Don't get mad, just a question,


PDA






mljdeckard
January 30, 2013, 02:27 PM
Would it be acceptable, (and is it even possible,) to have a 100% background check in place, as long as the language of the law states in black and white, that the information gathered is legally useable ONLY for the purpose of the check, not for the tracking of individual guns, and that it is inadmissable in any court for any reason?

We know that this is the INTENT of the current 4473 system, but the retention of the record leaves open back doors and gives us the willies. If the language protecting the buyer was made more solid, would we be able to accept this? Even to include, say, a 90-day destruction timeframe?

I do not accept any new gun laws, nor do I think we are in a position where we will have to compromise, but if we WERE, is there a way to write this so that it is ONLY used for the background check?

I'm mostly looking for people to tell me why this wouldn't work.

If you enjoyed reading about "Don't get mad, just a question," here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mljdeckard
January 30, 2013, 02:29 PM
(I thought I posted this in general, oops.)

allaroundhunter
January 30, 2013, 02:39 PM
Would it work? Probably up until the next murder by firearm at which time they will want more... Give an inch, and they'll take a mile....

We don't have a mile to give.

We don't need to compromise... The phrase "Shall not be infringed..." was inserted for good reason.

The only compromise I would make is to buy some politicians a dictionary.

Sent from my HTC One X

alsaqr
January 30, 2013, 02:54 PM
We don't need to compromise... The phrase "Shall not be infringed..." was inserted for good reason.

Why should a law abiding citizen give up the right to sell a legally owned product without gov't interference? This is especially relevant because the present administration refuses to enforce existing gun laws.

Walkalong
January 30, 2013, 03:00 PM
No. I do not want to have to go to an FFL to give my son a gun. I am tired of them chipping away the stone. This is only a precursor to total registration.

radiotom
January 30, 2013, 03:02 PM
Just another law for the criminals to break.

rdhood
January 30, 2013, 03:03 PM
Would it be acceptable, (and is it even possible,) to have a 100% background check in place, as long as the language of the law states in black and white, that the information gathered is legally useable ONLY for the purpose of the check, not for the tracking of individual guns, and that it is inadmissable in any court for any reason?


If all I had to do was to go to a computer, logon to NICS, run someones name/address/phone/birthdate and get back a yes or no, I'd probably do it.

If I had to fill out a 4473... Heck NO. If I had to go to an FFL to have this done... Heck NO. All I personally would want to know is : is this guy allowed to have a gun. I want to check it anonymously. I want to check it in my own home. I want to check for FREE. I want to be able to check someone without putting in his/her life history.

That is not what they want. They want a long form filled out and retained by an FFL at my expense ($fee). Screw that.

mljdeckard
January 30, 2013, 03:05 PM
THat's kind of the test that I'm trying to put it to. Would THEY accept any form of check which is effective, but WON'T retain any information that would lead to registration?

Of course I don't want it. None of us wants it. But is it even possible?

Bubba613
January 30, 2013, 03:07 PM
What would be the purpose of such a thing? "Keep guns out of the hands of criminals"? Criminals will not participate in it. They will trade guns for dope or whatever like they always do. It will do more harm infringing on people's freedom than do good protecting people.

gossamer
January 30, 2013, 03:08 PM
Why should a law abiding citizen give up the right to sell a legally owned product without gov't interference?

The answer: ever sell a car? A boat (in my state)? A trailer (in my state)? A motorcycle (in my state)?

Not to argue with the underlying premise, but I just don't think this is a particularly compelling argument. Nor do I find the "slipper slope" arguments all too compelling either. As a famous Conservative once said "Life is a slippery slope."

The nuisance argument has merit. "Why should I have to go to an FFL to give a gun to my son/daughter?"



What I see as the argument agains this is:

There is evidence that private citizens (and yes, I count FFLs among these) should not be custodians of records of firearms sales.

If you want to know what it looks like when individuals do this kind of record keeping, case in point from my home town:

A physician threw hundreds of files documenting abortions he performed in a trash dumpster. Want to know how we all found out? Because someone found them. Hundreds if not thousands of women whose private lives were left in public for anyone to find. Set aside the possible nefarious of intentions one might seek to exact against someone who had an abortion and now has their name, address and medical history. Just the idea that these records were floating around for years and were dumped in the public.

Now, imagine if those were 4473s . . .

NaturalDefensiveRights
January 30, 2013, 03:11 PM
Why should I trust a government, that set up fast and furious and has already passed illegal laws that violate the second amendment? And that's just firearms. The government is so corrupt, anarchy would be an improvement.

silicosys4
January 30, 2013, 03:16 PM
Gossamer,
I can buy a car in your state, without registering. I can buy a boat in your state without registering, I can buy a motorcycle without registering, etc.

You can too. You can buy the most polluting, ugly, broke down, dangerous to pedestrian, nonfunctional brakes, motor ready to blow up and kill bystanders with shrapnel, etc... all without registering it.
You can even drive the hell out of it, put 100k miles on it too

If you own the private property to keep it on,
own land to drive it,
and posess the money to fuel it.

Ownership of a vehicle requires NO such thing as registration.
However, operating it on public roadways does require licensing.
Ownership of vehicles is not a direct analogy for ownership of firearms, as they are still available for unrestricted use on private property, whereupon a regulated firearm does not allow for use even on your own private land.

JustinJ
January 30, 2013, 03:19 PM
If private sells of firearms are to require no check then having the same requirement of FFL's makes no sense. It is contradictory for us to say we believe the current laws just need to be enforced because we all know there is an extremely easy and perfectly legal avenue readily available for any person to get a gun without a background check.

RCArms.com
January 30, 2013, 03:21 PM
Based on some of the testimony that I've heard our Senators and Representatives give lately, I think that it's time to consider full background checks to include a mental health/wellness assessment for our elected officials when elected or re-elected before beginning their new term.

I'm convinced that more that an few of them would fail the mental wellness assessment.

armedaccountant
January 30, 2013, 03:25 PM
What I find interesting is the politicians who are always talking about helping the poor, etc are the ones who are pushing this. A $25-40 transfer fee on a $2,000 custom rifle isn't that noticeable. Now add that same $25-40 fee onto a budget used gun that sells for $250 and it is a big deal. I have some reliable firearms that I bought for around $250 when I wasn't as financially stable as I am now. They are older, used, but highly functional and safe. As I upgrade my collection I plan on selling them for about what I paid for them, because I know there is someone else out there who could use such a firearm.

I also agree with the other posters. We can't give on anything. Just look at history, rights are usually not taken away on a grand scale. The are slowly chipped away at. The other side is asking for compromise, but their compromise is for us to give something up and them to get something. That isn't how compromise works.

SoCalNoMore
January 30, 2013, 03:27 PM
I ask this about background checks- Where do criminals buy their guns? Not from dealers that's for sure. They buy them from other criminals that have stolen them. A criminal does not want a gun that is traceable for a reason.

How would a private party NICS/registration prevent a criminal from buying a gun on the street, that was stolen from a law abiding citizen? It won't.

