use a form 4473 the way many of us do now, or you check their CCL. The “proof” thing is a good point; obviously the law would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not check, but you could always photocopy their CCL. Either way, the choice is entirely on the transfer-er/seller.

        • What if you lose the form? Should I have that form all my life?
          If you claim you did check, without form how can you prove? The onus will be on the owner to prove that he did check (with a piece of paper), not on the prosecutor to show that he did not check.
          Unless certainly a registry exists that can verify your claim and the owner is updated accordingly. 🙂

        • “The onus will be on the owner to prove that he did check (with a piece of paper), not on the prosecutor to show that he did not check.”

          Um, no, that’s not how it works. In order to be convicted of a crime the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did not check. It’s not the other way around. There is no scenario I know of in the criminal justice system where the burden of proof is on the defense.

          I understand that, like anything, this proposal is not perfect, but I respectfully feel that you’re grasping at straws here and using any potential flaw as an outright dismissal.

        • Blinky Pete,

          “In order to be convicted of a crime the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did not check.”

          It is impossible to prove a negative. I cannot imagine the Establishment would agree to a law that requires prosecutors to prove a negative for enforcement purposes.

          “There is no scenario I know of in the criminal justice system where the burden of proof is on the defense.”

          If you use deadly force to defend yourself in a “duty to retreat” jurisdiction, the burden of proof is indeed on you to establish that you were truly and reasonably in fear for your life and retreat was not possible. That is why “duty to retreat” is an abomination.

        • That’s a good point – I think in the case that it’s an affirmative defense that the defendant does need to provide evidence that their contention is true.

          That said, I still don’t think it’s a reason to dismiss the proposal. Similar laws are in place in NH (for handguns) and elsewhere and seem to work well.

    • Agreed. The ONLY way I would ever be willing to compromise and accept a UBC system–even one like this that provides an appeal system and neuters the NFA–is if all data regarding what firearms were purchased is removed from the 4473 and all existing records are destroyed, and ‘prohibited’ persons are limited to those with violent felony convictions or have been professionally diagnosed and adjudicated as mentally defective. Personally I agree with RF that felons should not have their rights removed: either they can be trusted without a custodian, or they can’t be. But realistically, we are not going to ever see that happen, so I’m grudgingly willing to flex some on that. Still, the possibility of a registration is not a point I will ever concede. If the anti’s want broader background checks to make it more difficult for dangerous persons to purchase guns, then they need to put their money where their mouth is regarding “nobody wants to take your guns.” Either there is no record of what was sold, or there is no deal.

      • Again, under this proposal the buyer and seller are free to keep or not keep records. CCH’s are exempt from form 4473’s.

        • Aaaaaand, you are missing the point. Partial records are still records, which can then be used to generate a registration, especially when the only PotG who aren’t in the record are the people with a carry license. I.e. – the government would be able to determine every single person that owns firearms. Your version of the UBC still gives the anti’s exactly what they want. It is, in fact, WORSE than the current situation. At least now I can sell and/or trade any guns I have to obfuscate what I may or may not own from government scrutiny. Last I checked, I am supposed to be entitled to privacy from that kind of crap, barring due process of law.

          The another major problem with your version of UBC is that it puts the onus of maintaining proof of legitimate sales on the sellers, unless they wish to be liable–criminally AND civilly–for misdeeds by buyers down the line. This is something that others have noted already, but it bears repeating, especially seeing as your draft provides no timeframe on how long records would need to be held. Five years? Ten? Forever? What happens in the case of natural disaster or fire resulting in destruction of the records?

          And what happens when criminals simply start forging CCW/CHCL’s as a quick and easy bypass of the 4473 requirement? For that matter, what would there be to stop FFL’s from selling guns under the table? After all, all they would have to do is claim that a valid license was displayed at the time of the sale, so they didn’t write up a 4473 for it.

