Mandatory BG checks on ALL sales lead to registration of all guns


PDA






abajaj11
January 10, 2013, 04:01 PM
Seems like some republicans may be looking to cave on the "gun show loophole" and may be OK with requiring federally mandated background or NIC checks for ALL sales, even those private FTF sales in states.

Here IMHO is why this is a really bad idea:

1. There is no Gun show loophole. The exact same state and federal laws hold IN a gun show as outside it. Closing the "gun show loophole" means basically mandating at the federal level that all sales of firearms HAVE to go through NIC checks (Form 4473). The Federal government should have no jurisdiction to regulate commerce within a state, so this may be a hard one to pass constitutional muster. However, it may be the Dems are hoping they can say that "if a firearm was used once in interstate commerce then we can regulate it forever". This argument has already been upheld by the US Supreme court in the GunFree School Zones Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fr...es_Act_of_1990)

2. Think about how a federally mandated background check on ALL firearms will be implemented. Right now, only firearms sold through FFL dealers have to pass a NICs (Form 4473) test in all states, and in some states the state laws mandate that all transfers have to be through an FFL dealer. The feds regulate the FFL dealers and do not keep records of transactions, but the FFL dealers have to. If an FFL dealer goes out of business, those records go to ATF for storage, and are never lost. Now imagine extending this requirement to ALL buyers and sellers of firearms. Well this is impossible.

So the feds will say, well let us just require all states to do what california, for example, does already. All transfers must go through an FFL. But what to do about the millions of unregistered guns in the USA? How do the feds know who owns them? If they don't know who owns them, how will they verify that ALL guns are being sold after a NICS check? Well, the FEDs will come back and say: "We cannot implement your new law unless you allow us to register all firearms". So the inevitable next step to mandating background check on ALL firearm sales will be a demand to Congress that all firearms be registered, without which the law will be impossible to enforce.

Registration is a VERY bad idea. Registration will not prevent a crime since a legal gun may be stolen and used by a criminal (like in the Newtown case) and of course a criminal will never register an illegitimate gun they may already own.
So, the only reason for registration is monitoring legal gun owners, harassing them slowly and whittling down their ranks and finally confiscation of firearms.

Since the 2A was written to provide a well regulated (trained) populace that could be stronger than any standing army that a tyrant could raise, the LAST thing the armed populace wants is for potential tyrants to know who has what firearm. That is why this insidious "background checks for all sales" bill MUST be resisted. it will open the door to registration in a year or two.
:)
Just my 2 cents. It would be great if we could all bring this issue to light on all forums and also when we contact our federal congressman and senators.

If you enjoyed reading about "Mandatory BG checks on ALL sales lead to registration of all guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CoRoMo
January 10, 2013, 04:18 PM
Our governor called for this very legislation at the state level today. IIRC, there isn't a pro-gun majority in our state's legislature either.

Banning private transactions would not have prevented the Aurora shooting, nor the Newtown shooting. But preventing the next mass shooting is not the purpose now is it.

AlexanderA
January 10, 2013, 05:25 PM
A 100% NICS requirement could be designed in such a way that it wouldn't lead to registration. However, the source of creative ideas from our side has dried up, because a collective decision has apparently been made to stonewall on everything. Maybe this is the right strategy -- if it's successful. I'm worried that if the antigun proposals proceed to a certain point (and they appear to have increasing momentum), we won't be ready with a Plan B to try to mitigate the damage.

abajaj11
January 10, 2013, 05:41 PM
I don't see how it could be done.
As a government, you either know where all the guns are, or you don't. If you don't, how can you ENFORCE that ALL (not some but all) guns are sold after a NICs check?

I think it's the ALL guns that is the rub. All guns, including unregistered ones, will have to pass through a NICs process, where someone has to maintain the record of the sale.
Who is that someone? And how will it be guaranteed in theory, that ALL guns are being vetted, if millions of firearms are unregistered?

Put another way: It's impossible to track ALL guns at point of sale, without tracking all guns.
:)

tyeo098
January 10, 2013, 06:19 PM
Require ever check to go though NICS.

Then they stop taking NICS calls.

Defacto EVERYTHING ban.

Its how they did it with MG's, first you have to register them, OK, then they stop processing registrations. BAM, ban.

People start flipping out because the VASP system goes down on a regular basis, resulting in all sales that day having to be put on hold because the BG checks cant go though.

Bureaucracy at its finest.

steelerdude99
January 10, 2013, 06:55 PM
Too many complicated issues come about just from requiring a background check. A background check on the surface is viewed a as way to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of prohibited persons. However, requiring a background check implies that some person be held accountable for a specific serial number (s/n for now on) until itís reported stolen or re-registered. A national database would be needed that can a track firearmís s/n to a specific living person. Without such a s/n to person and person to s/n relationship, a background check is unenforceable. Said differently, if authorities canít determine who owns a specific firearm, there is no way to know who needed to get a background check. A whole new crime can come from not having a background check done for anyone that has access to oneís registered firearms even if the person who accesses them is not prohibited. No exceptions for spouse, children, mother, father, etc. Upon the death a registered firearm holder, the firearms would need to be re-transferred or turned in. Background checks may even trigger periodic firearms inspections to make sure a person did not illegally sell a firearm under the table.

Just my opinion,
chuck

I made a similar point on the thread "Thoughts on Background Checks for private sales? as post #55 back in mid-December 12 in the General Gun Discussions forum". But anyhow, in order for all transfers to go through a background check I would expect that states that don't have registration would need to start doing so. If not, we'll have the "old gun loophole".

chuck

AlexanderA
January 10, 2013, 08:15 PM
I don't see how it could be done.
As a government, you either know where all the guns are, or you don't. If you don't, how can you ENFORCE that ALL (not some but all) guns are sold after a NICs check?

Just to play devil's advocate here --

You don't need to know where every single gun is. Remember, the purpose of this system would be to make sure buyers are not "prohibited persons" (however that is defined). So you create incentives and disincentives so that sellers verify this information. Have the buyers fill out Form 4473's. Then provide a toll-free number where non-licensed sellers can get a free NICS approval/disapproval. If the gun is later misused, the seller's retained copy of the Form 4473 (with the approval number) would give him immunity from civil liability. And you could also send out agents pretending to be buyers. If the seller doesn't ask for a Form 4473 / NICS check, he gets socked with a hefty fine.

Like all law enforcement, it's a matter of percentages. Something like this has worked out well in tax enforcement.

I think it's the ALL guns that is the rub. All guns, including unregistered ones, will have to pass through a NICs process, where someone has to maintain the record of the sale.
Who is that someone? And how will it be guaranteed in theory, that ALL guns are being vetted, if millions of firearms are unregistered?

You're never going to get 100% airtight compliance. But that isn't the point. The point is to get a perceived problem under control. For example, there's never been 100% compliance with the machine gun rules. But those that are not in compliance are driven underground, never to see the light of day. No non-criminal can be seen in public with an unregistered machine gun. They're not even used that much in crime.

bushmaster1313
January 10, 2013, 08:29 PM
Since the 2A was written to provide a well regulated (trained) populace that could be stronger than any standing army that a tyrant could raise, the LAST thing the armed populace wants is for potential tyrants to know who has what firearm. That is why this insidious "background checks for all sales" bill MUST be resisted. it will open the door to registration in a year or two.

Consider this.
Under the Militia Law every able bodied man had to have a gun.
Sort of a universal de facto registration.
You are normal=you have a gun

bikemutt
January 10, 2013, 08:42 PM
Just to play devil's advocate here --

You don't need to know where every single gun is. Remember, the purpose of this system would be to make sure buyers are not "prohibited persons" (however that is defined). So you create incentives and disincentives so that sellers verify this information. Have the buyers fill out Form 4473's. Then provide a toll-free number where non-licensed sellers can get a free NICS approval/disapproval. If the gun is later misused, the seller's retained copy of the Form 4473 (with the approval number) would give him immunity from civil liability. And you could also send out agents pretending to be buyers. If the seller doesn't ask for a Form 4473 / NICS check, he gets socked with a hefty fine.


I have a hard enough time providing the information required on a 4473 to a licensed dealer, mostly owing to the fact that, by definition, it contains a great deal of personally identifying information. So now I need to furnish that same information to a guy I met on craigslist 15 minutes ago?

USAF_Vet
January 10, 2013, 08:52 PM
Enforcement of this law would be impossible, as long as there isn't a federal registry of all privately owned firearms.

Jim K
January 10, 2013, 09:08 PM
The idea going around, some already in Feinstein's bill, is to bring all semi-autos, pumps and lever actions, including semi-auto handguns, under the NFA. That would mean they would be treated just like machineguns:

No more made.
Existing ones could be transferred where not illegal under state law.
$200 or more transfer tax.
Six to eight months wait to process application.
CLEO checkoff - no local approval, no transfer.

A ban on high capacity magazines; you would have to surrender any currently owned to the police under threat of severe penalties up to 20 years in prison if caught with one. Police would be authorized to carry out unlimited warrantless searches for "contraband."

Then the same law would be expanded to "sniper rifles", like the Remington 700, all Mausers, all Mosin Nagants, etc., etc. (Of course, a mass murder with a bolt action rifle would be "arranged" to justify the law.)

All other guns would be registered and controlled, but the only firearms not under the NFA would be revolvers and single/double barrel shotguns. Everything else would be just like machineguns today.

This, of course, is described as "reasonable", "common sense", "not in violation of the Second Amendment" and even "protecting the rights of gun owners".

Goebbels would be green with envy.

Jim

bushmaster1313
January 10, 2013, 09:59 PM
(Of course, a mass murder with a bolt action rifle would be "arranged" to justify the law.)

This is not "High Road"

skeptical_in_Ohio
January 10, 2013, 10:18 PM
A 100% NICS requirement could be designed in such a way that it wouldn't lead to registration. However, the source of creative ideas from our side has dried up, because a collective decision has apparently been made to stonewall on everything. Maybe this is the right strategy -- if it's successful. I'm worried that if the antigun proposals proceed to a certain point (and they appear to have increasing momentum), we won't be ready with a Plan B to try to mitigate the damage.