Scenario- I buy the weapon legally, register it etc. Its stolen 10 years later. I report it. Gun is used in a homicide a year later and gun is left at the scene. Bad guy gets away. How does tracing that gun back to me solve the crime? It doesn't, unless there were finger prints at my house and they match up with someone in the bad guy files (most of which are still not tied to each other nation wide across local, state and federal agencies). The only thing that happens is I am harassed until I provide an alibi.

BaltimoreBoy
January 30, 2013, 03:27 PM
"...as long as the language of the law states in black and white, that the information gathered is legally useable ONLY for the purpose of the check..."

And how would you know if this was followed? How would you compel enforcement?

The federal government has:
Incarcerated individuals without charges.
Executed individuals without any judicial procedure.
Performed extensive wire tapping and searches without warrant.
Sold firearms to dangerous criminals deliberately as a false flag operation to incite the citizenry against those who own firearms.

What, pray tell, would keep them from retaining the data?

MErl
January 30, 2013, 03:28 PM
No. I do not want to have to go to an FFL to give my son a gun. I am tired of them chipping away the stone. This is only a precursor to total registration.

how it will go for the truly law abiding:
happy birthday son, here is your first .22 Now for your next birthday present lets go have a lesson in government bureaucracy and transfer the gun to you. This lesson will be further reinforced by the denial of your owning your gun since you aren't 18.

How it will go for most:
happy birthday son, here is your first .22

How it will go for criminals
Hey, want to buy a gun? (exactly the same as it is now, they don't use official channels)

XD 45acp
January 30, 2013, 03:31 PM
No. I am even not in favor of the ones we have now. Sears does not require a check when I buy a Claw Hammer that I can use to bash somebody's skull apart. Proof in point, Ricky Gray murdered the Entire Harvey family here in Richmond with a claw hammer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Richmond_spree_murders

Skribs
January 30, 2013, 03:39 PM
The idea of regulating one type of weapon in attempt to keep it out of the hands of undesirables is absurd. If we had a better prison system and mental health care system, then prohibited persons would be behind bars or in treatment instead of walking the streets. I would rather focus on this than try to bandaid the problem.

If prohibited persons are out of the public, then there would be no need for background checks, and it would make things easier on licensed dealers.

tomrkba
January 30, 2013, 03:44 PM
Would it be acceptable, (and is it even possible,) to have a 100% background check in place, as long as the language of the law states in black and white, that the information gathered is legally useable ONLY for the purpose of the check, not for the tracking of individual guns, and that it is inadmissable in any court for any reason?

No, it is not acceptable.

EVERY government that did full registration engaged in confiscation. It has happened at least once here. I think Californians registered their SKS rifles, only to have them confiscated a few years later (need to check that).

Additionally, is the government purging the background check data according to the law? In my mind, it is very, very easy to keep that data around with no accountability.

Utryme
January 30, 2013, 03:45 PM
At one time your SSN was only supposed to be to track your earnings and for SS business. It was strictly NOT to be used for identification. How did that work out?
At one time, seat belt laws were introduced as only being secondary laws (you were never supposed to be stopped and ticketed just for not wearing the belt), now, they are all primary laws. How did that work out?
Don't give these Libtards an inch. We abide by the laws. Enforce the 20,000 on the books and stop giving drug lords weapons, then we can talk. Till then, HELL NO!

mljdeckard
January 30, 2013, 03:47 PM
Tom, you are ignoring what I am asking. I am not asking whether registration leads to confiscation. I am asking if background checks without registration is possible?

Skribs
January 30, 2013, 03:52 PM
The problem, mljdeckard, is that in order to prevent registration (or similar government use), the checks would have to be destroyed. Otherwise the government could collect and compile the data. However, if the checks are destroyed, there is no way to verify that background checks are being done, which means there would be no legitimate enforcement.

So if the checks are held, they can be used as a pseudo-registration until the official registry is up. If checks are not held, law abiding citizens will still go through with them, but criminals will know there is no enforcement and ignore the law completely (instead of finding ways around it or choosing to ignore it).

I do not see either method as being superior to locking violent criminals away.

larryh1108
January 30, 2013, 03:58 PM
And how would you know if this was followed? How would you compel enforcement?

The federal government has:
Incarcerated individuals without charges.
Executed individuals without any judicial procedure.
Performed extensive wire tapping and searches without warrant.
Sold firearms to dangerous criminals deliberately as a false flag operation to incite the citizenry against those who own firearms.

What, pray tell, would keep them from retaining the data?
This^^

J Edgar Hoover proved decades ago that nothing is free from somebody collecting and using it when the need arises. All it would take is one rogue agent with extraordinary computer skills on direct orders from the man himself to store whatever he deemed fit for future use. The technology is already there. I'd be willing to bet that there are master databases with a lot more information in it than we know or are comfortable about.

Blakenzy
January 30, 2013, 03:58 PM
NO COMPROMISE

Sorry, but people who want to chip away at the Constitution will have to go home with hands empty.

NavyLCDR
January 30, 2013, 04:19 PM
Why limit the background check to guns?!? That's the real question. More people die every year from criminal acts committed with vehicles than by firearms - so why single out firearms for all these "reasonable regulations"?

gossamer
January 30, 2013, 04:19 PM
Gossamer,
I can buy a car in your state, without registering. I can buy a boat in your state without registering, I can buy a motorcycle without registering, etc.


Who said anything about registration? It's called a title. Selling one without it in my state is illegal. Period.

Rather than constructing impractical fictions where we all drive untitled cars around our yards, smoke cigarettes without a tax stamp on them, and live in houses without titles affixed to them to bolster the argument that gun transactions should be "just as devoid of government involvement," maybe we need a reality check. How about just acknowledge that "but the government has no right to be involved in my transactions" has already been deemed to be such a week argument under the law of the land that there is ample case law where we not only permit but require the government to be involved in transactions.

Again. One is free to live under the delusion that this argument will win the day. But realistically speaking, there are others that are more consistent with the real world, compelling, and formidable.

gossamer
January 30, 2013, 04:23 PM
This^^

J Edgar Hoover proved decades ago that nothing is free from somebody collecting and using it when the need arises. All it would take is one rogue agent with extraordinary computer skills on direct orders from the man himself to store whatever he deemed fit for future use. The technology is already there. I'd be willing to bet that there are master databases with a lot more information in it than we know or are comfortable about.

Even worse, some private person who had been in possession of 4473s could very easily "destroy them" by dumping them in a dumpster for any joker to come by and find. (See my example further up-thread.)

cluck
January 30, 2013, 04:39 PM
What you really want is a test of your "theory" right? Under current conditions, 4473's are all held for at least 20 years in a commercial dealers book, right? And then the ATF issues a # attached to that form that gives them the "back door" to trace should a firearm be recovered in a crime. So if everyone who makes a private sale has to keep a 4473 for 20 years in a protected condition such that if a trace ever came back, you could show a transfer?

