How exactly was the universal background check blocked?


PDA






wacki
June 27, 2013, 05:39 PM
Just wondering how this was actually blocked. NPR, NYTs etc were all but making it sound like a done deal for the longest time. They were also talking about poll after poll where the majority of gun owners favored background checks. (I know not the best sources but still).

So went right?

Looks like it was almost a complete party line split:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/number-senators-voted-against-background-checks-proposal

If you enjoyed reading about "How exactly was the universal background check blocked?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
General Geoff
June 27, 2013, 05:49 PM
Major news media reflects reality like a funhouse mirror.

Cosmoline
June 27, 2013, 05:58 PM
They call it the Pauline Kael effect, after that film critic's alleged disbelief in Nixon's reelection--"How could Nixon be reelected? Nobody I knew voted for him." Whether she actually said it is open to debate, but the effect is real and we saw it in play over gun rights. The MSM and administration back east are part of a very elite, insular group. They really don't have much of a clue about "flyover country." But flyover country still controls the House and has enough votes to block legislation in the Senate. So that's pretty much what happened.

barnbwt
June 27, 2013, 06:36 PM
I dunno, probably those mean ol Republicans who can stop a 90% majority but will never win a national election again...:rolleyes:

The votes weren't there, they were never there, and they couldn't be raised in spite of a massive dilution of the bill and ridiculous hysteria all around captilizing on a heinous crime. That's it, and that's why it make it didn't make the news for long.

And it never even made it to the House, BTW. Total damp squib

TCB

jstein650
June 27, 2013, 06:36 PM
"don't have much of a clue about "flyover country."... And thank God for flyover country! It's still one of the best reasons for the concept of the electoral college. As meager as it is, still gives a little more power to individual states.

SilentStalker
June 27, 2013, 06:44 PM
let's just hope we continue control in 2014.

JSH1
June 27, 2013, 07:09 PM
Instead of going small with something that had a chance to (background checks) the Democrats and administration tried to go big and add the assault weapons ban and magazine limitations. This overreach pushed out the moderates that would be need to pass the background checks alone and played into the hands of the NRA-ILA claims that Obama is trying to take your guns. By the time the bill was pared back to just a watered down background checks it was clear that the bill would go nowhere in the House so their was no reason for moderates in the Senate to go on record voting for something that wouldn't pass and may draw a primary challenge.

I'm disappointed with the Obama administration because they wasted time on ineffective and politically charged assault weapons ban and only half-heartedly campaigned for the background checks. It was a political move to placate his base not a serious effort to pass legislation. Notice during the State of the Union he said that the bill deserved a vote, not that is had to pass. Now he can tell his base that he tried and the Republicans filibustered the bill.

Also the members of the House of Representatives don't answer to the people in their district, the answer to the people that vote in their primaries. So many House districts on both sides are drawn out to be safe for one party or the other, the real election takes place during the primary.

316SS
June 27, 2013, 08:10 PM
It was a political move to placate his base not a serious effort to pass legislation. Notice during the State of the Union he said that the bill deserved a vote, not that is had to pass. Now he can tell his base that he tried and the Republicans filibustered the bill.

I agree it was a political move, but it didn't go as Barry planned. His anger at the bill's failure in the Senate was very real, because ...

... it never even made it to the House, BTW.

He meant for it to pass the Senate and be blocked in the House, so it could be used as a talking point in the midterm elections.

jstein650
June 27, 2013, 08:45 PM
316SS is 100% correct. A political move, much like the current amnesty, oh, I mean "Immigration" bill. Although at this point a post committee bill from the house could be as bad as the Senate's which will die, as designed, in the House.

JSH1: "I'm disappointed with the Obama administration.." I'm not sure exactly what you're disappointed with. UBC bills can easily be written by this corrupt, completely anti 2nd amendment group of leftists, to pervert the concept of an actual simple and sensible background check, and they'd no doubt carry a number of Republicans with them if they did so.

vamo
June 27, 2013, 09:13 PM
That poll was pretty old data. Prior to gun control becoming such a hot topic in December you could probably have gotten most people on this board to say they favored expanding background checks, so long as you used the right phrasing.

Another thing is once the battlelines were drawn neither side was willing to give at all for the most part. I do wonder if assault weapons and magazine bans were never brought up if things would have played out differently.

Don't get me wrong I think of gun control as a battle of attrition myself we can't give the other side even a small victory without getting something in return.

greenmtnguy
June 27, 2013, 09:23 PM
I don't know about others, but I wrote to my senators, congresspeople, and sent extra money to the NRA-ILA and GoA. I talked to family and friends and asked them to also contact their congress people.

I think that the polls were in error (by a wide margin) and the lame stream media basically just regurgitate each others' effluent anyways, so once one of them gets a lame poll percentage figure they all start repeating it.

I am pleased that ONE of my senators (Kelly Ayotte) represented my wishes and those of many of my friends accurately and faithfully. And I have written her (2) thank you letters on this topic.

I have also written our other senator, Jeanne Shaheen, and told her how disappointed I was in her lack of representation of the people in our state. But what can I say, Ayotte is a republican and Shaheen is a democrat

JSH1
June 27, 2013, 09:32 PM
I'm not sure exactly what you're disappointed with.