^^^
This

There seems to be at least some limited consensus that society should keep criminals/mentally ill persons from getting arms, but it also seems any mechanism to aid in checking for such things is immediately rejected out of hand.

As a thought exercise, how might one regulate transfers (via background check) without tracking where the arms go (i.e. no registration), while letting people currently legal to purchase arms buy anything currently legally available? Could the check of the purchaser (to verify that they're legal to make the purchase) be done without logging what they actually bought? Could a NICS-type check be done on private sales (again, only verifying that the person is allowed to purchase the arm) be done without being terribly onerous? What might such things look like?

bikemutt
January 10, 2013, 10:31 PM
There seems to be at least some limited consensus that society should keep criminals/mentally ill persons from getting arms, but it also seems any mechanism to aid in checking for such things is immediately rejected out of hand.

Please advise who is rejecting out of hand any past or present proposal to keep criminals from getting arms?

Jimineer
January 10, 2013, 10:45 PM
I've had a background check for every gun I've bought, until recently where I can use my Tx CHL.

skeptical_in_Ohio
January 10, 2013, 10:53 PM
Please advise who is rejecting out of hand any past or present proposal to keep criminals from getting arms?

Ok. A background check on private sales has been made as a proposal to keep criminals (and other prohibited persons) from getting arms, and has been rejected out of hand more than once on this forum as leading to registration.

Since such a thing apparently won't work as a verification mechanism, please enlighten me as to how one wishing to engage in a private sale verifies without some sort of background check that one isn't unwittingly selling an arm to a prohibited person (e.g. a criminal), unless perhaps dealing with relatives or very close friends.

Then please suggest something concrete that will help.

jr_roosa
January 10, 2013, 11:04 PM
I actually like the idea of uniform background checks. It is a hassle for me buying something, but I like the idea that if I'm selling a gun that I have some protection against liability by having a documented negative background check.

In my line of work, I see people on mental health holds all the time, and I shudder to think that some of them could buy a gun in the classifieds and the person selling would have no idea that they were unstable and potentially dangerous. Lots of dangerous folks can fake being normal for long enough to buy a gun. It's hard to fake a negative background check.

Sure, illegal transfers would still happen, but it certainly ups the ante and makes prosecution easier for straw buyers.

I'll certainly take universal background checks over a new AWB.

-J.

Tigerclaw_x
January 10, 2013, 11:59 PM
Look. I bought EVERY one of my guns through the FFL dealer. I am in HellInois - every one of my guns had papers filed and BG check completed. EVERY ONE OF THEM. This IS a good thing. They do not give out driver license to habitual drunken drivers. I really think that BG check must be done for EVERY firearm. You do not want some Black Disciple or Blood or Latin King get a hold of a pump action shotgun.

abajaj11
January 11, 2013, 12:05 AM
Yes I agree one can get sellers to call a number but given that there are millions of firearms out there with no record of who owns what, what is the guarantee these millions of firearms will ever see the light of day? Or that they won't be sold to another in a private sale?
If they do not track these firearms, the feds will never get these firearms under "their control" so to speak. So it seems to me that they will say, if you want the law to be effective, we need all firearms in a national database, including the millions and millions that are not registered yet. Actually, technically, no firearms other than NFA are registered.
Creation of a national database to track all firearms is registration.

To the person who said they did not mind BG checks on all firearms, please read my original post in this thread. The point is not BG checks, the point is that implementing BG checks on ALL firearms will require registration of all firearms...the holy grail for all gun grabbers. It will lead to confiscation in 2-4 years after whittling down owner groups and firearm categories step by step. .
:)

skeptical_in_Ohio
January 11, 2013, 07:49 AM
Yes I agree one can get sellers to call a number but given that there are millions of firearms out there with no record of who owns what, what is the guarantee these millions of firearms will ever see the light of day? Or that they won't be sold to another in a private sale?
None. The argument would be assumption that the owners are law-abiding citizens until one tries to receive arms (or knowingly transfer them - not lost or stolen) without getting a check done. The check wouldn't be tied to the arm in the transaction - it would only say that the person receiving the arm was at that time legally allowed to make such a purchase.


If they do not track these firearms, the feds will never get these firearms under "their control" so to speak.

I've no interest in giving control of arms to the feds - just the ability to stop prohibited persons from getting them.


So it seems to me that they will say, if you want the law to be effective, we need all firearms in a national database, including the millions and millions that are not registered yet. Actually, technically, no firearms other than NFA are registered.
Creation of a national database to track all firearms is registration.

That's why a creative mechanism to separate the background check from the arms themselves is important and should be advocated. What's already done is done - to create that database would be prohibitively difficult for a variety of reasons - what can be done is regulate movement from here on out (only to those who can pass a check).

Short term, the millions of arms out there are problematic to making this work without a registry. Over time, however, the vast majority of those arms would eventually start falling into two categories, as owners age, buy some stuff, sell other stuff, etc. 1-Legally transferred to a person who can pass a check and therefore legally allowed to participate in the transaction (although we wouldn't know who's got what because again the check would be on the person at the point of transaction). All the system would know is that person A bought an arm from either person B or a dealer and they were legal to do so. Dealers would only log that an arm left their inventory to a legal individual. 2-Lost or stolen (assuming some sort of law requiring reported lost/stolen will work), meaning that possession is by definition a felony.

I've not gotten all the details worked out, but it seems if there's a creative way to sever the tie between the arm and the individual at a transaction there's no database, and yet prohibited persons would find it more difficult to get arms without stealing them. There would need to be a serious penalty for non-compliance with transfer rules, but enforcement could focus there as well. Of course, more effort would need put into making NICS more useful too.

What I will say is that I'd rather be involved in making sure the solution adopted takes into account the reasonable need to avoid registries for law-abiding citizens rather than stonewalling (to borrow a word from a previous poster) and leaving those who would advocate registration of all arms write the law with no constraints.

Carl N. Brown
January 11, 2013, 08:39 AM
NICS background check is performed at the time the licensed gun dealer and purchaser perform the Form 4473 sales transaction record, BUT the NICS check does/should not record anything once the seller is assured the buyer passes the background check.

Form 4473 required of dealers since the 1968 Gun Control Act was passed requires recording make, model, type, serial number and caliber of the gun sold (new or used) from the dealers inventory.

The NICS background check operational since Nov 1998 requires ID of purchaser and type of gun only (basic check, longguns minimum age 18, handguns minimum age 21). Once the buyer is approved or denied based on their lack or presence of a criminal record, no records are supposed to be kept on gun sales. However, in the case of an on-going investigation of a suspected straw buyer/unlicensed dealer the buyer's NICS file may be flagged for special attention.

So, unless the Administration intends to change the NICS background check to include the 4473 information in the NICS, there is no record in NICS that the individual has bought a gun or info on the gun itself. HOWEVER, once the bill is passed and we are allowed to see what is in it (like the case of ObamaCare), we really won't know will we?

scramasax
January 11, 2013, 08:57 AM
If you just want to take the guns out of criminal hands you don't need to know what they are buying. The only information you need is a background check on the buyer. NO gun information is needed. Here is the flaw in the logic. Check the person not the gun.

I know that stolen guns have been recovered from NICS checks, but that is few and far between. More often than not it has been poor record keeping from LED not getting reords ammended. This is from 40 years experience.

Carl N. Brown
January 11, 2013, 09:04 AM
Stolen guns have been recovered from the NCIC system started in the 1960s with punch cards and mag tapes: it is the FBI repository for reported stolen goods, guns, cars, boats, etc.

ADDED: NICS will reference the NCIC for federal criminal records.*

As others have noted the "gun show loop hole" is that private individuals have no access to the National Instant Check System NICS. That is limited to licensed dealers and to law enforcement agencies.

NICS background check is performed at the time the licensed gun dealer and purchaser perform the Form 4473 sales transaction record, BUT the NICS check does/should not record anything once the seller is assured the buyer passes the background check.

Form 4473 required of dealers since the 1968 Gun Control Act was passed requires recording make, model, type, serial number and caliber of the gun sold (new or used) from the dealers inventory.

The NICS background check operational since Nov 1998 requires ID of purchaser and type of gun only (basic check, longguns minimum age 18, handguns minimum age 21). Once the buyer is approved or denied based on their lack or presence of a criminal record, no records are supposed to be kept on gun sales. However, in the case of an on-going investigation of a suspected straw buyer/unlicensed dealer the buyer's NICS file may be flagged for special attention.

So, unless the Administration intends to change the NICS background check to include the 4473 information in the NICS, there is no record in NICS that the individual has bought a gun or info on the gun itself. HOWEVER, once the bill is passed and we are allowed to see what is in it (like the case of ObamaCare), we really won't know will we?

NCIC National Crime Information Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCIC
NICS National Instant Criminal Background Check System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

*NCIC is checked through local police departments by gun dealers and pawnshops who have questions about used guns offered to them for sale, trade or pawn, but they have to go through a bona fide LEA. (That is a check on the gun as lost or stolen; that is why we should never treat an apparently abandoned gun as abandoned property, but report it to the police.)

[quote]Wikipedia on NCIC:

The NCIC makes available a variety of records to be used for law enforcement and security purposes. These records are made up of a variety of forms of personal and property records.

Personal records:
Convicted sex offenders
Criminal conviction records
Foreign fugitives
Immigration violators
Missing persons
Parolees or people on supervised release
Persons with active arrest warrants
Persons with active protection orders
Secret Service protective alerts
Terrorist organizations and membership
Unidentified human remains information
Violent gang organizations and membership

Property records:
Firearms records, including lost or missing firearms
Stolen, embezzled or counterfeit securities
Stolen property
Stolen vehicle and boat parts
Stolen vehicles and boats

GoWolfpack
January 11, 2013, 09:10 AM
You do not want some Black Disciple or Blood or Latin King get a hold of a pump action shotgun.

No I don't. But it CAN'T BE STOPPED! There is absolutely positively not one single thing that can possibly be done at the government level to prevent criminals from committing violence. Nothing.

