"Universal Background Checks":Code for Universal Gun Registration


PDA






Dean Weingarten
January 13, 2013, 10:34 AM
The latest liberal code is to push for "universal background checks". I will set aside the fact that the whole idea of preventing criminals from buying guns, rather than preventing them from possessing guns, is a failed paradigm that should be abandoned.

Let us examine what is being proposed as "universal background checks". It sounds as if, when you want to sell a gun, you go to the internet, put in the person who wants to buy the gun's drivers license to see if they are on a prohibited list. If they are not, sell them the gun. Of course, there are all sorts of problems with this approach, foremost being who is allowed to access the list, and what information you are required to put in. How many Robert Smiths are there?

What the left is really proposing is universal gun registration, where anytime you transfer a gun to another person, you have to record the guns serial number, who you transfered it to, and this will have to be done through a licensed government agent.

It will accomplish nothing to reduce crime, as it never has, anywhere it has been tried. Canada just repealed their expensive failed long gun registry. What it does do is lead to confiscation of firearms over time. Not all at once, not right away. Simply keep narrowing the group of people that are allowed to own guns. Narrow down the guns that are allowed. Make the storage requirements more expensive and onerous. That is the real motive here. Make it difficult to own guns. Make it difficult to sell guns. Gradually reduce the number of gun owners until they are politically insignificant. The left hates the American gun culture. They want to be sure that their political opposition is disarmed. That is the reason for ineffective and intrusive "universal background checks".

It sounds so much nicer than Universal Gun Registration.

Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation

Dean Weingarten

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/01/universal-background-checkscode-for.html

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-registration-is-gun-confiscation.html

If you enjoyed reading about ""Universal Background Checks":Code for Universal Gun Registration" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ehtereon11B
January 13, 2013, 12:08 PM
I don't think requiring background checks would force gun registration. The bout of requiring checks for every purchase is probably the only gun control measure I can semi-agree with, although I don't plan on building a summer home around it. If the method you suggest would be implemented I wouldn't like it. But if the sale was completed by a FFL like it is done now with interstate transfers I would not have an issue with it. Most of us buy our firearms legally either through FFL or currently legal intrastate person transfers. If the antis win in passing universal checks and nothing else, it would be a small price to pay and they can toot their horn for closing the "gun show loophole" they always bring up.

AlexanderA
January 13, 2013, 12:22 PM
What the left is really proposing is universal gun registration, where anytime you transfer a gun to another person, you have to record the guns serial number, who you transfered it to, and this will have to be done through a licensed government agent.

You are jumping to a conclusion here. That may be what the "left" is "really" proposing, but it doesn't necessarily have to end up that way, after input from the opposing side. Your original scenario is just as plausible:

It sounds as if, when you want to sell a gun, you go to the internet, put in the person who wants to buy the gun's drivers license to see if they are on a prohibited list. If they are not, sell them the gun.

This sounds to me like a free, and easy, NICS check open to all. Heck, this could even be made voluntary, with incentives such as immunity from civil liability if this is done.

Ironically, opposition to a free NICS check might come from FFL holders, who would want their $15 (or whatever) for processing the check. The Administration may be trying to bribe FFL holders into supporting this idea by specifying a "closed" system that would funnel all the checks through them, allowing them to charge fees. (Co-opting stakeholders was a technique that we saw used in the runup to Obamacare.)

ZeSpectre
January 13, 2013, 01:09 PM
This sounds to me like a free, and easy, NICS check
Free? Oh believe me there will be a cost someplace!

Billll
January 13, 2013, 09:01 PM
It creates a paper trail on your gun, and adds a $35 "tax" onto the sale price.

Call and write your rep and tell them NO!

hso
January 13, 2013, 09:30 PM
Background checks are not the same as registration. Registration is registration. While a lot of people like to argue that Registration leads to confiscation (because it has in some countries), the absurd idea that a background check is registration is absurd.

