Help w/ Argument Against Background Checks for Private Sale

Status
Not open for further replies.
An improved background check system is the only proposal that I agree with in all of this craziness.

You can't deny that this would help.
 
This like reading a forum on Brady Campaign web page. So many of you are ready to fold and give them gun registration. Because that is exactly what it is and if you think otherwise your a fool. So keep on agreeing with the left right up till they come and take your last single shot rifle and register your slingshot. Its kinda interesting that Obama didn't even make it through his first term as president and started the gun grabbing and its kind of depressing to watch gun owners still getting sucked in by his lies.
 
Old Fuff,
I can believe that but, as of right now, do you have solid documentation that this is true of is it just conjecture?
Click to expand...

Feel free to research the bill yourself. (See link below). Then I have excerpted one paragraph that cuts to the real intentions.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=695620&highlight=background+check

Text of H.R.137 Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013

`(c) Responsibilities of Transferees Other Than Licensees-

`(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for an unlicensed transferee to receive a firearm from an unlicensed transferor, unless the firearm is transferred--
`(A)(i) through a licensed dealer under subsection (d);
 
Last edited:
Why can't they make the NICS system available to the public for free? And why can't they attach a law that NICS records must be destroyed after a certain period? It would be a negligible inconvenience and let's face it, it would prevent some ineligible individuals from buying. I don't think there would be vigilante government employees secretly keeping the records against the law. It would be to no one's benefit.
 
bri said:
Currently, in a private sale, how would you determine if the buyer was a felon or mentally unfit to own a firearm?
Click to expand...

I know who to whom I'm selling and exercise good judgment. Ever heard of it?
 
Why can't they make the NICS system available to the public for free? And why can't they attach a law that NICS records must be destroyed after a certain period? It would be a negligible inconvenience and let's face it, it would prevent some ineligible individuals from buying. I don't think there would be vigilante government employees secretly keeping the records against the law. It would be to no one's benefit.
Click to expand...


Because what they really want is the information on the #4473 form in a National Database; and the statute that specified background checks was limited to sales made by licensed dealers that were involved in interstate commerce. They have unquestioned power under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce, but not intrastate commerce, which by default is left to the states. Now they are looking to see what they might be able to get away with.

What they eventually want is a database with the names of all the gun owners, and a list of all the guns they own.
 
Background checks do not equate with gun registration, if no records are kept of the guns being transferred. This would especially be true if the checks did not involve FFL's. As a seller, you should be able to call a toll-free number (or go to a Web site), enter the identifying information of the buyer, and get an instant "yes" or "no" answer. If the answer is no, then the seller and buyer can go to an FFL (or a local police agency) and get a more extensive check done.

I frankly don't understand the paranoia that a simple idea like this seems to engender. When I've sold guns, I've either been an FFL, or gone through FFL's. Accessing NICS as a private individual would be a big convenience for me.
 
Background checks do not equate with gun registration, if no records are kept of the guns being transferred. This would especially be true if the checks did not involve FFL's. As a seller, you should be able to call a toll-free number (or go to a Web site), enter the identifying information of the buyer, and get an instant "yes" or "no" answer. If the answer is no, then the seller and buyer can go to an FFL (or a local police agency) and get a more extensive check done.
Click to expand...

You still don't get it... :banghead:

What YOU want is not what THEY want, and they are the ones writing the bills.

I frankly don't understand the paranoia that a simple idea like this seems to engender. When I've sold guns, I've either been an FFL, or gone through FFL's. Accessing NICS as a private individual would be a big convenience for me.
Click to expand...

If that's what you want to do it's your business, but again they are not likely to change the bill to reflect what you want. WHAT THEY WANT IS WHAT THEY WANT!
 
Ever heard of a poll tax? This is another case of the government charging a fee to exercise a right. How much uproar would ensue if you had to pay a fee to express an opinion, or to read a book or attend church? Why is it OK for 2nd amendment rights?
 
That may be the most likely path to "universal background checks," but it doesn't have to be that way. As an alternative, the NICS could be opened to private individuals, who, after entering the identifying information of the buyer (no identifying information on the gun) would get a "proceed" or "don't proceed" indication. (The buyer would fill out a Form 4473, which would be kept by the seller.) Heck, this could even be made voluntary. The incentive to participate would be immunity from civil liability if the gun was later misused.

