tell that to the supreme court. They have ruled otherwise.I am opposed to BG checks, purely because they are in direct violation of the US Constitution, as are ALL gun laws currently on the books.
Some here have argued that it is possible to set up a BG check for ALL firearms without registering firearms, but I still believe that is not enforceable without a registration of all firearms. I believe if Congress passes a mandate that all firearm sales MUST have BG checks, then that will open the path to firearm registration via executive order.
That, IMHO, is why anti 2A folks are pushing this so strongly.
USAF Vet said:Enforcement of this law would be impossible, as long as there isn't a federal registry of all privately owned firearms.
You are in contradiction of your own stated position, even knowing the facts, you are willing to capitulate to the state, and allow them to illegally invade your last liberties, all in the pursuit of what, denying a felon?I'll add one more thing:
I'm a police officer, I'm one of the good guys, and I'm a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights (well, lets just even go as far as saying the Constitution in general). But, like most decent people, I obviously don't want to make it easier for violent felons to run around with guns. I also realize that almost all guns used by felons on the street are stolen, not purchased.
Personally, I don't think a background check requirement for private party sales is necessary. I don't really think it will do much to reduce crime. Regardless, I could support a background check requirement if it was done in this manner:
The seller can call a phone number with the buyer's name, DOB, and state of residence (information that isn't damaging to identity). The background check is performed without any knowledge of what gun, or how many guns, are being sold, or who is selling them. The seller is then given a "transaction number", and can legally sell the gun to the buyer. Both the buyer and seller can keep this transaction number for their own security, should they ever be questioned about the legitimacy of the sale. Doing something like this would allow for background checks without giving away too much information about what guns are being conveyed, or by who, and why.
Frankly, I think a lot of people would feel better about selling their guns if they could get a criminal clearance on the person they were selling it to, and I think the anti-gun crowd is trying to capitalize on the fact that many gun owners seem okay with this requirement. But, most of us on this forum recognize the inherent dangers of registration, and can see how easily the private party background check requirement could lead to de facto registration. So, if we start to lose the fight on this topic, I do think we should try to sculpt the law into something like what I described above.
One of CAP’s suggestions to toughen federal regulation of gun sales is to make the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which is currently an agency within the Department of Justice, a unit of the FBI. CAP says absorbing the ATF into the FBI would better empower the ATF to combat gun crime and illegal trafficking.
“It is a beleaguered agency lacking leadership and resources,” said Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president of CAP. “It needs to be a well-functioning federal law enforcement agency, and we need to figure out ways to ensure that happens.”
I HATE 4473's and BG checks.
I am ALWAYS delayed. I have a VA CCW and a clean record, but I am ALWAYS delayed at least 3 days.
I buy from private sales because my DL proves I'm over 18, and my CCW proves I'm not a felon. Thats all the need to know. Do I want to get delayed on a BG check for a private sale? Heck no! I buy private sales to AVOID the delay! (That, among better deals and getting to know your fellow gun nuts).
A right delayed is a right denied.
Wolfman131 said:You are in contradiction of your own stated position, even knowing the facts, you are willing to capitulate to the state, and allow them to illegally invade your last liberties, all in the pursuit of what, denying a felon?
You're not going to stop a felon with nics, not seriously that is. You are simply advocating for the state to create an enormous new bureaucracy, which will be turned on the citizen, and his guns. Felons will continue to aquire them the old fashioned way, and knowing this, you'd still opt for the loss of your liberties?
I know people who have been approached by ATF agents, who in violation of all existing law, had documentation of every firearm that they had ever purchased, or sold! The anti-gun political class has already initiated a push to have the FBI absorb ATF, so as to better fund the agency, so that it may interdict Americans pursuing their rights.
ATF has committed atrocities no less appalling as Sandy Hook, worse even, with a shiny new budget, and an illegal new mandate to register all transactions, and track all gun owners, you will so swiftly lose your rights, you'll never knew that you ever had them to begin with, which is exactly what they intend.
And you know the facts?
All that they are looking for, is registration, and tracking! This sets the stage for further, more radical invasions in the not to distant future.Over the last few days, I've been seeing more and more of this clam that "private sales make up 40% of the nation's gun sales." I am somewhat puzzled by this statistic and its source. Private sales are, by definition, private. My back-of-the-envelope, no-money-back-guaranteed guesstimate is that something like 40-45 states do not require a private firearms transfer to go through an FFL, nor that any record of the transaction be kept. So how can anyone come up with a reliable estimate of "40%?"
Even assuming, but only arguendo, that the 40% is right, I cannot support mandatory BG checks on all firearms transfers.