I disappointed because I support universal background checks for dealer as well as individual sales. They aren't a panacea that will eradicate gun violence but background checks are a useful tool to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I also don't believe that background checks infringe on the 2nd Amendment in any way.

guyfromohio
June 27, 2013, 09:40 PM
So you should have had a background check to inherit pappy's shotgun?

raz-0
June 27, 2013, 09:42 PM
This was the basic process of how universal background checks failed.

1) Lots of other bills were floated that were worse, and they hoped to pass this (and probably some others) as a "compromise". Nobody bought that, not even politicians. Because they knew they were swimming up stream, it became 100% politics, and 0% convictions. This is why it was introduced in the senate. It wouldn't even have seemed possible in the house, and that would have totally killed momentum.

2) The 90% polls were a load of manure. Very small sample sizes, very skewed polling locations, very vague polling questions. When you looked at other polls conducted at the same time that were more general about being in favor of more gun control or not, you only got about a 54% result for more. This is much closer to the reality being worked with.

3) There are very few active gun grabbers. Personality wise they are expecting someone else to do any serious work for them when it comes to protection from something dangerous. Add to that that the vast majority of them haven't had firearms negatively impact their life. Then you have the RKBA who are being threatened with legal peril and at the very least loss of property. Who do you think actually gives representatives grief?

4) Due to this, by the time it came to get stuff to a vote, you had lots of bills, and lots of pro and anti amendments just waiting to be tacked on to things.

5) Many of the bills just did not have remotely enough support to get through committee, or to get passed if they hit the floor. So they were dropped. Probably in hopes they could be tacked back on at the last minute as amendments.

6) That didn't work. The backlash form involved constituents was BAD. AS people checked which way the wind was blowing in the senate, it was clear if they went for simple majority, they were going to get some pro gun amendments added, like nationwide CCW reciprocity. Why? Because it would either get a big win for some, or for others it seemed like an awesome poison pill to kill it and thus they'd get to vote yes and vote no on the same bill and talk out both sides of their face as it suited them come campaign season. So...

7) They decided on an up down vote requiring 60 votes to pass as this would have killed most of the amendments both pro and anti and at least leave a chance for the bill to get through.

8) In order to buy 60 votes, they needed pork they didn't have.

9) So they tried to buy votes by amending the bill in committee until they could sway some folks sitting near the fence but on our side. Which they did.

10) Then since the back office polling said it was so close, they yanked out most/all of the compromise language (like an anonymous NICS equivalent that could be used for FTF transactions that likely would have been non-objectional to a lot of people).

11) Without the compromise text, they didn't have enough votes to hit the 60 mark.

Thus one dead bill.

They talk about bringing it back because they think they can get 60 votes due to MAIG harassing certain democrat senators for some, for others it is just to beat the drum so they can call republicans baby murderers come campaign season.

jstein650
June 27, 2013, 09:57 PM
JSH1: "I support universal background checks for dealer as well as individual sales"

Ahh, but the devil is in the details, as they say. Dealers already do background checks - every time, unless they are just black market dealers in the first place, and those guys aren't going to be affected one iota by a new law. I've purchased many firearms at gun shows as well, still, background check.
As far as individual sales, well, explain to me how that works without a maintained and accessible gun registration database. Previously owned, and inherited guns?
Then, what constitutes a 'criminal', actually? I personally know one friend that has a domestic violence on his record for trying to break up a fight between a crazy woman and another guy whose butt she was kicking. She just filed with the police first. Can't own a gun. Also was being floated, was a proposal that anyone that had ever been prescribed an antidepressant, or anti-anxiety med. to be denied of a purchase. It goes on... and it's always sold as something that any rational gun owner would support...

caribou
June 27, 2013, 10:10 PM
Criminals are not affected , legally, by an Universal Background Checks, because criminals don't do back ground checks, they buy guns from individuals, often no different than a drug deal, buying a stolen car, or paying a prostitute......or they steal them.....
Besides, Criminals don't have to do back ground checks, nor surrender the guns because as Citizens, they have as the 5th Amendment, the Right for an individual to NOT incriminate themselves, because doing either would be incriminating.

Criminals know their Rights and exercise them regularly.

I never once heard how they were going to take guns from criminals or how a UBC would stop Criminals from obtaining guns. :cuss:

macadore
June 27, 2013, 10:24 PM
IIRC, the kicker was that Schumer wanted a permanent registry kept of the background checks while Cobern wanted no record of the background checks. Coburn also wanted people with a concealed carry license to be exempt from having to go through an FFL to purchase a firearm. When Schumer et al kept the the Coburn amendment of the background check bill Coburn and the moderates balied. The gun control crowd doesn't want sensible gun laws. They want confiscation.

Key provisions and principles of the Coburn amendment:

Instead of rerouting all commerce through federally designated person that will charge a $30-$50 fee that creates a new de facto tax on guns, the Coburn amendment would allow the consumer portal and concealed carry permits to be used for verification, protecting law abiding gun owners’ freedom to easily and safely transfer firearms.

Respects the 10th amendment by giving states the ability to take primacy of enforcement, implement flexible solutions, and create certain exemptions.
Reaffirms the federal policy that there will not be a federal firearms registry, and places strict penalties for violation of this policy.

Improves reporting of mental health records by states to the NICS system.
Provides proper due process for veterans to prevent them from being unfairly deprived of their Second Amendment Rights.

Includes a five-year sunset provision that will force Congress to evaluate the effectiveness of the consumer portal.

