My biggest problem with UBCs

[jcizzle]

This I know is not popular opinionon herr but I'll say that if ubcs could work I wouldn't ha e a problem with the.

However, I am adamantly against them because they can't work. Not without leading to the next step of forced registration.

Why would it take forced registrationto make ubcs work?

Lets say Bill is selling Bob a .223 bolt actio. Rifle for a couple hu drex bucks. They aren't best friends but have known each other for quite some time. Bill isn't gonna requireBob to spend an extra $20 plus go through the hassle himself of meeting across town or 20miles into town to a dealer for a check on Bob. After all since the gu. Isn't registered nobody will really ever know its sold or a d bill doesn't have it aanymore or that bob now owns one anyway.

Therefore the law can't be inforced. Why have a law that cant be enforced? The reason would be so that five years down the road grabbers can say we need a registration to close the "loophole" in the ubc requirements. Plus don't think they wont start saving data from transfers that do take place so they'llgave a start on the registration database already

I'm not a lawyer but that's my analysis. Taake it for what u will


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

 

[greezypete]

I doubt the gun grabbers would wait 5 years. They would do it before obama left office.

 

[Keyser328]

The only way I could see a "UBC" working and not require mass registration would be to include it with a state issues ID, like a driver's license. If someone has lost their second amendment rights due to their own acts, then put an obvious marker on the ID, such as how the driver's license for a 19 year old indicates they cannot purchase alcohol.

The principle is simple, you don't have to track who is buying what is your 'pre-screen' everyone up front. Is it still a jab at the 2A, yeah, but it is the smallest one I can think of. Heck, it would even eliminate the need for 4473s.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

The only way I could see a "UBC" working and not require mass registration would be to include it with a state issues ID, like a driver's license. If someone has lost their second amendment rights due to their own acts, then put an obvious marker on the ID, such as how the driver's license for a 19 year old indicates they cannot purchase alcohol.

The principle is simple, you don't have to track who is buying what is your 'pre-screen' everyone up front. Is it still a jab at the 2A, yeah, but it is the smallest one I can think of. Heck, it would even eliminate the need for 4473s.

. The ID idea is good. That would be a great way to give someone the heads up.

 

[Spata]

The only way I could see a "UBC" working and not require mass registration would be to include it with a state issues ID, like a driver's license. If someone has lost their second amendment rights due to their own acts, then put an obvious marker on the ID, such as how the driver's license for a 19 year old indicates they cannot purchase alcohol.

The principle is simple, you don't have to track who is buying what is your 'pre-screen' everyone up front. Is it still a jab at the 2A, yeah, but it is the smallest one I can think of. Heck, it would even eliminate the need for 4473s.

your logic makes too much sense. please stop.

 

[okietom]

Was one of Coburns ideas to exempt CWL holders?

 

[cmhbob]

I'd read this column by Alan Korwin a while back, and it seems even more germane now. He's corresponded with some folks who have a better idea for background checks than NICS. They call it BIDS, and it basically inverts the background check system. Instead of dealers calling a government employee who checks the database, the dealer has direct access to the database, and just does a name/dob/identifier lookup. If the name is on the list, the would-be buyer then has to go clear things up. If the name isn't on the list, the sale proceeds.

Each gun dealer would have a list of all persons prohibited from buying guns. Instead of a government background check, dealers themselves would check potential buyers against the list. BIDS would list firearms disabilities, but not the reasons for disabilities. Since buyer names would not go to the government, it could not build dangerous registries. Dealers would no longer have to retain records that identify buyers, and would be prohibited from doing so without disclosure to customers. This prevents the government from registering buyers by seizing dealer records.

BIDS will be computer based and simply automatically updated online, like antiviral programs or software updates. It would be encrypted for privacy, and like the current NICS system, could only be used lawfully by dealers for checking prospective buyers. Violations in its use, which can be easily verified, jeopardizes the dealer’s license to operate.

Internet access is convenient but not essential, since the list could also be provided on disk or even in hardcopy, updated by mail. Because criminal sentences are public information, the identity of nearly all prohibited persons does not present a serious privacy issue, and the data can only be used for the intended purpose.

Because the dealers use the system at the point of sale, the huge federal staffs employed by NICS could be disbanded, yielding significant budget savings. The effort needed to maintain the BIDS list, which is part-and-parcel of routine law enforcement work, is already accomplished primarily in the NCIC and III systems, and represents no additional cost.

BIDS does the exact same job as NICS, with less effort from dealers (it eliminates the 10 million phone calls currently required annually), with identical dealer-compliance requirements and punishments for failure to comply, saves taxpayers buckets of money, and prevents the very dangerous prospect of government compiled lists of innocent gun owners.

Read more about BIDS here: http://www.gunlaws.com/BIDS v. NICS.htm

 

[Stan Upchurch]

We could require that all gun owners take classes like the hunter ed classes, and the ccc classes.
Then pass an exam that included a shooting portion and if they passed, give them a permantent license.
Then gun pruchases would be like buying gasoline. But if you used you gun incorrectly or did not
care for it correctly, then there would be a penalty. If you had 'X' number of points on the license
you would lose your guns. That is what many people believe UBC is or will become. That was suggested in
Germany in 1931. Worked well didn't it. Who would 'know' who owned the guns, and exactly how many,
and where they were kept...

 

[Belthos]

Owning guns is a right.
They tell us driving is a privilege, though I'd disagree. The constitution didn't require permits to ride a horse or drive a wagon.

That said, We have to get a license to drive but cannot require a license to own a gun.
Make it a requirement that you cannot get a drivers license until you are 25.
Provide a shortcut in the law that allows someone who passes both a driving class and a gun safety class, including range time and firearms proficiency the opportunity to drive at age 16.
The test doesn't have to prove they are an expert marksman, Just able to put 10 rounds with an AR into a man sized target target at 25 yards. Even allow a shot to the ears or toes to count.
The second test is to put 10 rounds into a man sized target with a handgun at 7 yards.

Put a small image of an AR15 on their license, put a bar sinister across the image if they lose the right to carry under the law.

Make it a felony to sell a firearm to someone, who isn't a relative by blood or marriage, without an AR15 on their license unless you have a background check at an FFL, but for all other cases the possession of a driver's license with a gun picture on it is the
UBC.

 

[jdgabbard]

I will not comply with Universal Checks. A just government has no need to know who has my gun, or the gun of my neighbor. I WILL NEVER file a 4473 for a private transfer. The government, for their own good, never needs to know where my guns are.