I suppose you could keep those forms with all of your other important documents, mortgage, will, etc. but how many people are going to go out and buy a $1500 safe (you should do it for your firearms anyway) let alone even simply getting a safety deposit box. On top of that, now I'm responsible for someone else's identity AND, more importantly, MY information is now out there is someone else's hands.

So, no forms but a digital/online solution?

ANY information submitted online cannot be guaranteed to be erased. And now you're doing the legwork for a database.

As far as checking someones identity in the private sector?

I know there are websites that do background checks for a fee. This would essentially be the same kind of fee the dealers charge for a check. I don't know if they have some type of photo identification element to them but that would be the flaw. How can you be sure the person in front of you is the same as the web browser?

If a reactive legislator HAS to "do something!" Make it a law for people to be accountable.

Elkins45
January 30, 2013, 04:40 PM
I would happily perform a background check before I conduct a private sale to someone unknown to me... just as long as they let me call NICS myself and don't force me to go through an FFL.

What do you think the chances are of that? :(

gossamer
January 30, 2013, 04:46 PM
What you really want is a test of your "theory" right? Under current conditions, 4473's are all held for at least 20 years in a commercial dealers book, right?

I suppose you could keep those forms with all of your other important documents, mortgage, will, etc. but how many people are going to go out and buy a $1500 safe (you should do it for your firearms anyway) let alone even simply getting a safety deposit box. On top of that, now I'm responsible for someone else's identity AND, more importantly, MY information is now out there is someone else's hands.

^^^THIS^^^ is what I was talking about earlier.

See also: http://www.stjosephpost.com/2012/03/27/private-abortion-records-found-in-dumpster/

Private Abortion Records Found In Dumpster

OVERLAND PARK, Kan. (AP) An Overland Park woman says she found more than 1,000 private abortion records dumped in a recycling bin
outside an elementary school.

The patient records are from a defunct clinic, Affordable Medical and Surgical Services in Kansas City, Kan. They show personal information such as names, birth dates, Social Security numbers and health history, including if the women had abortions.

The clinic was run by Krishna Rajanna, who lost his medical license in 2005.
Rajanna told the Kansas City Star he thought the records would be recycled before anyone saw them.

Local and state authorities are investigating.

Kansas law requires that all medical records be kept a minimum of 10 years. But hundreds of the discarded records were less than 10 years old.

Aikibiker
January 30, 2013, 04:46 PM
No, we have already have that and the government ignores it.

gym
January 30, 2013, 04:56 PM
It's just another piece of information about you that will be floating around in cyberspace. There is too much hacking going on now, you can't even count on your bank to not get hacked. Why give crooks another way to steal your identity. And you will never know who gets access to these things.
Although "things arent supposed to happen the seem to always do."

heeler
January 30, 2013, 04:56 PM
I would absolutely hate having to go thru the expense and hassle of dealing with a FFL to give my brother a Christmas gift consisting of a firearm or for that matter buying ftf when I am already a law abiding citizen in good standing and fully capable of legally owning and possesing a firearm.

I fear though that we ARE heading in that direction,much to my dismay and anger.

mljdeckard
January 30, 2013, 05:00 PM
(Mods, if this isn't going to get better you can just close it.)

Skribs
January 30, 2013, 05:05 PM
(Mods, if this isn't going to get better you can just close it.)

Some people have gone off topic for the thread (but on topic of registration > confiscation), and you've argued those. However, I don't see you discussing the issue with those of us who have made points for how it would be impossible to enforce background checks without it being possible to create a registry.

Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean the thread is bad.

Spats McGee
January 30, 2013, 05:05 PM
No, thank you. I'm not interested in appeasement, nor am I interested in having the gov't intrude any further into my personal dealings than it already does.

larryh1108
January 30, 2013, 05:05 PM
or for that matter buying ftf when I am already a law abiding citizen in good standing and fully capable of legally owning and possesing a firearm.

for the purpose of this discussion, the F2F sale may include you, the legal seller/owner, and the buyer who says he's legal but could be lying (how would you know?). If I was a felon, I'd look for F2F to buy a handgun and probably have a fake ID as well. Why not? It's pretty easy to do. Hundreds of F2F ads out there so all they'd need is the money.

cluck
January 30, 2013, 05:06 PM
If the government needs to compile a database, it should be one that is comprised of the people who are not eligible for a firearm and let that be publicly accessible for a check. Include photos for positive identification. It might be a problem in cases of mental health denials but that can be easily resolved. Most information on felons is already public record including booking photos.

jerkface11
January 30, 2013, 05:09 PM
Why should there be more paper work to give a gun as a present than there is to run for office?

JustinJ
January 30, 2013, 05:12 PM
Would it be acceptable, (and is it even possible,) to have a 100% background check in place, as long as the language of the law states in black and white, that the information gathered is legally useable ONLY for the purpose of the check, not for the tracking of individual guns, and that it is inadmissable in any court for any reason?

We know that this is the INTENT of the current 4473 system, but the retention of the record leaves open back doors and gives us the willies. If the language protecting the buyer was made more solid, would we be able to accept this? Even to include, say, a 90-day destruction timeframe?

I'm not so sure the current system is really designed to not allow for any tracking of sold guns. Its kind of strange the way it's done but there was an interesting article somebody linked the other day about how the ATF traces guns.


I do not accept any new gun laws, nor do I think we are in a position where we will have to compromise, but if we WERE, is there a way to write this so that it is ONLY used for the background check?

The biggest question is how does one enforce it. For example, i suppose you could just pass a law that background checks must be done by private sellers through a phone or computer system with no records retained but the only enforcement method option i can see would be through stings. UC cops try and buy guns from gun shows or ads and then verify a check is done. This would of course be very little deterrent to those privately selling to friends and family as the fear of selling to a UC would not exist. I suppose the other option, and this would not be totally anonymous, would be that when a check is performed a record is kept that Bob ran a check of Bill on whatever day. Then if Bill ever does something bad with the gun it can be verified that Bob did actually run a check of Bill.

I'm mostly looking for people to tell me why this wouldn't work.

larryh1108
January 30, 2013, 05:14 PM
If the government needs to compile a database, it should be one that is comprised of the people who are not eligible for a firearm and let that be publicly accessible for a check. Include photos for positive identification. It might be a problem in cases of mental health denials but that can be easily resolved. Most information on felons is already public record including booking photos.

I like this. It has been mentioned in other threads but this makes sense, especially the photo part. Just use the mug shots on file. When someone gets released, they get a current mug shot and they go into a database similar to the sex offenders database. It's already being used so make one for felons and others ruled by law to be ineligible to possess. The only thought is that I'd hate to be there to tell the felon that the system said no. That would piss him off a bit and could just steal it from you or jump you when he sees your body language is not going his way. Ideally, this would be done before the F2F meeting to remove this from the equation.

heeler
January 30, 2013, 05:16 PM
Why buy it Larry1108?
If I was a felon I would just break into a house and steal one along with whatever other "free" stuff was lying around for me to take.

