How would universal background check be enforceable?

[BigBlue]

I'm struggling to understand how the proposal for forcing background checks on all firearm transfers would even be enforceable. Since there is no 'master list' of registered firearms tracking where they are, it seems to be that firearms could still be transferred without a FFL and there would be no way to tell.

For instance: Say I purchase a new 1911. It goes through the NICS check at the dealer I buy it from. A year later I give it to my son, without any FFL involvement. There is no way for any authority to know or claim that he is not legally the owner of that weapon. The original NICS check is not put into a master database that is searchable. Even though he is not the original owner there is nothing to prove that it wasn't officially transferred by an FFL. If they ask which FFL it was so they could check the paperwork "I don't remember". There are hundreds (thousands?) of FFLs in MN so what are they going to do, subpoena records from all of them?

This same scenario could hold true for any person-to-person transfer, whether gift or sale. Nobody can prove that the current holder of the firearm did not get it via an FFL transfer because there is no central repository of records showing the history of transfers. There is no requirement that I've seen proposed regarding these 'universal background checks' that says anything about someone having to maintain a record of the transfer or prove that it happened to justify their possession of the firearm.

Now I'm sure that if someone did one of these 'illegal' transfers and the weapon was eventually used in a crime, then they would come knocking on the original owner's door. But there still is no requirement to prove that you did the FFL transfer. "It was years ago and I don't remember which FFL was used." What are they going to do??

If it is this easy to poke holes in the proposed law, what good is it? Or am I missing something?

BB

[Texastransplant]

Yes, the part where they change the law to require registration.

[BigBlue]

Yes, the part where they change the law to require registration.

Of course, that's obviously their next step. I'm just curious about talking about the current proposed rules.

But now that you mention it, I'll just say that it seems quite clear this 'universal background check' is a step towards full registration because they can, after it is implemented, use the same situation I described above to make the case for why it isn't enough and registration is required. The antis aren't stupid. They have a very carefully planned strategy that they are working through. It is very long-term, but if we give in to any part of it they will eventually gain enough momentum to win.

[Texastransplant]

Exactly. It's designed to fail, just like the Affordable Care Act is designed to fail so the mob clamors for "single payer."

[xd ED]

I don't see it as long term at all: Registration will happen if a universal background check is legislation. I defy anyone- pro or con to explain how a background check could be verified for a specific purchase without tying the firearm to the purchaser and seller. The only question then is the confiscation timetable.

[Texastransplant]

I don't see it as long term at all: Registration will happen if a universal background check is legislation. I defy anyone- pro or con to explain how a background check could be verified for a specific purchase without tying the firearm to the purchaser and seller. The only question then is the confiscation timetable.

Tick tock, tick tock...

[St. Olaf]

You missed the part where you knowingly became a felon and also made your son a felon......and anybody else who happened to hear about the deal if they didn't cooperate with the law. MAYBE they'd never find out and MAYBE they would......you'd be living under that cloud.

It's reasonable to believe that the "owner" of a gun should be able to say where he got it......."I don't 'member," is about as good as "my dog ate my homework." They'd smell a rat and put the pressure on.

After a few hours of questioning, the stories get tangled and things break down.

You probably also missed the part where a friend or a family member gives you up to keep from being charged as an accessory.

Also the part where they offer you a deal to stay out of prison and you plead guilty to save yourself (the legal fees would be mounting).

They wouldn't have to check EVERY FFL holder, just the likely ones. When no records show up it would get harder and harder to explain.

If they did pass a law like that, they'd probably call in all info and create a searchable database.

I hope they never pass a law like that.

The current proposal (which has a pretty good chance of passing) allows for gifts among family members as far as I know.

[BigBlue]

You missed the part where you knowingly became a felon and also made your son a felon......and anybody else who happened to hear about the deal if they didn't cooperate with the law. MAYBE they'd never find out and MAYBE they would......you'd be living under that cloud.

It's reasonable to believe that the "owner" of a gun should be able to say where he got it......."I don't 'member," is about as good as "my dog ate my homework." They'd smell a rat and put the pressure on.

After a few hours of questioning, the stories get tangled and things break down.

You probably also missed the part where a friend or a family member gives you up to keep from being charged as an accessory.

Also the part where they offer you a deal to stay out of prison and you plead guilty to save yourself (the legal fees would be mounting).

