Argue for universal background check—-> ineffective law because no way to enforce—-> argue for registry to make UBC enforceable. We’re not dumb. No amount of gaslighting is gonna work, psyop failed.

ID check requirements are only enforceable at areas licensed to sell alcohol. same way with firearms and FFLs, again you’ve failed to demonstrate how UBC can be enforced effectively without a registry. You’re not arguing for more laws to regulate FFLs correct? We’re talking about private sales. Please show me an article or study that shows alcohol laws keep alcohol out of the hands of young kids. Psyop fail again.

Sometimes people on parole aren't allowed to consume alcohol. So by showing an ID doesn't check this.

Like I said, if the anti gunners spent their resourses on the NICS system instead of banning stuff, maybe NICS would run a lot faster and smoother.

What I think Flapp is getting at is say it's required for all sellers to use NICS. Say a felon is caught with a gun, they say they bought it from X.  AFT goes to X and ask did he do a check on the felon. Is X required to keep paperwork?  X could keep a tracking number if 1 is even issued,but for how long?  What if the AFT comes 10 years later?  NICS is often used via phone, so there is no paperwork given to sellers. Now they could do it online, but that requires the seller to have a smart phone or willing to do stuff online. Many old people don't do this.  And it would require that a gun purchase be done at somewhere with wifi or an internet connection.  I mean, I don't suggesting going to a Starbucks.

Then how does the buyer know the seller is the legal owner?  No registration to prove it. So the buyer gives the seller their social and DOB and trust that they're a law abiding citizen who wouldn't use that info for criminal purposes.

I am neither, you are just making a non sequitur because of your limited imagination. Hence your inability to see how background check system could exist without a registry. All your objections amount to pointing out that someone might try to cheat the system which doesn't amount to an argument against universal background checks. A gun store owner could do all the same things you point out if they are imaginative enough. Should gun stores not have to do background checks either?

Each year, the FBI denies somewhere around 100,000 would-be firearm purchases —
a statistic that the FBI is always proud to report. Those on the anti-gun Left, in turn,
often tout this ever-increasing number of persons who have been denied the purchase
of a firearm since implementation of the Brady Act on November 30, 1998. Through
October 31, 2021, that number now exceeds two million NICS denials.

Gun control advocates point to this figure as proof positive that the NICS system works
at stopping criminals from getting their hands on firearms. But their flawed assumption
is that those who are denied by NICS are actually prohibited persons — something
that is far from the case.

Notably, Second Amendment researcher and economist John Lott has claimed that as
many as 99 percent of NICS denials are actually false positives — meaning the person
denied is not actually a prohibited person.

Ok, fair enough, alcohol sales establishments need a license and are different, I will give you that point.

Say I want to sell my gun to you (not in Hawaii). I post an ad and we meet up in a parking lot somewhere. How do I know whether you are allowed to own a firearm? I could ask for a driver's license to determine age but I have no way of ensuring you aren't a convicted felon. Absent some for of background check I have no way of knowing whether I am selling my gun to someone legally allowed to own one. One form of UBC would be like a government issued card that says Bryston has passed a background check. Id #12345. I can call the police and ask them if ID #12345 is valid and they say yes and I sell you the gun. No registry necessary, the government doesn't even know if a gun changed hands, all they would know is someone confirmed your ID was valid.

Ok, fair enough, alcohol sales establishments need a license and are different, I will give you that point.

Say I want to sell my gun to you (not in Hawaii). I post an ad and we meet up in a parking lot somewhere. How do I know whether you are allowed to own a firearm? I could ask for a driver's license to determine age but I have no way of ensuring you aren't a convicted felon. Absent some for of background check I have no way of knowing whether I am selling my gun to someone legally allowed to own one. One form of UBC would be like a government issued card that says Bryston has passed a background check. Id #12345. I can call the police and ask them if ID #12345 is valid and they say yes and I sell you the gun. No registry necessary, the government doesn't even know if a gun changed hands, all they would know is someone confirmed your ID was valid.

Any citizen that wants to make sure they are not selling to a prohibited person has the option to walk into an FFL and have the store run a background check. Police departments/government do not have to be a part of the process at all, as it should be.