          • A number of interesting issues to thrash out. I don’t see BlinkyPete speaking to any record keeping by non-FFLs. Suppose the following scenario: FFL F sells a gun to some guy G and all the paperwork is done as now. Guy G sells the gun to H. Now it turns out that H was a disabled person. H commits a crime and is caught with the gun. ATF traces the gun from the manufacturer to F to G. Now, G is in the hot-seat. The DA asks G how it is that H came to have a gun purchased by G. G has to come up with a story. If G admits he sold the gun to H then G has to pray that H became disabled after the date F sold the gun to G. G should be so lucky. G can say that his gun was stolen by persons unknown. Now, the DA tells H that he will be charged with burglary; so H loosens his tung and tells the DA he bought the gun from G.
            Is this scenario iron-clad? No, I don’t think BlinkyPete said he expected his scheme to create an iron-clad system for guaranteeing against any loophole. Does it make for a system that strongly encourages honorable gun owners to sell guns only to background-checked buyers? I think so. Does it make for a system that makes it easier for DAs to prosecute guys like G who can’t keep their stories straight? I think so.
            Suppose we added a record-keeping requirement. No way would I concede to a non-FFL keeping a record for 20 years. One year; two years at the most. I don’t see a record as contributing much to helping a DA close a case. Only if H was able to clear a background check for some days/weeks/months after F sold to G but became dis-abled some days/weeks/months following the sale and the crime where he was caught with the gun. Then, the DA could insist that G produce the record of the sale with the date. That would pin-down G to a date before/after the date when H became disabled. It could do some good in a few cases; but not many I suspect. Would it do us any harm? A little. If G innocently sold a gun to H and H cleared the background check, then G didn’t violate the law. If G wasn’t a very good record-keeper and lost the record of the sale between the date of the sale and the DA demanding that he produce the record, then G would be in the hot-seat. G would have to argue that the sale occurred on a date after the F to G date but before the date 1 (2) years before the date of the demand.
            I don’t like the idea of making a felon of G. A stiff misdemeanor is as far as I’d be willing to go. A mild misdemeanor for a failure to keep a record is as far as I’d be willing to go.
            Forging a CCP is a problem that is easily solved. So, I have a CCP from the State of XY. My CCP has a serial number on it. I want to buy a gun from you. So, I show you my CCP and you type in my name, birth date and serial number on a web-site from the State of XY. The State of XY returns that that is a valid name, birthdate and serial number and that I am currently clean; or, that there is a misspelling of my name, wrong birth date for that serial number. Or, that my card is OK but I’m disabled.
            You may complain that the State now has a background-check inquiry that implies that I just bought a gun. Apparently so; however, there are ways to cure this objection. As I’ve stated elsewhere, a contractor can be appointed to field such inquires who is NOT appointed by the government. Instead, the contractor is appointed by an industry organization such as the NRA or a State’s FFL dealer association. Thus, no government agency would have direct access to the records of inquiries to validate CCP cards.
            I do NOT like BlinkyPete’s proposal that non-FFLs complete 4473 forms. I don’t like the idea of non-FFLs keeping any records at all; but, would be willing to concede a record of the name and date and serial number proved it needed to be retained for just a year or two.
            On the other hand, I think BlinkyPete is overly optimistic that the showing of a CCP at an FFL will be accepted as a waiver of the completion of a 4473 form. The public is going to insist on some level of trace-ability. From manufacturer to FFL to the guy G who bought the gun from the FFL is already in place; I don’t think it’s going away. Without the 4473 form there would be little means of enforcing the law that FFLs background-check each customer. Instead, I would advocate rolling back the 20 year FFL retention period for 4473 forms from 20 years to 7 – 5 years. Just long enough to cover 97% of all traces. Because FFLs would voluntarily keep 4473 forms for an extra couple of years, the actual coverage would probably be 99%.
            This is a constructive exercise. We poke at the proposal and tweak it to see if we can make it better. See if it seems to hold enough water to be salable to the general public. I could be mistaken in my assumptions; maybe BlinkyPete really does plan on 4473’s being retained for 10 or 20 years on private sales. Maybe people will opine that the public would not accept any change that didn’t include a record retention for private sales.