Quick Draw McGraw
January 30, 2013, 05:17 PM
Ok, how about this idea. (I will probably regret this)

We get rid of the 4473 forms, and replace it with a 'pre-approval' process. In this case, the onus is on the buyer to get the check done. Anyone would be able to call or log in online to a NICS site and provide their information and be pre-approved for a gun purchase, that lets say would be good for a week or so. You would be given some sort of code or approval #. In my mind the goal would be to have the process of getting this be quick, similar to how a routine NICS check is done now. Additionally, if you are denied for some reason, there would be some recourse for you to follow up on this and get it resolved before going to the gun shop or meeting for a face to face.

Next step is for you to take a photo ID and your approval number to wherever you are buying the gun. For the sale to take place, the seller must then simply call or log in and provide the approval number and the name of the buyer, and would receive in return a simple yes or no - confirmation that the approval # is valid and they are fine to go ahead with the sale. The seller would not need to identify him/herself.

And thats it, it would apply to all sales. The plus I see would be that NICS would not know who the seller was, and in a similar fashion to the 4473 form, the buyer would only provide "handgun" or "long gun" in order to be approved, so there would be no way to trace an individual weapon. And just because someone calls to confirm the pre-appoval number doesn't mean that the sale actually went through. Additionally, since the seller is never identified, you would never know if the buyer were to re-sell that particular weapon in the future.

I can already see people having issues with the use of the word "approval", and that's understandable, I just came up with it, but come up with something better if you want. Maybe call it a freedom ID # or something, whatever. But does anyone think that the functional aspects of this idea would work? (Not that it would ever become law, because I don't think even the antis would be in favor of this because it would neuter the 4473 record keeping system for gun dealers.)

cluck
January 30, 2013, 05:17 PM
Some people have gone off topic for the thread (but on topic of registration > confiscation), and you've argued those. However, I don't see you discussing the issue with those of us who have made points for how it would be impossible to enforce background checks without it being possible to create a registry.

Just because we disagree with you doesn't mean the thread is bad.
I too see purpose in seeing this through. If we can just get beyond the flag waving and finish dissecting the idea, we might actually come out of it with a solution that would essentially cover my heinie and stop enabling putting firearms into the hands of bad guys.

Deanimator
January 30, 2013, 05:19 PM
Would it be acceptable, (and is it even possible,) to have a 100% background check in place, as long as the language of the law states in black and white, that the information gathered is legally useable ONLY for the purpose of the check, not for the tracking of individual guns, and that it is inadmissable in any court for any reason?
Would it be acceptable to give the Sudetenland to Germany, as long as the language of the agreement states in black and white, that the rest of Czechoslovakia will remain sovereign and inviolate?

You presume that I have the tiniest iota of trust or respect for the other side.

I don't.

They're bad people with bad goals and bad motivations, and whose word is worth less than nothing.

larryh1108
January 30, 2013, 05:21 PM
Why buy it Larry1108?
If I was a felon I would just break into a house and steal one along with whatever other "free" stuff was lying around for me to take.

Because he wants to take The High Road?

:p

Seriously, buying it is easier than a home invasion where there may be people home or they may be no weapons. He can look online, make a call, set up a meeting and have a gun. This does bother me but not enough to enact mandatory registration. If in doubt, go thru an FFL. Price it to cover the cost to do so.

Deer_Freak
January 30, 2013, 05:23 PM
My question for the OP or anyone that wants to expand background checks is how many criminals will use this system?

heeler
January 30, 2013, 05:24 PM
Sure he can larry.
But most felons I have known,and I have known several,are pretty much not the type to lay out four or five bills to pay for my Ruger,Smith,Taurus,etc.

Phatty
January 30, 2013, 05:24 PM
To answer the original question from this thread, the problem with restricting the use of collected data is (1) the executive department might ignore the law's restriction and (2) laws are easily changed. In the case of (2), assume that x years in the future Congress expands the use of the data. Now, all of that data from the past x years is sitting there waiting to be used for whatever purposes Congress or the Executive branch can envision.

cluck
January 30, 2013, 05:25 PM
I can already see people having issues with the use of the word "approval", and that's understandable, I just came up with it, but come up with something better if you want. Maybe call it a freedom ID # or something, whatever. But does anyone think that the functional aspects of this idea would work? (Not that it would ever become law, because I don't think even the antis would be in favor of this because it would neuter the 4473 record keeping system for gun dealers.)
Who gives you your "Freedom ID #"?

Of course, I've got my pre-approved "Freedom ID #".......It's called Utah CCW permit. Who here would make a private sale to me?

Quick Draw McGraw
January 30, 2013, 05:31 PM
My question for the OP or anyone that wants to expand background checks is how many criminals will use this system?

Well keep in mind that the ONLY time ANY background check is at all useful is in a transaction between a law-abiding gun owner/gun dealer and an unknown buyer. If the seller is a criminal than obviously any law is moot and if the transaction is between two known parties than obviously a background check is unnecessary. There are of course a bunch of scenarios where laws won't work, but I don't personally subscribe to the "if it won't stop all cases of a bad guy getting a gun than it is worthless" school of thought. I'm not opposed to measure taken to prevent bad guys from getting guns as long as those same measures can't also be used as pseudo-registration.

larryh1108
January 30, 2013, 05:31 PM
Personally, I feel any permit to own or carry is plenty to prove legal ability to own. You have to jump thru hoops to get one in most states. For states that don't have one then a simple "type" of drivers license or state ID would do the trick. I believe that's how it works in most states anyway. You have a permit, you get to buy it, FTF or from an FFL. The background work is already done. There really shouldn't be a need for the 4473 for permit holders and I believe some states already allow that or is the 4473 a federal requirement?

Deanimator
January 30, 2013, 05:31 PM
However, I don't see you discussing the issue with those of us who have made points for how it would be impossible to enforce background checks without it being possible to create a registry.
And this is the fundamental issue.

Without registration, ANY such plan is utterly meaningless.

Those of us from Chicago know what comes next.

Quick Draw McGraw
January 30, 2013, 05:35 PM
Who gives you your "Freedom ID #"?

In my fantasy land where this law exists you get it from the NICS system, which has been modified to allow anyone free access. You put in your info similar to how you do for the 4473 form and if you check out in NICS it spits out this Freedom ID.

And I'd be all for allowing exemptions for CHL holders. It would be essentially treated as a "freedom ID" that is valid for as long as your CHL was valid.

rdhood
January 30, 2013, 05:40 PM
The answer: ever sell a car? A boat (in my state)? A trailer (in my state)? A motorcycle (in my state)?

Wrong analogy. A firearm is not a car, boat, trailer, or motorcycle. There is no "shall not be infringed" right to own a car, boat, trailer or motorcycle.

Correct analogy: Do you have register and pay a fee to exercise any of your other constitutional rights? The answer is NO. So stop with the invalid analogies comparing firearms to boats or insurance. If you want to compare apples to apples, compare this 2nd amendment right to the other rights. See if you have to do anything (register, pay a fee, have your name compiled in a database) to exercise those rights (hint: you don't).

rdhood
January 30, 2013, 05:47 PM
In my fantasy land where this law exists you get it from the NICS system, which has been modified to allow anyone free access. You put in your info similar to how you do for the 4473 form and if you check out in NICS it spits out this Freedom ID.

