A proposal for universal background checks and reducing arms trafficking

[krispos42]

I posted this before in another thread some time ago ago, as a reply.

It seems that, with the failure of Congress to do anything on UBCs so far this year, this is something that can be pushed for that would reduce arms trafficking, prevent straw purchases, and keep guns from being bought by criminals.

[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]1) Universal background checks. The ATF should create a special kind of license. This license, which I'll call "Firearms Transfer Agent License" or FTAL, would be issued by the ATF to people that would make money acting as a transfer agent from a private seller to a private buyer. An FTAL would not be a stocking firearms dealer, but would have access to the NICS system and would have all the appropriate forms to purchase a firearm. The fee the FTAL could charge would be no more than 3x the federal minimum wage (currently, $21.45) to transfer a gun.

I think that there would be a lot of people that would make some extra money on the side by doing these transfers. A nice little kitchen-table business. Currently, only federal firearm licensees (FFLs) can access NICS.

This would make private-to-private transfers fast and easy. Excessive travel would not be required; hopefully there could be one or two per 1,000 people.

2) A purchase limit of 12 guns a year. After your 12th gun is purchased in a calender year, the NICS system will not approve any more transfers until January 1st of the next year. If you want to buy more guns than that, get a permit.

I'll even go lower, down to 10. I based the "12" on the fact that some states have a one-gun-a-month policy, or 12 per year total.

This should cut down on trafficking.

3) A sale limit of 12 guns per year, unless the sales are to a federally licensed dealer. Again, after you sell your 12th gun, the NICS system refuses to approve any more transfers until January 1st, unless you're selling them to an FFL.

Again, if you're selling this many guns to private individuals, you're really a dealer and should be licensed as such. And be paying income taxes. This also should cut down on trafficking.

4) The ATF should keep records of what guns are sold by who. Not bought; that would be national registration, which I am not for. But if the ATF knew a gun's sale history, they could track down the last owner of a gun recovered in a crime by paying a visit to the last seller of the gun. This would keep the DoJ and the various police forces from trolling through databases (or the newspapers from printing lists of gun owners), yet still provide them with the ability to quickly find the owner of a gun. And if the last seller didn't know... then they've collared a guy feeding guns illegal to criminals.

5) Start denying transportation funds to states that are not in compliance with reporting mental-health and criminal records to NICS. If you don't want to spend the money to keep NICS current, you can maintain your own damn highways. Give the money as a bonus to states that ARE compliant!

Opinions?

[petronius]

1. If ATF is not keeping track of purchases by each person, how does it know

to refuse transfers after 12? Seems like it would at least need to record purchases for a year - just recording NICS checks wouldn't be enough, right, since they may be run for other purposes, and a purchase still may not occur even after a positive NICS response?

[Loudly]

2. Right. There is no maximum purchase limit without a registry.

And there is so much sensible gun control which is not possible without a registry.

Need to break through the anonymous armed rebellion barrier to make it happen.

[gejohnston]

4. by identifiers like

SSN or DL. The seller would start giving the FFL or broker their number.

[petronius]

8. If you're only limited to 12 purchases a year, then someone somewhere

has to keep that count. It seems like that would have to be at the NICS end: the transfer agent submits the check, and if that check results in a sale the individual's purchase record ticks up. But the actual details of the specific firearm (the 4473) is still kept by the person conducting the transfer, so the new owner and the firearm details aren't linked? I guess that's the same as now, except that NICS records would be kept at least through the end of the year instead of being purged after 24 hours.

I might also quibble with the limit of 12 per year: I doubt I'll ever have the cash to buy at that rate, but I suspect a lot of people might, and perfectly innocently. Seems like there ought to be an exception (at least) to a limit like that...

[oneshooter]

11. There are times, such as auctions, when more than 12 firearms are

offered for sale as a group.

[krispos42]

23. You can get a Curio & Relic license, perhaps.

And there can be an exception for estates, like heirs getting a collection from a dead gun owner. If they don't want them, then can sell the lot to an FFL after filling out a form.

The 12 per year issue seems to be minor; you're talking about spending thousands of dollars a year to reach that level, which seems to me a minor thing to worry about.

[krispos42]

19. I think it's pretty simple

You have to give your ID to run the background check. Name, address, social, DL number, etc.

If it passes, then that's considered a purchase.