        • I feel that many of your criticisms are hypotheticals around what could go wrong. There are flaws, but there are solutions too. Take your issue with FFL’s taking CCL’s in place of 4473’s – you need look no further than Texas, where that’s the case. If they can do it, there’s no reason everyone can’t do it.

        • I was not aware Texas had the authority to ignore the Federal requirement for a 4473 on all firearm and NFA item sales. To the best of my knowledge, while having a CCW/CHCL may negate the requirement for a NICS check at the time of sale, you still have to fill out the 4473 on all dealer purchases and transfers no matter what state you live in.

          As far as my complaints being hypothetical, your entire premise is a hypothetical, so OF COURSE any disagreements will be, as well. What matters is if a particular opposing argument is rational and plausible.

          If the law changes from all dealer sales requiring a 4473 to only some requiring it, it creates a loophole that it is wide open to exploitation. If you believe that unsavory types WON’T take advantage of such an opportunity, then you need to re-examine pretty much all of human history. Seriously, all you have to do is look at the existing market for fake ID. If minors will go out of their way to get them for something as minor as alcohol, can you honestly tell me that firearms would not generate a similar demand?! How is that not a plausible, nah, PROBABLE, scenario?

        • I should have been more clear – I feel that you and others are using hypothetical issues with the proposal (which isn’t really hypothetical – I wrote it as if I expected it to pass) to dismiss it outright. I’m not saying you aren’t being analytical or that you aren’t making rational arguments, I’m saying I disagree with your approach.

          Regardless, if Texas doesn’t do background checks but does do form 4473’s I stand corrected, but I still don’t see that as a way to disprove the potential effectiveness or benefits of the entire thing. For example, 4473’s could be replaced with forms that only include the users ID number and name or something – no list of guns. Or, it could be electronically checked against a list of revoked CCL’s, meaning you aren’t checking the holder’s background, you’re just confirming that it’s valid. Those are just off the cuff ideas, too. I was honestly hoping more people would have additional ideas/criticisms/changes that weren’t “all background checks are registries – compromise = death!” I’m not quoting you there, I’m just generalizing some of the backlash this seems to have generated.

          I totally see what you’re saying on stolen/faked ID’s, but we don’t use that as an excuse to not have ID’s, we just treat people who break the law as criminals. I don’t see any reason not to take the same approach here.

        • The reason that so many of us are absolutely against a UBC that has ANY purchasing data is because we are looking long term. While you may see your bill as a win, even if the issues that we are pointing out were to be fixed, it is at BEST a short-sighted, short term ‘win’. We can’t look only at how laws that erode our constitutional protections effect us within our lifetimes, or even our childrens’ lifetimes. We must consider the impact they will have 100 years, even 200 years from now. These erosions are invariably incremental and once the foundation is worn away, it is gone, period. Think of it like the Grand Canyon. It started out as just another riverbed, yet now it is an insurmountable gulf. There is no patching or filling-in that will return it to it’s original condition at this point. Governments do not give up power voluntarily. Which means we must hold the line here, now. Because the only other way is to take them back by force of arms. I greatly prefer to do the former so as to avoid the necessity of another Revolutionary or Civil War down the road.

        • I just don’t see it that way. If a photocopy of your LTC is a record, so is the withdrawal slip for the $400 bucks you took out for the gun itself.

          If your goal is reducing the government’s ability to collect data on gun owners, let’s add that too. Let’s reduce the amount of information on 4473’s. Let’s require a warrant to inspect them. The river bed to grand canyon analogy goes both ways, and I think what we both want is a yawning chasm of individual liberty.

        • Now, with regard to the hypothetical arguments poking holes in your proposal, seeing as there isn’t really a feedback system where you can update your proposal to resolve the stated problems, all we can do is reject the original as it stands.

          Also, if you go back to my initial post, you may notice that your fix for the ID loophole–to remove the purchasing data from the 4473–is remarkably similar to what I said already.