There are already places in this country that require a background check for every firearms transfer. It is what happens to that information that is critical in whether registration might grow out of it. In TN the background check system is a state not fed function. It is a flat $10 fee. In other states you don't have to go through a background check on every firearm if you have a carry permit.

Ignorance of the laws and how they work make us look...ignorant.

abajaj11
January 13, 2013, 09:42 PM
I don't think requiring background checks would force gun registration. The bout of requiring checks for every purchase is probably the only gun control measure I can semi-agree with, although I don't plan on building a summer home around it. If the method you suggest would be implemented I wouldn't like it. But if the sale was completed by a FFL like it is done now with interstate transfers I would not have an issue with it. Most of us buy our firearms legally either through FFL or currently legal intrastate person transfers. If the antis win in passing universal checks and nothing else, it would be a small price to pay and they can toot their horn for closing the "gun show loophole" they always bring up.
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 or an Executive order that all firearms be registered, without which the law will be impossible to enforce. Since this EO will be to implement a law passed by Congress, there is a good chance, IMHO, that it will be held legal.

Hence, IMHO, Universal background checks will lead to registration.
and being watched and monitored by a bureaucracy that does not want you to own arms is a total infringement. It's like the fox guarding the hen house.
The 2A is supposed to allow citizens to defend themselves and the State from enemies of the republic, foreign and domestic. You know, like a tyrannical government with a standing army.

Would anyone like background checks before one is allowed to speak or post on the Internet? Would you like a bureaucrat monitoring everything you say? The ability to only post with your government supplied Internet ID? Because that WILL be next, right after we have been disarmed.
Stop Universal Background checks. It is very very dangerous.
Please feel free to pass this message along to other forums and social media as well. The more pro 2A folks know about this the better.
:)

HorseSoldier
January 13, 2013, 09:43 PM
Honestly, I would prefer to have the ability to check the serial # on a firearm I was receiving to make sure it wasn't stolen property and to check that a guy I might be selling a weapon to determine that they were not a felon or other prohibited person -- both in terms of potential civil liability and my own peace of mind.

Neither of which is any support for registration of firearms. As noted, two different things.

abajaj11
January 13, 2013, 09:55 PM
I don't think requiring background checks would force gun registration. The bout of requiring checks for every purchase is probably the only gun control measure I can semi-agree with, although I don't plan on building a summer home around it. If the method you suggest would be implemented I wouldn't like it. But if the sale was completed by a FFL like it is done now with interstate transfers I would not have an issue with it. Most of us buy our firearms legally either through FFL or currently legal intrastate person transfers. If the antis win in passing universal checks and nothing else, it would be a small price to pay and they can toot their horn for closing the "gun show loophole" they always bring up.
For all folks here thinking that we can placate the anti 2A folks with some legislation, and Universal Background checks are the least harmful of their proposals, please think about this. The antis are NOT interested in preventing gun violence. They don't CARE about people dying. If they were, they would be closing gun-free killing zones.
No, the anti2A folks care about taking guns away from the population. Any proposals they make are aimed at that.
Their top proposal is emerging as a Universal Background check. This is NOT because they think "Oh...we would love a mag cap ban and an assault weapons ban, but those evil NRA types won't let that pass, so let's just settle for a Universal Backgroun Check..."
No No No...the reason a Universal background Check is their top priority is because it will allow them to take away the maximum number of guns quickly. It will open the door to executive order after executive order that can be used to monitor and disarm citizens. Mag cap bans and Assault weapon bans are distractions/red herrings to throw some meat to the congress for voting against, so Congressmen and Senators can go to the NRA and say "we fought the good fight, and we managed to stop mag cap bans and assault weapon bans, but we HAD to give them something so we gave them Universal Background checks."

The fact that Universal BG check is the anti2A's top priority means that this should be our top priority to defeat as well.

