1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Senate negotiations on "universal background checks"

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by AlexanderA, Feb 16, 2013.

  1. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Well-Known Member

    According to Greg Sargent of the Washington Post, a bipartisan group of four Senators (Coburn, Kirk, Schumer, and Manchin) are 95% of the way to an agreement on a proposed "universal background check" bill.

    Some ideas that have emerged from this are the following:
    1. Exemption of transfers among family members from the background checks.
    2. Exemption for concealed-carry permit holders.
    3. A mechanism to insure that the background checks don't result in a de facto national gun registry.
    4. Having FFL's make the actual calls into NICS (for a nominal fee), but not having the FFL's enter the private transactions into their "bound book," and having the Forms 4473 retained by the sellers, not the FFL's.

    (This latter seems to be a sort of hybrid system between having all transactions run through FFL's (as in the ordinary course of their business), and opening the NICS to inquiries by non-licensed individuals.)

  2. xfyrfiter

    xfyrfiter Well-Known Member

    Criminals are not going to purchase guns legally in any case. UBC's are simply a feel good measure foisted on us by the antis.
  3. And what do we get for giving up what we have now.
  4. Solo

    Solo Well-Known Member

    Maybe points 3 and 4, though I have my doubts.
  5. Tim the student

    Tim the student Well-Known Member

    Well, it could be worse...

    But my attitude remains unchanged: No compromise.
  6. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Well-Known Member

    Those sound a lot better but I'm still not compromising. We've compromised enough. These are our Rights and they will continue to erode if we don't do something to stop them NOW.

    Write your representatives and urge them that ANY universal background check is unacceptable and un Constitutional.
  7. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

    I started a thread a few weeks ago about #3, asking if it was even possible, and the bottom line is, even if it is possible to make such a provision NOW, there is absolutely no way to ensure that the law won't be abused in the future.
  8. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Well-Known Member

    Where in the Constitution did we give them the power to regulate private sales? Congress does not have the power to regulate private sales.
    Are they going to tell us how to arrange our furniture in the living room next?


    Under what power can Congress regulate private sales? No power for UBC?
  9. wally

    wally Well-Known Member

    Define this? $5 $25? $100?

    If we have to have it, add in:

    5) Make the C&R FFL-03 valid for all guns (non-business, individual hobby dealer) and able to call in the NICS checks (to increase the supply of dealers for individual transfers to help keep the fees "nominal").

    At least this way we'd gain something.
  10. r1derbike

    r1derbike Well-Known Member

    Beware the sweet smell of laundered scum of a bill that rises to the top, as the effluent below may not be seen, or smelled and may be miles deep.
  11. MartinS

    MartinS Well-Known Member

    Any particular reason why the seller can't make the NICS call?
  12. Billy Shears

    Billy Shears Well-Known Member

    If they get this passed, and the house votes it into law also (hopefully won't happen), this needs to be immediately challenged. Congress does NOT have the constitutional authority to regulate this, and we need to step up and drag them back to their limits if they can't abide by them themselves. If I sell a gun to another resident of my state or city, there is absolutely NO interstate commerce taking place whatsoever, and the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce.

    Of course, Wickard v. Filburn, where a farmer not selling wheat was deemed to to be participating in interstate commerce because his inactivity had an effect on the marketplace, proves that there are no intellectual contortions our ̶l̶o̶r̶d̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶m̶a̶s̶t̶e̶r̶s̶ public servants cannot twist themselves through to regulate what they want. This means its vital to get such a lawsuit before the courts now, not later, before one of the now elderly conservative justices dies or retires, and Obama appoints another liberal who believes in a "living" constitution, meaning it can be interpreted how they like to achieve the desired result.
  13. gc70

    gc70 Well-Known Member

    From the description in the article, the Senators are 95% on the way to agreeing to 95% of Senator Schumer's S.436 background check bill from the prior session of Congress.

    IF the final proposal is patterned after Schumer's bill, the landmines to watch for include:

    - the exemption for family members only applies to a "bona fide gift" and;

    - a transfer is not limited to a sale, but also includes "a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title."
  14. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member

    It gets the camels nose under the tent. Schumer will reveal the rest of his camel as time goes by.
  15. bhk

    bhk Well-Known Member

    What constitutes a 'transfer' needs to be carefully defined. Does passing a handgun to my buddy on the range for him to try a transfer? Does lending my hunting partner a deer rifle for the afternoon a transfer? If not defined in detail, we could be in big trouble.

    No new laws on this issue are best, of course.
  16. Romeo 33 Delta

    Romeo 33 Delta Well-Known Member

    Just my opinion, but I don't believe anti-gunners or whatever you wish to call them are even remotely capable of writing a bill which I would consider acceptable. I would reject it out of hand just based on who crafted it and who signed on as sponsors. I'll come to the table ... but I offer NO COMPROMISES.

    All I will offer is this:
    1. States shall be required to provide data on those adjudicated mentally defective or under involuntary committment orders on the same basis as they report felony and DA convictions. The same frequency to the same data base.

    2. The DOJ shall be required to:
    a. Prosecute all instances of prohibited persons attempting to buy a firearm
    b. Prosecute all instances of intentional falsification of information on a 4473
    c. Prosecute all instances of a prohibited person in possession
    d. The penalties for the above shall be the maximum
    e. The sentences for conviction shall be consecutive, not concurrent

    That's all I'm willing to give.
  17. jamesbeat

    jamesbeat Well-Known Member

    Yep, enforce the laws we already have!
  18. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Well-Known Member

    ^ We don't have time for that, apparently.
  19. Billy Shears

    Billy Shears Well-Known Member

    It's not a matter of not having time for it, it's a matter of perception. The politician who passes a new law is seen as having "done something," while the politician who says "we already have the laws we need, let's just try enforcing them" doesn't look proactive enough for the low-information voters out there who comprise the majority of the electorate. It's a fundamental weakness of our system that will always provide a strong incentive for politicians to engage in meaningless, symbolic gestures that will accomplish nothing, and may even make things worse. Like gun control.
  20. medalguy

    medalguy Well-Known Member

    You clearly don't understand. They don't have the money to enforce the laws already on the books according to the government. It's better to bargain down a felony offence to a misdemeanor and allow the miscreants to serve community service than to send them up the river to already overcrowded prisons.

    But Sheriff Joe figured out how to handle that problem, forgot about that.:D

Share This Page