Explain how you would catch someone selling a gun in a private transaction without a background check whether before or after the transfer.

Explain how a background check for a private sale will stop a straw purchase.

Explain why the vast majority of NICS background check denials are false positives -- i.e. denials that were in error.  If the 99% error rate reported in the link below is supported by the data, it means only 1% of those checks resulted in keeping guns out of the hands of people not allowed to buy one.  That represents a huge waste of money and resources given the millions of guns purchased from FFLs every year.

In your examples, you are only worried about guns used in crimes that can be traced back to the seller/s.  is not the purpose of background checks to stop crime by keeping guns out of the wrong hands?  So you're focusing on crimes, which means all of those cases are proof the background checks fail to stop gun crimes.

FBI Admits It Is Often Wrong On Gun Related Background Check Denialshttps://www.ammoland.com/2021/11/fbi-admits-wrong-gun-background-check-denials/

As for your childish comment about gun dealers no longer running background checks, you fail to recognize what i already posted.  FFLs have LICENSES and businesses to think about -- on top of any fines or criminal charges.  They have to account for every single firearm that enters and leaves their inventory.  They have to file a 4473 for each sale.  If they fail in record keeping or filing the proper forms, they will lose their license which means they will lose the ability to continue selling guns as a business.  So much more to lose than Joe when he sells a handgun to his friend, Pete.

Try reverse-engineering the answers to the questions I asked.  Start from "a gun was privately transferred without a background check", and see what it'll have taken for the authorities to have noticed that violation before any crimes were committed using that gun.

Any citizen that wants to make sure they are not selling to a prohibited person has the option to walk into an FFL and have the store run a background check. Police departments/government do not have to be a part of the process at all, as it should be.

You are objecting to my suggestion because it isn't a catchall system. It sounds like the basic complaint is that it is too hard so we shouldn't try.

Nope.  That's your default reply anytime it's pointed out a law is unenforceable.  You've never met a gun law you didn't like, huh?  If you have any evidence that background checks can be enforced without a total registration system, I'd still like to hear how.  Hawaii requires a background check for all private sales through a permit and REGISTRATION system for all transfers to residents.  Have you bothered to contemplate how they would ever enforce the background check without forced registrations? 

Fred sells Pete a gun on Maui -- no permit or background check, and no registration.  In fact, the gun was never registered in Hawaii, as it was brought from another state and not registered.  Pete decides to sell it to Kimo, but Kimo is law abiding and wants to do the permit and registration.  All Pete has to do is walk into MPD, register it as an out-of-state gun, and Kimo can now go through the whole process.

So, where in that process is the background check being enforced in a way that prevents bad people from getting guns?  I'm not asking if the background check itself can/will/may prevent that -- but whether there is any way to make Fred and Pete follow the permit and registration process if they decide to not comply?

No single law is going to catch every single way someone might try to cheat the system. You have different types of purchases you are trying to prevent. Underage, mentally defective, straw purchases, felons, etc etc etc. Each one presents a slightly different situation. Universal background checks are just one angle to take.

What are the other "angles", and why are those not adequate?

You are clearly not taking my question to CMO about whether FFLs should continue background checks seriously. Furthermore your use of insults betrays your so called reliance on facts instead of opinions.

Facts and insults are not mutually exclusive.  For example:  This law is unenforceable, jackass.  Calling someone a jackass does not make the law enforceable.

I did already give one way in which a UBC could be enforced. Of course realize that if we cannot think of a better method, they might just push for all gun purchases to be done through gun stores. That would solve many of the issues you bring up. Would you prefer that?

Why are you asking what I prefer when the options are all unconstitutional and/or unenforceable?  My preference is None of the above.  But, if you were paying even a little attention, you'd already know that.

Then how do we take steps as a society to try and stop people who shouldn't have firearms from obtaining firearms?

Then how do we take steps as a society to try and stop people who shouldn't have firearms from obtaining firearms?

One of the big problems with the NCIS system is that so many jurisdictions don't update it. I am sure you are right, that there are needed improvements to the system however the system will only ever be as good as the information put into it. If some police department, or county, etc. never enters in convictions, stolen property, etc. like they are supposed to then it will always suffer intelligence holes.