The very best we can hope for is to make the best possible tools freely available to defend yourself from criminal violence.

wooly bugger
January 11, 2013, 09:11 AM
I actually like the idea of uniform background checks. It is a hassle for me buying something, but I like the idea that if I'm selling a gun that I have some protection against liability by having a documented negative background check.

In my line of work, I see people on mental health holds all the time, and I shudder to think that some of them could buy a gun in the classifieds and the person selling would have no idea that they were unstable and potentially dangerous. Lots of dangerous folks can fake being normal for long enough to buy a gun. It's hard to fake a negative background check.

Sure, illegal transfers would still happen, but it certainly ups the ante and makes prosecution easier for straw buyers.

I'll certainly take universal background checks over a new AWB.

-J.
I couldn't agree more. I don't see why everyone shouldn't have access to NICS, and I would actually feel more comfortable selling guns if I could access.
The only protections I would require to feel comfortable are:
1) Prohibition on keeping permanent record on NICS checks to avoid de facto registration
2) Provision that if NICS is unavailable for a certain period of time, it amounts to a default approval. This prevents back door prohibition by underfunding NICS.

hovercat
January 11, 2013, 09:23 AM
For all those folks who want a private background check. Are you ready to start paying sales taxes to the Federal and State gov? There is an extra tax on firearms and ammo that you had better pay also. Make sure that you do not lose that reciept because the IRS may audit you. The gov can make the paperwork so bad that it will not be worth the hassle, an effective ban.
Once restrictions are placed on private sales by legislation, then the EO and rule changes begin. I can see the seller being required to undergo a check as well, since they are trafficking is such a dangerous item. And if background checks slow down to 3 days, the antis have shut down the gun shows.
Any legislation passed will be perverted. And I will take no joy in saying 'I told you so" to those who are willing to feed the stray cat to feel that they have done something, in the vain belief that it will not be back demanding more.

tyeo098
January 11, 2013, 10:30 AM
I HATE 4473's and BG checks.
I am ALWAYS delayed. I have a VA CCW and a clean record, but I am ALWAYS delayed at least 3 days.

I buy from private sales because my DL proves I'm over 18, and my CCW proves I'm not a felon. Thats all the need to know. Do I want to get delayed on a BG check for a private sale? Heck no! I buy private sales to AVOID the delay! (That, among better deals and getting to know your fellow gun nuts).

A right delayed is a right denied.

anchorman
January 11, 2013, 12:02 PM
I've had a background check for every gun I've bought, until recently where I can use my Tx CHL.

does this mean when you flash your CHL for the FFL you are buying from, you don't have to fill out a 4473? or does the FFL fill out the 4473 and not have to call into the NICS system because your possession of a CHL shows you to not be a prohibited person. Does the FFL call in your CHL permit number to check that it is still valid?

anchorman
January 11, 2013, 12:14 PM
I know that stolen guns have been recovered from NICS checks, but that is few and far between. More often than not it has been poor record keeping from LED not getting reords ammended. This is from 40 years experience.

How do they do this, given that no serial number is called into NICS when the check is made? I've stood there and listed while my FFL called in, and he tells them my name, address, social security number if I give it (I don't), height, weight, race/ethnicity, and birthdate. He tells them the type of gun, handgun/long gun, and they say "proceed". How is that going to turn up a stolen gun? his personal records of the sale and the 4473 might...

anchorman
January 11, 2013, 12:26 PM
No I don't. But it CAN'T BE STOPPED! There is absolutely positively not one single thing that can possibly be done at the government level to prevent criminals from committing violence. Nothing.


There is quite a lot that can be done at the government level to prevent criminals from committing violence. you take away the incentive to do so, by giving them other alternatives in life. This is one of the benefits of a social safety net, it takes away the motivation for a lot of people's desperate behavior. This is what quality, free, universal public education does, it gives young people the tools to survive and find work so that they can fit in with the rest of society, find work, and not be a burden on others.

The government can't keep guns out of the hands of all determined criminals, but you and I and all the other gun owners can do their part, by refusing to sell to people we don't know without a background check. you don't need 100% compliance in order to make a dent in the crime statistics. We all know there is nothing foolproof, nothing that can make us 100% safe. But why would knowing you can't be 100% safe all the time stop you from taking precautions that would make us 50% more safe, or even 10% more safe?

GoWolfpack
January 11, 2013, 12:44 PM
There is quite a lot that can be done at the government level to prevent criminals from committing violence. you take away the incentive to do so, by giving them other alternatives in life. This is one of the benefits of a social safety net, it takes away the motivation for a lot of people's desperate behavior. This is what quality, free, universal public education does, it gives young people the tools to survive and find work so that they can fit in with the rest of society, find work, and not be a burden on others.

The government can't keep guns out of the hands of all determined criminals, but you and I and all the other gun owners can do their part, by refusing to sell to people we don't know without a background check. you don't need 100% compliance in order to make a dent in the crime statistics. We all know there is nothing foolproof, nothing that can make us 100% safe. But why would knowing you can't be 100% safe all the time stop you from taking precautions that would make us 50% more safe, or even 10% more safe?
Violence has been with us since the dawn of man. It is inherent in human nature for the strong to try to dominate the weak, and the majority to rule of the minority through force. Guns are often the tools used to establish that dominance, but before guns there were swords, knives, axes, clubs, spears, and brute strength. Of those, guns are the only tool that allows the weak to fight back, and minority to protect themselves from the majority.

Crime and violence are dependant on a number of factors, very minor among them is accessibility of guns. We only have to look across the Atlantic to see the results of taking away all the guns and giving the poor everything they could want. It is not a pretty picture.

anchorman
January 11, 2013, 12:56 PM
We only have to look across the Atlantic to see the results of taking away all the guns and giving the poor everything they could want. It is not a pretty picture.

Have you actually lived anywhere "across the atlantic"? I have. It was pretty nice there. I didn't feel unsafe ever, was never robbed, was never beaten. There weren't people starving and homeless in the streets. at age 22 I earned more money than I ever had before or until recently, and could afford to go on vacation 4 times a year. That was pretty nice. I couldn't find a lot of reason to complain, though they did seem to take their rulemongering a bit far for my taste, but it didn't really effect my life that much, except for the ridiculously stringent licensing requirements for motorcycles.

xXxplosive
January 11, 2013, 01:08 PM
Unfortunately for us...........we have all this here in NJ........NG.

Ryanxia
January 11, 2013, 01:35 PM
Not sure if it's been said but WORST case, have a line private citizens can call and read off someone's DL # and without giving any serial # or having to keep any records get a pass/no pass. If they are legally allowed to purchase it at that time that's all that should be done.

Even then I don't think we should have to do that. If someone is too dangerous for society they shouldn't have let them out of prison (I know that doesn't make sense but that's my stance :) )

Anchorman
"Have you actually lived anywhere "across the atlantic"? I have. It was pretty nice there. I didn't feel unsafe ever, was never robbed, was never beaten. There weren't people starving and homeless in the streets. at age 22 I earned more money than I ever had before or until recently, and could afford to go on vacation 4 times a year. That was pretty nice. I couldn't find a lot of reason to complain, though they did seem to take their rulemongering a bit far for my taste, but it didn't really effect my life that much, except for the ridiculously stringent licensing requirements for motorcycles."

That's great that it's nice where ever you were but I'd rather keep my freedom and have to be a bit 'unsafe'.

AlexanderA
January 11, 2013, 02:39 PM
Not sure if it's been said but WORST case, have a line private citizens can call and read off someone's DL # and without giving any serial # or having to keep any records get a pass/no pass. If they are legally allowed to purchase it at that time that's all that should be done.

From the point of view of the seller, the main incentive to do this is to CYA if the gun is later misused. It would seem that the seller would want to keep written proof that the call was made and that a "proceed" indication was received. The best way to do this would be a 4473-like form that could be filled out by the parties and copies kept by each of them. Like the current Form 4473, this would not be filed with the government, but unlike the Form 4473, it would also not be subject to routine inspection by the ATF. In making the NICS call, the seller would not give any information on the gun being purchased, but only on the identity of the buyer.

anchorman
January 11, 2013, 02:53 PM
That's great that it's nice where ever you were but I'd rather keep my freedom and have to be a bit 'unsafe'.

I wasn't advocating anything, just pointing out that europe is not the "hell" that many would like to believe it is... They make their choices, we make ours. I think most gun restrictions are pointless, and won't reduce violence in a meaningful way. but along with that one must understand that the low murder rates in most of western europe have a lot more to do with their social contract, and a lot less to do with availability (or lack thereof) of guns. We can still learn things from the old country at times...

Claude Clay
January 11, 2013, 02:59 PM
in Connecticut we have had gun registration for decades. about 6 years ago the state police were upgrading their gun records and they lost a large tape...mostly names A---G.
instead of going public they sent legal demand letters to us with a 10 day limit to re-reg ALL guns again or to be FELONS. lier's that they are--they compared the new lists to their back-up copy and ....no surprise there were 20% errors on me. same gun with transposed ser #, not entered sales ( i had all my paperwork).

Trust should be a 2 way street but all I've had so far is the State's gun to my head.

coupled with the ever increasing number of home invasions made by our own police in the dark...over something that could of been handled politely with a phone call and a trip the the police sty with the papers to show them their error. any wounder myself and many others fear our own police more than any terrorist act.

Jim K
January 11, 2013, 03:05 PM
How come a proposal to keep records of those persons with mental problems is an invasion of privacy but proposing a nationwide warrantless house-to-house search for guns isn't?

Jim

huntsman
January 11, 2013, 03:44 PM
So, unless the Administration intends to change the NICS background check to include the 4473 information in the NICS

I would think this could be done IF they required all 4473 forms to be done on-line, since some states already have registration what if .gov required all states to collect and store the data and used the threat of withholding .gov funds to force compliance. I just don't see the total ban yet but instead .gov would tax gun owners heavily first.

hovercat
January 11, 2013, 07:30 PM
It cannot be done without giving the gov the power to say NO. The initial law may be OK, but then the 'rules and regulations' come in. Suddenly the fee goes up to $100 per check. Or the fact that you got into a fistfight over a girl in high school and suspended is now a disqualifier because it shows that you cannot control your emotions.
If you would sell the person an axe at a garage sale, without thinking that they would kill with it, then trust your instincts and sell the gun.
I would offer a compromise that would never happen. EVERYONE on their drivers license or state ID has a little go/nogo mark. When you are convicted of a felony/insane/etc your card is taken away and a new nogo one issued. They run you through a system to check for warrants when you renew anyway. Then there would be no way for the gov to know who has a firearm, because everyone who could, could.
No FOID cards for the newspaper to print. And no requirement to buy a gun. If the gun ban folks don't like it, they should do it for the children.