I guess it would be more accurate to say that a buyer would received 12 NICS approvals per year, which would presumably translate into up to 12 firearms transactions per year. Same goes for a seller.

I have no problem with the DoJ having a record of the fact that a background check occurred, as long as detailed information is not part of the record. Hell, that's the kind of stuff that they can get easily from a bank or a credit card company anyway.

The information can be locked away in a data vault, sort of what the NSA claims they're doing with phone calls and emails.


If the transaction paperwork does not inherently have critical private information, then it can't be misused.

If the system was set up so that you needed a warrant to access the records, and the records in the computer only recorded dates and locations, then privacy is protected, as far as I'm concerned.



12 buys in a year is a lot. Guns are expensive! I think most people buy one every few years, not a few every year!

[gejohnston]

3. not bad ideas, but

trafficking is less of a problem than theft. Encourage better security. Or at least that is what some criminologists seem to think. Given the time to crime stats, I tend to agree.

Again, if you're selling this many guns to private individuals, you're really a dealer and should be licensed as such. And be paying income taxes. This also should cut down on trafficking.

I always wondered about these guys a flea markets. They are there every weekend, but the local ATF doesn't seem to think they are dealers.

One thing seems to be needed is a study group that looks at conflicts with HIPPA laws and NICS. I'm not a big fan of blackmailing states to get desired drinking ages, speed limits, or anything else. Our federal system was set up this way for a reason.

Edit to change: One thing seems to be needed is a study group that looks at conflicts with HIPPA laws and NICS and resolve the conflict.

[gopiscrap]

5. How about banning guns altogether!

[gejohnston]

6. Ask Jamacia how well it worked for them?

or Mexico? Or UK for that matter. Yeah, the UK has fewer drive bys than we do, but when they do, they use machine guns.

[rl6214]

7. How about NO!

[petronius]

9. Let me give that idea some careful thought, and I'll get right back to you

Still thinking about it...

Hmmmmmmm....

(Stares thoughtfully into the distance for a while.)

Maybe.....

Well....

(Strokes goatee in a very intellectual manner.)

Hhhhhhhmmmmm...

No, no, I've turned it over from every angle, and it's bad idea. Thanks for the suggestion, though!

[Pullo]

16. Great job making Wayne LaPierre's job extremely easy!

You must be his best buddy.

[SoutherDem]

10. Good and Bad

Point #1 Great Idea. I and many, if not most, of my friends would support what you are talking about for ALL purchases.

Point #5 OK Idea. My hesitation is we seem to want to withhold transportation funds for the Federal Government to control the States for multiple issues. What happens when we are all driving on pot holes? But some form of encouragement be it positive (giving the money to do so) or negative (withholding something if they don't) is not a bad idea.

Point #2 Bad Idea. Not everyone who purchases 13 or more guns per year are trafficking. Plus we both know it would stop the bill dead in its tracks. I may exceed 13 purchases this year and I am no trafficker.

Point #3 Bad Idea. Same reasons as #2 plus not every sale is for profit. I know several people who are constantly selling, buying and trading guns. I know this may offend some but it is like an adult version of baseball cards.

Point #4 Bad Idea. I must agree with others who have stated it is the buyer who would need to be tracked. To do so would be basically a variation of a national registry which would also kill the bill. Also, I don't think straw purchasers are going to legally sell the gun, they simply buy.

Push for #1 and a variation of #5 and you have my support.

[krispos42]

20. Well, there would have to be something there.

And you know how the conservative states are.

Regarding #2 & #3, the curio & relic license would still be available for collectors and such. Again, if you're buying or selling that many guns (thousands of dollars worth) a year, then if it's legit, get a license of some kind. Get a C&R, get an FFL, get something.

There could be an exemption for estate sales; if somebody inherits a collection they don't want, they can sell the lot to an FFL in one big transaction.

#4, well, the form 4473 is kept on file anyway by the dealer, so sales through an FFL already have a form of, if not registry, then a database.

If the ATF could have an accurate, real-time database of the last seller of any gun, new or used, then if the gun was snagged by the police (used in crime, found on the street, whatever) the last seller could be contacted and whom the purchaser was could be determined rather quickly by simply getting a warrant and looking through the records of the FTAL that managed the transaction.