And I'd be all for allowing exemptions for CHL holders. It would be essentially treated as a "freedom ID" that is valid for as long as your CHL was valid.

Quickdraw has the right idea in his posts. Something relatively anonymous, controlled by the user, with nothing traceable to a firearm and nothing logged.

This will not stop the trade among criminals. This will not stop a criminal from stealing or reselling stolen firearms. This COULD prevent average citizens from inadvertently selling to criminals, and I think most of us would agree that is a good thing. Still, this would not prevent the mass killings like Sandy Hook or Aurora. It might reduce urban crime, though, and that is where most of the murders take place.

JRH6856
January 30, 2013, 05:48 PM
Quick Draw, considering how easy it is to hack websites, I'm not sure a NICS website is a good idea.

As to OPs question, it sounds very similar to what Schumer says he is working on. A universal instant check with no registry or retention of records. I can see how, even without a registry, such a UBC requirement might be enforceable against private sellers at gun shows, because such sales are publicly visible. But private FTF sales and transfers are not publicly visible and a UBC could easily be avoided if both parties agree. (Of course, it would not be a good idea to agree to do this when selling to a stranger.)

Schumer probably hopes implementing UBCs without a registry will be acceptable, so that he can come back later and move for a registry because he just realized that UBCs don't work well without one.

pty101
January 30, 2013, 05:51 PM
If became obvious that universal BG checks were going to pass I would support your idea. If I were in congress I would try add an amendment to it that would sunset the law in 5 years (so hopefully we have a more 2A friendly president). I think you could sell that if you sold it with the idea that it would sunset after 5 years and do a study to see if it made any difference and if it did, congress could pass the law again. Which I would guess it wouldn't make a significant difference so it wouldn't reinstated.


(I do not support any new gun laws, this is only if universal BG checks was a sure thing)

mljdeckard
January 30, 2013, 05:57 PM
I'm not sure how you expect me to respond. I don't disagree.

mljdeckard
January 30, 2013, 05:58 PM
And I certainly don't trust Schumer's intentions on the idea.

CountryUgly
January 30, 2013, 06:00 PM
Nope and nope!

JVaughn
January 30, 2013, 06:08 PM
No, not even a little bit, not now, not ever, not in the slightest, not at all.

I remember when seat belt violations were only secondary, as in, they couldn't pull you over for it. Look at it now. Restrictions always seem to escalate.

Quick Draw McGraw
January 30, 2013, 06:10 PM
Quick Draw, considering how easy it is to hack websites, I'm not sure a NICS website is a good idea.

Ok, fair enough. Phone only then? Smartphone app?

silicosys4
January 30, 2013, 06:21 PM
Would you be ok with a stranger repeating your social security number into a phone connected to -god knows who- but hopefully NICS?

I wouldn't.

Skribs
January 30, 2013, 06:24 PM
By definition, a background check system cannot be anonymous. If one exists for gun sales, data will be collected on who checks are run on. It might not record everything, but you will be able to see who checks are run on.

If the government needs to compile a database, it should be one that is comprised of the people who are not eligible for a firearm and let that be publicly accessible for a check. Include photos for positive identification. It might be a problem in cases of mental health denials but that can be easily resolved. Most information on felons is already public record including booking photos.

This would work for folks with common names, like John Smith. I search for Smith, John, find 110 prohibited persons, and I can tell by picture that none of them are you. ATF doesn't know which of the 10,000 or so John Smiths to put on their watch list. Personally, I have an obscure last name. If your name were something like Firkrann, Jackland, it would be very easy for the ATF to say "hmmm...this guy has firearms." The more specific the search is, the more likely the ATF is to be able to track who searches are run on, even if you're not in the list of prohibited persons.

No matter which way you slice it, in order to be enforceable, checks would need to be logged, and if logged a database could be created.

Quick Draw McGraw
January 30, 2013, 06:25 PM
Would you be ok with a stranger repeating your social security number into a phone connected to -god knows who- but hopefully NCIS?

I just did a 4473 form and NICS check a few weeks ago and didn't give my SS# and it was fine. Is that not normal? I didn't think that was necessary.

cluck
January 30, 2013, 06:32 PM
Ok, fair enough. Phone only then? Smartphone app?
^^^ That's it! An app that stores a transaction thats backed up by a constantly updated database of who's ineligible. Personally stored information that's encrypted to protect all parties. Just show up to your FTF, bump your android, exchange cash, exchange firearm, done.

Skribs
January 30, 2013, 06:37 PM
^^^ That's it! An app that stores a transaction thats backed up by a constantly updated database of who's ineligible. Personally stored information that's encrypted to protect all parties. Just show up to your FTF, bump your android, exchange cash, exchange firearm, done.

This would have two problems...
1) Many people do not own a smart phone. Do you now have to own a smart phone in order to go through with this? What if your carrier (or worse: the manufacturer) decides it doesn't like guns and will not support that app?
2) The system would still need to check your information against the database of prohibited persons. What is to stop the ATF from having information that is not in that database being added to another database of "people who are not yet prohibited"?

cluck
January 30, 2013, 06:39 PM
No. I completely see the problem in this. It was more tongue in cheek.

Skribs
January 30, 2013, 06:42 PM
I just did a 4473 form and NICS check a few weeks ago and didn't give my SS# and it was fine. Is that not normal? I didn't think that was necessary.

Depends. Is your name David Johnson or Herbert Balushade? If you have a common name, SSN can help make it easier to identify whether or not you're THAT David Johnson that has been in jail four times for armed robbery.

mljdeckard
January 30, 2013, 06:45 PM
I have a first and last name that will bring up the phone book in ANY search.

Dlowe167
January 30, 2013, 06:46 PM
As an american we've can enough in 86' losing full autos. That was understandable. Back ground check is enough. Id think most gun owners are law abiting citizens. Its bad enough u have to pay $200 tax stamp to make certain gun mods. Once a person passes a back ground check,it should be yours! When gov't starts doing their job better,we'll talk then. Say 1% of ppl cant use electricity safetly,should we just stop using electricity!? Or motorcyclist,same principal?

Quick Draw McGraw
January 30, 2013, 06:51 PM
Depends. Is your name David Johnson or Herbert Balushade? If you have a common name, SSN can help make it easier to identify whether or not you're THAT David Johnson that has been in jail four times for armed robbery.

Ah, gotcha. I see. Yeah my last name isn't all that common.

Actually, it occurs to me that a "stranger repeating your SS#" to someone that is hopefully with NICS is what usually happens now at most gun dealers, unless you personally know the employee that is helping you. But hey, with my "freedom ID" idea, you at least are the one that would be giving your SS# over the phone and thus would presumably be in a better position to verify for yourself that were actually talking to NICS. amirite? :)

IdahoSkies
January 30, 2013, 06:53 PM
This is something I used to think would be okay to give on, but not now.