Deanimator
January 11, 2013, 07:48 PM
However, the source of creative ideas from our side has dried up, because a collective decision has apparently been made to stonewall on everything.
I'm not looking for or interested in finding "creative" ways to give up my rights.

AlexanderA
January 11, 2013, 08:05 PM
I'm not looking for or interested in finding "creative" ways to give up my rights.

What if the vote in Congress looked like it might go against us? Wouldn't you be looking for creative ways to preserve your rights? All I'm saying is that we need to have a Plan B waiting somewhere in the wings. I hope to God someone in the bowels of the NRA-ILA is thinking about this. If the NRA doesn't have secret contingency plans (on what can be seriously counterproposed), it's guilty of political malpractice.

Clearly, the NRA's recent successes (in spreading state shall-issue concealed-carry licensing, etc.) have gone to its head. It's been caught flat-footed after this recent tragedy and the media furor that followed it. On the other hand, the antigunners have been preparing for this big push for years. All they needed was a suitably tragic incident to put their plans into operation.

Deanimator
January 11, 2013, 08:43 PM
What if the vote in Congress looked like it might go against us?
What if a shark looked like it might bite me?

My first inclination wouldn't be to offer it one of my legs.

The other side sees ANY concessions as weakness.

I'd bet that what he could offer the Germans if we lost the Battle of the Bulge wasn't foremost in Patton's mind.

Those who plan for defeat usually achieve it... sometimes intentionally.

No plan I EVER have will involve how I can work with somebody who wants to put his boot on my throat. If I can't defeat him now, I'm only interested in how I can monkeywrench his operation until I can defeat him.

This is a fight to the death with no compromise possible or even desired by the other side. You can be the Judenrat or the Bielski brothers. I pick the latter.

GoWolfpack
January 12, 2013, 07:56 AM
I would offer a compromise that would never happen. EVERYONE on their drivers license or state ID has a little go/nogo mark. When you are convicted of a felony/insane/etc your card is taken away and a new nogo one issued.



Remember who gets to decide what actions are felonies and what problems qualify as "insane." The same people who want to round them all up by force.

We always concede that "felons" and the mentally ill shouldn't have guns because we want to sound reasonable. But if the government has the power to define those terms our concessions are meaningless; the people who do not believe anyone should have guns are given the power to define people as prohibited if they can stretch the definition of "mentally ill" far enough.

This is not compromise. This is giving the government more power, just not as much as they want.

winterhorse290
January 12, 2013, 11:01 AM
when, not if, they start that, you had best have all the guns and spare parts you need. don,t sell, don,t buy. all new arms purchases will be in the data base and when(not if) the govenment decides to pick them up only those on the list will be known. guess
that,s one of the reason for the empty gun racks in gun stores.

abajaj11
January 12, 2013, 03:16 PM
Check this out:
"Gun-safety activists were coalescing around expanded background checks as a key goal for the vice president's task force. Some advocates said it may be more politically realistic - and even more effective as policy - than reinstating a ban on assault weapons.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said some 40 percent of gun sales happen with no background checks, such as at gun shows and by private sellers over the Internet or through classified ads.
"Our top policy priority is closing the massive hole in the background check system," the group said Friday.
While not backing off support for an assault weapons ban, some advocates said there could be broader political support for increasing background checks, in part because that could actually increase business for retailers and licensed gun dealers who have access to the federal background check system."
__________
from:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...01-11-21-48-28

We have to prevent this loophole closing from being passed because it will lead to mandatory registration via executive order, IMHO. Please consider talking about this when you call your senators and reps.
IMHO, this should be our line in the sand.
:)

goon
January 12, 2013, 08:57 PM
I fully support background checks on every sale.
Some argue that there is no point because criminals will get guns anyway. Fair enough I guess, it is possible to club a cop with a crow bar and steal the patrol rifle out of his car if you really want to.

Still, that doesn't mean you would actually knowingly sell a gun to a criminal, then claim it is OK because he was going to get a gun anyhow. That would be nuts. I am sure that a great many private sales are nothing more than two people trading or selling guns that are never used in a crime, but the fact is that criminals do get guns. Legal guns become illegal guns somewhere and if we can do something to prevent that, I don't see it as a concession of my right to keep and bear arms. I actually do see that as common sense.

I'd support a comprehensive list of those who are barred from owning guns and a solid check system, which is what I thought we had anyhow.

Gordon
January 12, 2013, 09:11 PM
You mean when perp A gives perp B an AK for a kilo they are gonna have a background check ?:rolleyes:

abajaj11
January 13, 2013, 12:32 AM
Here is another one from the Center for American Progress (CAp), a think tank that is very influential in the current administration:
"CAP’s top recommendation is to require criminal background checks for all gun sales, closing loopholes that currently enable an estimated 40 percent of sales to occur without any questions asked. "
from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sweeping-new-gun-laws-proposed-by-influential-liberal-think-tank/2013/01/12/65192d26-5c2a-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_print.html

It seems the anti-2Aers are really pushing for Congress to pass the "gun show loophole ban" because, IMHO, that can open the door to a lot of executive actions to enforce it...mainly a national database of all firearms.
:)

abajaj11
January 13, 2013, 12:37 AM
I fully support background checks on every sale.
Some argue that there is no point because criminals will get guns anyway. Fair enough I guess, it is possible to club a cop with a crow bar and steal the patrol rifle out of his car if you really want to.

Still, that doesn't mean you would actually knowingly sell a gun to a criminal, then claim it is OK because he was going to get a gun anyhow. That would be nuts. I am sure that a great many private sales are nothing more than two people trading or selling guns that are never used in a crime, but the fact is that criminals do get guns. Legal guns become illegal guns somewhere and if we can do something to prevent that, I don't see it as a concession of my right to keep and bear arms. I actually do see that as common sense.

I'd support a comprehensive list of those who are barred from owning guns and a solid check system, which is what I thought we had anyhow.
I am not opposed to BG checks...I am completely opposed to registration of firearms or creation of a national database of firearms and who owns what...that is a guarantee for harassment and then confiscation.
To keep track that a BG check was performed on ALL firearms, the government's executive arm (DOJ) would need to keep track of all firearms first. Right now they keep track of NO firearms (except NFA and class 3 destructive devices).
Some here have argued that it is possible to set up a BG check for ALL firearms without registering firearms, but I still believe that is not enforceable without a registration of all firearms. I believe if Congress passes a mandate that all firearm sales MUST have BG checks, then that will open the path to firearm registration via executive order.
That, IMHO, is why anti 2A folks are pushing this so strongly.

Jaymo
January 13, 2013, 12:54 AM
I am opposed to BG checks, purely because they are in direct violation of the US Constitution, as are ALL gun laws currently on the books.

goon
January 13, 2013, 10:53 PM
Jaymo - even those laws that keep convicted felons from owning guns?
Even among ourselves we disagree about what is Constitutional and what is not.
Right now, the letters I write to my reps say "no compromise," but that is only because it is impossible to approach this issue with the idea of compromising with the other side in mind. They are unreasonable and would take it all if they could. They'd leave us all defenseless and they'd even strip hunting firearms away from those in remote or poor areas when that actually is an important source of food. And they wouldn't care.

But the background check, as long as it doesn't lead to a registry, isn't a bad idea. People who are prohibited from buying guns do try to buy them in stores at times and they are denied. Why not allow a normal joe to run the check too?
IIRC, all that is required is the DL number, but it's been about ten years since I ran one on anyone. But even when I sell a gun privately to someone, I still keep a record of their name, address, and DL number just to keep a paper trail.

anchorman
January 14, 2013, 12:16 AM
I am opposed to BG checks, purely because they are in direct violation of the US Constitution, as are ALL gun laws currently on the books.
tell that to the supreme court. They have ruled otherwise.

anchorman
January 14, 2013, 12:25 AM
Some here have argued that it is possible to set up a BG check for ALL firearms without registering firearms, but I still believe that is not enforceable without a registration of all firearms. I believe if Congress passes a mandate that all firearm sales MUST have BG checks, then that will open the path to firearm registration via executive order.
That, IMHO, is why anti 2A folks are pushing this so strongly.

Why must one worry about it being 100% effective? no law is 100% effective, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have any laws. How many of us have been audited by the income tax people? probably not that many, but knowing it's a possibility makes people less likely to cheat on their taxes. Reduction in the number of illegal sales is the key, knowing full well that eliminating them completely is probably impossible without a police state, violating amendments #4 and #5. It would be perfectly easy for ATF agents to go out in the field occasionally and pose as buyers to verify that sellers were performing background checks on purchases. They wouldn't need to do it every time, they could even stop the sale after the background check is performed so that the government wouldn't be out there buying guns it doesn't need. But they could do it enough that people would know it's a possibility they don't want to run into. Make the system easy, accessible and free.



I don't think we can have all sales go through FFLs legally, since it puts an undue burden on people who live great distances from the nearest FFL.

coloradokevin
January 14, 2013, 01:01 AM
Enforcement of this law would be impossible, as long as there isn't a federal registry of all privately owned firearms.

Which is exactly why federal registration would be the natural next step. A background check requirement could be implemented as a stand-alone measure today, then in 5 more years we'd be hearing passionate cries for more "common sense regulations", which would naturally include registration, since that step would clearly be required to enforce the background check transfer requirement. Such a law would probably easily pass since it would be pitched as a 'clarification' to an existing law, under the guise of protection our children, or some such nonsense.

It seems like every few years we pick up another couple of "common sense laws", only to find the other side crying for more "common sense laws" a few years later. After three decades of playing this game, I've caught on to the scam.