If anything in Obama's plan is passed, this "universal check" would be it. We need to be thinking of counterproposals if it looks like this thing is making headway.
Click to expand...

This may actually make some sense. Voluntary would be great, but with BO's plan, i'm sure they will push for Mandatory checks for everyone.

The downsides to the background checks is added time, cost, and hassle for buyers and sellers everywhere.

The NICS system would have to be heavily upgraded to handle this traffic, and also monitored that people are not using fake or inaccurate info. As we all know, if you mistakenly put even one wrong answer to a 4473 like your birthday or country of birth, you get a long delay. Multiply that times millions of private sellers checking the NICS, and you got hours and days of delay.
 
I dont personally know enough people who are gun enthusiasts to sell my firearms too so in the past ive listed them online using the classified section on a couple forums. They were all shipped to an ffl which I confirmed to be legit using the atf ez check.

Even if someone local wanted to buy id make them go through an ffl as I have no idea who they are. If it was a close friend or family, sure that would be different but unfortunately thats not always an option.
 
Clean97GTI said:
The problem is that you are arguing against a method for ensuring the government can do a job legally required of it by the constitution.
Click to expand...

Nowhere does the Constitution require the Federal government to regulate who may or may not buy a gun, in fact they are explicitly restricted from doing so by the 2a.



The constitution provides for the removal of rights through due process of law. If someone has been stripped of these rights, it is the responsibility of government to enforce the punishment handed down by the court or jury.
Click to expand...

The due process clause prevents the government from depriving you of life, liberty, or property without due process. You'll notice, however that there is no such wording in the 2a, so they may not deny those rights even with due process.



Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
 
wooly bugger said:
I don't think there would be vigilante government employees secretly keeping the records against the law. It would be to no one's benefit.
Click to expand...

The government already has a long history of keeping records they have no business keeping and using them to harass inconvenient people and groups. Remember too that these are the same folks that sold thousands of weapons to the Mexican cartels and then tried to use the results as evidence that we need additional restrictions on our rights.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
 
Seems like if we responsible gun owners would simply refuse to sell to shady guys we don't know well, this whole deal becomes a complete non-issue. And if we're afraid that irresponsible people will act irresponsibly, well, no law will prevent that anyway. (I'm still waiting to see a study tracking a couple thousand illegally used firearms used in random crimes all over the country, to see how many were ever legally owned, let alone improperly transferred by a regular citizen to a prohibited person (straw purchases don't count as "legal possession" by the buyer either))

The problem is that you are arguing against a method for ensuring the government can do a job legally required of it by the constitution.
Click to expand...
The government has no Constitutional basis for pre-empting illegal behavior of its citizens by restricting their enumerated rights. The Constitution only requires that illegal behavior be prosecuted according to laws applied equally to all citizens, and if found deserving of punishment, penalizing them, removing them from society, or curtailing their rights.

TCB
 
Last edited:
Kiln said:
Lets see how background checks would have stopped either of the last two mass shootings:

1. The man involved in the Aurora theater shooting was not a criminal (prior to the shooting) and therefore background checks wouldn't have stopped him from getting a weapon. Even if the gun he wanted was illegal, he would have simply accomplished his goal through other means. He booby trapped his house with 30+ explosive devices so something tells me that if he hadn't gotten a rifle, he would've just used a backpack full of explosives instead.

2. The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. This was done by a man who killed his own mother by shooting her four times in the head and then taking her firearms. There's no way a background check would have changed the outcome of this because the guns were never actually passed to his hands by anyone.

I'm sorry but background checks won't be obeyed by people who are passing guns around under the radar anyways. Magically saying that everyone must now do a background check isn't going to make it actually happen, especially with people who want to do things like the two horrible events that I listed previously.
Click to expand...

So far Kiln has the strongest argument in my opinion.

It boils down to legislation doesn't stop evil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Senators near a deal on background checks for most private gun sales
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Ignition Override
I
S
  • Locked
Thoughts on Background Checks for private sales?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
3K
Texan Scott
T
A
  • Locked
Democrat Chris Murphy Introduces Universal Background Check Bill
Replies
1
Views
333
GEM
G
dobedo
Maine Senate Shoots Down Universal Background Checks
Replies
5
Views
412
CapnMac
CapnMac
J
  • Locked
Private sales background checks
2 3
Replies
68
Views
2K
FROGO207
FROGO207
Back
Top