Poll: Would you support universal background checks if no information about the purchase was collected?

[DB is Here]

I replied NO. We've had it in WA for 2 years...Not one trial or conviction either...total waste of time, only another tax and hindrance to good people.

 

[Ralgha]

Hell yes I would support this, so would pretty much everybody else. The problem is making it actually work, and that's what's getting people tied up in knots about it. The question didn't ask how you would do it, if it were possible, etc., only whether you would support it IF it existed. That it hasn't been done and nobody can figure out how to effectively do it right now is irrelevant to the OP's question.

 

[DB is Here]

The problem is making it actually work, and that's what's getting people tied up in knots about it.

Yet it didn't stop WA Leg from enacting yet another "FEEL GOOD/DO NOTHING" Law.

 

[XManSV]

Yes if it was only a check on the buyer NOTHING ELSE and no records kept. Sure why not, I would LIKE to be able to make sure I am not selling to a criminal.

 

[fredseviltwin]

Not only no but hell no. The constant push from the left seems to cause people to weaken on this issue. The fact is these UBC's are the foot in the door. The end game is ALWAYS CONFISCATION.
See California.
We must continue to push this crap back.

 

[HB of CJ]

ABSOLUTELY POSITIVITY NO, NO NO!!!

 

[Ralgha]

Yet it didn't stop WA Leg from enacting yet another "FEEL GOOD/DO NOTHING" Law.

Again, irrelevant to the question.

Not only no but hell no. The constant push from the left seems to cause people to weaken on this issue. The fact is these UBC's are the foot in the door. The end game is ALWAYS CONFISCATION.
See California.
We must continue to push this crap back.

Again, adding things to the question. The question is not about ANY current UBC, it's about a hypothetical UBC that does not exist so far as I'm aware.

 

[crstrode]

Sounds like infringement to me.

 

[HuckleberryFun]

I could get behind UBC's for all politicians! Otherwise, the gubernment can check my colon!

Hate to tell you Nambu, but everything about your colon is already on file. Take a dump on the wrong person and they KNOW who to trace it back to....

 

[9x23w]

It's my understanding that the current FBI check for long guns has no information on what you have bought, other than the fact that it's a long gun. Not sure about handguns. So the government only knows you bought a long gun. Do you think they can't figure out that you own guns? Did you buy one from Gunbroker? Did you buy some ammunition with a credit card? Do you belong to a local gun club? Did you register with this Board? Figuring out who owns guns is not an issue, they can easily do it if they haven't done it already.

 

[Truenorth]

I assume 99% of us on this forum have already had this extensive background check when we applied for our concealed carry permit. UBC may sound innocent but it's far to vague at the moment.

Giving a some unknown branch of government with an unknown set of criteria the power to blacklist me from purchasing firearms without recourse is not something I'd support.

 

[Goosebrown]

How would you verify if any particular firearm was sold with the background check then at some point in the future?

You wouldn't know other than "a" firearm was sold and the transaction was approved. That is the same as it is SUPPOSED to work now. You fill out a 4473 and you can buy as many guns on it as you like. Only one serial number has to be reported. More than a report of a fire arm sold, this would be a system of a seller and a buyer being matched and the ability of the buyer to own a gun.

All that gets saved is a transaction id, date, and yes or no. Even the transaction ID and the Y/N is enough.

 

[Inquisitor]

Colorado's Universal Background Check law became effective on July 1, 2013. Two years after this date, where is the data proving the immediate and dramatic reduction in violent crime which the Democrats and the "Gun Safety[?]" groups claim these laws will accomplish?

The data from the 1st year are:
311,000 total background checks conducted
13,600 private sales = 4.4% of the total (NOT THE 40% CLAIMED!)
260 total denials = 0.084% of the total (there is no data available regarding if any of these denials were overturned on appeal, which would reduce the percentages even more).

Here's the data that shows these laws make firearm purchases more costly, onerous and restrictive for lawabiding firearm purchasers. Again I ask, where is the data proving the benefits of these laws? "I think maybe it might . . ." is not proof!

311,000 total background checks (@ $10.00 to $50.00 each for background check and recording by FFL) = $3,110,000 to $15,550,000 additional cost to purchasers.

Gun owners' cost to identify each denial (260) = $35,885 average cost each, paid for by legal gun purchasers.

 

[teflon6string]

...
Otherwise, the gubernment can check my colon!

They're doing mine already. April 15 rolls around about the time I quit bleeding from my annual Moldnomah County property tax rootering.

 

[Deadwood]

I do not support any state or local gov't background check. I believe that the federal government is the only level of Government that in ANY way qualifies to pass ANY law that affects one of the fundamental rights protected under the US Constitution.

This does not mean I think the US government can "Infringe" the 2nd amendment either. It just states my position on just who has authority to pass laws on the issue.

 

[skeezix]

I vote: Go bubblegum yourself..... Or in other words....HELL NO!!!!

 

[I594 Sucks]

Before you read further know that I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment and love my guns. I am just curious as to what others thought about this idea.

I had this thought the other day that maybe gun owners would be ok with universal background checks if there was no information collected about the firearm being purchased and I mean NO information even being written down. Just a check to ensure that the buyer is legal to purchase and all that jazz.

EDIT: I'm thinking I probably shouldn't have left in that 3rd option on the poll.

Being a 2nd Amendment supporter, you must realize that background checks are not in any part of our Constitution, period...why even ask the question?

 

[skeezix]

Any citizen should be able to own whatever firearm they would like to own. THEN, if you use it to commit a crime, you should loose the right to own that firearm, and pay the full penalty of the crime (as determined by a judge and/or jury).

 

[DunRanull]

NO. Too often the enemies of freedom have shown their ability to twist things to their advantage and circumvent the meaning of the law- - keep secret illegal records, in this case.

 

[Cheby]

You wouldn't know other than "a" firearm was sold and the transaction was approved. That is the same as it is SUPPOSED to work now. You fill out a 4473 and you can buy as many guns on it as you like. Only one serial number has to be reported. More than a report of a fire arm sold, this would be a system of a seller and a buyer being matched and the ability of the buyer to own a gun.

All that gets saved is a transaction id, date, and yes or no. Even the transaction ID and the Y/N is enough.

Seems like there is some contradiction here. If the serial numbers are reported than it means they would know how many firearms belong to any particular person. Also with a little effort the type of any firearm could be easily identified by the serial numbers as well. People oppose the BC for many different reasons. One of them is the data collection could lead to easy confiscation. Collecting the serial numbers is exactly the case here.