Do you suggest that background checks be eliminated entirely, even by FFLs?

I am not in favor of a national registry so I oppose any background check system that would constitute a national registry. Thus I am considering ways that would allow responsible sellers to ensure they are not selling to someone prohibited. See my explanation to Bryston of what I had in mind. It isn't perfect, it has holes like any possible system, but it is a framework to start from.

One of the complaints is that it is unenforceable but this isn't the case, you just need a little creativity. You could do undercover spot checks, like a plain clothes officer goes into a gun show and tries to buy a gun. If the seller doesn't ask to see the background check ID then the officer issues a citation. This would help ensure compliance. Not 100% of course but thats true of any regulation

"Then how do we take steps as a society to try and stop people who shouldn't have firearms from obtaining firearms?"

As a rule I do not sell my guns outside of family.
if you have decided to privately sell a gun, it is not your decision as to the
quality of the buyer. you are voluntarily giving up your possession to another person.
How poorly they use it is NOT your business.

There are more than enough laws on the books to fuk us all over concerning guns.
Especially Hawaii, that is why my guns are in WA state.
BTW WA state just outlawed two of my rifles.  Since WA state gets more attention,
and we have more effective pro-gun organizations there, we
will see how that BS law holds up in court.

"Then how do we take steps as a society to try and stop people who shouldn't have firearms from obtaining firearms?"

As a rule I do not sell my guns outside of family.
if you have decided to privately sell a gun, it is not your decision as to the
quality of the buyer. you are voluntarily giving up your possession to another person.
How poorly they use it is NOT your business.

There are more than enough laws on the books to fuk us all over concerning guns.
Especially Hawaii, that is why my guns are in WA state.
BTW WA state just outlawed two of my rifles.  Since WA state gets more attention,
and we have more effective pro-gun organizations there, we
will see how that BS law holds up in court.

Your underlying beliefs appear to be (1) guns are the cause of violence, and (2) stopping certain groups of people from legally purchasing a gun will prevent most bad people from ever having one.

Is that accurate, or do you have to pull something out of your bag of nuances and hypothetical thought experiments?

Nope.  That's your default reply anytime it's pointed out a law is unenforceable.  You've never met a gun law you didn't like, huh?

What are the other "angles", and why are those not adequate?

Facts and insults are not mutually exclusive.  For example:  This law is unenforceable, jackass.  Calling someone a jackass does not make the law enforceable.

Why are you asking what I prefer when the options are all unconstitutional and/or unenforceable?  My preference is None of the above.  But, if you were paying even a little attention, you'd already know that.

This is why I posted that if the anti 2a orgs would spend their time and $ helping instead of just banning stuff, NICS would run much better. But instead, they ban stuff which causes a backlash from the 2a community.

I don't suggest background checks be banned. But there should be a system in place that 1 can call or go online to check on someone that also is quick.  If more funding and efforts were focused on this (see above sentence), then this could be done.  When I was in Vegas, a FFL was on hold for 1 hour on NICS.  All that should be given is a time and date and tracking number to the seller. That way if X commits a crime and the cops come back to the seller, they can say I did a check on X. If it's another party, then they can say they never sold it to that person.

Of course not every system is perfect, but the above could have it run much better. Example is everyday citizens are not trained to catch fake ID's. I mean even HPD makes mistakes. I was in banking and we get fake ID"s often and sometimes the cops who show up don't believe me that it's fake. This happened over the course of 8 years that I was in banking and would call for forgeries/fake ID's.

Then the other issue are states like HI who does more than what's federally required, like the mental health check, which they lost the lawsuit last month and had to pay like $40K.

For spot checks, 1 does LEO have the manpower to do this enough for it to be effective? HPD doesn't and would have to divert resources. Then now this spot check now takes up more time from the sellers who could be selling to someone who wants to actually buy and adds more work for the NICS system.  Let's assume it's a 5 minute process and not a hours+ process.  I would not oppose to this, if NICS could be done in 5 mins, so refer to having a well run NICS first.

Look up project exile and how successful it was. Then look up why project exile was canned. Then come back here and tell me what you learned and why the left is full of shit about their gun safety crusade.