Alternately, as I posted in reply #19, information specific to the gun could be not part of the process. The ATF would know that on a certain date, Person X sold a gun to Person Y, but not have any information on make, model, caliber, or serial number. Probably there would be a box to check for the catagory: rifle, shotgun, handgun.

I am not certain which is more acceptable, or if there is a third alternative. On the one hand, detailed info on each gun is kept but the current owner is secret. On the other hand, all buyers and sellers are recorded, but the info on the gun transferred is secret.

[SoutherDem]

26. Something but what?

I will go ahead and state I do live in a conservative state and while I am pro-gun and support the 2A in all other aspects I am a loyal Democrat.

I briefly checked into the C&R but as I understood it I would not qualify because of the type of guns I generally buy and because I don't buy, sell and trade for profit I don't qualify for a FFL. If I applied for either it would be looked as if I were trying to get around the law as it stands today. Trust me, if I qualified for a FFL I would have one just to make extra money assisting local buyers follow the law, but you must sell guns not just transfer them, as I understand it. As to limiting how many guns I can buy, no that is not acceptable.

I understand you estate idea but selling a large number of guns to one FFL is a good way to loose out on in some cases a large sum of money. My family lost a lot by selling my Grandfather's collection to one buyer.

Yes the 4473 is kept by the dealer but there is a difference between that and a registry or database. Think going to a library and looking something up in a World Book Encyclopedia vs. going to Google. Tell me my tin foil hat is too tight but I don't like the idea that every gun I own can be pulled up by a couple of key strokes seem a bit big brother.

I understand your idea of keeping all information secret except the buyer and seller and even if it did exclude the category still seem a bit too big brother, even if it is in some form which the computer spits out a name only when a threshold is reached. I am guessing the recent revelation of the NSA activities gives you no concerns? If they don't you may not understand my reservations however if this troubles you then you should understand.

I am not sure how big the trafficking problem is, or what type of guns are being trafficked but I feel getting UBC should be more important than adding something to the proposal which would stop such legislation cold in its tracks.

One last thing on limits. Like it or not RKBA is in the constitution. While many may disagree with the meaning of the 2A the SCOTUS has supported the RKBA.

I truly liked you point #1 and some variation of #5, I don't think any of my gun friends would have an issue with either.

[krispos42]

27. If there needs to be another class of license, say a collector's license

That lets you buy unlimited amounts of guns, but you are still limited to selling 12 per calender year, then that's fine. It can be created in the same legislation. It's why I posted this... for discussion.

As an aside, I find it interesting that the pro-control folks are largely absent from this discussion.


I also find the recent NSA revelations troubling; I've noticed that many of the same people that want to prevent massive government databases because of inherent abuse also seem to have no problem with a gun registry.

But all the other alternatives seem worse. There is a lot of trafficking of guns; cities like New York and Chicago create an artificial vacuum then get OUTRAGED when it leaks!

Nonetheless, it does affect people, particularly urban poor. So, how to prevent trafficking?

Keep the purchases limited and have a way to punish people that illegally sell guns! It would make illegal transfers and straw purchases very prosecutable; ignorance is no longer a defense.

It's not perfect, but it would stop things like a guy walking into gun store and buying 20 AR-15s in cash for the Mexican drug cartels.


The 2nd is a Constitutional right, but it is not unlimited. Necessary restrictions that minimize inconvenience and provide demonstrable public good are just fine.

An "assault weapon" ban is not a good law. It's a cultural war being waged by politicians too scared to take on the root causes of so much crime and misery in our nation.

But making guns harder to get for criminals and the mentally disturbed? The way I outlined I think is reasonable.


Trust me, it's more reasonable than anything Feinstein or Schumer are going to support.

[SoutherDem]

28. No doubt more reasonable than Feinstein or Schumer

A collector's license allowing you to purchase unlimited with limits? How about a collectors license no limits with more detailed background check or required paper work or additional responsibilities to secure the weapons?

Being that every gun I purchase, sell or trade is handled by a FFL I can't see a need to limit the purchases to 12 per year. Not to mention I don't buy 20 AR-15's per year much less month or day. Or, the fact that the type of guns I am buying are not what the Mexican drug cartels want. I could handle some form of "flag" which when triggered would bring further scrutiny. I could more accept a shorter term limit such as a daily, weekly or maybe monthly limit or a large cash purchase limit.

