Would you support 100% background checks?

[71buickfreak]

If the records were not stored or retained, and they were made as a no-cost option where you could bypass an FFL and do the check at your local courthouse for example, would you support it? Maybe throw in the stipulation that any denials would result in automatic notification DA? The system itself would not change, no additional checks or requirements. Could you support that?

 

[abajaj11]

If the records were not stored or retained, and they were made as a no-cost option where you could bypass an FFL and do the check at your local courthouse for example, would you support it? Maybe throw in the stipulation that any denials would result in automatic notification DA? The system itself would not change, no additional checks or requirements. Could you support that?

How can the government monitor if someone does a background check if they don;t even know that a sale took place in the first place? the ONLY way to know that a sale took place is to know who already owns what.
What you are proposing when you say "no records" is SUGGESTED Background checks, not UNIVERSAL BCs.

 

[71buickfreak]

How can the government monitor if someone does a background check if they don;t even know that a sale took place in the first place? the ONLY way to know that a sale took place is to know who already owns what.
What you are proposing when you say "no records" is SUGGESTED Background checks, not UNIVERSAL BCs.

very true. However, I would expect there to be undercover agents buying guns all over the place looking for peeps willing to not run a check.

 

[abajaj11]

very true. However, I would expect there to be undercover agents buying guns all over the place looking for peeps willing to not run a check.

70 million plus guns have been sold since current POTUS took office (on 4473 forms). Some more have been sold with legal FTF transactions in free states like OK.
of these 70 million + transactions, IMHO, agents can only sting a very tiny percentage....probably 2-3,000. That's not sufficient, from the government's perspective, to be able to monitor a UBC requirement.
DOJ has already sent a private memo to POTUS saying they would need a registry to enforce any kind of UBC requirement.
Check this memo out (especially the section on UBCs requiring a registry):

http://static.infowars.com/2013/02/i/general/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

 

[KOPBET]

So what would you be willing to turn over to a complete stranger in order for them to run a background check on you? What would you be willing to accept a proof of identity from someone? Can that information be faked or forged? Can the information you provide be later used against you in some manner? Who could that information be sold or given to? What would your civil or criminal liability be if you obtained a BG check but could not later produce evidence of that check?

 

[ChuckC]

In a word. No. Unenforceable without registration. Can't think of any scenario where I could support a UBC.

 

[71buickfreak]

All good points.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Why should we have background checks to exercise natural rights protected by our Constitution?

 

[TANSTAAFL]

How about the disturbing trend where people passed one or two years ago, then something from 40 years ago appears on their record? What if the system is "tweaked" so that at first 1 out of 1000 fails, then 1 out of a 100, then 1 out of 10? How does one fight it if there is a mistake?

 

[jfssms]

Why should we have background checks to exercise natural rights protected by our Constitution?

because it's reasonable?