"universal background checks" will result in me having to "run a check" every time I lend a shotgun to my brother when he comes home from school and wants to go bird hunting.

As I understand it now the burden is on the purchaser, not the seller, to avoid criminal activity. "Universal background" checks changes the burden to the seller. That is a substantial change from where we are now. Not something i am willing to agree to.

pseudonymity
January 30, 2013, 06:56 PM
We get rid of the 4473 forms, and replace it with a 'pre-approval' process. In this case, the onus is on the buyer to get the check done. Anyone would be able to call or log in online to a NICS site and provide their information and be pre-approved for a gun purchase, that lets say would be good for a week or so. You would be given some sort of code or approval #.

Mind if I borrow your license for a few minutes?

Next step is for you to take a photo ID and your approval number to wherever you are buying the gun. For the sale to take place, the seller must then simply call or log in and provide the approval number and the name of the buyer, and would receive in return a simple yes or no - confirmation that the approval # is valid and they are fine to go ahead with the sale. The seller would not need to identify him/herself.

The seller would not have to check your ID either, since there is no benefit to them if they are not High Road. Even better - the seller dial up Joes Pizza on the corner, reads off your number, hands you the gun and then goes shopping with his new number in your name.

And thats it, it would apply to all sales. The plus I see would be that NICS would not know who the seller was, and in a similar fashion to the 4473 form, the buyer would only provide "handgun" or "long gun" in order to be approved, so there would be no way to trace an individual weapon. And just because someone calls to confirm the pre-appoval number doesn't mean that the sale actually went through. Additionally, since the seller is never identified, you would never know if the buyer were to re-sell that particular weapon in the future.

If the seller does not confirm the sale, then the system has to store the buyers information for at least the length of time the approval # is valid. What exactly do you think the information handling requirements on that data are going to be? It is almost certain to be backed up somewhere, and who knows where that collated data resides and who can access it.

If the seller does not confirm the sale, the buyer can purchase multiple guns with one approval number.

At some point you need to have a trusted third party for the system to work for both buyer and seller. Today, FFLs serve that purpose, because they have skin in the game in terms of their business.

Blue .45
January 30, 2013, 06:56 PM
Not to change the topic, but I was just listening to an interview with former RNC chairman, Michael Steele on a local radio station. He made the comment that about 75% of NRA members support universal background checks.

My question is,did the NRA conduct such a pole of its members? Did anyone receive a questionnaire on this issue? I haven't seen it.

Phatty
January 30, 2013, 07:02 PM
Not to change the topic, but I was just listening to an interview with former RNC chairman, Michael Steele on a local radio station. He made the comment that about 75% of NRA members support universal background checks.

My question is,did the NRA conduct such a pole of its members? Did anyone receive a questionnaire on this issue? I haven't seen it.
No. This was an MSNBC poll. Four of their employees signed up for the NRA. They then asked these four employees whether they support universal background checks. All four said yes, but MSNBC thought that 100% might not be believable, so they switched the answer for one of them and came out with the 75% approval number.

mljdeckard
January 30, 2013, 07:04 PM
It's total bull. The NRA has no such poll results. Michael Steele was always borderline anti.

goon
January 30, 2013, 07:09 PM
I was initially in favor of a mandatory background check for all sales, with some system that would allow private sellers to run background checks on one-another or allow private sellers access to NICS.

However, a letter written by the County Sheriff's Association of Colorado, the very state where one of the recent mass shootings took place, noted that mandatory background checks will increase the workload of police officers and not target the true source of crime. In other words, these Sheriffs, with their collective law enforcement experience, feel that mandatory background checks are pointless. Their opinion has changed my mind on the issue. I no longer support mandatory background checks.


http://www.washcountysheriff.com/documents/CSOCGunLegPositionPaper.pdf

gossamer
January 30, 2013, 07:10 PM
Wrong analogy. A firearm is not a car, boat, trailer, or motorcycle. There is no "shall not be infringed" right to own a car, boat, trailer or motorcycle.


If you're going to reply, please read the entire exchange.

"The government shouldn't be involved in my transaction of something that it is my right to have." is not a compelling argument. Because . . .

The govt. can and is involved in your transaction of guns, houses, cars, etc.. The law is already established that the govt. can and is involved. You will not un-ring that bell no matter how many times anyone posts this same thing on the internet.

More importantly, this is about the OPs question about checks for private sales.

There are FAR MORE compelling arguments agains them than trotting out comparing it other things you buy with government involvement.

Blue .45
January 30, 2013, 07:12 PM
Thanks. That's what I figured.

jungle
January 30, 2013, 07:15 PM
Most of you would not believe how much data is stored on each of you and how easy it is to get a complete history of an individual given access to a number of data bases that already exist.

Many of these data bases are shared among government agencies and include many types of financial and other records, travel, criminal/court records, phone, email and just about any other activity that generates a record.

Ever wonder how they figure out who bought how much ammo on the internet in just a few hours after a crime?

zorro45
January 30, 2013, 07:17 PM
In my state this is a moot point because a duplicate form just like a 4473 goes to the state police. (not saying this is a good thing) Also, in many of those
"must inform" states, the police run the serial #s on the gun you are carrying. Are these stored somewhere?

Just FYI, also in a local case a dirtbag employee stole 33 guns from a LGS.
He plead out on one charge, and got an 18 month suspended sentence. This is how the existing guns laws are enforced.

Quick Draw McGraw
January 30, 2013, 07:18 PM
Mind if I borrow your license for a few minutes?

Yes, and do we even look alike? Actually I assume you mean that this could be exploited in some form of straw purchaser arrangement? Is that what you're getting at? I don't see that as being any different than any other form of security that uses a photo id. If you have a fake ID that can be passed off as legit, than yeah I would think you could exploit any number of security measures. But again, I'm not of the philosophy that just because it wouldn't stop everything it's worthless.

If the seller does not confirm the sale, the buyer can purchase multiple guns with one approval number.

I don't see the issue with that. In my mind the point of a background check is to confirm that you are a law-abiding citizen and thus are free to exercise your second amendment rights. That week time period was just a general time frame tossed out with the thinking that there is a relatively small chance for your "law-abiding status" to change within any given week's time. As long as you are a law-abiding citizen, you should be able to buy as many guns as you want and can afford.

And again, generally speaking, background checks are only useful in the case of a law-abiding seller selling to an unknown buyer. In all other cases background checks are useless for one reason or another. So again, there are plenty of scenarios where any form of background check system is pointless, and you certainly won't see me out campaigning to have them implemented. But the issue of universal background checks has been posed, and so I've been thinking about how a system might look that both ensured as much privacy as possible while still providing some security for that one instance in which a background check might help - a law-abiding seller selling to an unknown buyer.

jerkface11
January 30, 2013, 07:21 PM
Whats wrong with just locking up the people you'd be denying their right to bear arms?

larryh1108
January 30, 2013, 07:24 PM
Whats wrong with just locking up the people you'd be denying their right to bear arms?