They wouldn't have to check EVERY FFL holder, just the likely ones. When no records show up it would get harder and harder to explain.

If they did pass a law like that, they'd probably call in all info and create a searchable database.

I hope they never pass a law like that.

The current proposal (which has a pretty good chance of passing) allows for gifts among family members as far as I know.

But none of what you say matters (with one *exception - see below), in my opinion, since there is no registry of where a gun currently resides and there is no law saying you have to maintain proof of where you purchased it. There are dozens or hundreds of FFLs within 50 miles of where I live. For someone to remember specifics years later isn't likely, nor is it required. Authorities can't just 'check the likely FFLs' and then deem that you are lying. US laws require proof and facts. They can suspect all they want, but they have no means to prove anything unless they subpoenaed all FFL records in the state from the date of original purchase onward and examined them. You're not legally required to prove where you got it transferred and they must prove you didn't do it.

*The piece that matters is the part about needing to implement the registration to go along with the background checks to make them useful.

Mind you, I'm not advocating this type of transfer necessarily, I am pointing out the holes in the proposed plan to show how useless it would be. Knowing the flaws and the likely follow-on legislation that will then become 'needed to make this existing law work' can help us make the point to FUDDs and others on the fence who think we are too paranoid. Facts and logic can sometimes help overcome emotional stances on topics. Not always, but sometimes. And we need all the folks on our side we can get.

BB

[damian_mb]

You all are forgetting NDAA...if the feds get involved you're pretty much screwed

[Jackpine Savage]

It's reasonable to believe that the "owner" of a gun should be able to say where he got it......."I don't 'member," is about as good as "my dog ate my homework." They'd smell a rat and put the pressure on.

After a few hours of questioning, the stories get tangled and things break down.

I'm sorry officer, I would like to speak with my lawyer.

[jdege]

I'm struggling to understand how the proposal for forcing background checks on all firearm transfers would even be enforceable. Since there is no 'master list' of registered firearms tracking where they are, it seems to be that firearms could still be transferred without a FFL and there would be no way to tell.

That's why HF.0244:

Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 609.505, is amended by adding a subdivision
to read:
Subd. 3. Lost or stolen firearms; false reporting. (a) As used in this section,
"crime of violence" has the meaning given in section 624.712, subdivision 5.
(b) Whoever informs a law enforcement officer that a firearm has been lost or stolen,
knowing that the report is false, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(c) A person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more
than five years, or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if the person:
(1) is convicted a second or subsequent time of violating this subdivision; or
(2) violates paragraph (b) while knowing, or having reason to believe, that the
firearm has been transferred to someone who intends to use it in furtherance of a felony
crime of violence.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2013, and applies to crimes
committed on or after that date.

[BigBlue]

I'm struggling to understand how the proposal for forcing background checks on all firearm transfers would even be enforceable. Since there is no 'master list' of registered firearms tracking where they are, it seems to be that firearms could still be transferred without a FFL and there would be no way to tell.

That's why HF.0244:

Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 609.505, is amended by adding a subdivision
to read:
Subd. 3. Lost or stolen firearms; false reporting. (a) As used in this section,
"crime of violence" has the meaning given in section 624.712, subdivision 5.
(b) Whoever informs a law enforcement officer that a firearm has been lost or stolen,
knowing that the report is false, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(c) A person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more
than five years, or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if the person:
(1) is convicted a second or subsequent time of violating this subdivision; or
(2) violates paragraph (b) while knowing, or having reason to believe, that the
firearm has been transferred to someone who intends to use it in furtherance of a felony
crime of violence.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2013, and applies to crimes
committed on or after that date.

That doesn't apply to what I'm talking about. I'm not referring to trying to transfer weapons banned by the 'assault weapon ban' in my original post, I'm referring to universal background checks required for transfers of all (then legal) firearms. I didn't propose saying anything to authorities about lost or stolen. I said telling them it was transferred via an FFL but not telling them which one so they have no way to check. Yes, that is a lie in my hypothetical, but an unprovable one. They can't prove I didn't transfer it legally because there is no tracking mechanism and there is no requirement that we maintain proof of legal transfer.

My question was very specific to the universal background check, not talking about all of the other potential issues with banned items.

BB

[St. Olaf]

I'm thinking the circumstantial evidence is fairly strong in your scenario......and when that happens and the people around you are questioned--more things start to come out, the stories start to show inconsistencies and eventually somebody breaks.

I recommend obeying the law.