I agree the 2A is not unlimited, just as the 1A is not unlimited, but I don't feel we should have too many of those limits. Plus an annual purchase limit could never be passed. I think we both know that.

Once again I will say get point #1 is a good idea and I feel you should call you senator, I think it may work, that if our elected officials didn't over work it too much.

[ManiacJoe]

12. With your FTAL license,

do both the buyer and seller need to be present during the NICS check or just the buyer?

By "would have all the appropriate forms to purchase a firearm", are we talking about the 4473 form?

[krispos42]

21. That's how I envision it, yes.

Once they agree to do a sale, they bring the gun and themselves to a FTAL (make an appointment, presumably) and do the paperwork and transfer the gun and the money.

The FTAL would have to do all the forms required of an FFL, including state, county, and local forms. There maybe be an additional one on the federal level. That's sort of the grunt work I can't know beforehand. Not an FFL, and I haven't bought a gun in about 5 years.

[Revanchist]

13. I think the ATF should allow a self-check

Set up a website where you can go and file the background check paperwork for a fee($20?) and if you're cleared you get a pin that the seller can enter to verify that you can purchase a firearm legally. Heck, make it into an app so the private seller can easily check to ensure you can purchase the firearm. If you are caught selling to someone without verifying they are allowed to purchase, jail time for the seller.

[NYC_SKP]

14. This is a good idea.

Unless I'm missing something, it should be cheaper and it doesn't require a third party.

Hmmmm.

[SoutherDem]

15. I have heard this idea before

Being we can conduct almost every other aspect of our lives from the privacy of our homes, from banking and bill paying to going shopping and watching porn, I see no reason this could not work.
I think doing just what you say should end arguments of the inconvenience of having background checks for ALL firearms transaction (providing the bill expanding background checks does only that and doesn't try to sneak some other restriction through).

I would tell TWO things for sure; could the pro-gun side really accept UBC as polls claim, AND could the anti-gun groups accept getting the UBC without insisting on other limitation.

[Pullo]

17. This sounds very similar to Tom Coburn's UBC proposal

As an alternative to Toomey-Manchin. Reid would have non of it.

[Bazinga]

25. I really like this idea.

Especially if there is no way to track whether or not the pin number has been used. I have long held that there is a social imperative for the government (ie We the People) to know who may own guns, but no justification for knowing who actually does own guns.

[rrneck]

18. Hmmm...

Depending on the qualifications required to become an FTAL, it might create very efficient FTAL "straw sellers".

If you create a bunch of FTAL's in the neighborhood, what's to keep somebody from working all of them to beat the twelve gun limit? A record of who buys guns. That's a registry.

If you create more gun dealers, even if they only handle the paperwork, you create more opportunity for straw purchasers to work the system.

Enforcing compliance with existing law is a great idea.

[krispos42]

22. Well, if we're going to have UBC, then we're going to need more people to run the checks.

I addressed the registry issue in reply #20.

If both buyers and sellers only get 12 NICS clearances per year, then it's impossible to game the system without having either a corrupt FTAL or fake IDs.



If we don't do something, we get Feinstein's PoS 2013 AWB shoved down our throats.

[gejohnston]

24. She is going to do that even if we do somethhing

Like I said before, I agree with UBC in principle, but I also know:
it will still be just a speed bump for criminals
and it won't shut up prohibitionists. See Australia, where pistols are now "miniature machine guns in 700K glove boxes"

[krispos42]

29. So no support from the pro-control side?

Really?

Here it is, an idea that would make universal background checks fast and easy and convenient for 99.9% of gun sales while simultaneously constricting the "iron pipeline" to cities that complain about out-of-state flooding their criminal populations.

It's not a fantastical piece of hyperbole, it's not sarcastic, and it's quite possible.

And yet... where is the support? Where even is the discussion?

Where are all the people that call for UBCs in GD?

[Decoy of Fenris]

30. Almost seems like saving lives isn't an objective for 'em at all, doesn't it?

It's almost seems that unless a Control plan includes the words "Ban" or "Outlaw", the local fear-mongers on DU just don't want to hear about it... Hm.

Your plan is solid, with a few minor holes here and there that could be ironed out. Have we considered organizing and starting to send out such plans to the Dems, maybe start mobilizing to get such laws passed? Let's be honest with each other, the Control side isn't going to get jack shit done on addressing the genuine issue of gun violence, and they're just going to sit here and whine in the meantime. We need to start looking at getting legislation passed that will work but will infringe as little as possible.

