UBC Details Begin To Emerge

[Hobbes]

Originally I posted this in another thread but decided it deserves it's own thread.

Some of the details are starting to leak out:

Here’s where things stand, according to several sources. There is general agreement on the concept of expanding the background check to cover most private sales, and on the concept of improving state mental illness data-sharing with the feds — which is important, because it means the four more or less agree on the fundamental policy goal here. The four Senators are in discussions about exemptions — sales among family members — and about tweaking the way background checks are performed for private sales in certain rural areas. But sources say those are unlikely to be sticking points. The four Senators are discussing yet another possible exception designed to make the deal more palatable to gun rights lawmakers: Exempting those who have already obtained “conceal and carry” permits, the idea being they’ve already undergone a background check.

One thing that still needs to be resolved is how to ensure that an expanded background check does not create some kind of national gun registry — again, in order to mollify gun rights lawmakers. The law as currently configured explicitly forbids the creation of any such registry, and it requires that any data collected during a legal gun transfer be destroyed within 24 hours. Despite this, the four Senators are discussing ways to write in new legislative language that would add additional safeguards against any data collection.
...
“There is complete agreement, among Democrats and Republicans in the talks, that nothing will be by law or look in any way like a national gun registry,” says Jim Kessler, vice president at the centrist group Third Way, who has been briefed on ongoing discussions. Third Way recently put out a memo explaining why such a policy simply can’t produce any national registry.

To put it bluntly, the problem faced by Republicans inclined to support an expanded background check is that GOP lawmakers (such as Orrin Hatch and Mitch McConnell) who don’t want to support this policy continue to misrepresent it, falsely claiming it would create a national gun registry. Because this convinces a lot of folks on the right that such an outcome is possible, Republicans inclined to support the proposal face major blowback, and so the four lawmakers are debating ways to add the additional safeguards.

There is some additional debate over what should happen to receipts from gun sales, which are currently kept by gun stores. One idea being looked at is letting the gun buyers in rural areas keep the receipts

.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...san-deal-close-on-expanded-background-checks/


Here's how the folks over at DailyKos see it:

Expanding background checks to private gun sales is the new firearms restriction that gets the widest support from Americans, more than 90 percent according to numerous polls. Backers include a majority of gun owners and a majority of members of the National Rifle Association, though not the leadership of that gun industry mouthpiece. Currently, only federally licensed dealers are required to run background checks on potential buyers. What percentage of guns is sold privately is a matter of dispute.

The deal's parameters so far, according to several of Sargent's sources:

• agreement on the concept of expanding the background check to cover most private sales

• agreement on the concept of improving state mental illness data-sharing with the federal government

• discussions still under way about background-check exemptions that would include sales or other transfers

• discussions ongoing on altering how background checks are performed for private sales in certain rural areas

• discussions about exempting Americans who have undergone background checks to obtain “conceal and carry” permits

A Government Accountability Office report last July calculated the number of concealed carry permits issued nationwide at about eight million although their distribution is uneven. Florida alone has more than a million.

Opposition to creating any kind of gun registry remains strong. Under current law (Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3)), the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day. That means, on allowed transactions—which comprise 97-98 percent of all background checks—NICS records are destroyed within 24 hours. Destruction used to be required within 90 days. Sargent notes that despite current law, the four senators are trying to come up with additional safeguards against a registry, something that most gun-rights advocates vehemently oppose. They see it as opening the door to later government confiscation of some—or all—guns.

In the view of some critics, for background checks to really be effective, a registry is needed so that gun trafficking can be curtailed and guns more easily traced. Some gun-rights advocates say background checks can never be effective without a registry. They therefore oppose passing an expansion of background checks which they say will do no good. Ain't that the perfect Catch-22?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...extending-background-checks-for-gun-purchases


The part that I emphasized in bold leads me to believe that if that were part of the bill the number of people seeking CC permits would soar.

 

[338Shooter]

Why don't they require background checks to petition the government?

 

[Fredkrueger100]

I am supposed to believe a politician? Yeah right. They can say whatever they want to say and I won't believe a word of it. UBC will do nothing to make crime less and in order for it to actually work there would have to be registration. That is the only logical way that it could be successful. So when they say that it won't involve registration they are lying. That is all the government does. They lie about everything. And do you really think that they will stop at just UBC? That will only be the beginning. If that passes then in a couple of years they will say that it doesn't work and that they need to implement registration to make it work. Or they will come up with something else to do to us. It all has the same outcome.

 

[chuter]

I am supposed to believe a politician? Yeah right. They can say whatever they want to say and I won't believe a word of it. UBC will do nothing to make crime less and in order for it to actually work there would have to be registration. That is the only logical way that it could be successful. So when they say that it won't involve registration they are lying. That is all the government does. They lie about everything. And do you really think that they will stop at just UBC? That will only be the beginning. If that passes then in a couple of years they will say that it doesn't work and that they need to implement registration to make it work. Or they will come up with something else to do to us. It all has the same outcome.

I agree. They can pass something now that includes UBC but somehow says no registration, and 2 years from now it will be a loophole that needs to be plugged with registration.

 

[HMFIC]

I only have this to say

NO BACKGROUND CHECKS ON PRIVATE TRANSACTIONS. STAY OUT OF MY FREEDOM MR. GOVERNMENT.

 

[okiebryan]

I am supposed to believe a politician? Yeah right. They can say whatever they want to say and I won't believe a word of it. UBC will do nothing to make crime less and in order for it to actually work there would have to be registration. That is the only logical way that it could be successful. So when they say that it won't involve registration they are lying. That is all the government does. They lie about everything. And do you really think that they will stop at just UBC? That will only be the beginning. If that passes then in a couple of years they will say that it doesn't work and that they need to implement registration to make it work. Or they will come up with something else to do to us. It all has the same outcome.

That's just it. It makes no difference whether it does one single thing to prevent crime. That's not the point. 20 kids got killed. They have to do something, even if it's totally ineffective. That's just how this crap works. Do something so that the pols can tell their voters that they did something.

We are going to take it in the you know where. It's inevitable. They question is, how far do you want it shoved in the you know where? And how long will this be "good enough" until they come back for more?

I don't like this one bit. But I'd rather they do this than ban certain firearms because of scary black features. I personally feel like the Federal pols don't give two sh!+s what we want, and will just do whatever they decide to do. Our important battlefield is these states (like Colorado).

 

[uncle money bags]

They dont "have" to do squat. They want to do it, and this tragedy is being exploited to that end.

 

[okiebryan]

They dont "have" to do squat. They want to do it, and this tragedy is being exploited to that end.

Clearly you lack some understanding of how politics works.

 

[farmerbyron]

I'm sure this is going to be pushed as some sort of "compromise" that we can all agree on. Let's remind ourselves what the term "compromise" means.

com·pro·mise
noun \ˈkäm-prə-ˌmīz\
Definition of COMPROMISE
1
a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions
b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things

The only concessions I see are the continuation of compromises gun owners have made since 1934 with the original NFA. If they want an actual compromise, start talking about taking items off the NFA tax stamp BS like suppressors and SBRs. Let's start moving this back in the proper direction so we can actually meet the definition of "compromise".

 

[okiebryan]

I'm sure this is going to be pushed as some sort of "compromise" that we can all agree on. Let's remind ourselves what the term "compromise" means.




The only concessions I see are the continuation of compromises gun owners have made since 1934 with the original NFA. If they want an actual compromise, start talking about taking items off the NFA tax stamp BS like suppressors and SBRs. Let's start moving this back in the proper direction so we can actually meet the definition of "compromise".

I like the way you think.