          Further, I never once argued against ID in general. I merely pointed out a very realistic potential problem. Considering that the anti’s already scream bloody murder about private party and gun show sales being a ‘loophole’ to avoid background checks, creating an actual, easily exploitable loophole would be ammo the anti’s could then use to further restrict 2A rights later. Which would be a very bad thing after conceding ground to them with a bill like this one.

      • “Also, if you go back to my initial post, you may notice that your fix for the ID loophole–to remove the purchasing data from the 4473–is remarkably similar to what I said already.”

        In your initial post, yes. I missed that, but good work – I think that’s a good idea.

        Just for the record, I didn’t say you were arguing against ID’s in general, I was simply saying we do indeed have the problem that you outlined, and that no one suggests we should just do away with ID’s.

        No matter what happens we can expect the base core of the Anti movement to continue whining, but as I’ve said a few times, I’m not doing this for them. I’m doing this to disarm them of their most popular talking point. It isn’t gun show or internet loopholes, it’s the concept of a universal background system. Once that’s gone they’ll make up some other bullshit Bogey man to go after, but there will be a whole lot fewer people listening.

    • That a background-check is a way of tracking gun purchases is a legitimate objection. However, that is NOT NECESSARILY an argument to try to eliminate background checks. It IS an argument to try to NEUTRALIZE the ability to use background-checks as a proxy for gun purchases. We have to think outside the box here.
      The major issue is that the FFL (or any other source such as a State) makes an inquiry to NICS. Is Joe Schmo clean? To process the inquiry the system contractor must create a record of the inquiry and then hit the database of “priors” to see if it gets a hit. If it gets a hit then the system contractor maintains the record of the inquiry for a very long time. (Maybe the ATF should investigate Joe to see if he is a felon trying to buy a gun.) So far, so good. If there is no hit on Joe then the system contractor returns a “go-ahead” to the inquirer. The system contractor may maintain a record of that inquiry for 24 hours; not longer. It MUST erase the record of the inquiry within 24 hours.
      Has the system contractor: always erased these records; erases them today; will always erase them in the future? There is no way for the government to prove that they never took a copy of these records from the contractor and never would do so in the future. I don’t think they did so; but, I would be a fool to have confidence that they would never do so in the future and didn’t do so at some time in the past. We PoTG should PRESUME that they did violate the law in the past and will certainly do so in the future. It is the only prudent conclusion.
      This would lead the casual PoTG to be opposed to any background-check system altogether. But, this is NOT the only solution to the problem. More than a decade ago some thoughtful people conceived of a system they dubbed “BIDS” (Blind Identification System I think). They broke any possibility of the system contractor ever having the ability to give the government a copy of the inquiries. That is, they SOLVED this problem we ought to be worried about.
      The problem is that the DoJ appoints the system contractor who fields the inquiries from FFLs, States, Sheriffs, etc. All the DoJ has to do is tell the system contractor that if they want to be awarded the contract again next year they had better leak a copy of the file of inquiries to the DoJ. Who can guarantee that wouldn’t happen?
      BIDS solved this problem by distributing the database of priors from NICS to computers outside DoJ’s direct/indirect control. BIDS’ idea was to give a copy of this database to every FFL, etc. BIDS was 99.9% effective. (I can’t imagine more than one or two FFLs turning in their file of inquiries to DoJ.) However, it was probably objectionable for a variety of reasons. A much less radical solution would be for DoJ to give the contract to operate the system to an industry organization such as NRA. Then, the NRA would appoint some system company to operate the system. The NRA would not (in my opinion) be likely to ask the system company to give it a copy of the inquiry file and then turn it over to the DoJ.
      Now, we don’t all have 100% confidence in the NRA; tragic, but true. So, let’s suppose that this idea of the NRA having control over the system company would reduce the effectiveness from 99.9% to just 90%. That’s not quite good enough; a 10% risk of one agent – the NRA – selling us out is unacceptable.
      So, suppose that the FFL dealers association in each of the 50 States could sub-contract from NRA to run its own system. Suppose 25 of the States’ dealers associations did undertake to sub-contract from NRA an appointed their respective system company to run the inquiry system for their State’s FFLs etc. Now, then, there would be 1 point-of-failure – the NRA – serving 25 States’ FFLs; and, 25 additional points-of-failure servicing the other 25 States’ FFLs. Even if the NRA sold-us-out, they would have only the inquiries from half of the States’ background check inquiries. That would not be enough to build a useful database to support confiscation.
      There is another way to make the background-check inquiry data useless. One of the States (KY if memory serves) continually combs through its file of CCP holders looking for anyone with a current permit who might have become disabled since being background-checked. These inquiries distort the statistics of background checks from this State. We can take this practice to its logical conclusion. If every FFL programmed its store system to randomly generate a background-check on it’s customer file then the system company operating the system that fields inquiries would have lots of checks on lots of people that didn’t represent gun purchases. (It would be essential to remove from the inquiry the make/model/serial number of the pending purchase). Jack Schmo would appear to have purchased 12 guns in a year; Jill Schmo 123 guns; and Joe Schmo 1,234 guns. The file of inquiries – even if turned over to the Gestapo – would be useless.
      BlinkyPete’s plan to shift the background-checks on frequent buyers to reliance on the simple showing of a CCP (or the like) would be the simplest way to eliminate most of the risk of leakage of inquiry files to the government. Even so, I’d also like to see the DoJ granting the NRA (or some other industry organization) the contract which the NRA would then farm-out to 1+ sub-contractors. It should be clear that there would be a zero-change in cost if the contract were let by DoJ to NRA and then NRA let the contract to a system company. There should be no objection in principle to an industry organization such as NRA introducing a layer of insulation between the DoJ and the system company.