And forget the FFL's wanting this and being some kind of lobby. ...FFLs have no power politically.
They don't contribute to the NRA or number nearly as much as the 100 million+ gun owners. Legislators and NRa are not concerned about FFl holders...instead they are concerned about us, the voters.
So let us work together and call our Senators and Congressman once a week, (3 calls a week, 5 min of your time) for the next 8 weeks, and tell them that we will work to defeat folks who compromise with anti-2A in any way, and work to elect those who do not compromise in any way.

remember, it is not our fault that Newtown happened. We are the good guys here. we train others and are responsible gun owners. there are 20,000 laws already that govern how we can buy guns and keep and bear them. we do not need to compromise any further.
We can win this if we stick together.
:)

DeepSouth
January 13, 2013, 09:56 PM
OK, help me out here. There are millions of guns out there that no one other than the owner even knows exists.

I have some like that, and if they passed a law saying I couldn't sell them without a background check on the buyer then, ok, I would do that. But the majority of the public doesn't keep up with laws like us, so I would argue MOST private sales would probably be unknowing illegal. I would also argue that because virtually no one other the seller and buyer would know the gun exists then the law would be almost impossible to enforce.

The short version is they either know where they are and can therefore track them and know when they are illegally sold, OR they don't know where they are and therefore will have no effective way to enforce a law that has anything to do with private sales.

Am I wrong?


BTW:
This is honest question, I am trying to figure out how they could make this work...with out registration.
I am not trying to be argumentative.

abajaj11
January 13, 2013, 09:58 PM
Honestly, I would prefer to have the ability to check the serial # on a firearm I was receiving to make sure it wasn't stolen property and to check that a guy I might be selling a weapon to determine that they were not a felon or other prohibited person -- both in terms of potential civil liability and my own peace of mind.

Neither of which is any support for registration of firearms. As noted, two different things.
Who would you like to maintain this database for you? The government.... who does not want you to own any firearms? They will monitor you every day, pick off segments of gun owners for "violations of common-sense gun safety" and effectively disarm this country within 2-3 years.
:)

abajaj11
January 13, 2013, 09:59 PM
OK, help me out here. There are millions of guns out there that no one other than the owner even knows exists.

I have some like that, and if they passed a law saying I couldn't sell them without a background check on the buyer then, ok, I would do that. But the majority of the public doesn't keep up with laws like us, so I would argue MOST private sales would probably be unknowing illegal. I would also argue that because virtually no one other the seller and buyer would know the gun exists then the law would be almost impossible to enforce.

The short version is they either know where they are and can therefore track them and know when they are illegally sold, OR they don't know where they are and therefore will have no effective way to enforce a law that has anything to do with private sales.

Am I wrong?


BTW:
This is honest question, I am trying to figure out how they could make this work...with out registration.
I am not trying to be argumentative.
You are dead right.

hogshead
January 13, 2013, 10:05 PM
That is exactly right Deep South. The only way they could know would be complete registration. Which ALWAYS leads to confiscation. This must be stopped or all is lost. The gun owners who agree to this are worse than the antis.

Wolfman131
January 13, 2013, 10:57 PM
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=121185

From another gun forum. I would urge folks to read the posts within the thread from all of the NRA types that are not just okay with the idea of universal government intrusion(universal nics), but lobbying hard for it! Please read it, look at the numbers for, v against. Its really quite shocking.

I hope you folks see the importance of whats unfolding here, that mentality is loose within our 2nd amendment community, its crucial that we understand whats at stake, because gun owners themselves, capitulating liberty for no other reason than to capitulate something, is not a recipe for success.

Subjugating private American citizens to this data gathering system, is exactly what the anti-gun political class is hunting after. If we succumb to this initiative, they will have the mechanism firmly in place, to not only register, but track each and every gun owning citizen.