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/rightnow?ContentRecord_id=8147edd4-7225-41ab-8780-749e076817c3&ContentType_id=b4672ca4-3752-49c3-bffc-fd099b51c966&Group_id=00380921-999d-40f6-a8e3-470468762340&MonthDisplay=4&YearDisplay=2013

Bruno2
June 28, 2013, 12:45 AM
I disappointed because I support universal background checks for dealer as well as individual sales. They aren't a panacea that will eradicate gun violence but background checks are a useful tool to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I also don't believe that background checks infringe on the 2nd Amendment in any way.

It does infringe on the 2nd amendment and so does keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Like it or not, once you start imposing rules on who can own a gun we start down that slippery slope. I know a lot of people don't like to hear it, but just look at how they included the Lautenberg amendment for misdemeanors. This gives validation to restrict people that have been charged with assault and battery or any violent misdemeanor. Then we start down the road of incriminating everybody in order to ban all guns.

Hacker15E
June 28, 2013, 07:49 AM
I also don't believe that background checks infringe on the 2nd Amendment in any way.

The "universal background check" isn't unreasonable because of the 2A; it is because it is not in the federal govt's authority to regulate private sales of private property between individuals.

The government's authority to impose NICS checks is via the commerce clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause). That authority does not extend to private property owned by individuals and sold by individuals.

Hacker15E
June 28, 2013, 07:52 AM
once you start imposing rules on who can own a gun we start down that slippery slope.

Well, like it or not, with Heller, these restrictions are now SCOTUS case law.

Heller said:
"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Pilot
June 28, 2013, 08:23 AM
I disappointed because I support universal background checks for dealer as well as individual sales. They aren't a panacea that will eradicate gun violence but background checks are a useful tool to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I also don't believe that background checks infringe on the 2nd Amendment in any way.
The Universal Background Check's intent from the getgo was to create a national registry. The politicians know criminals don't buy guns from dealers and the UBC would due absolutely nothing to reduce what the call "gun violence". It is another attempt to further control, and oppress the law abiding citizen.

Wake up please.

45_auto
June 28, 2013, 08:27 AM
I disappointed because I support universal background checks for dealer as well as individual sales. They aren't a panacea that will eradicate gun violence but background checks are a useful tool to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Yep, they would be just as useful as all of those drug laws are at keeping drugs out of the hands of criminals. How hard is it to understand that criminals by definition do not comply with the law? Why are you so willing to give up any part of your rights to politicians? Do you feel that they know what is better for you than you do?

Illicit Drug Use on the Rise; More Teens Abusing Drugs than Ever Before
According to a December 2012 study by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, illicit drug use in America has been increasing, up almost half a percent since 2002.

JSH1
June 28, 2013, 10:28 AM
I support universal background checks because it would force criminals to purchase guns on the black market. As it stands now, they don't need to, they can simply purchase guns from individuals. If background checks were required for all sales, criminals would have to purchase from other criminals as the vast majority of gun owners would follow the law as they are not criminals. The market for illegal guns would still exist but it would be smaller. So yes, I support background checks for all guns, even gifts between family members. I am getting a revolver from my mother and I have no problem doing the paperwork. If I still lived in Michigan I would have to but because I live in Alabama I don't. As it stands today, the gun will forever show up in Michigan's registry as belonging to me mother.

I also don't fear a record of gun sales. I have purchased every one of my guns from a dealer so there is a record of every sale. The government knows I own them but I don't care. I'm not a criminal, and I don't have to worry about a gun being traced back to me. So many people are so paranoid about gun registries leading to confiscation that they overlook the benefits. Gun registries would allow police to quickly trace guns at crime scenes back to the owner and track straw purchasers. As it stands today, the ATF can trace a gun, it just takes way longer than it should because they don't have a searchable database, they instead have to manually search paper records, microfilm, or scanned files.

Why don't I fear confiscation? The right to own firearms is protected in the constitution and supported by the public. Gun owners have done very well in recent court decisions especially Heller which answered the question on private ownership of handguns. Our system of government works, and the people that want to seize all guns are a tiny fraction of the public and politicians.

45_auto
June 28, 2013, 11:53 AM
The right to own firearms is protected in the constitution and supported by the public. Gun owners have done very well in recent court decisions especially Heller which answered the question on private ownership of handguns. Our system of government works, and the people that want to seize all guns are a tiny fraction of the public and politicians.

California, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, etc, are what is known as "writing on the wall".

Some people have enough foresight to read it and react appropriately, some must wait until the wall falls on their head before they get the message.

316SS
June 28, 2013, 12:00 PM
I support universal background checks because it would force criminals to purchase guns on the black market. As it stands now, they don't need to, they can simply purchase guns from individuals. If background checks were required for all sales, criminals would have to purchase from other criminals as the vast majority of gun owners would follow the law as they are not criminals. The market for illegal guns would still exist but it would be smaller. (my emphasis)

You are in Fantasy Land. See this post (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8688043&postcount=49) on how criminals get their guns. All credible evidence I've seen indicates that UBC would have negligible effects on criminals obtaining guns. The National Institute of Justice agrees (http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf) that UBC would be ineffective without a national registry of gun owners. I suppose you support that as well? Edit - Well, I re-read your post and I see that you do.