They already served their time for their crime. However, they gave up their right to bear arms when they committed and were then convicted of doing their crime. No one took anything from them. They chose to give it up.

jerkface11
January 30, 2013, 07:27 PM
If they're so dangerous maybe they just shouldn't be on the streets. If they're not dangerous there's no problem with them being out.

Skribs
January 30, 2013, 07:37 PM
I don't see the issue with that. In my mind the point of a background check is to confirm that you are a law-abiding citizen and thus are free to exercise your second amendment rights. That week time period was just a general time frame tossed out with the thinking that there is a relatively small chance for your "law-abiding status" to change within any given week's time. As long as you are a law-abiding citizen, you should be able to buy as many guns as you want and can afford.

The concept of the background check treats you as guilty until proven innocent. That's not how we're supposed to do things in a free country.

I hadn't thought of it earlier, but people fake IDs and steal identities as it is, now. I couldn't imagine the amount of trouble I could get into if someone stole my FID and bought some weapons, which were at some point used in a crime (with me having no paper trail when the ATF shows up).

paintballdude902
January 30, 2013, 07:40 PM
if someone can show me definitively that it will keep guns from getting into the hands of bad guys then im game.


but it wont and never will. countries with the strictest gun control still have illegal guns.

goon
January 30, 2013, 07:41 PM
If they're so dangerous maybe they just shouldn't be on the streets. If they're not dangerous there's no problem with them being out.


Exactly!

Why not let someone who has served their time and lived without committing crimes after getting out for say... maybe three years, to once again vote and own firearms?

If you can't trust them, why are they out?
And if they wanted to get a gun illegally, they could anyhow.

larryh1108
January 30, 2013, 07:48 PM
I have a better idea!
Don't commit a felony.
When you decide to do the crime, you give up your rights.
It's part of the punishment and you know it when you proceed to do the crime.
You willfully give up your rights.

cluck
January 30, 2013, 07:49 PM
Exactly!

Why not let someone who has served their time and lived without committing crimes after getting out for say... maybe three years, to once again vote and own firearms?

If you can't trust them, why are they out?
And if they wanted to get a gun illegally, they could anyhow.
You have a lot of optimism in our corrections system. IMO Most who go into the corrections system just learn how to be better criminals when they get out.

jerkface11
January 30, 2013, 07:51 PM
Then don't let them out. Execute the murderers and rapists. Don't even bother locking up the nonviolent ones. Expecting the rest of us to give up our rights so that someone who shouldn't even be on the street can't get a gun is ridiculous.

Blue .45
January 30, 2013, 07:55 PM
I saw this story linked in a different thread. Presumably it is intended to promote new gun legislation, but it points out some issues with background checks.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/health/mental-illness-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_c1


Gerald Hume was described in the affidavit as a "known schizophrenic (who) hears voices, and requires treatment" and who has had "several mental health interventions with OCPD" and a history of violent behavior.

He didn't steal his guns or borrow them. He bought them.

"He bought them like any normal person would -- he got them at Walmart," said Oklahoma City Police Capt. Dexter Nelson.


Many law enforcement and gun merchants are frustrated with the system, he said. But "what could (the retailers) do if a person passes a background check? They don't have the authority to check if he's lying. We as law enforcement don't even have that ability, because mental health records are kept in each separate jurisdiction in Oklahoma. Those files aren't transferred to a central state or federal system we can check.

"It's far too easy to pass a federal background check."


The system is only as good as the data. And "the data is the real problem," said Mark Glaze, the director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an organization whose recent in-depth study found millions of mental health records were missing from the federal background check system.

Skribs
January 30, 2013, 08:03 PM
You have a lot of optimism in our corrections system. IMO Most who go into the corrections system just learn how to be better criminals when they get out.

The problem with the way our prison systems work right now is the cause of a lot of repeat offenses. If the biggest penalty to being a violent offender is that you can't vote and can't legally own a gun, what's the big deal? Your options, if you want to repeat offend, are to illegally own a gun (not a big deal for someone willing to use one in the commission of a crime) or use another, unregulated weapon (kitchen knife, sports equipment, tire iron, fists...).

The fact is, there is no law that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Even if you could, you won't stop crime. The only way to prevent a repeat offense is to keep the criminal behind bars. If the crime justifies it, execute them. If the crime does not, keep them locked up. Violent offenders should be locked up until middle age, when testosterone starts to wane. "Let's let these violent sociopaths free to rehabilitate them...we'll keep people safe by making sure they can't buy a gun" is a utopian dream that just doesn't happen in real life.

larryh1108
January 30, 2013, 08:03 PM
And "the data is the real problem,"

Very true.

However, with the passage of obamacare, medical records will be centralized. Now it gets scary. People who have mental issues will get flagged. Maybe that is good but who determines if it's bad enough to take away his weapons?
Next it will be people who have been diagnosed as alcoholics. If he's an alcoholic, he shouldn't have access to guns, right? (abuse of the system). They will have volumes of our records available at the push of a button. They've already stated that smokers will have a huge penalty tax, perhaps $1000 a month. Where will it end? Once they have our personal information anything goes. I do not trust the government with any more information than they already have. It's downright scary.

gc70
January 30, 2013, 08:03 PM
THat's kind of the test that I'm trying to put it to. Would THEY accept any form of check which is effective, but WON'T retain any information that would lead to registration?

Such a form of check already exists, but you would have to judge its effectiveness.

There are 22 states (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/permit-chart.html) that issue firearms purchase permits or concealed carry licenses that qualify as alternatives to NICS checks. While the states vary, ATF allows the permits or licenses to be valid for up to 5 years.

In my state, a person can buy a gun from an FFL and there is no call to NICS; the FFL simply records the permit or license number on the 4473. Similarly, many sellers record the permit or license number of purchasers in private transactions, which is the same the same thing FFLs do for "background checks." Since the only interaction with NICS is when the permit or license is issued, individual private transactions involve no call to NICS and no creation of records that could be retained to lead to registration.

Quick Draw McGraw
January 30, 2013, 08:39 PM
if someone can show me definitively that it will keep guns from getting into the hands of bad guys then im game.


but it wont and never will. countries with the strictest gun control still have illegal guns.

So do you mean "keep guns from getting into the hands" of ALL bad guys or SOME bad guys?

The question of whether a law or policy is worth it if it won't prevent ALL cases of what it is designed to protect against seems to be something that a lot of gun owners and 2nd amendment supporters disagree on. When these discussions happen it seems a lot of people kind of talk around each other because they have differing views on this issue.

Queen_of_Thunder
January 30, 2013, 08:43 PM
No compromise!

armedandsafe
January 30, 2013, 08:44 PM
Regarding compromise:

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html
A repost
"We cannot negotiate with those who say, 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.'"

-- John F. Kennedy, Address to the American People, 25 JUL 1961

Most people tend to substitute the word 'compromise' for the first 'negotiate' in that quote, and it does tend to fit the current circumstances.