Here's the way I see this progressing:

1) Mandatory background checks are required for all firearms sales as of a few months from now. Our side will eventually "come to the table" as the other side tries to make us look like we're unwilling to compromise (our rights). As such, I'd no longer be able to sell the gun I sold to my buddy last year without going through an FFL (for a fee, of course... but the fee is merely a side effect).

2) A short time later it will become apparent that this background check requirement can NEVER be enforced without additional laws. Without a registration requirement it would be impossible for the government to know who owned which guns, which means that the previous law would be a pointless waste of paper. As such, registration would quickly be on the horizon. We can all see why law #2 would be necessary to enforce law #1. As one example: if we didn't have the second law, I could buy a gun from a guy, then claim that I bought it before the new law went into effect, and no enforcement action could be taken against me.

3) Some time in our future, probably not too far down the road, some other tragedy will take place, which will lead to another call for bans on XYZ type of firearms. Who knows what that could be: semi-autos, "assault rifles", autoloading shotguns, pistols, or whatever else can be incorrectly linked to crime. Anyway, if (or when) such a restriction goes into place, the government will know exactly who has which guns, thanks to registration... efforts at confiscation (or partial confiscation) then become ridiculously easy: turn in your XYZ registered gun, or get charged with a felony. Oh, you "lost it"? Too bad, you didn't report the loss, here's a felony charge. Oh, you "sold it"? Well, we don't show any record of that transfer... you get another felony charge. Oh, you don't want to turn over your property to the government? Sorry, it's the law, turn it in or pick up a felony charge.

To someone who hasn't been around guns since the 1980's or early 90's, my statements may sound paranoid on the verge of delusional. For those of you who have been around that long, you probably understand exactly what I'm saying.

The guy I bought my first gun from was a cranky old guy who was a class 3 dealer where I lived back in Ohio. I used to hear him barking about how: "registration leads to confiscation", and to this day I can still picture the sound of his voice. I used to think he was a bit of a paranoid nut, but now I understand. The other side isn't interested in common sense solutions, they are interested in a 100% gun ban. The only problem for them is that they need to achieve their goal in baby steps.

coloradokevin
January 14, 2013, 01:16 AM
I'll add one more thing:

I'm a police officer, I'm one of the good guys, and I'm a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights (well, lets just even go as far as saying the Constitution in general). But, like most decent people, I obviously don't want to make it easier for violent felons to run around with guns. I also realize that almost all guns used by felons on the street are stolen, not purchased.

Personally, I don't think a background check requirement for private party sales is necessary. I don't really think it will do much to reduce crime. Regardless, I could support a background check requirement if it was done in this manner:

The seller can call a phone number with the buyer's name, DOB, and state of residence (information that isn't damaging to identity). The background check is performed without any knowledge of what gun, or how many guns, are being sold, or who is selling them. The seller is then given a "transaction number", and can legally sell the gun to the buyer. Both the buyer and seller can keep this transaction number for their own security, should they ever be questioned about the legitimacy of the sale. Doing something like this would allow for background checks without giving away too much information about what guns are being conveyed, or by who, and why.

Frankly, I think a lot of people would feel better about selling their guns if they could get a criminal clearance on the person they were selling it to, and I think the anti-gun crowd is trying to capitalize on the fact that many gun owners seem okay with this requirement. But, most of us on this forum recognize the inherent dangers of registration, and can see how easily the private party background check requirement could lead to de facto registration. So, if we start to lose the fight on this topic, I do think we should try to sculpt the law into something like what I described above.

Cosmoline
January 14, 2013, 01:25 AM
I'm not really sure why the Dems haven't been pushing the expansion of NICS instead of the idiotic AWB. It's been by far their most successful gun control measure in the past generation, and enjoys general acceptance. It's also not a gun ban per se, so it doesn't touch those hot buttons.

But they seem to be lost in their own rhetoric, which is all for the good.

Wolfman131
January 14, 2013, 01:46 AM
I'll add one more thing:

I'm a police officer, I'm one of the good guys, and I'm a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights (well, lets just even go as far as saying the Constitution in general). But, like most decent people, I obviously don't want to make it easier for violent felons to run around with guns. I also realize that almost all guns used by felons on the street are stolen, not purchased.

Personally, I don't think a background check requirement for private party sales is necessary. I don't really think it will do much to reduce crime. Regardless, I could support a background check requirement if it was done in this manner:

The seller can call a phone number with the buyer's name, DOB, and state of residence (information that isn't damaging to identity). The background check is performed without any knowledge of what gun, or how many guns, are being sold, or who is selling them. The seller is then given a "transaction number", and can legally sell the gun to the buyer. Both the buyer and seller can keep this transaction number for their own security, should they ever be questioned about the legitimacy of the sale. Doing something like this would allow for background checks without giving away too much information about what guns are being conveyed, or by who, and why.

Frankly, I think a lot of people would feel better about selling their guns if they could get a criminal clearance on the person they were selling it to, and I think the anti-gun crowd is trying to capitalize on the fact that many gun owners seem okay with this requirement. But, most of us on this forum recognize the inherent dangers of registration, and can see how easily the private party background check requirement could lead to de facto registration. So, if we start to lose the fight on this topic, I do think we should try to sculpt the law into something like what I described above.
You are in contradiction of your own stated position, even knowing the facts, you are willing to capitulate to the state, and allow them to illegally invade your last liberties, all in the pursuit of what, denying a felon?

You're not going to stop a felon with nics, not seriously that is. You are simply advocating for the state to create an enormous new bureaucracy, which will be turned on the citizen, and his guns. Felons will continue to aquire them the old fashioned way, and knowing this, you'd still opt for the loss of your liberties?

I know people who have been approached by ATF agents, who in violation of all existing law, had documentation of every firearm that they had ever purchased, or sold! The anti-gun political class has already initiated a push to have the FBI absorb ATF, so as to better fund the agency, so that it may interdict Americans pursuing their rights.

ATF has committed atrocities no less appalling as Sandy Hook, worse even, with a shiny new budget, and an illegal new mandate to register all transactions, and track all gun owners, you will so swiftly lose your rights, you'll never knew that you ever had them to begin with, which is exactly what they intend.

And you know the facts?

One of CAP’s suggestions to toughen federal regulation of gun sales is to make the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which is currently an agency within the Department of Justice, a unit of the FBI. CAP says absorbing the ATF into the FBI would better empower the ATF to combat gun crime and illegal trafficking.

“It is a beleaguered agency lacking leadership and resources,” said Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president of CAP. “It needs to be a well-functioning federal law enforcement agency, and we need to figure out ways to ensure that happens.”

GoWolfpack
January 14, 2013, 08:12 AM
Someone should probably tell Winnie Stachelberg that BATFE isn't supposed to be a law enforcment agency, but a tax collecting agency.

Hit_Factor
January 14, 2013, 08:19 AM
I HATE 4473's and BG checks.
I am ALWAYS delayed. I have a VA CCW and a clean record, but I am ALWAYS delayed at least 3 days.

I buy from private sales because my DL proves I'm over 18, and my CCW proves I'm not a felon. Thats all the need to know. Do I want to get delayed on a BG check for a private sale? Heck no! I buy private sales to AVOID the delay! (That, among better deals and getting to know your fellow gun nuts).

A right delayed is a right denied.

You should apply for a UPIN, it should help cut down on the delays.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk HD

Pointshoot
January 14, 2013, 09:43 AM
Lots of interesting and thoughful comments here.

As I see it - we seem to be made up of two broad groups.

Those who think the new gun control proposals are about taking action to try to prevent future violent gun crimes and,

Those who think the new gun control proposals are about eventually eliminating
the 2A as an effective defense against tyranny.

Which broad group you fall into, will make a big difference in how you view the various proposals.

coloradokevin
January 14, 2013, 02:01 PM
You are in contradiction of your own stated position, even knowing the facts, you are willing to capitulate to the state, and allow them to illegally invade your last liberties, all in the pursuit of what, denying a felon?

You're not going to stop a felon with nics, not seriously that is. You are simply advocating for the state to create an enormous new bureaucracy, which will be turned on the citizen, and his guns. Felons will continue to aquire them the old fashioned way, and knowing this, you'd still opt for the loss of your liberties?

I know people who have been approached by ATF agents, who in violation of all existing law, had documentation of every firearm that they had ever purchased, or sold! The anti-gun political class has already initiated a push to have the FBI absorb ATF, so as to better fund the agency, so that it may interdict Americans pursuing their rights.

ATF has committed atrocities no less appalling as Sandy Hook, worse even, with a shiny new budget, and an illegal new mandate to register all transactions, and track all gun owners, you will so swiftly lose your rights, you'll never knew that you ever had them to begin with, which is exactly what they intend.

And you know the facts?

Relax, I didn't contradict anything, or advocate anything other than trying to avoid registration.

Reread my last post in its entirety, and I think you'll see what I'm driving at. I'm simply saying that I think we may be losing ground on this issue. Private party sales are not a problem, and I've never wanted to see the government intrude more into these sales. But, a lot of people (including a lot of gun owners I know) seem to be surprisingly comfortable with that idea.

IF we end up in a situation where we get outvoted on this issue, I'd like to see the background check requirement implemented in the way that I described above, which is about the only way I can imagine it being done without infringing on our rights. And, that wouldn't involve the creation of a new bureaucracy, it would merely require the government to allow us to phone in background checks through the existing NICS system, with far less info than an FFL would be required to provide (in essence to get a "clearance" that a person isn't a felon, without any collection of information about them beyond that).

Do I think a system like that would prevent many crimes? Obviously not, and my thousand plus posts on this website should make that clear enough. But, do I think a system like I described would really infringe on my rights very much? Not really. Do I think that my concept would be what they implement? Unfortunately not. I think they'll move for outright registration, or at least a background check system that amounts to little more than de factor registration.

Basically, I'm trying to brainstorm my way through this, in hopes of avoiding the worst case scenario. We don't owe anything to anyone, but you'd better start working on the gun owners who are strongly advocating backgrounds if you want to have the political capital to avoid such a system. Right now I think we're in a tough spot on that one, because the politicians have sold their beliefs pretty strongly to a lot of half-hearted enthusiasts who don't spend nearly as much time involved in shooting-related activities as the average THR member.

