Antigunners getting discouraged?


PDA






AlexanderA
March 27, 2013, 06:20 PM
There was an interesting op-ed piece by Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post this morning:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-a-chance-to-seize-on-gun-control/2013/03/26/58c4f33c-9633-11e2-8b4e-0b56f26f28de_story.html

Given that the Washington Post is a leading cheerleader for gun control, Marcus' plea to her fellow antigunners to accept a background check bill without a recordkeeping requirement is very telling. It means that the antigunners are beginning to think that they will end up not getting anything at all.

If you enjoyed reading about "Antigunners getting discouraged?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ASCTLC
March 27, 2013, 06:29 PM
With current regulations, there's no such thing as a gun purchase with a background check without a record keeping requirement.

The FFL is required to keep the record of the purchase for something like 20 years (not positive on time frame). The fed can audit those records any time they wish. That makes records keeping/registration defacto right there. They just make it a local requirement instead of a fed requirement that records are kept but abuse is right there waiting to happen when they make their move.

For an FFL transfer only, I'm afraid I've neve done one for a gun purchased elsewhere to be transfered to me locally by a dealer. Does the FFL write up and perform the same check and paper work as if the gun was purchased from them?? If so, defacto records right then and there. But we need someone who's actually experienced just a transfer process.

Andy

AlexanderA
March 27, 2013, 06:57 PM
Does the FFL write up and perform the same check and paper work as if the gun was purchased from them??

Yes.

But we're talking about proposed laws. The lawmakers can go in any direction they want. The question being discussed is whether non-FFL checks (between non-licensed individuals) would be required, and, if so, whether any records would have to be kept. My point in the OP was to note that the antigunners seem so desperate to get something that they (at least some of them) would be willing to accept a background check law with no recordkeeping. In effect, this would almost be a voluntary thing.

Queen_of_Thunder
March 27, 2013, 07:09 PM
No Compromise!

FROGO207
March 27, 2013, 07:57 PM
It seems things are bad enough presently that we should not concede anything in regards to the 2A to them. We should try to reverse this crap, that might wake some up to the fact that we are really unhappy with the liberties that they have already taken away from us, let alone what they are attempting on a daily basis now.

FWIW We should go on the offensive to make alcohol a regulated substance.:D Make them jump through the same hoops to purchase more than a six pack a day----possession limits would be a good term:evil:-----same as we have to with firearms/MAG's. I bet the population would become a much safer bunch.;)

Ryanxia
March 27, 2013, 08:03 PM
No Compromise!
You said it. I have let my Congressional representatives know (in a polite professional manner) that ANY "universal background check" not opposed by them will mean my passionate efforts to unseat them at their next reelection (and of course to support them if they keep their Constitutional Oath). The important thing to tell them is to oppose Bills like the UBC, because otherwise they just may 'call in sick' during that vote and the 10 people there will pass the law (see "AWB" '94 if I'm not mistaken).

AlexanderA
March 27, 2013, 08:54 PM
No Compromise!

Well, the letter-writing campaigns, etc., by the pro-gun side seem to be having some effect.

An interesting thing seems to be happening in the Maryland legislature. As you may know, Gov. O'Malley has proposed a draconian new AWB, fingerprinting requirements to buy a gun, etc. All the gun owner rallies and letter writing seemed to be falling on deaf ears. Then, suddenly, it became known to some members of the House that Iraq/Afghanistan veterans were going shooting with their AR's as a form of therapy. (Considering that the AR's were familiar to them, being similar to the guns they used in the war zones.) The tide turned, and now it looks as though O'Malley is having difficulty getting his plan passed. The key thing was the involvement of veterans. Even in antigun Maryland, veterans are politically sacrosanct.

P5 Guy
March 28, 2013, 05:56 PM
Has there ever been a gun law repealed?
So, there is no give and take only take?

bikerdoc
March 28, 2013, 06:01 PM
Follow the money. Expose who gives what to whom.

Coyote3855
March 28, 2013, 06:15 PM
Has there ever been a gun law repealed?
So, there is no give and take only take?

Well, it was illegal to carry a concealed firearm in Wyoming at one time. It isn't today. Residents don't even need a permit if they qualify to get one.

There's one.

1994 AWB allowed to expire might count as another.


But I take your point.

Arbo
March 28, 2013, 06:40 PM
It may be a requirement for an FFL to keep records, but I'd guess most places there is no requirement for personal sales. Never was in CO until the recent legislation, which is hopefully appealed. Either way, I sold all mine prior to that law going into effect. ;)

gc70
March 29, 2013, 03:41 AM
With current regulations, there's no such thing as a gun purchase with a background check without a record keeping requirement.

I would disagree with respect to states in which state permits or licenses are accepted as NICS substitutes by ATF.

In North Carolina, concealed handgun licenses (CHL) act as NICS substitutes. A person with a CHL can buy a gun from a dealer and the dealer copies the CHL or notes the CHL number and does not run a NICS check, albeit the buyer would fill out a 4473. In a private transaction, a seller can perform the exact same "background check" as a dealer would by inspecting a buyer's CHL and there is no recordkeeping requirement for private transactions.

Interestingly, Schumer's 2011 background check bill would have recognized NICS substitutes as background checks for private transactions -without any recordkeeping requirements- but that provision was dropped from the current bill.

Deanimator
March 29, 2013, 11:14 AM
They're discouraged because they have failed in every attempt to discourage US, including their various fifth column attempts HERE and on other discussion forums.

My answer was, is and always will be "NO, I REFUSE".

mrvco
March 29, 2013, 11:33 AM
They won't stop. These aren't normal people with normal jobs. This is their livelihood and it is funded by donations, contributions and public funds, motivated by raw emotion rather than results or reality or practicality.

Phatty
March 29, 2013, 12:36 PM
There is clearly disappointment and discouragement by the anti-gunners. They feel like they have missed their chance to capitalize on Sandy Hook because the President and Congress moved way too slow. Now that poll numbers have returned to the pre-Sandy Hook levels, they know the opportunity to pass gun control has passed.

Anti-gunners can never get a gun control bill passed on the merits of the bill. They always are passed based on an emotional reaction to a tragedy. When the emotions die down, gun control loses.

This is temporary good news, but there will inevitably be another shooting tragedy. And, I fear the anti-gunners will have learned their lesson and move Australia-style to pass severe gun restrictions within days of the next tragedy. Next time there won't be a month-long Biden investigation into solutions, or "conversations" on how to solve "the gun problem." They will seize on the emotions of the day and ram legislation through in a matter of hours. The laws will be pre-drafted and just waiting for a tragedy to be filed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Antigunners getting discouraged?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!