  7. No. Shall Not Be Infringed means Shall Not Be Infringed. I should be able to walk into the gun store and walk out with a gun as easily as I can walk into Home Depot and walk out with a chainsaw.

    Appeasement is death.

    • Yes, you should. But you can’t. If your choice is what we have now and simply flashing your CCL and walking out with the gun, I don’t understand why you’d choose the former.

    • Rich,

      Your chainsaw scenario is a powerful illustration. A maniac with a chainsaw could wreak havoc and kill countless people. Even worse, the maniac with that chainsaw could use that chainsaw to breach many/most homes and businesses virtually guaranteeing that the maniac could access and kill victims. And yet there is no cry for chainsaw control or background checks.

        • Rich,

          Statists will claim that the Constitutionally enumerated power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce means that Congress can ban the sale of something. However, for reasons that absolutely baffle me, no one seems to apply the historical meaning of the word “regulate” — which means to make sure something functions well just like its use in the Second Amendment. In other words our Constitution did NOT empower Congress to control interstate commerce at its whim; rather our Constitution empowered Congress to guarantee the free flow of goods and services between states.

          Statists will also claim that the Constitutionally enumerated power of Congress to “provide for the general welfare” empowers Congress to ban the sale of firearms.

          I do not agree that Congress has those powers as statists claim and that is why I am not an elected politician.

      • It is a good example, but no one is trying to ban chainsaws. You also don’t need to convince me that restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. It’s clear that Rich doesn’t agree with me on my proposal, but that’s really all we’re arguing about.

        Again – the goal of my proposal is to disarm the anti’s of their most powerful weapon, reduce it’s negative effect on us to almost imperceptible levels and restore other rights that have been taken away.

        • “Again – the goal of my proposal is to disarm the anti’s of their most powerful weapon, reduce it’s negative effect on us to almost imperceptible levels and restore other rights that have been taken away.”

          I get that and it is very much worth discussing … as is happening.

    • i want to be able to walk into sportmart and walk out with a set of jarts. yarddarts. but i can’t. i can get a paslode nail gun though. goes right through a rat.

  8. I like the part about being able to question the NICS system, with a 30-day remedy window, the bit about taking some people off the prohibited list (should Martha Stewart really be a prohibited person?), and especially removing items from the NFA.

    However, the gun grabbers wouldn’t go for it; not even the first part prohibiting transfer to a prohibited person. The point of background checks isn’t to prevent criminals from having guns. It’s to create a list of gun owners and guns, while making legal gun ownership more difficult and expensive.