Spats McGee
January 14, 2013, 03:49 PM
Over the last few days, I've been seeing more and more of this clam that "private sales make up 40% of the nation's gun sales." I am somewhat puzzled by this statistic and its source. Private sales are, by definition, private. My back-of-the-envelope, no-money-back-guaranteed guesstimate is that something like 40-45 states do not require a private firearms transfer to go through an FFL, nor that any record of the transaction be kept. So how can anyone come up with a reliable estimate of "40%?"

Even assuming, but only arguendo, that the 40% is right, I cannot support mandatory BG checks on all firearms transfers.

1) How many hoops will we gun owners be required to go through to exercise a fundamental, individual constitutional right?

2) I think that most of us agree that violent, drug-dealing felons seem unlikely to go through the NICS check, anyway.

3) I do think that registration of all firearms will be the next logical step, once it is "discovered" that mandating BG checks on all transfers hasn't reduced crime. It will be a situation of "the last gun control measure wasn't effective, because it didn't go far enough."

4) I've also seen statistics about "X% of NRA members support blah, blah, blah." I say, "so what?" The Bill of Rights is very undemocratic. The individual gets to exercise those rights, regardless of what the majority thinks about them. For a First Amendment example, consider the Communist Party. I may not agree with the beliefs of its members, but those members have a right to those beliefs, regardless of the majority opinion of them. Why should the Second Amendment be any different? I frankly don't care what X% of Americans believe. I hold my right to defend myself and my family as inviolate. What's more, with few exceptions (the usual "violent felons and mentally ill"), I hold everyone elses right to do the same, as inviolate, as well.

Wolfman131
January 14, 2013, 05:21 PM
Over the last few days, I've been seeing more and more of this clam that "private sales make up 40% of the nation's gun sales." I am somewhat puzzled by this statistic and its source. Private sales are, by definition, private. My back-of-the-envelope, no-money-back-guaranteed guesstimate is that something like 40-45 states do not require a private firearms transfer to go through an FFL, nor that any record of the transaction be kept. So how can anyone come up with a reliable estimate of "40%?"

Even assuming, but only arguendo, that the 40% is right, I cannot support mandatory BG checks on all firearms transfers.

1) How many hoops will we gun owners be required to go through to exercise a fundamental, individual constitutional right?

2) I think that most of us agree that violent, drug-dealing felons seem unlikely to go through the NICS check, anyway.

3) I do think that registration of all firearms will be the next logical step, once it is "discovered" that mandating BG checks on all transfers hasn't reduced crime. It will be a situation of "the last gun control measure wasn't effective, because it didn't go far enough."

4) I've also seen statistics about "X% of NRA members support blah, blah, blah." I say, "so what?" The Bill of Rights is very undemocratic. The individual gets to exercise those rights, regardless of what the majority thinks about them. For a First Amendment example, consider the Communist Party. I may not agree with the beliefs of its members, but those members have a right to those beliefs, regardless of the majority opinion of them. Why should the Second Amendment be any different? I frankly don't care what X% of Americans believe. I hold my right to defend myself and my family as inviolate. What's more, with few exceptions (the usual "violent felons and mentally ill"), I hold everyone elses right to do the same, as inviolate, as well.
All that they are looking for, is registration, and tracking! This sets the stage for further, more radical invasions in the not to distant future.

I am appalled at how large a contigent of gun owners have been successfully conditioned by a certain political class, into not trusting themselves, and certainly nobody else, the reality is that these measures will not stop a single schoolhouse massacre.

Sandy Hook had absolutely nothing to do with private party commerce, nor did Aurora, for that matter! These measures are the long sought after "holy grail" of gun confiscation legislation, and here we are, with a good 50% or better of the gun owning public, more then eager to implement them! Absolutely appalling.

abajaj11
January 14, 2013, 06:21 PM
Why must one worry about it being 100% effective? no law is 100% effective, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have any laws. How many of us have been audited by the income tax people? probably not that many, but knowing it's a possibility makes people less likely to cheat on their taxes. Reduction in the number of illegal sales is the key, knowing full well that eliminating them completely is probably impossible without a police state, violating amendments #4 and #5. It would be perfectly easy for ATF agents to go out in the field occasionally and pose as buyers to verify that sellers were performing background checks on purchases. They wouldn't need to do it every time, they could even stop the sale after the background check is performed so that the government wouldn't be out there buying guns it doesn't need. But they could do it enough that people would know it's a possibility they don't want to run into. Make the system easy, accessible and free.



I don't think we can have all sales go through FFLs legally, since it puts an undue burden on people who live great distances from the nearest FFL.
The Congress cannot make a law and then depend on the good will of the people to obey it, while denying the Executive branch the power to execute it effectively. For example, they cannot say "pay taxes" and then hope everyone will pay them, while denying the IRS the ability to monitor who is paying taxes and who is not, and to punish people who are not paying taxes (breaking the law).

If Congress passes a law that ALL gun sales must involve a background check, and the BATFE is the executive body in charge of managing the execution of this law then Congress cannot also say..."oh, by the way you cannot monitor guns in the country and know who owns what. ". BATFE will say, rightfully "then your law is unenforceable".

Of course, no law is hundred percent followed, we know that....
but the Executive branch's powers derive from needing to effectively implement the laws passed by Congress. At the very least this involves being able to monitor if the law is being followed and when it is being broken. So if Congress passes a new law, it needs to increase the powers of the Executive branch so that they can monitor if the law is being obeyed, and pursue punitive action if it is not.

At present, NO guns are federally registered and BATFE has no idea who owns what (except for NFA class 3). In order to monitor if the universal BG check law is being implemented or not, they will need to know who owns what. Otherwise they simply cannot monitor it at all.
An executive Order issued by POTUS to this effect will likely be upheld if the universal BG check law is passed.
Of course they won't use the term "registration"...they will probably call it "federal firearms safety database" or some such crap.
Hope this clarifies seriousness of the issue somewhat.
If you are convinced this is a serious issue, please bring it up every time you see the work universal background checks mentioned in ANY forum or when talking to your reps / senators. The more people that know about this, the better.
:)

huntsman
January 14, 2013, 07:09 PM
WOW I nailed it in post #40

The president should issue an executive order directly to the attorney general to withhold federal Justice Assistance Grant funding from any state that fails to submit a planóand act on the planófor facilitating the transfer of these records to the FBI.

Yet all relevant federal agencies are hamstrung in their ability to collect and share data on guns because of limitations imposed on their funding in annual appropriations legislation. Three such restrictions involved the so-called Tiahrt Amendments, which restrict federal, state, and local law enforcement functions in the following ways:
■Another rider limits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosivesís ability to receive, store, and manage data in a modern and efficient manner. The bureau is essentially prohibited from creating an electronic database of gun records already in its possession that is searchable by name, which means that its agents must go through an antiquated and inefficient paper-based process when assisting law enforcement to investigate gun-related crimes
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/report/2013/01/13/49510/preventing-gun-violence-in-our-nation/

Pointshoot
January 14, 2013, 08:36 PM
For all you guys who think youre just being 'reasonable' in thinking BG checks for all firearms are fine (a national registration would be required to make it work - that's the only way to insure compliance):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPaa7TiK_Gk&feature=player_embedded



You may not like this guy, but take the time to actually research every point he brings up - even if its outside your 'comfort zone'. Just don't discount it out of hand. Study history.

As Einstein said "Condemnation without investigation, is the height of ignorance."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJw-NjgcWZk

GoWolfpack
January 15, 2013, 05:46 AM
I'll never understand why some people seem to believe that after we give up this last little bit of our rights, that'll be the end. All they want is a background check law, and nothing else.


RIGHT! PM me about the bridge I have for sale while you're at it.

To a certain class of people, mostly politicians who have armed guards to protect them, this is not about crime control, or stopping mass killings. This is about taking your guns away. All of them.

Their ultimate goal is that you have nothing! It may not be their top priority all the time, but it's always bubbling under the surface waiting for some tragedy to help them pass some small law to move them in the direction they want to go.

Hunting rifles aren't safe. Duck guns aren't safe. Black powder revolvers aren't safe. Your CCW handgun certainly isn't safe.

This is not about the constitution. A lot of people will go to jail between the time a law like that is passed and when (if) it makes it to the supreme court. And that is assuming the supreme court would rule correctly and overturn it.

REDMASTA
January 15, 2013, 07:15 AM
I agree with universal background checks and keeping it to checking the person not the gun as others have mentioned. It should also again have provisions to prevent abuse by the government.

I prefer not to sell ftf as I dont know who Im selling to. The firearms Ive sold have been shipped to an ffl and they handled the transfer.

I dont think this is a bad comprimise to make, If we stonewall we risk to lose a lot more. If we allow universal background checks they can no longer go on and on about how easy it is for a criminal to get an "assault weapon". We effectively remove that vital card from their scare tactics aimed at banning MUCH more.

Deanimator
January 15, 2013, 07:31 AM
I dont think this is a bad comprimise to make,
Exactly what "compromise" do you make with a salt water crocodile?

Offer him a leg? Once you do that, how do you keep him from taking the rest?

If we stonewall we risk to lose a lot more.
They want it ALL, today or tomorrow.

If you think ANY "compromise" would change that, you're living in a fantasy world.

And by the way, in a "compromise", BOTH sides give something up. What are THEY giving up?

If I say, I'm going to kill you today, is killing you TOMORROW a "compromise"?

Pointshoot
January 15, 2013, 07:32 AM
"provisions to prevent abuse by the government"

youre kidding, right ?

Ever look into the National Defense Authorization Act ?

There are 'provisions' in that for secret charges and secret trials against Americans that can lead to imprisonment and even 'elimination'. No trial by civilian jury of your peers.

The history of government is filled with abuse - and no 'provisions' made any difference.

Thats why we can't let these things get a foot in the door. Especially when its over matters where these proposals would make no difference. Your odds of being struck by lightening are higher than being a victim of a mass shooting.