It's swell that you are willing to concede my rights because you "don't mind doing the paperwork." You have the option to conduct every transfer through an FFL and have a background check run. But when it comes to "universal" background checks ... No. I refuse.

Edit:
California, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, etc, are what is known as "writing on the wall".

Some people have enough foresight to read it and react appropriately, some must wait until the wall falls on their head before they get the message.

Yes, and some people still have blind faith in the benevolence of their governments, despite the billions of citizens who have died at the hands of theirs.

BoilerUP
June 28, 2013, 12:25 PM
If expanded background check proponents REALLY thought background checks for private sales would REALLY reduce already decreasing gun violence statistics....they'd have opened NICS to private citizens for *voluntary* checks on private intrastate transfers.

It'd have been very, very low cost to implement and thousands of private citizens would utilize it, if only for piece of mind.

Sure, voluntary checks are a "loophole" that folks can opt out of...but if the UBC proponents are to be believed, more background checks *should* be better than fewer, right???

BaltimoreBoy
June 28, 2013, 12:50 PM
...The market for illegal guns would still exist but it would be smaller.

...So many people are so paranoid about gun registries leading to confiscation

...Why don't I fear confiscation? The right to own firearms is protected in the constitution and supported by the public.

...Our system of government works, and the people that want to seize all guns are a tiny fraction of the public and politicians.

1. The "market" for illegal guns would be unchanged. If any significant number of guns were coming from the legitimate market the prices would rise. However, this happens not to be the case.

2. The right to be secure in our possessions and papers is also protected by the constitution and supported by the public. Google "Edward Snowden". Then check out the excesses committed in the name of the 'drug war'.

3. See point 2 above, then reflect on the fact that the government is maintaining military forces in 2/3 to 3/4 of the countries of the world and is wrecking our economy with undeclared wars - all at the behest of a tiny fraction of the public and politicians.

Sir, your trust is sadly misplaced. Don't believe me? Check with Tom Jefferson.

jstein650
June 28, 2013, 12:51 PM
JSH1: "The right to own firearms is protected in the constitution and supported by the public... and the people that want to seize all guns are a tiny fraction of the public and politicians."

Wow. Where to begin... Obamacare was not and is not supported by anything remotely close to a majority of the people. Nor is blanket amnesty, nor is gay marriage, yet all these things are or will become a reality. The majority of Brits and Aussies never supported the gun control they have now. Congress has many times violated the 10th amendment by legislating in areas that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the federal government. This administration has lost 60% of its cases in the supreme court so far - in other words, most of the cases involved were CLEARLY and DEMONSTRABLY unconstitutional. If there was just one more liberal on the court you can bet they would have won a lot more.
I'm afraid you are terribly naive thinking more 'reasonable' sounding laws are going to be in the interest of the lawful or otherwise.

NoirFan
June 28, 2013, 12:53 PM
I support universal background checks because it would force criminals to purchase guns on the black market.

In principle, I support mandatory background checks for individual sales for the same reasons you stated. I'd like to know that the safeguard of a background check can prevent a felon or violently insane individual from buying a gun in a parking lot. I heard all kinds of ridiculous justifications from gun sellers opposed to this simple safety measure: "I'm a good judge of character", or "I'll just go with my gut feeling" about this or that customer. The fact is that everyone thinks that they, personally, are a good judge of character but all you have to do is look around you to see that's not true. It takes colossal arrogance for a gun seller to think that they can weed out the criminals and psychos from their potential customers when even professional psychiatrists cannot always do it.

In practice, however, it would be unenforceable because of massive non-compliance, as seen on this very thread.

316SS
June 28, 2013, 01:27 PM
In principle, I support mandatory background checks for individual sales for the same reasons you stated. I'd like to know that the safeguard of a background check can prevent a felon or violently insane individual from buying a gun in a parking lot.

...

In practice, however, it would be unenforceable because of massive non-compliance

In principle, felons and the violently insane pay no attention to laws, even if a "universal" background check law made their actions double-illegal!

In practice, it would be ineffective because ... felons and the violently insane pay no attention to laws, etc.

TRX
June 28, 2013, 02:34 PM
> the concept of an actual simple and sensible background check,

15th Amendment:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Various localities felt it was necessary to exercise some simple and sensible controls over who got to exercise their 15th Amendment rights, resulting in activists screaming "Jim Crow laws." It took almost a hundred years for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to add "and we really mean it!"

Propose some "simple and sensible" restrictions to First Amendment rights, and people scream "censorship." But the Second... maybe we need a couple of "we really mean it" Acts to clarify the situation.

jstein650
June 28, 2013, 03:00 PM
"the concept of an actual simple and sensible background check" , that was mine. I should have said "what would seem like a simple..." to those that are prone to simply trust the powers that be that such things are inherently good and just if the concept happens to sound good to them. (specifically the UBC as the OP was in support of)

JSH1
June 28, 2013, 05:06 PM
In principle, felons and the violently insane pay no attention to laws, even if a "universal" background check law made their actions double-illegal!

In practice, it would be ineffective because ... felons and the violently insane pay no attention to laws, etc.

I don't disagree that felons don't pay attention to laws. However, law-abiding citizens do and the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens. If a law requiring universal background checks passed most people here would comply regardless of all the bluff and bluster saying that they wouldn't. Why? The same reason they aren't making sawed-off shotguns or converting their AR's to full auto, they have too much going in life to risk a felony conviction for weapons violations. So what you are left with is criminals selling to criminals instead of unknowing law-abiding citizens selling to criminals. You are kidding yourselves if you don't think a portion of those private sales set up on Craig's list or one of the online gun classifieds sites aren't going to criminals.