    • Brilliantly put, but remember, it’s not about what the anti’s want, it’s about what will go through Congress. Republicans handily outnumber Democrats in the house, and there are enough Democrats in the Senate who feel the need to “do something” but also need to save face with their gun owning contingency to get this passed, potentially veto proof. Even if Barry did have the opportunity, it’s unlikely he would if there was any way for him to call it a win.

      With that in place, the anti’s no longer can whine about the gun show loophole and background checks, and Billionaires are much less likely to spend their money on initiates that, for all people know, duplicate laws already in place. Californians will stilled be f*cked, but that state is going sink under seawater or debt soon anyway.

  9. sorry….you are dead wrong. The ONLY way for universal background checks to work is by registration and knowing who has the gun and when it’s transferred. Without that, there’s no real way to prove a check has been done. The antigun folk will gladly accept your bill. A year later they’ll be screaming about the loophole that allows guns to still be sold like they used to and demand registeration. And it will be even easier since they have their foot in the door. Be clear about this. . the disarmament crowd will NEVER stop.. they want confiscation and destruction of the gun culture. There is no such thing as compromise.

    • Well of course they’ll never stop. I don’t care what they do – I just care about how strong they are. The background check thing is the only issue they have strong enough support for to ensure victory in a voter initiative. Once that’s gone they can keep on doing what they’ve always been doing, and you’re right, they’ll probably start talking about how there’s some new loophole, but there will be a whole hell of lot fewer people listening.

      • That is false. It will be harder to prevent them from doing that because we were agreeing to this law. They will argue that otherwise the law doesn’t work. And they will be right. Guys, understand, universal background check is the the backdoor confiscation. Once you conceded that, there is nothing you can do. I’m unwilling to trade this for anything, including the giggle switch.

        • I’m going to ask again how this proposal equals backdoor registration/confiscation. It actually reduces the government’s ability to gather information on gun owners.

        • Because without registration the law is unenforceable. Your alternate solution, the requirement to keep records of all your firearm sales is is really a large burden. If you lose it or it gets damaged somehow (flood, fire, etc) you are in a world of hurt.
          Even if you use your alternate solution to avoid registration, registration will be required at least at a specific moment in time so they can track the guns from there. To give you an example of a firearm serial number look-up: manufacturer -> ffl -> first owner. All is good and dandy, a record exists. Now that firearms through the years changed hands many times. The law that you propose kicks in. Now the first customer have to explain to whom and when he sold the rifle, in the event his rifle turns out at some murder scene. How the lawman can know if he sold it today or 10 years ago. He can’t and as such any UBC will not work without registration. Play it in a little through few scenarios and you will realize it too.

  10. I can’t abide this… Unlike you, I don’t think UBCs will pass, so I’m not doing the the foot work for anti-folks.

    And, yes, I did read it.

    “Silencers, or suppressors, shall no longer be considered an NFA item, but instead a separate firearm to be serialed and sold to end users as such.
    Short barreled rifles and shotguns pose no unique threat, and are hereby stricken from NFA.”

    I like this though, except the serial number part.

  11. sorry…they wont be “gone”.. just like they weren’t “gone” after the GCA of 1968…or the AWB..or any other gun bill they pass. You are naive to believe so. We must fight like Churchill.. every step of the way. Make every little inch cost them. We must never give any ground without a bloody and brutal fight!

  12. This is why we can’t get any headway. They want gun control. This bill gives them “gun control”. It literally doesn’t actually extend background checks. In fact, it limits them even further. It’s a good piece of subterfuge, and I can get behind it. It’s time for us to play politics too. Honesty is great, but doublespeak wins elections and passes bills. Why do you think gun control laws always include the word “Safety”? We all know that none of them are about safety. They’re about control. Yet you rarely see the word “control” in the title of said bills…

    • I think that you should think harder about how the UCB can be enforced. You will see that is not this simple at it seems.