The US Bill of Rights is about the prevention of abuse by government. Thats why these true provisions were amended to the US Constitution.

We should follow it.

abajaj11
January 15, 2013, 07:51 AM
I agree with universal background checks and keeping it to checking the person not the gun as others have mentioned. It should also again have provisions to prevent abuse by the government.

I prefer not to sell ftf as I dont know who Im selling to. The firearms Ive sold have been shipped to an ffl and they handled the transfer.

I dont think this is a bad comprimise to make, If we stonewall we risk to lose a lot more. If we allow universal background checks they can no longer go on and on about how easy it is for a criminal to get an "assault weapon". We effectively remove that vital card from their scare tactics aimed at banning MUCH more.
I fear we cannot have universal background checks and still be able to prevent abuse. Universal background check will require a national database of firearms and who owns what. This is the only way to have any kind of monitoring of this law.
:)

REDMASTA
January 15, 2013, 08:05 AM
Exactly what "compromise" do you make with a salt water crocodile?

Offer him a leg? Once you do that, how do you keep him from taking the rest?


They want it ALL, today or tomorrow.

If you think ANY "compromise" would change that, you're living in a fantasy world.

And by the way, in a "compromise", BOTH sides give something up. What are THEY giving up?

If I say, I'm going to kill you today, is killing you TOMORROW a "compromise"?

Yes of course they are always going to want more. Always have and always will. What Im saying is they are effectively using the lack of universal background checks as a scare tactic to get what they really want; which is a ban on several types of firearms, magazines, etc...

Personally I dont think its such a bad thing that every purchase of a firearm requires the person to get a background check. This would solidfy the arguement that only sane law abiding individuals can legally purchase firearms, which we could use to our advantage to protect our rights.

The ball would be in their court to improve the mental health care system and do a better job of going after those who traffic firearms illegally.

As far as compromise, not saying to expect them to give back right away but this could open up venues later on. We have been succesfull here in my state passing gun friendly legislation (especially related to ccw). I think this would be a strong point to argue with in the future.

abajaj11
January 15, 2013, 08:10 AM
Personally I dont think its such a bad thing that every purchase of a firearm requires the person to get a background check. This would solidfy the arguement that only sane law abiding individuals can legally purchase firearms, which we could use to our advantage to protect our rights.

The ball would be in their court to improve the mental health care system and do a better job of going after those who traffic firearms illegally.


Even if it means that all guns are registered in a federal databases, along with who owns it? Check out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPaa7TiK_Gk&feature=player_embedded
:)

Pilot
January 15, 2013, 08:22 AM
But preventing the next mass shooting is not the purpose now is it.


EXACTLY CroMo. It is not about stopping or reducing gun violence or they would be focusing on the criminals and crazies. It is about subjogating, and controlling law abiding citizens, so the government is all powerful. This is not America folks. Unfortunately, when we say these types of things many, especially liberals call us paranoid, and extremists.

abajaj11
January 15, 2013, 08:27 AM
EXACTLY CroMo. It is not about stopping or reducing gun violence or they would be focusing on the criminals and crazies. It is about subjogating, and controlling law abiding citizens, so the government is all powerful. This is not America folks. Unfortunately, when we say these types of things many, especially liberals call us paranoid, and extremists.
They can call us what they want. The point is...how do you disarm 100 million people without a shot being fired? One baby step at a time. One "compromise" at a time.
Get public opinion ginned up.
:)
PS if the majority decided that free speech was not a good idea, would that take away our natural right to self-expression? Majority does not decide the BIll of Rights.....the Bill of Rights is not up for vote....so we should not care what the majority says....but of course we need to win them over through education of our kids....ourselves 'cos the schools are brainwashing them as quickly as possible.

abajaj11
March 12, 2013, 07:23 PM
Seems like some republicans may be looking to cave on the "gun show loophole" and may be OK with requiring federally mandated background or NIC checks for ALL sales, even those private FTF sales in states.

Here IMHO is why this is a really bad idea:

1. There is no Gun show loophole. The exact same state and federal laws hold IN a gun show as outside it. Closing the "gun show loophole" means basically mandating at the federal level that all sales of firearms HAVE to go through NIC checks (Form 4473). The Federal government should have no jurisdiction to regulate commerce within a state, so this may be a hard one to pass constitutional muster. However, it may be the Dems are hoping they can say that "if a firearm was used once in interstate commerce then we can regulate it forever". This argument has already been upheld by the US Supreme court in the GunFree School Zones Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fr...es_Act_of_1990)

2. Think about how a federally mandated background check on ALL firearms will be implemented. Right now, only firearms sold through FFL dealers have to pass a NICs (Form 4473) test in all states, and in some states the state laws mandate that all transfers have to be through an FFL dealer. The feds regulate the FFL dealers and do not keep records of transactions, but the FFL dealers have to. If an FFL dealer goes out of business, those records go to ATF for storage, and are never lost. Now imagine extending this requirement to ALL buyers and sellers of firearms. Well this is impossible.

So the feds will say, well let us just require all states to do what california, for example, does already. All transfers must go through an FFL. But what to do about the millions of unregistered guns in the USA? How do the feds know who owns them? If they don't know who owns them, how will they verify that ALL guns are being sold after a NICS check? Well, the FEDs will come back and say: "We cannot implement your new law unless you allow us to register all firearms". So the inevitable next step to mandating background check on ALL firearm sales will be a demand to Congress that all firearms be registered, without which the law will be impossible to enforce.

Registration is a VERY bad idea. Registration will not prevent a crime since a legal gun may be stolen and used by a criminal (like in the Newtown case) and of course a criminal will never register an illegitimate gun they may already own.
So, the only reason for registration is monitoring legal gun owners, harassing them slowly and whittling down their ranks and finally confiscation of firearms.

Since the 2A was written to provide a well regulated (trained) populace that could be stronger than any standing army that a tyrant could raise, the LAST thing the armed populace wants is for potential tyrants to know who has what firearm. That is why this insidious "background checks for all sales" bill MUST be resisted. it will open the door to registration in a year or two.
:)
Just my 2 cents. It would be great if we could all bring this issue to light on all forums and also when we contact our federal congressman and senators.
As some kind of universal background check law clears the senate Judiciary committee, it is worth remembering, IMHO, WHY we are all so opposed to one. Please consider calling not just our senators, but also folks like Max Baucus, etc. who may be on the fence on this one.
To get phone numbers, please us this link:
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
:)

abajaj11
April 4, 2013, 08:14 AM
Seems like some republicans may be looking to cave on the "gun show loophole" and may be OK with requiring federally mandated background or NIC checks for ALL sales, even those private FTF sales in states.

Here IMHO is why this is a really bad idea:

1. There is no Gun show loophole. The exact same state and federal laws hold IN a gun show as outside it. Closing the "gun show loophole" means basically mandating at the federal level that all sales of firearms HAVE to go through NIC checks (Form 4473). The Federal government should have no jurisdiction to regulate commerce within a state, so this may be a hard one to pass constitutional muster. However, it may be the Dems are hoping they can say that "if a firearm was used once in interstate commerce then we can regulate it forever". This argument has already been upheld by the US Supreme court in the GunFree School Zones Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fr...es_Act_of_1990)

2. Think about how a federally mandated background check on ALL firearms will be implemented. Right now, only firearms sold through FFL dealers have to pass a NICs (Form 4473) test in all states, and in some states the state laws mandate that all transfers have to be through an FFL dealer. The feds regulate the FFL dealers and do not keep records of transactions, but the FFL dealers have to. If an FFL dealer goes out of business, those records go to ATF for storage, and are never lost. Now imagine extending this requirement to ALL buyers and sellers of firearms. Well this is impossible.

So the feds will say, well let us just require all states to do what california, for example, does already. All transfers must go through an FFL. But what to do about the millions of unregistered guns in the USA? How do the feds know who owns them? If they don't know who owns them, how will they verify that ALL guns are being sold after a NICS check? Well, the FEDs will come back and say: "We cannot implement your new law unless you allow us to register all firearms". So the inevitable next step to mandating background check on ALL firearm sales will be a demand to Congress that all firearms be registered, without which the law will be impossible to enforce.

Registration is a VERY bad idea. Registration will not prevent a crime since a legal gun may be stolen and used by a criminal (like in the Newtown case) and of course a criminal will never register an illegitimate gun they may already own.
So, the only reason for registration is monitoring legal gun owners, harassing them slowly and whittling down their ranks and finally confiscation of firearms.

Since the 2A was written to provide a well regulated (trained) populace that could be stronger than any standing army that a tyrant could raise, the LAST thing the armed populace wants is for potential tyrants to know who has what firearm. That is why this insidious "background checks for all sales" bill MUST be resisted. it will open the door to registration in a year or two.
:)
Just my 2 cents. It would be great if we could all bring this issue to light on all forums and also when we contact our federal congressman and senators.
As the UBC debate heats up, fueled by POTUS, it seems appropriate to remind folks why UBCs are just a way to registration. UBCs IMHO are the holy grail for the anti 2As.

How will they ever enforce Universal background checks if they do not know that a sale even took place? To know that a sale took place, they need to know WHO owns WHAT already.Knowing that means creating a federal level registry of who owns what.

Gun registration has always led to confiscation. How do you disarm 100 million people with guns, peacefully? You do it one segment at a time, afer knowing who owns what and then slowly taking away the rights of one segment at a time. Within 3 years or so, the population is effectively disarmed.
CALL your national Senators to tell them NOT to support UBCs. Please. YOu can get their contact info at:
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

pillage
April 5, 2013, 03:36 PM
The so called Universal Background Check can easily be abused. Right now the background check can only be accessed by FFL holders and law enforcement. If anyone can call to do a check, I can see how it could be abused.

For example, a gun owner is going through an ugly divorce that involves children, and resides in a state that isn't firearm friendly. The soon to be spouse wants to muddy the waters in the court's eyes so they make 100 background checks on their soon to be ex in a short period of time. They would have the personal information on the spouse to make this look convincing.