Thats the goal.

blkbrd666
January 13, 2013, 11:02 PM
Okay, why are there so many people compromising around here? Why is anyone evening trying to dream up a "suitable" compromise? Are these just people fresh out of the modern day brainwashing establishment they call school, or are people visiting the wrong neighbors and drinking the Kool-Aid? I would think anyone over 30 has had their toes stepped on enough in life. :banghead:

hovercat
January 13, 2013, 11:14 PM
I forget the case. It is in my copy of 'American Historical Documents', Harvard 5' shelf of books.....
Had to do with setting up the bank of the US. Supreme Court ruled that if the Constitution gives the gov a right A, it also gives the gov the power necessary to achieve A, in that case form the bank.
The legal experts here can clarify, but to my fuzzy thinking, the gov can say that Congress passed a background check law. Necessary to properly implement that law is registration, so no further votes by lawmakers are needed.

I think I have presented my theory, can someone please clean it up and flesh it out properly? Or tell me that I have bats in my belfry?

abajaj11
January 13, 2013, 11:18 PM
I forget the case. It is in my copy of 'American Historical Documents', Harvard 5' shelf of books.....
Had to do with setting up the bank of the US. Supreme Court ruled that if the Constitution gives the gov a right A, it also gives the gov the power necessary to achieve A, in that case form the bank.
The legal experts here can clarify, but to my fuzzy thinking, the gov can say that Congress passed a background check law. Necessary to properly implement that law is registration, so no further votes by lawmakers are needed.

I think I have presented my theory, can someone please clean it up and flesh it out properly? Or tell me that I have bats in my belfry?
You are absolutely right.

abajaj11
January 13, 2013, 11:28 PM
From another gun forum. I would urge folks to read the posts within the thread from all of the NRA types that are not just okay with the idea of universal government intrusion(universal nics), but lobbying hard for it! Please read it, look at the numbers for, v against. Its really quite shocking.

I hope you folks see the importance of whats unfolding here, that mentality is loose within our 2nd amendment community, its crucial that we understand whats at stake, because gun owners themselves, capitulating liberty for no other reason than to capitulate something, is not a recipe for success.

Subjugating private American citizens to this data gathering system, is exactly what the anti-gun political class is hunting after. If we succumb to this initiative, they will have the mechanism firmly in place, to not only register, but track each and every gun owning citizen.

Thats the goal.
we need to forward the real meaning underlying Universal Background checks to as many forums as we can...also to the NRA, SAF and GOA.
:)

Shadow 7D
January 14, 2013, 01:04 AM
Technically
there is a provision in the brady bill which is supposed to PREVENT them from compiling a database...

just like Trace Records are NOT supposed to be a database....

suemarkp
January 14, 2013, 01:27 AM
My problem with everyone doing mandatory background checks:


What to do when NICS is down?
What to do when you get a Delay?
Do you get a transaction number? If not, you need something if you have to prove you conducted a check. Better not lose that number, and I'm NOT giving you the gun serial number.
All guns currently in existence in private hands could have been sold to someone already without a paper trail. These will be "PRE-NICS" guns and you could easily sell them without conducting a check because you could say "I sold that guns years ago". These will become more valuable to people wanting to skirt the check.


That being said, I would certainly consider using NICS if I was allowed to, and didn't cost much if anything (money or time). I'd want to be able to call it from my house and get an go or no-go quickly.

Chris-bob
January 14, 2013, 01:40 AM
Next thing they will want to know the serial of the gun during the NICS check. All in the name of 'safety'. Give them an inch, they will take it and in a few months push for another inch. Slowly, inch after inch, they will have taken everything.

Wolfman131
January 14, 2013, 02:29 AM
My problem with everyone doing mandatory background checks:


What to do when NICS is down?
What to do when you get a Delay?
Do you get a transaction number? If not, you need something if you have to prove you conducted a check. Better not lose that number, and I'm giving you the gun serial number.
All guns currently in existence in private hands could have been sold to someone already without a paper trail. These will be "PRE-NICS" guns and you could easily sell them without conducting a check because you could say "I sold that guns years ago". These will become more valuable to people wanting to skirt the check.