      • The only way it can be is if someone transfers a gun to a prohibited person, either knowingly or by failing to reasonably verify that they aren’t prohibited.

  13. Actually, there is a very good way to get rid of the universal background checks. On most honest web sites about face-to-face transactions, the sellers require either CCW license or military id. None of those methods were introduced as background check replacements, but once they were available people began to use them.

    How about having an online NCIS system, where you enter your personal information (same as the form at the dealer) and you get back an “Allow” or “Deny” page together with a unique identifier, valid for a number of days or weeks.
    Anybody going to the NCIS site that know your last name and the unique identifier will be able to get the same report so they can verify if you’re a prohibited person or not.
    If such a system was available, I can bet most people would use it to check the transfers even if it wasn’t required by law.

    • The first part is in this proposal – CCL holders would no longer need to take background checks at FFL’s either.

      The second part was part of some Representative’s proposal as an alternative to Manchion Toomey. I don’t have an issue with it, I just think this is more workable since it doesn’t require the development of a new system.

  14. I like the effort here.
    I am however not convinced that UBC is a certainty but that does not mean we cannot propose changes to the current laws.
    I am not DC insider or expert, so I will refrain from commenting on what rolling NFA changes into it will or will not do to your proposal.
    One layman’s thought is however that we all know the last minutes changes that get voted for because nobody reads the final draft, which makes adding too many nuances seem dangerous. Not saying it shouldn’t be done, just a thought that came to mind.

    What I have personally proposed here, elsewhere and to pro/anti reporters and politicians is that the NICS system should not be restricted to FFLs. That as a private person, I have the CHOICE, to utilize the system when selling/buying a gun. I have done countless F2F deals and every single time, we make do with what little means we have to ensure we don’t hand a felon a firearm. Not that anyone would be guaranteed to find out about it but just because most of us don’t like selling to guns to violent felons.
    So we deal with Bills of Sale, asking for local IDs, DLs or even restrict sales to people with local CWPs. I doubt anyone does that because they long for mandated universal background checks.

    No they do it because they don’t want to enable a criminal to commit another crime.

    Open up NICS to the public, for free, for ten years, and then come back with a study to see how many transactions were done voluntarily. I suspect adoption would much higher than any anti could dream of. It would shut up the anyone claiming gun owners are radical gun nuts, or whatever other stereo type we get painted with. And remove the need for expensive mandated UBS.

    Obviously the system would need to get some features added to protect privacy and not turn it into some free-for-all background check system rife for abuse. However all those details have been proposed at length from multiple sources.

    What do you think about that, Pete?

    • I agree with your first point – I approached this with some cockeyed optimism, both in how readers here would take it and how DC would actually approach it. Most of us know the Hughes Amendment was sneakily dropped into the 86 Gun Owners Protection Act. Reagan actually considered vetoing it based on that, but the NRA told him to sign it, and that the loss of machine guns was worth getting rid of huge parts of the GCA.

      Obviously, protections would need to be put in place to prevent anything like that from happening here. What I more hoped I could do was demonstrate that three birds could indeed be killed with one stone.

      On the study front, I actually thought about that, but then I looked at how much the Department of Justice Study on the AWB did for us. It certainly didn’t stop DiFi from constantly misquoting some initial assessment in the study 6 months after the bill passed.

      Overall I do like your idea of opening NICS for all. My only concern is it means the government has to create a new infrastructure for us to use, and we all know how good they are at that. My thinking is that once concealed carry holders were exempt everyone would just go that route anyway.

  15. I’m going bold here and state the whole background check is a complete waste of time & resources. If criminals are not concerned, and less than 1/2 % are prosecuted, what’s the point? Just another layer of bureaucratic nonsense draining the peoples coin. The opportunity to make the cost of being a criminal death via lawful self defense, will do more to deter crime than any program current envision by our legislators. And our criminal friends throwing the dice, the opportunity to exit the gene pool…bypassing the judicial legal castle coin collection, will make lawful citizen happy, increase property values, lower the amount of police, prosecutors, judges, probation officers, prisons and improve the balance sheets of our communities.

  16. <