Once again the anti-gun people are starting to trot out the tired and hackneyed meme of "compromise" in the "national gun conversation".

Compromise is where you give up something. In this case, they are asking us to give up something which is not ours to surrender. Your right to dispose of your private property is not mine to surrender. Your right to keep and bear arms is not mine to surrender.

Have you the power to surrender MY rights?

Pops

larryh1108
January 30, 2013, 09:07 PM
There are no laws to prevent all bad guys from doing their deeds. Nobody can guarantee 100% compliance on anything I'm aware of. The criminal mind will always find a way to do what they wish to do. Look at the war on drugs (lol). The only thing about the war on drugs is that we've spent billions of dollars on it and it is more rampant than ever. Drugs drive a large portion of the gang activity and guns used in crimes. It is a joke but all that it does prove is if you prohibit something, a black market will step in to fill it. Ban guns and we'll have more crimes where illegal guns are used and more gangs will get bigger and badder and crime will reach an all-time high. Funny how politicians know this but don't care.

cluck
January 31, 2013, 12:39 AM
The only support I have in any background check system is completely selfish. I can only be accountable for me. If the one action I take in a private firearm sale is to make sure I'm not enabling the enemy, (criminals in our society) then I can have a clear conscience. The firearm I sell today should not be a problem for YOU tomorrow. Thats what I have control of. That and my votes and I don't have enough of those in my bank to matter. Besides, like I said before, I've already got my permit, and I prefer to sell to permitted people. Any other sale I simply consign through my "friendly neighborhood weapons dealer" and let them do the paperwork. Sure, I make less money, but in todays market I'm not exactly suffering. I'm sure being a CCW holder I'm already on some type of database so that doesn't concern me either. I'm not afraid of them coming to take my guns. Because the second amendment works!

hogshead
January 31, 2013, 12:49 AM
"I'm not afraid of them coming to take my guns. Because the second amendment works!" You must not live in New York

cluck
January 31, 2013, 01:38 AM
"I'm not afraid of them coming to take my guns. Because the second amendment works!" You must not live in New York
No. But you let me know when the jack booted thugs are kicking down doors in NY. Then, I'll top off my mags.
Not gonna happen like that.

SoCalNoMore
January 31, 2013, 10:43 AM
Not to mention the system is only as good as the data that is entered in to it. Too easy to falsify identity unless you are using a fingerprint system that check against the nationwide criminal system. Which we dont have.

Enforcement is futile and so is any type of registration system. Enforce the laws we have, tighten up the sharing of information that agencies currently use and see how that works before we start adding on new things that WONT work.

Akita1
January 31, 2013, 11:36 AM
Great comments and perspective all. A few thoughts:

1. Comparing guns to cars, hammers, ACME safes thrown from cliffs by coyotes, etc. doesn't appear to be a sound strategy. Guns are made for one purpose only, and we all know that proper training and target selection are the keys to responsible ownership and use. You can NOT use hyperbole or have that rational conversation with a ban freak - they are extremist and do not hear logic so going the "I can kill you with my ham sandwich by shoving it down your throat" route falls on deaf ears.

2. The sound position here is RKBA, which "shall not be infringed." The 2A words are clear, almost irrespective of the Founders' intent as we no longer live in that world (as a student of history and given the context at the time, I personally believe 2A was included there to allow the citizenry to protect itself from a tyrannical government, hunting or defense from criminals are simply excellent fringe benefits). SCOTUS just ruled on it (Heller) - they are the last authority in our beloved Republic. I do not expect Congress to amend the Constitution by adding a multiple choice option to the Bill of Rights, but then again expectations are nothing more than expectations...

2. Something WILL be done whether we like it or not (and already has in various states, cities, etc. where executive branches are simply ignoring the legislative process). Either way, we are being sacrificed on the altar of political expediency driven by emotional intent. The trick becomes limiting the impact of what will be done - we are all truly disgusted that this is the situation but we are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise.

3. UBCs are likely to be the one nationwide result of all of this noise. It it is hard to argue in the public arena that giving my son that 22 he got for his birthday last year without any paperwork is more important than keeping guns from crazy people. It's a band-aid and we all know it won't do anything to stop criminals or crazies from getting guns.

It's a giant sh** sandwich and we'll all have to take a bite.

Keep the faith, keep fighting the good fight.

DammitBoy
January 31, 2013, 11:39 AM
"...as long as the language of the law states in black and white, that the information gathered is legally useable ONLY for the purpose of the check..."

And how would you know if this was followed? How would you compel enforcement?

The federal government has:
Incarcerated individuals without charges.
Executed individuals without any judicial procedure.
Performed extensive wire tapping and searches without warrant.
Sold firearms to dangerous criminals deliberately as a false flag operation to incite the citizenry against those who own firearms.

What, pray tell, would keep them from retaining the data?

I agree strongly with this post

JRH6856
January 31, 2013, 01:14 PM
When data is outlawed, only outlaws will have data?

Deadman644
January 31, 2013, 01:51 PM
Want to rid ourselves of crime, it's simple. The first time a person is convicted of a gun related crime, or the third time of any felony, they are locked in a 10 by 10 steel room without outside contact. No Windows or TV, or books. After the first few are locked criminals won't take the chance.

silicosys4
January 31, 2013, 01:53 PM
Want to rid ourselves of crime, it's simple. The first time a person is convicted of a gun related crime, or the third time of any felony, they are locked in a 10 by 10 steel room without outside contact. No Windows or TV, or books. After the first few are locked criminals won't take the chance.

If the death penalty doesn't deter, a cot and three squares a day with plenty of time to relax by yourself won't either. .:banghead:

wacki
February 1, 2013, 06:04 PM
"...as long as the language of the law states in black and white, that the information gathered is legally useable ONLY for the purpose of the check..."

And how would you know if this was followed? How would you compel enforcement?

The federal government has:
Incarcerated individuals without charges.
Executed individuals without any judicial procedure.
Performed extensive wire tapping and searches without warrant.
Sold firearms to dangerous criminals deliberately as a false flag operation to incite the citizenry against those who own firearms.

What, pray tell, would keep them from retaining the data?


Who were the executed?

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 2

wacki
February 1, 2013, 11:06 PM
Would it be acceptable to give the Sudetenland to Germany, as long as the language of the agreement states in black and white, that the rest of Czechoslovakia will remain sovereign and inviolate?

You presume that I have the tiniest iota of trust or respect for the other side.

I don't.

They're bad people with bad goals and bad motivations, and whose word is worth less than nothing.

Lol. Someone won a Nobel Peace prize for that.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 2

wacki
February 1, 2013, 11:18 PM
No. This was an MSNBC poll. Four of their employees signed up for the NRA. They then asked these four employees whether they support universal background checks. All four said yes, but MSNBC thought that 100% might not be believable, so they switched the answer for one of them and came out with the 75% approval number.

Link? Proof?

Sounds crazy but then again its MSNBC. Home of the photoshop video edits.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 2

If you enjoyed reading about "Don't get mad, just a question," here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!