1) How many hoops will we gun owners be required to go through to exercise a fundamental, individual constitutional right?
2) I think that most of us agree that violent, drug-dealing felons seem unlikely to go through the NICS check, anyway.
3) I do think that registration of all firearms will be the next logical step, once it is "discovered" that mandating BG checks on all transfers hasn't reduced crime. It will be a situation of "the last gun control measure wasn't effective, because it didn't go far enough."
4) I've also seen statistics about "X% of NRA members support blah, blah, blah." I say, "so what?" The Bill of Rights is very undemocratic. The individual gets to exercise those rights, regardless of what the majority thinks about them. For a First Amendment example, consider the Communist Party. I may not agree with the beliefs of its members, but those members have a right to those beliefs, regardless of the majority opinion of them. Why should the Second Amendment be any different? I frankly don't care what X% of Americans believe. I hold my right to defend myself and my family as inviolate. What's more, with few exceptions (the usual "violent felons and mentally ill"), I hold everyone elses right to do the same, as inviolate, as well.
The Congress cannot make a law and then depend on the good will of the people to obey it, while denying the Executive branch the power to execute it effectively. For example, they cannot say "pay taxes" and then hope everyone will pay them, while denying the IRS the ability to monitor who is paying taxes and who is not, and to punish people who are not paying taxes (breaking the law).Why must one worry about it being 100% effective? no law is 100% effective, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have any laws. How many of us have been audited by the income tax people? probably not that many, but knowing it's a possibility makes people less likely to cheat on their taxes. Reduction in the number of illegal sales is the key, knowing full well that eliminating them completely is probably impossible without a police state, violating amendments #4 and #5. It would be perfectly easy for ATF agents to go out in the field occasionally and pose as buyers to verify that sellers were performing background checks on purchases. They wouldn't need to do it every time, they could even stop the sale after the background check is performed so that the government wouldn't be out there buying guns it doesn't need. But they could do it enough that people would know it's a possibility they don't want to run into. Make the system easy, accessible and free.
I don't think we can have all sales go through FFLs legally, since it puts an undue burden on people who live great distances from the nearest FFL.
The president should issue an executive order directly to the attorney general to withhold federal Justice Assistance Grant funding from any state that fails to submit a plan—and act on the plan—for facilitating the transfer of these records to the FBI.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/report/2013/01/13/49510/preventing-gun-violence-in-our-nation/Yet all relevant federal agencies are hamstrung in their ability to collect and share data on guns because of limitations imposed on their funding in annual appropriations legislation. Three such restrictions involved the so-called Tiahrt Amendments, which restrict federal, state, and local law enforcement functions in the following ways:
■Another rider limits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’s ability to receive, store, and manage data in a modern and efficient manner. The bureau is essentially prohibited from creating an electronic database of gun records already in its possession that is searchable by name, which means that its agents must go through an antiquated and inefficient paper-based process when assisting law enforcement to investigate gun-related crimes
Exactly what "compromise" do you make with a salt water crocodile?I dont think this is a bad comprimise to make,
They want it ALL, today or tomorrow.If we stonewall we risk to lose a lot more.
I fear we cannot have universal background checks and still be able to prevent abuse. Universal background check will require a national database of firearms and who owns what. This is the only way to have any kind of monitoring of this law.I agree with universal background checks and keeping it to checking the person not the gun as others have mentioned. It should also again have provisions to prevent abuse by the government.
I prefer not to sell ftf as I dont know who Im selling to. The firearms Ive sold have been shipped to an ffl and they handled the transfer.
I dont think this is a bad comprimise to make, If we stonewall we risk to lose a lot more. If we allow universal background checks they can no longer go on and on about how easy it is for a criminal to get an "assault weapon". We effectively remove that vital card from their scare tactics aimed at banning MUCH more.
Exactly what "compromise" do you make with a salt water crocodile?
Offer him a leg? Once you do that, how do you keep him from taking the rest?
They want it ALL, today or tomorrow.
If you think ANY "compromise" would change that, you're living in a fantasy world.
And by the way, in a "compromise", BOTH sides give something up. What are THEY giving up?
If I say, I'm going to kill you today, is killing you TOMORROW a "compromise"?
Even if it means that all guns are registered in a federal databases, along with who owns it? Check out:Personally I dont think its such a bad thing that every purchase of a firearm requires the person to get a background check. This would solidfy the arguement that only sane law abiding individuals can legally purchase firearms, which we could use to our advantage to protect our rights.
The ball would be in their court to improve the mental health care system and do a better job of going after those who traffic firearms illegally.
But preventing the next mass shooting is not the purpose now is it.