I'm also happy that the watered-down compromise bill requiring checks but not records didn't pass. Such a bill would inconvenience law-abiding gun owners but do nothing to reduce gun violence or help law enforcement. One could simply claim they did the check and no one could prove otherwise. For background checks to be effective the records must be retained just like they are for sales through dealers.

I also don't see why background checks for private sales are such a hot topic. We have background checks with records for sales done through dealers. Why is doing the exact same thing for individual sales such a huge problem for some people?

silicosys4
June 28, 2013, 05:17 PM
You are kidding yourselves if you don't think a portion of those private sales set up on Craig's list or one of the online gun classifieds sites aren't going to criminals.

So let me get this straight. If I'm a criminal who cannot legally posess a gun and can go back to jail for even trying to buy one....
I'm going to hop on craigslist and try and buy one from a stranger in a situation that I cannot control? That's not how it works.
And lets say ARMSLIST, since Craigslist doesn't allow listings for firearms (but I'm sure it made you feel good to assume it does, and when you thought about all those illegal gun transactions stopping in the blink of an eye because someone passed a law, it gave you a warm glow about how responsible you are for agreeing with this "common sense" rhetoric)


BTW, you are pretty wrong about where criminals get their guns. Most criminals get their guns from friends, from family, or steal them. YOU are kidding YOURSELF if you think the tiny fraction of gun sales that occur through armslist, craigslist, whatever... are justification for restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Great argument, saying that law abiding citizens have too much to lose to break laws, so we should have more laws when the original ones aren't being enforced. Lets just keep turning honest citizens into criminals one ridiculous law at a time.

cfullgraf
June 28, 2013, 05:18 PM
I also don't see why background checks for private sales are such a hot topic. We have background checks with records for sales done through dealers. Why is doing the exact same thing for individual sales such a huge problem for some people?

Background checks for all legitimate gun sales makes a record for all legitimate gun sales. This opens the door to a gun data base which opens the door to confiscation.

It is kind of like the traveling salesman getting his foot in the door so that he can make his sale.

The government does not enforce the gun laws they have, including prosecuting those surrounding the existing background checks. All the background checks do is inconvenience law abiding citizens and do nothing to curbing crime.

Carl N. Brown
June 28, 2013, 05:31 PM
The UBC bill was based on the National Survey on Private Ownership and use of Firearms (NSPOF) a survey of average law abiding gun owners, which included questions of where and how they acquired their guns (60% retail dealers; 40% private acquisitions including 19% gifts, 5% inheritances, 13% private sales of used guns, 3% private swaps and trades).

If they really wanted to block criminals, they would have used the Bureau of Justice State and Federal Inmate Surveys. 18% of felons owned guns, over 80% did not own guns. Of the subset of (formerly) gun owning felons, some of their sources included 0.7% gun shows, 20.8% drug dealer/street sales, 9.9% theft/burgary, 8.4% fence/black market. Now, who really believes that a UBC would force a crack or meth dealer selling guns on the side (usually taking stolen guns in trade for drugs and selling them) is going to run a background check to make sure he doesn't sell to a person prohibited by the 1968 Gun Control Act from possessing or buying a gun?

mljdeckard
June 28, 2013, 05:35 PM
It was not intended to pass. It was intended to pass in the senate, fail in the house, and be used as leverage to get control of the house in 2014. That was why the president was sputtering mad when it failed in the senate as well. (Now the immigration bill will be used in its place, as it has passed in the senate and will fail in the house.)

mljdeckard
June 28, 2013, 05:37 PM
And yes, while UBCs by themselves seem harmless, remember it is a critical first step in registration and confiscation. Those actions are impossible without universal background checks. If you don't accept universal background checks, your grandchildren can't be forced to accept the NEXT steps in the process.

316SS
June 28, 2013, 05:54 PM
You are kidding yourselves if you don't think a portion of those private sales set up on Craig's list or one of the online gun classifieds sites aren't going to criminals.

The evidence presented earlier in the thread indicates that private sales from "legal" sellers (i.e. those selling legally possessed guns, not knowing that the buyer is a felon) are not the predominant source of guns for criminals.

So the "U"BC is either 1) a poor solution to the problem of criminals obtaining guns, because they target a minor source of guns for criminals, or 2) a necessary first step in the process of registering and confiscating privately owned firearm. Or both. NO, THANKS.

jstein650
June 28, 2013, 07:10 PM
I have to add this thought. And I doubt very much that the OP, or those that buy into the flawed logic that a few more laws will deter the lawless, will be able to wrap their minds around this, but here goes...
The is absolutely no doubt that the a good many if not most of the restrictions placed on gun owners and gun ownership are never really meant to curb crime. They are written, played up in the public forum as absolutely necessary to stop the 'murder of our children', or some such feel good nonsense, implemented, and then when there is no effect on crime, well, then we need STRONGER restrictions since the last set of laws didn't fix it! This has been the pattern for decades. Every Feinstein, Schumer, Obama, and most every lib out there will always admit, "well, this is a good first step" when they candidly talk about their motives.
The 2nd amendment itself has been challenged numerous times on the grounds that it doesn't mean what it says. Don't think for a minute that there isn't a very strong faction of people in high places in DC and the UN that are resolutely opposed the the very idea of private ownership of firearms.
Edit: If you want an example of what I'm talking about, take the 'Assault Weapon Ban' of 1994 passed under Clinton. After 10 full years, the ONLY tangible effect was a slight INCREASE in gun related crimes. Now, a good 1/2 of the folks in congress were there when that bill was passed, then expired. And I'm quite sure that every single one of them know of the results that followed, yet after the Newtown shooting, the same libs were calling for its reinstatement. Explain that one my friend.

