As discussed in another thread, someone was being gifted a gun - but he lived out of state. Reading Federal regulations, posters explained that he couldn't take possession and return home without shipping it thru an FFL to keep it.
It was a transfer to an out of state resident and Federal law requires handling thru an FFL. For even receiving it as a gift from another family member.
This is exactly what the Universal Background Check will do - and impose the same penalties for you if you hand a firearm to your wife, son, or daughter, who are living under your roof. In it's worst case application, if you toss an extra handgun to another family member while defending against intruders who are ransacking your home, even shooting at you, then you will be violating Federal Law and subject to prosecution.
It's not about crime, it's about making guns as difficult as possible to transfer. Even facing lethal force. The anti gun proponents would just as soon see you dead - since you like guns at all - rather than shoot the intruder. It's not your job to resist, that according to them is carved out and specially set aside to LEO's as being the only ones to exercise lethal force under the law. Not you.
Now, watch the allies of Universal Background Checks chime in about how it's ok. Even working in one state where it's been implemented. Regardless of how it's not founded on any Constitutional principle, and in a country where we know for an absolute fact that it will be taken too far, where government demonstrates it does need to be held in check.
Our founding fathers already knew this hundreds of years ago and it's why they fashioned the Constitution and government they way they did.
I suppose we can come up with all sorts of silly speculative scenarios about it, the basic fact is that with Universal Background checks, you can't even loan a hunting rifle to your family without an FFL transfer. Much less your BUG defending them in a firefight. There is no guarantee that Universal Background checks will include a special provision for it, at all. That is pollyanna thinking of the lowest political order.
After all, we already have, in writing, in the Federal Code, that your uncle who lives out of state cannot gift you a firearm without it passing thru FFL's to your home state. And for you to pick it up - paying the FFL's fee - you have to fill out a 4473.
You will be the documented owner of that gun under Universal Background Checks no matter what. Or, you will be the legally determined criminal trafficker who sidestepped the procedure and subject to jail time on conviction for it.
Happy with Universal Background now? We already have the interstate version of it, all it will do is apply it to the distance between your hand and someone else standing next to you.
The government would even intrude on your date night just because you heard a footstep outside. And some - even here - are ok with that.
It was a transfer to an out of state resident and Federal law requires handling thru an FFL. For even receiving it as a gift from another family member.
This is exactly what the Universal Background Check will do - and impose the same penalties for you if you hand a firearm to your wife, son, or daughter, who are living under your roof. In it's worst case application, if you toss an extra handgun to another family member while defending against intruders who are ransacking your home, even shooting at you, then you will be violating Federal Law and subject to prosecution.
It's not about crime, it's about making guns as difficult as possible to transfer. Even facing lethal force. The anti gun proponents would just as soon see you dead - since you like guns at all - rather than shoot the intruder. It's not your job to resist, that according to them is carved out and specially set aside to LEO's as being the only ones to exercise lethal force under the law. Not you.
Now, watch the allies of Universal Background Checks chime in about how it's ok. Even working in one state where it's been implemented. Regardless of how it's not founded on any Constitutional principle, and in a country where we know for an absolute fact that it will be taken too far, where government demonstrates it does need to be held in check.
Our founding fathers already knew this hundreds of years ago and it's why they fashioned the Constitution and government they way they did.
I suppose we can come up with all sorts of silly speculative scenarios about it, the basic fact is that with Universal Background checks, you can't even loan a hunting rifle to your family without an FFL transfer. Much less your BUG defending them in a firefight. There is no guarantee that Universal Background checks will include a special provision for it, at all. That is pollyanna thinking of the lowest political order.
After all, we already have, in writing, in the Federal Code, that your uncle who lives out of state cannot gift you a firearm without it passing thru FFL's to your home state. And for you to pick it up - paying the FFL's fee - you have to fill out a 4473.
You will be the documented owner of that gun under Universal Background Checks no matter what. Or, you will be the legally determined criminal trafficker who sidestepped the procedure and subject to jail time on conviction for it.
Happy with Universal Background now? We already have the interstate version of it, all it will do is apply it to the distance between your hand and someone else standing next to you.
The government would even intrude on your date night just because you heard a footstep outside. And some - even here - are ok with that.