That being said, I would certainly consider using NICS if I was allowed to, and didn't cost much if anything (money or time). I'd want to be able to call it from my house and get an go or no-go quickly.
Why on earth would you want to do something like that? This is exactly what is wrong, individuals conditioned by the state, into not just accepting the invasion, but more then willing to perform it for them!

With friends like this, the 2nd amendment will swiftly fall.

suemarkp
January 14, 2013, 10:42 PM
I'm saying I may use it if it were available to me. I also may ask for a concealed pistol license if I'm not sure how savory the buyer is. I'm not saying make it mandatory, for all the reasons given.

I have a gun safe, and I don't have to. I think it is responsible. I'm not going to say safe storage has to be mandatory either.

Wolfman131
January 14, 2013, 11:09 PM
I'm saying I may use it if it were available to me. I also may ask for a concealed pistol license if I'm not sure how savory the buyer is. I'm not saying make it mandatory, for all the reasons given.

I have a gun safe, and I don't have to. I think it is responsible. I'm not going to say safe storage has to be mandatory either.
Why you would even "consider" such an intrusion upon a fellow citizen, is appalling.

Frankly, its my considered opinion, that this is the by-product of statist conditioning, and softening processes. Over the decades, they have softened you(the masses)up to their extra-constitutional intrusions, getting you(them) not just comfortable with their constant invasions, but afraid, or unsure of yourself(themselves)without it!

You're not "just being reasonable," you're being taken in a highly complex confidence scam. Think about it, deeply! Elimination of the so-called gun show loophole, would not have saved a single Sandy Hook child, or any of the children murdered in school house massacres in America over the last decades. This is intended as a prequel to full on registration, which is itself prelude to confiscation. Its not going to affect a single criminal, its aimed squarely at the law-abiding American citizen.

You might ask yourself why it is, that you are open to doing it for them?

gc70
January 15, 2013, 05:05 AM
"Universal background checks" is a convenient new term to reflect aspirations beyond the former gun control demand for background checks at gun shows. The reality is even worse than the expanded term "universal background checks" suggests.

The gun control crowd does not just want background checks for all sales of guns, but for all transfers of guns.

H.R.21 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr21ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr21ih.pdf) was introduced by Rep. Moran on the first day of the new Congress; Title I of that bill contains the same language about background checks as Senator Schumer's bill from the prior session of Congress. After stating that the purpose of that Title of the bill is "to extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms" the word "sale" is never used again and "transfer" is used exclusively. Subsequently, the bill specifically covers "a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title."

SC_Slowhand
January 15, 2013, 07:52 AM
For years now I have been trying to explain to self delusional gun owners who want to keep politics out of any discussion of the 2nd Amendment that the 2nd Amendment was written by politicians and can be changed by them. The Media and Politicians have been waging a war of attrition for decades now and have made no secret that their ultimate goal in a turn in of all weapons.

We need to be writing or calling our politicians and letting them know where we stand on these proposed measures. When the NRA went to their meeting with Joe Biden, they were prepared to discuss Security in Schools, Mental Health Issue relating to firearms purchases and real prosecution of gun crimes, or actual enforcement of all those existing gun control laws. Mr Biden wasn't interested.

Shadow 7D
January 15, 2013, 03:44 PM
We need to be writing or calling our politicians and letting them know where we stand on these proposed measures. When the NRA went to their meeting with Joe Biden, they were prepared to discuss Security in Schools, Mental Health Issue relating to firearms purchases and real prosecution of gun crimes, or actual enforcement of all those existing gun control laws. Mr Biden wasn't interested.
Why, in a state that one of the most restrictive laws on gun ownership, laws much like Obama wants to extend to the rest of the US, when a Domestic (mental) health issue leads to a shooting

Are we looking to extend their FAILED laws
instead of bothering to look at what caused it.