JSH1
June 28, 2013, 07:40 PM
So let me get this straight. If I'm a criminal who cannot legally posess a gun and can go back to jail for even trying to buy one....
I'm going to hop on craigslist and try and buy one from a stranger in a situation that I cannot control? That's not how it works.
And lets say ARMSLIST, since Craigslist doesn't allow listings for firearms (but I'm sure it made you feel good to assume it does, and when you thought about all those illegal gun transactions stopping in the blink of an eye because someone passed a law, it gave you a warm glow about how responsible you are for agreeing with this "common sense" rhetoric)

Craigslist does not have section for firearms but that doesn't mean they are not advertised or sold on Craigslist. I challenge you to go to your local craigslist page and search for "shotgun" I just did it and got 65 hits. Craigslist is a buy / sell / or trade site and lots of people are advertising that they are willing to trade an item for a firearm or a firearm for an item.

Need a shotgun: "i gott a camo 12 gage shotgun mossburg 835 i want to trade TODAY for a iphone 4 with a otter box will meet text..."

Here is the link: http://bham.craigslist.org/bar/3829247787.html

How about a pistol: "i have a lorcin .25 pocket pistol in great shape shoots very strait not stolen no problems with it you can run the number let me know what you have text me anytime will send pictures"

Again the link: http://bham.craigslist.org/bar/3875262608.html

BoilerUP
June 28, 2013, 07:47 PM
...and to think, Craigslist's terms of service and policies explicitly forbidding firearm postings didn't stop those people.

Not unlike laws that don't stop criminals, eh?

jstein650
June 28, 2013, 08:05 PM
^^BoilerUP, Touch'e.

A-FIXER
June 28, 2013, 08:07 PM
I support universal background checks because it would force criminals to purchase guns on the black market. As it stands now, they don't need to, they can simply purchase guns from individuals. If background checks were required for all sales, criminals would have to purchase from other criminals as the vast majority of gun owners would follow the law as they are not criminals. The market for illegal guns would still exist but it would be smaller. So yes, I support background checks for all guns, even gifts between family members.

You know there is another site with your silly thoughts and it has come to light he's a Troll.

''Your understanding and weak liberal perception does not match reality" is this a attempt to undermine your own freedom and what you would be willing to give just for a tiny thought it would allow you to be safe or go through life with little or no challanges that would go against your views/thoughts and your willingness to be Controlled by those who would be elected it seems any attempt to educate you on not just this issue but others on your other various post you are proving yourself as a imposter and deflector of Truth it could be lack of education on issues or maybe its just nativity on your trust of people of elected position and your trust in corrupt goverment.... I am unsure to which of these areas you place your camp but I see you as a uniformed or sincerely passive person who would give all for not standing for what is Right and True... and is time proven only corrupted by those elected to erode rights of a once free people.

And I stand by awaiting the results of this post but again I am just doing like you expressing my views which will never mirror yours.

A-FIXER

caribou
June 28, 2013, 08:09 PM
Criminals selling guns to criminals.....yep, that's how it works, just like drugs, Prostitutes and stolen cars.

I don't see how UBC may "force" criminals to buy guns on a black market, like drugs, because they already do.

With enough $$ in hand, anyone in America can have anything they want.

Bruno2
June 28, 2013, 08:22 PM
or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

This part looks as though it will sew up anything else implemented in the future as well.

That's Gottleib and Guru for you. Imposing their version of firearm restrictions upon us.

Bruno2
June 28, 2013, 08:33 PM
To all of the UBC fanboys: Do you really think that making a false identification is beyond our technology of today? Also people at retail stores can barely tell the difference. So why would you think a person whom sells 1 or 2 guns a yr could become an expert in false ID's?

It just wont work and I don't want to have to mess with anymore gov interference in my life. People tat are perfectly legal to buy guns do so and use them for evil purposes now. We cant tell what people are going to do in the future. Should we just restrict everyone to keep these things from happening?

Bruno2
June 28, 2013, 08:39 PM
The market for illegal guns would still exist but it would be smaller.
Right, and this new healthcare law is going to make health insurance cheaper too.

Carl N. Brown
June 28, 2013, 08:48 PM
My home area had local option, home rule prohibition of alcohol until 1968, when sale of hot beer was allowed.

By the time I was seventeen, I could name seven bootlegging joints, which sold beer and booze, plus pot, pills, pistols and porn and served as meeting places for gambling and prostitution.

There was a cab company working with one of the bootleggers and you could call and have "passenger" Johnny Walker or Jack Daniels delivered to your doorstep (of course you had to pay the cab fare).

I am cynical about restrictions on legal markets in goods preventing criminal abuse of those goods, whether guns, alcohol, you name it.