This causes flags to be raised with local law enforcement and they decide to go check on this new extremist, as his or her kids might be in jeopardy . The spouse's lawyer brings it up in court, that the soon to be ex has been investigated recently by law enforcement. You will be looked at as guilty until until you can prove yourself otherwise.

As it stands an FFL would not do this, as this kind of shenangain would put their business in trouble. Chances are LEO wouldn't do it either, but just allowing anyone else into the system raises many questions. How about calling on someone who you only sort of know just to go data fishing?

Hit_Factor
April 6, 2013, 11:51 PM
FFL holders don't get any details when they run a check. The result is basically pass (proceed) or fail (deny). Their access to information in the database should not be compared to the access of LEO.

limpingbear
April 8, 2013, 12:51 AM
After doing a bit of light reading....It appears that even if the UBC is passed there can be no implementation of a federal gun registry. Its contained in FOPA as follows...

"No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation"

So if I'm reading it right, the Feds would have to repeal FOPA to implement a federal registry...which would mean revisiting the GCA 86, which is probably something they don't want to do at this time.
I still expect them to try though....

JRH6856
April 8, 2013, 01:42 AM
^^^Right. What they want to do now with UBC is make sure records are being kept of all transfers which will happen if all must go through an FFL. At a later date, when they can point to the "registration loophole", they will seek to repeal FOPA and create a registry from the records (as well as requiring registration of all guns that have not been transferred via FFL).

Kiln
April 8, 2013, 01:59 AM
Universal Background Checks simply accomplish what the anti gun crowd has wanted to do for a long time, which is make it difficult to buy a gun that can't be easily traced back to you and confiscated.

The only thing I see coming from the UBC if they become law is sting operations against gun owners much like the police does now against the war on drugs. Ignorant people will be targeted and undercover officers will offer to buy guns from them under the radar. If they agree they'll be arrested and charged with attempting to sell a firearm illegally.

JRH6856
April 8, 2013, 03:00 AM
There are all sorts of horror stories out there about what they will do if it passes. But first it has to pass and like Obamacare, they have to pass it before we can know what it in it.

So the best thing to do is not worry about what might happen IF, and work now to see that IF doesn't happen. .

DeepSouth
April 8, 2013, 05:32 AM
I just read THIS article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/democratic-gop-senators-work-toward-background-check-agreement-on-gun-sales/2013/04/07/74664794-9ff7-11e2-bd52-614156372695_story_1.html)that the AP put out, the very last sentence is the best idea I have heard of in this entire debate. It would ALMOST certainly prevent any kind of real registration.



the last sentence is
Even without a bipartisan deal, Schumer is expected to expand the exemptions to more relatives, people with permits to carry concealed weapons and others, in hopes of winning more support.
I personally sell very few guns, but if I were to sell one it would have to be to a CCP holder, thus keeping the Gov. out of the sale while being legal, and I would of course have mine so no BGC for me. Looks like that is enough to make it almost impossible to create a "real" registry.

It would also seriously increase the people who have CCP's simply to avoid the BGC's and probably save money. :D

huntsman
April 8, 2013, 07:43 AM
^ what .gov giveth .gov can taketh away, unless of course we fight for our rights

JRH6856
April 8, 2013, 09:09 AM
Even without a bipartisan deal, Schumer is expected to expand the exemptions to more relatives, people with permits to carry concealed weapons and others, in hopes of winning more support.

OK. Just as soon as he recognizes the 2nd Amendment is a carry permit Which pretty much exempts everyone.

Dave Workman
April 8, 2013, 10:14 PM
OK. Just as soon as he recognizes the 2nd Amendment is a carry permit Which pretty much exempts everyone.

Don't be holding your breath on that one.
:cuss:

Schumer has a "plan" and so does Feinstein, and the end result is unilateral citizen disarmament, despite the 2A.

JRH6856
April 8, 2013, 10:20 PM
Don't be holding your breath on that one.
:cuss:

Schumer has a "plan" and so does Feinstein, and the end result is unilateral citizen disarmament, despite the 2A.
In 2-3-4
Out 2-3-4
Repeat as necessary.

abajaj11
April 9, 2013, 10:23 PM
UBC is not their goal: registration is their goal.
If they were serious about background checks, they would pursue the existing NICs checks that fail....they don't. Check this out:

http://www.newsmax.com/JohnLott/bradylaw-gunownership/2011/06/14/id/399967

NICs right now are useless as the above link shows.
Why would they want to expand them? Because they really want to prevent firearm violence? No, it is to create a registry.
:)

Deer_Freak
April 9, 2013, 11:04 PM
I am for enforcing the laws on the books. When the laws on the books are enforced I can get on board for further regulation. Anything less is just punishing the honest, law abiding gun owner. The law is supposed to punish criminals, not honest hard working people.

The only way to enforce a UBC is to create a registration of guns. Registration of weapons will lead to confiscation.

abajaj11
April 10, 2013, 02:31 PM
If these background checks (that lead to registration, which is their real goal) are passed, I am turning third party. It will be the end of the republican party in my mind.
If these moderate republicans want to commit political suicide, let them.

More conservative folks like Jim Bridenstine or Rand Paul need to form a third party if they want my vote in the future.
If gun control passes, I AM NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR ANYONE RUNNING UNDER THE TICKET OF THE PARTY THAT ALLOWED OUR GUNS TO BE TAKEN AWAY.
I am planning to call my 2 senators and congressman, as well as Spkr Boehner in the house, and tell their aides this.
Please consider doing something along those lines as well. Perhaps if these idiots are faced with the demise of their precious party, they may see sense.

For Congressman: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
For Senators: https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
:)

huntsman
April 10, 2013, 02:36 PM
If we get registration I doubt your 3rd party vote will be counted.

abajaj11
April 10, 2013, 11:53 PM
If we get registration I doubt your 3rd party vote will be counted.
Yes, you may be right. All i can do is my little bit. Hopefully if enough pull together it will make an impact.

BTW, interesting article on how registration of firearms was used on Jews by Nazis, as a prelude to assaulting them.

http://www.independent.org/pdf/research_articles/2009-03-02-halbrook.pdf

:)

msb45
April 12, 2013, 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderA View Post
A 100% NICS requirement could be designed in such a way that it wouldn't lead to registration. However, the source of creative ideas from our side has dried up, because a collective decision has apparently been made to stonewall on everything. Maybe this is the right strategy -- if it's successful. I'm worried that if the antigun proposals proceed to a certain point (and they appear to have increasing momentum), we won't be ready with a Plan B to try to mitigate the damage.
^^^
This

There seems to be at least some limited consensus that society should keep criminals/mentally ill persons from getting arms, but it also seems any mechanism to aid in checking for such things is immediately rejected out of hand.

As a thought exercise, how might one regulate transfers (via background check) without tracking where the arms go (i.e. no registration), while letting people currently legal to purchase arms buy anything currently legally available? Could the check of the purchaser (to verify that they're legal to make the purchase) be done without logging what they actually bought? Could a NICS-type check be done on private sales (again, only verifying that the person is allowed to purchase the arm) be done without being terribly onerous? What might such things look like?

Why acknowledge the false argument of manage the object, not hold people accountable.

On a tour at Williamsburg I saw an old but good idea. If found guilty of a crime you could ask for clemency and get your hand branded. They walked out free that day. If they committed another crime they were hung, no questions asked.

Dead people can't buy guns. Brand the bad guys, not the good.

abajaj11
April 17, 2013, 09:30 PM
Seems like some republicans may be looking to cave on the "gun show loophole" and may be OK with requiring federally mandated background or NIC checks for ALL sales, even those private FTF sales in states.

Here IMHO is why this is a really bad idea:

1. There is no Gun show loophole. The exact same state and federal laws hold IN a gun show as outside it. Closing the "gun show loophole" means basically mandating at the federal level that all sales of firearms HAVE to go through NIC checks (Form 4473). The Federal government should have no jurisdiction to regulate commerce within a state, so this may be a hard one to pass constitutional muster. However, it may be the Dems are hoping they can say that "if a firearm was used once in interstate commerce then we can regulate it forever". This argument has already been upheld by the US Supreme court in the GunFree School Zones Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fr...es_Act_of_1990)

2. Think about how a federally mandated background check on ALL firearms will be implemented. Right now, only firearms sold through FFL dealers have to pass a NICs (Form 4473) test in all states, and in some states the state laws mandate that all transfers have to be through an FFL dealer. The feds regulate the FFL dealers and do not keep records of transactions, but the FFL dealers have to. If an FFL dealer goes out of business, those records go to ATF for storage, and are never lost. Now imagine extending this requirement to ALL buyers and sellers of firearms. Well this is impossible.

So the feds will say, well let us just require all states to do what california, for example, does already. All transfers must go through an FFL. But what to do about the millions of unregistered guns in the USA? How do the feds know who owns them? If they don't know who owns them, how will they verify that ALL guns are being sold after a NICS check? Well, the FEDs will come back and say: "We cannot implement your new law unless you allow us to register all firearms". So the inevitable next step to mandating background check on ALL firearm sales will be a demand to Congress that all firearms be registered, without which the law will be impossible to enforce.

Registration is a VERY bad idea. Registration will not prevent a crime since a legal gun may be stolen and used by a criminal (like in the Newtown case) and of course a criminal will never register an illegitimate gun they may already own.
So, the only reason for registration is monitoring legal gun owners, harassing them slowly and whittling down their ranks and finally confiscation of firearms.

Since the 2A was written to provide a well regulated (trained) populace that could be stronger than any standing army that a tyrant could raise, the LAST thing the armed populace wants is for potential tyrants to know who has what firearm. That is why this insidious "background checks for all sales" bill MUST be resisted. it will open the door to registration in a year or two.
:)
Just my 2 cents. It would be great if we could all bring this issue to light on all forums and also when we contact our federal congressman and senators.
The battle is not over....please consider calling your senators to thank them. They will get calls from Bloomberg fueled bots, we need to counter that by showing our appreciation !
also, please consider contributing to the NRA and GOA, maybe the cost of a box of ammo each? IMHO, it's WORTH IT!
:)

If you enjoyed reading about "Mandatory BG checks on ALL sales lead to registration of all guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!