Deanimator
January 15, 2013, 07:42 PM
You are jumping to a conclusion here. That may be what the "left" is "really" proposing, but it doesn't necessarily have to end up that way, after input from the opposing side. Your original scenario is just as plausible:
The anti-gun Taliban doesn't want "input from the opposing side".

They want complete and absolute submission.

Anybody who claims anything to the contrary is naive or dishonest.

Akita1
January 15, 2013, 07:58 PM
All - this is only round 1 that will be enacted by Executive Order. Who cares about UBC's - there is no way to either administer or enforce it except at shops and shows.

Round 2 will be Congressional. Do we honestly think that anything meaningful to their cause will be enacted by Congress? The '84 "ban" was a paper tiger, and Congress can't tie its shoes let alone pass anything worthwhile to deal with legitimate issues of any topic.

Relax, reload, hunt, plink and shoot the bad guys. And I humbly request that we PLEASE STOP paying $1+/round for .223 fmj (I paid $.70 for bulk last week so am guilty as well) and $2500 for ARs. While I truly love capitalism and believe the market dictates what something is worth, fear and paranoia are never suitable motivations.

Akita1
January 15, 2013, 08:13 PM
+1 Deanimator. It's smoke & mirrors: Biden made a nice little show of inviting RKBA supporters to the White House to say "see? we included them" and now we're going to do what we want regardless of opposing views.

We need to stop bitching about UBCs - if you have something to hide you're a threat and I personally don't want you armed. We will never maintain legitimacy by fringing our RKBA positions - the only thing that separates us from the morons is our ability to compromise. Give them UBCs and let's be done with it. Congress is clearly useless so whatever EO is issued by the White House is window dressing. Go ahead and ban 30-round mags, the real gun enthusiasts amongst us already have 5 of them and everyone else is paying $50-100 to snap up the remaining inventory. Ergo, the market is now flooded with ARs, mags, etc. so their tactics are having the opposite effect.

Having said that, dead babies are a powerful motivator - I have two kids close to the age of those who were slaughtered by that maniac and shed tears with my wife (you can't help but think of your kids when you see something like that). I taught my kids to shoot bows first, then BBs, then airsoft and now .22s. Next is .223, the 6.8mm and finally my .270.

A gun is a tool, not a novelty - my kids know what they sound like and know what to do when they hear them: take cover and reload.

I humbly suggest we do the same.

abajaj11
January 15, 2013, 08:17 PM
Are you OK with UBCs if they allow POTUS and DOJ to create a national registration of all firearms so they can monitor UBCs with some degree of effectivenenss?
:)

Akita1
January 15, 2013, 08:22 PM
abajaj11 - my answer is a resounding NO, but they already have that - perhaps just not specifically within POTUS or DOJ. Every time you fill out the form you write in your address and the seller calls (in my state the FDLE) and runs an FBI check. Do we honestly believe that the BATF and the FBI don't already know where we live and what we own? The only thing they don't have is private sales, but I tend to keep what I buy so I'm not optimistic about the reality of the situation.

Akita1
January 15, 2013, 08:31 PM
abajaj11 - after rereading my reply I guess the proper answer the your question is "yes" because I believe it already exists and, unless we subscribe to the fear mongers, I do not believe they'll be kicking in doors to take my ARs and Pmags.

abajaj11
January 15, 2013, 08:34 PM
abajaj11 - my answer is a resounding NO, but they already have that - perhaps just not specifically within POTUS or DOJ. Every time you fill out the form you write in your address and the seller calls (in my state the FDLE) and runs an FBI check. Do we honestly believe that the BATF and the FBI don't already know where we live and what we own? The only thing they don't have is private sales, but I tend to keep what I buy so I'm not optimistic about the reality of the situation.
Let's say you buy a gun through an FFL. FFL keeps a paper copy of your 4473 for 20 years. Paper copy is not given to DOJ. BATFE can come in and request a copy under exceptional circumstances usually involving a federal crime or some national security deal i think. NICs checks are never stored.