As far as more restrictions on legal sales causing a black market in guns, hey we have a black market in guns.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics asked a sample of state inmates where they got their guns:
13.9% Retail Sources:
8.3% Retail store
3.8% Pawnshop
1.0% Flea market
0.7% Gun show
39.6% Friends or family:
12.8% Purchase or trade
18.5% Rent or borrow
8.3% Other
39.2% Street/illegal source:
9.9% Theft or burglary
20.8% Drug dealer/street
8.4% Fence/black market

The "retail sources" often involve friend, family or lover with clean record making the purchase. On friends and family supplying their guns to criminals, the NIJ "Armed and Considered Dangerous" survey of felons noted "friends" supplying guns to felons were often fellow criminals, as would be many family of felons. Now, would friends or family of a known criminal run a background check on their criminal family member or friend, and refuse the sale, trade, rent or loan if the check came back "prohibited person"?

Also in the "Armed and Considered Dangerous" survey 40% of armed felons stole guns, but only about 12% stole for their personal use: many stole for resale. Sources stolen from included:
37% stole from stores,
15% from police,
16% from truck shipments,
8% from manufacturers.
Leaves about 21% from individuals (cars, homes, etc).

JSH1
June 28, 2013, 10:34 PM
You know there is another site with your silly thoughts and it has come to light he's a Troll.
Why thank you for your kind words A-FIXER. What other site do I know you from, I do have a variety of interests. I suspect that you find it inconceivable that someone would own guns and enjoy shooting sports and be in favor of background checks.

The "retail sources" often involve friend, family or lover with clean record making the purchase. On friends and family supplying their guns to criminals, the NIJ "Armed and Considered Dangerous" survey of felons noted "friends" supplying guns to felons were often fellow criminals, as would be many family of felons. Now, would friends or family of a known criminal run a background check on their criminal family member or friend, and refuse the sale, trade, rent or loan if the check came back "prohibited person"?

If all legal sales required a background check then yes, friends and family would do do the check or they wouldn't make the sale. That or they are a straw purchaser and a record of all legal sales would lead right to them. I find it funny that you post statistics that says only 40% of criminals get their guns from illegal sources as proof the better regulation of the legal gun market won't effect criminals.

If you want an example of what I'm talking about, take the 'Assault Weapon Ban' of 1994 passed under Clinton. After 10 full years, the ONLY tangible effect was a slight INCREASE in gun related crimes. Now, a good 1/2 of the folks in congress were there when that bill was passed, then expired. And I'm quite sure that every single one of them know of the results that followed, yet after the Newtown shooting, the same libs were calling for its reinstatement. Explain that one my friend.

That is called politics. I also agree that the 1994 assault rifle ban was ineffective. To restrict guns based on cosmetic features that can be easily changed is ineffective. To grandfather existing weapons is ineffective. To target a class of weapons that are used in a tiny fraction of crimes is ineffective. If you read my comments earlier in the thread you will see that I did not support the recent attempt to reinstate the ban. If fact wasting time on trying to reinstate the ban killed any chance of universal background checks passing. Of course this thread is discussing background checks not assault rifle bans.

A-FIXER
June 28, 2013, 10:58 PM
JSH1
You know there is another site with your silly thoughts and it has come to light he's a Troll.

Why thank you for your kind words A-FIXER. What other site do I know you from, I do have a variety of interests. I suspect that you find it inconceivable that someone would own guns and enjoy shooting sports and be in favor of background checks.

I don't find it inconceivable that someone would own guns and enjoy shooting sports and be in favor of background checks. I find that your willingness to surrender Freedom to satisfy a trained mindset is inconceivable.... just as your views on illegal drugs well news flash most drugs sold are still illegal and criminals haven't stopped selling. They are still being sold!

JSH1
June 28, 2013, 11:06 PM
I don't find it inconceivable that someone would own guns and enjoy shooting sports and be in favor of background checks. I find that your willingness to surrender Freedom to satisfy a trained mindset is inconceivable.... just as your views on illegal drugs well news flash most drugs sold are still illegal and criminals haven't stopped selling. They are still being sold!

I haven't said a word about drugs on this forum so I doubt you know my views. I've been trying to stay on topic.

Prince Yamato
June 28, 2013, 11:10 PM
The universal background check would never work. Seasoned criminals don't buy guns from joe citizen. They buy them from people who make a career out of straw purchases. Those criminals have spotless records that no amount nics checks will ever catch... Which then follows to the next step... Registration... So the government knows "who owns what." Except that those same career criminals will simply report weapons "lost" or "stolen" instead of "sold to a thug". Realizing the inadequacy of this system, politicians will get mad and go after the more "dangerous" guns. So they don't fall into "wrong hands". And eventually, you end up with no guns owned by anyone... Except the criminals.

A-FIXER
June 28, 2013, 11:42 PM
Just giving an example of another problems that kills people, but just like most things when not exactly what is spoken the spinning starts....

zdc1775
June 29, 2013, 07:55 AM
Ok this has been entertaining to read but I have to ask, how hard is it to understand "shall not be infringed?" It seems pretty blatant to me.

45_auto
June 29, 2013, 08:37 AM
Ok this has been entertaining to read but I have to ask, how hard is it to understand "shall not be infringed?" It seems pretty blatant to me.

It all comes down to what you consider an "infringement".

Some people don't consider UBC's, registrations, etc, as "infringement". They see them as just reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership.