[krispos42]

31. It's doesn't ban magazines based on capacity...

...it doesn't create an arbitrary definition of "assault weapon", it doesn't make buying or selling guns expensive, slow, or inconvenient, and it doesn't create a registry that would enable future confiscation.

But it does make the background check mandatory and universal, and prevents unsupervised bulk purchases and sales of guns.

Hmmm...

Well, I'm being serious here with my proposal, at least.

[sir pball]

32. This is basically what I've been after for quite a while

Every sale is not only checked, but recorded on a 4473 - as you say, it creates traceability for weapons without an a priori registry/database. Yes, the government could theoretically round up all the paperwork and process it to create a database, but I honestly just don't have that much faith in their competence to do so.

And the new class of FFL would make a great coffee-table industry for the underemployed, retirees, work-from-home types. Much less onerous than a "real" FFL.

[krispos42]

34. If the seller but not the buyer was recorded to the ATF...

...in each transaction, the ATF would only have electronically searchable records to the second-to-most recent owner of the gun. They would know only who HAD the gun, not who HAS the gun.

The current owner would be on a piece of paper in the FTAL's office, accessible only with a warrant delivered in-person by law-enforcement officers, who then collect only the physical hardcopy the warrant allows.

This seems to strike a very good balance between privacy and the need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally incompetent.

[sir pball]

39. Or nobody is reported to the ATF, it just all stays in the bound book

I'd be fine with just recording the seller's info as well as the buyer's on the 4473 and having the dealer hold on to it. Maintains an easily followed full paper trail to the last legalized owner, but the effort of tracing is too high for abuse on a large scale.

[sarisataka]

33. It sounds reasonable...

There would technically be a registry, accessible to LE but so decentralized abuse of it would be very difficult.

The purchase limit would be difficult to pro-actively enforce but would give prosecuters an extra charge to work with following an arrest so it is not without merit.

Targeting transportation funding is an excellent idea. States really don't like missing out on that money.

[krispos42]

35. If each buyer and seller provide identification...

...particularly a social security number or driver's-license number, then the system could automatically reject a transaction if either one was on their 13th approval.



Someone upthread objected on the basis of there being people that buy and sell large numbers of firearms as collectors, authors, researchers, etc. I say we can also make a collector's license that would enable them to buy and sell large (or unlimited quantities) of used guns but would not enable them to be a stocking firearms dealer for profit.

The collector's permit would allow unlimited (or a large number of) yearly purchases and sales of USED guns, and the collector would not be able to purchase directly from a firearm manufacturer or a new-firearm distributor. The collector would still be limited to purchasing 12 brand-new guns from FFLs per year.

This way, only FFLs would be able to buy brand-new guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. Problems:

As evidenced by post #5 the gun grabbers won't be satisfied and will try to force us to retreat still further. Therefore, if we are going to give anything up, we should also get something in return.

I want national CC reciprocity, or a Federal CC license that can be carried anywhere including in so-called gun-free zones. There can be reasonable training requirements, training, and testing. Not more than one week training, (40 hours), $200 fee, and hit at least 200 out of 250 on the standarized target.

[Eleanors38]

37. I believe you are right about the need for give & take.

Keeps the other side honest, if that is possible.

[jeepnstein]

38. #5 is a winner.

#4 is a problem. What you would wind up with is the last known LEGAL transfer of the firearm. Based on your comments you would hold this individual responsible for the subsequent actions of sellers or thieves who chose not to obey the law. Can't see that one working.

#3 is a dud. What happens when you decide to retire and downsize to an Airstream trailer and just wander the land like Caine from Kung Fu? I

#2 is not much better. As long as the owner is responsible and law-abiding it doesn't matter if he/she buys two or twenty firearms a year.

#1 is maybe a good idea. I would prefer to make NICS available to private sellers. Link that with #5 and it would help.

Of course none of those proposals get at the root of much of the gun violence in the U.S. Illegal drug trafficking is the big problem. It's the same thing as the violence that erupted during Prohibition. And the absolutely inhumane way we approach mental health care in our society is the other part. Look at the culprits of the spree shootings and tell me they were stable and law-abiding.