So as of now, Feds cannot keep a database of sales through FFls, that info only resides with the FFL. There is a paper trail in the form of the 4473 copy, but only stored with the FFL for 20 years. If the Feds were secretly keeping copies that would be HIGHLY illegal and grounds for very very long jail sentences for the FEd officers involved.

Now, let's say you live in a free state and can sell your firearms Face to face . So you do that, and now there is no record of who owns the firearm. You can sell ALL your firearms face to face and now there is not even a paper trail of those firearms.

THis is the situation today. And it is good because a potentially tyrannical government (the federal govt) has no business tracking who owns what. 2A was created to protect the states and their residents from a potential central tyrannical power with a standing army, aka in today's lingo: the Federal government!
Not to protect the federal government in any way.
2A transfers NO powers on the federal government to monitor or track any gun sales. That would be like the fox guarding the hen house.

Now let's suppose UBC is passed by COngress. we can argue it is unconstitutional, and there is a slim chance current Supreme court will hold it unconstitutional but likely not.
I can guarantee you current POTUs and DOJ need one small bone from Congress and they will take it and run...they will take any new gun control measure from Congress to be a license to create all sorts of databases by executive order.
In my humble opinion, if UBC is passed, we have 3 months before national registration occurs and 2-3 years before we are effectively disarmed.
So it's not the UBC I am concerned about at all, it's what will happen after....
:)

Akita1
January 15, 2013, 08:51 PM
Roger that brother - you lay out an interesting scenario but I don't have a crystal ball so it's hard to tell what happens after. I don't trust the morons who currently "govern" our beloved Republic and have already seen them simply ignore laws to achieve political intent (re: commercial bankruptcy laws during our recent economic crisis).

Agreed on your "bone" logic. That sounds like the most likely outcome: see? we did this and that makes us right! It's too bad that they don't understand that logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end (thank you Spock).

I truly believe we have numbers, history, logic and the the Constitution on our side, and even more strongly believe that the Bill of Rights does not carry a multiple choice option. I will respect everyone's privilege (not "right") to exercise the 1st Amendment, as long as they respect mine to exercise the 2nd.

gc70
January 15, 2013, 09:11 PM
Give them UBCs and let's be done with it.

Do you know what you are ready to accept? The current UBC bill (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr21ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr21ih.pdf) in Congress does not just apply to sales, but to all transfers, including "a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title." The bill has exceptions for temporary possession at certain shooting ranges and competitions, but do you want to sign up for a background check to be able to hand a buddy one of your guns to shoot on your own property (not included in the exceptions in the bill)?

Akita1
January 15, 2013, 09:15 PM
gc70 - no, would never accept that. In fact, I don't think that would be part of anything that actually passes. That is likely a bargaining chip and, even if it passed, how the hell would it be enforced? You're welcome to come to my hunting camp any time - we'll shoot down the drones together.

Wolfman131
January 15, 2013, 10:33 PM
Technically
there is a provision in the brady bill which is supposed to PREVENT them from compiling a database...

just like Trace Records are NOT supposed to be a database....
A private gentleman seller over at m4carbine.net, was just contacted by ATF, they had every transaction he had ever made listed in the letter they sent him, along with a warning.

They have been violating that law from day one, these are the same people that committed atrocities at "Wako, and Ruby Ridge!" These are the people that at least 50% of the gun owning public is content with surrendering their liberties too.

Akita1
January 15, 2013, 10:47 PM
A private gentleman seller over at m4carbine.net, was just contacted by "", they had every transaction he had ever made listed in the letter they sent him, along with a warning.

They have been violating that law from day one, these are the same people that committed atrocities at "" These are the people that at least 50% of the gun owning public is content with surrendering their liberties too.
They have all of his sales…and likely now your post as well (those two places/events you named are likely key terms in a wide search net). Don't disagree with your intent, but sedition is a broad brush stroke. None of us are willingly surrendering anything, but enemies foreign and domestic are a threat to both us and the very republic we claim to defend. Plus…spelling and proper diction aide credibility.

hogshead
January 15, 2013, 10:52 PM
You have to space out thewords Ru b y Rid ge. Make sure you have your tinfoil hat on to. seriously though i think we would be amazed at how much bi g Brot her knows about us.