Just as most people don't consider laws on libel and slander to be infringements of the first amendment (free speech).

I bet it would be interesting if you could talk to American Indian or Jewish ghosts and ask their opinion on trusting their government and what they would consider as "reasonable" restrictions on firearms ownership.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v682/46auto/Forum%20Posts%202/Gun%20Forum%20Pics/holocaust00_1_zps07c4599d.jpg

George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

zdc1775
June 29, 2013, 09:13 AM
It all comes down to what you consider an "infringement".

Some people don't consider UBC's, registrations, etc, as "infringement". They see them as just reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership.

Just as most people don't consider laws on libel and slander to be infringements of the first amendment (free speech).

I bet it would be interesting if you could talk to American Indian or Jewish ghosts and ask their opinion on trusting their government and what they would consider as "reasonable" restrictions on firearms ownership.


George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

I know some don't see it as infringement but personally I will use the actual definition of infringe.
1: Actively break the terms of
2: Act so as to limit or undermine; encroach

That limit, undermine, or encroach is what makes me think it is.

macadore
June 29, 2013, 01:21 PM
Looks like this thread has gone round the bend.

caribou
June 29, 2013, 01:44 PM
Not around the bend, but smack into the "Truth"

The 2nd Amendment is the Right to Bear arms in Defence of self, state and country, as well as from Tyranny from the government, as our Founding Fathers knew it would unhinge someday.


The last Genocide in North America was in the 1980's when 300,000 estimated Guatamalan Mayan Indians were massacred for their lands by their government, after being disarmed.


In the last 100 year, Europe, Asia and Africa, with the various Govornments practicing "civilized law" and "gun control" having killed more people with Genocide, than were killed in outright war.
Everything the Nazi's and the Communists did were 'legalized' and then carried out.

A Hundred Million + :barf:

Obama and his crew working hard to "Compromise" our gun Rights, the NSA , FBI, CIA all Spying and collecting/storeing information on American Citizens, The Prez saying he and his can bypass the Constitution and execute citizens without due process, The FBI openly bragging they weren't going to read the Boston Bombing suspect his Miranda Rights under "Public Safety" laws, and carried through, The vague definition of Terrorist/terrorist acts in these laws, and on and on and on.. ..........Im not a tin foil hat wearer' I just read the news.....


With lunatics in your front room or in the WhiteHouse, the mere presence of Firearms is often the only deterrent needed, and not actual shooting.
They gotta take guns away before they can take U.S. all away.....:D

zxcvbob
June 29, 2013, 02:24 PM
Just wondering how this was actually blocked. NPR, NYTs etc were all but making it sound like a done deal for the longest time. They were also talking about poll after poll where the majority of gun owners favored background checks. (I know not the best sources but still).



It's pretty simple... They were lying about the 90%. The senators knew it was a lie and didn't want to stick their necks out. (I didnt read your link; I assume it was about gun control getting shot down in the senate) Obama and Co were p'd about it because the senate was supposed to pass it and the house not, then they were going to blame the house republicans for failing to pass "common sense" regulations that 90% of the people (even NRA members) want.

Shadow 7D
June 29, 2013, 02:38 PM
NRA in this months Rifleman, have an article on this
in polls less than 35% of people were 'disappointed or mad' that no gun control passed...
OH but 54% were relieved....

YUP, they were lying, however what's new, that's what the anti's do.
this isn't about guns, it's all about control

JSH1
June 29, 2013, 04:32 PM
Ok this has been entertaining to read but I have to ask, how hard is it to understand "shall not be infringed?" It seems pretty blatant to me.

How hard is it to understand that in a nation governed by the rule of law one's personal interpretation of a law is not the final judgement. Instead when individuals have differing opinions they go to court and the court decides who is right.

45_auto
June 29, 2013, 04:55 PM
How hard is it to understand that in a nation governed by the rule of law one's personal interpretation of a law is not the final judgement. Instead when individuals have differing opinions they go to court and the court decides who is right.

Making something a law does not necessarily make it right, and a court upholding laws which the people feel are unjust is subject to change (ref Boston tea Party and its' after effects).

The court gets to decide who is right up until the point that enough of the people disagree with the decisions of the court (otherwise known as government). Sometimes, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them. (That is the first sentence in the Declaration of Independence, in case you aren't familiar with it.)

If George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, etc, etc, (all traitors and lawbreakers according to the courts) had the blind obedience to the law that you espouse, we would still be subject to British law and would have turned in our firearms many years ago.

A government making bad laws, then upholding those bad laws, does not necessarily make the "right" choices when it upholds them. See the Nuremburg Laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws

You really ought to research the reasons that the Second Amendment exists, and carefully consider any decisions to cede any portion of your rights to the government. Many believe that it will never willingly restore those rights to you or your children without violent overhaul. It's been proven many times that giving up ANY portion of your rights is the beginning of the "slippery slope". I don't want my kids or grandkids to have to climb back up that slope. I believe that Winston Churchhill said it best:

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

Many of us prefer to fight for our rights now, before too many people like you manage to change the odds to your side. Luckily the government is still working, and enough of our representatives listened to us so that the UBC didn't pass.

Walkalong
June 29, 2013, 05:42 PM
Looks like this thread has gone round the bend.It has certainly gotten off the OPs topic.

If you enjoyed reading about "How exactly was the universal background check blocked?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!