Akita1
January 15, 2013, 11:04 PM
hogshead - love the tinfoil hat comment!

suemarkp
January 16, 2013, 02:04 AM
Let's say you buy a gun through an FFL. FFL keeps a paper copy of your 4473 for 20 years. Paper copy is not given to DOJ. BATFE can come in and request a copy under exceptional circumstances usually involving a federal crime or some national security deal i think.

What happens if the FFL goes out of business? I think they have to turn in their 4473's. Supposedly they are "just stored", but I don't believe that.

I don't have one gun I've bought from a FFL that has survived 20 years (all are out of business except for 2, but the gun purchases still have 10 years to go before they can be tossed).

One FFL said he was "going to have a fire" when he went out of business. I hope he did, as I bought at least 4 guns there.

Wolfman131
January 16, 2013, 02:21 AM
They have all of his sales…and likely now your post as well (those two places/events you named are likely key terms in a wide search net). Don't disagree with your intent, but sedition is a broad brush stroke. None of us are willingly surrendering anything, but enemies foreign and domestic are a threat to both us and the very republic we claim to defend. Plus…spelling and proper diction aide credibility.
Do you understand, your post is incoherent? Also, "ahh" grammar correction is the last refuge of the leftist gun grabber.

Wolfman131
January 16, 2013, 02:24 AM
You have to space out thewords Ru b y Rid ge. Make sure you have your tinfoil hat on to. seriously though i think we would be amazed at how much bi g Brot her knows about us.

Quoted for the moderator, ad hominem personal attack

Cdigman
January 16, 2013, 03:03 AM
Yes, the true danger about the Universal Background Checks, i.e. "Closing the gun show loophole" means that ANY transfer of ANY firearms, regardless of manufacture, would have to go through an FFL. And when they catch someone with a questionable weapon, the person will say "I TOTALLY bought that from a buddy/guy at a gun show/a want ad online, BEFORE the UBC was in effect." SO the only way to eliminate that excuse, is to order that all firearms be registered, so that they know WHO was in possession of WHAT, WHEN the law goes into effect. Any firearms discovered in anyone's possession after that time, would be illegal, and probably be a felony, because they'd have to charge the crime for not registering, the same as an illegal transfer in the first place, or everyone who is caught with "illegal transfers" will use that excuse. And if you don't register, you'll forever have to worry about your firearms being discovered. You certainly won't be using and enjoying them, at least not like you do now. And for those who DO register, well, registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation. Look at the way SKS owners were treated in California...law-abiding owners registered them, under a "grace period", then later, at the whim of a bureaucrat, they all got letters telling to turn them in, or else. Once everything is registered, it's a race to see what will be banned next. "Concealable Handguns in deadly calibers, like .45 and 9mm..the same rounds our MILITARY uses"..Ultra-destructive pump-action shotguns, that "Shoot out more 'bullets' in 5 shots, than a 30-round magazine in an AR15, in LESS time!" The gun-grabbing media speaks of AR15's as "High-powered" rifles as it is now...wait till they compare how much MORE killing power your bolt action-"SNIPER Rifle" has, in .308 or .30-.30. And so goes our rights to defend ourselves.

Jorg Nysgerrig
January 16, 2013, 03:30 AM
I think this thread has gone too far downhill. A moderator who isn't about to go to bed may see fit to clean it up later.

For the record, if you report a post, you don't have to quote it again for us to see it. Also, if you are reporting an ad hominem personal attack, you may want to refrain from making one in the same thread.

Likewise, if one is going to bag on another's spelling, avoid using "aide" instead of "aid" in the critique. Glass houses, as they say.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Universal Background Checks":Code for Universal Gun Registration" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!