Universal Background Checks

AlexanderA said:

Old Fuff wrote:



If you want to have a NICS check done under the current setup, it's true that you have to go through an FFL. But new legislation could provide for a completely different system for FTF non-licensee sales, more resembling the first paragraph above.

The problem, as I see it, is that the decision of the gun community to stonewall this proposal precludes meaningful input that would make it more acceptable. So, if it passes, it will likely be in the most draconian form desired by the antigunners.

Stonewalling would be a good tactic if there was an overwhelming chance that nothing would pass. But it's looking more and more like we're going to get some form of Universal Background Check this year. I sure hope the NRA and the other gun owners' organizations have the flexibility to quickly move from a "stonewalling" stance to an "input" stance if that appears to be necessary. But, as we saw in 1986 with FOPA and the last-minute Hughes Amendment, the NRA has the maneuverability of the Titanic.

Click to expand...

The leadership of the NRA is completely different now. They may be a different organization and very agile. I have been very happy with La Pierre's responses and outspoken-ness, and even more so with Pratt (of GOA).
We have made a lot of progress since 1986, and now we also have social media that allows us to communicate quickly and with more people.

I beg to differ with you. I don't see the point of caving in even one bit...it is not looking likely to me AT all there will be a UBC...it's just the media playing tricks as usual, and making us THINK that its passage is an inevitability.

We can win this if we stick together. PLease become part of operation gun rights if you are not already:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=694966&highlight=operation+gun+rights

Other than that, I don't object to a background check.

Click to expand...

Let's do a check on car buyers, as drunk drivers kill more folks than guns.....or a background check on folks who own knives - no garage sales without a check, because knives kill more folks than guns.....let alone bats, blunt objects, etc...........

We never had these issues when kids brought guns to school or you could order anything from the back of a magazine without a FFL

THOSE WHO DO NOT STUDY HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT

Why are folks "willing" to give up even more of their rights?

CIVICS needs to be brought back into the schools

"We never had these issues when kids brought guns to school or you could order anything from the back of a magazine without a FFL."

So true.... I bought my first handgun from an ad in the back of Outdoor Life. Brand new Browning 32acp, packed in cosmoline.

When I was going through HS in the early 2000's, I was a member of the HS Trap & Skeet team and our school actually had a gun cage because the team had almost 100 students on it. We never had any problems with firearms at my school.

However; we did have one very big problem right after 9/11 happened during the time the mailed anthrax letters were going around. Some kid actually managed to get his/her hands on a powder that was nearly identical to the carrier powder used to spread anthrax. The kid spread some of it around the band room prior to a lock down drill. During the drill, school staff found it and we went into lock down. I remember being escorted out of school by members of the sheriffs SWAT team and seeing our school on the evening news chopper feed as the FBI, CDC, DEA, ATF, and several other three letter agencies in hazmat suites swept our HS for hours on end to verify that we hadn't been hit with a bioweapon. Talk about an exciting/terrifying experience.

IMHO, NOT one inch.

Click to expand...

Great, except look at the state of the GOP. I'm not terribly confident in what's going to happen in 2014 or 2016. I'm absolutely against any concessions on any gun or magazine ownership. But this is the background check we've been living with more-or-less without troubles for years now. It's far harder to argue against without sounding paranoid. I totally share your concerns, but then again this could be an opportunity to redirect the focus away from the fixation on gun seizures and bans.

Put it another way--is the lack of a registration system truly the thing standing between us and mass confiscation? Or is the thing preventing this political pressure from voters? If it's the latter, then we do need to be careful not to take such a hard line that we miss an opportunity to do an end-run around the grabbers. And if we don't take this chance to control the future of gun control, we could also be alienating a lot of people. The polls typically show mixed results on the AWB, but not on NICS expansion. That's consistently popular even with many ardent gun owners.

Tough choices here. We all need to be watching Coburn in particular like hawks.

If you want to have a NICS check done under the current setup, it's true that you have to go through an FFL. But new legislation could provide for a completely different system for FTF non-licensee sales, more resembling the first paragraph above.

Click to expand...

Those behind Universal Background Checks on the ones who are writing the bills, and they do not want a reasonable system! They want to force all private sellers and buyers to go through an FFL.

Wake up, and get a copy of the bill(s) and read them. :banghead:

There is a difference

There is a difference between the right to reproduce, to publish on a forum or in print or on a streetcorner or to vote and the right to bear arms.

Mis-use of arms can result in instant death to innocent people with no recourse to right any wrong done. Those other rights, if mis-used may result in wrongs, but there is a least the CHANCE of the wrong being righted. Death is always irreversible.

So, the anti-gunners have that argument sewn up. We ignore it at our peril.

Lost Sheep

Considering that the ATF has been databasing NICS data for the last 18 years
that when the come looking on a trace, with a person targeted they know WHEN he bought

the thing is, they claim it's legal cause the don't know specifically what you bought (unless it's 4 or more handguns unless than 2 weeks.)

Sooo
if they are breaking the law NOW
what makes you think any increase is a good thing?

When selling to a private party, and I sell very infrequently, my purchaser is either a member of my gun club, or has a valid CPL. The government already has a ton of information on me and fellow shooters. Being retired military and having purchased many weapons through gun shops They know who I am, what my training background is and the majority of the guns I own. I'm not keen on the idea of background checks except for a couple of real benefits.

If information is properly shared between agencies the check would catch felons, drug abusers and the mentally unstable members of our society. Taking my firearms will not make you any safer on the streets. Keeping them out of the hands of the above mentioned social miscreants will. I'm also a strong believer in gun safes... real gun safes, not thin skinned cabinets that have a padlock.

If they want universal background checks, this would be my compromise:

1. Universal Background checks shall be required on all firearms transactions.

2. It shall be the seller's responsibility to perform the background check. For this purpose, the NICS system shall be open to the public

3. The only information disclosed during a background check shall be that necessary to identify the buyer. No information regarding the fiream(s) invovled may be required or collected.

4. Seller will receive a unique number identifying the background check performed.


5. Since anyone can perform the backgound check and verify the qualifications of a buyer, a FFL is no longer required to buy, sell, ship of receive firearms in interstate commerce.

So, for the folks who want NICS to be opened up to the public...What to say a person would not lie, or be untruethful on who they are selling the firearm to for the background check? Afterall, If NICS is free to the public, there will be no way to know, will there? You could fake a receipt that says "yep, I sold this firearm to John Doe on this date, here is the NICS number" when you really sold it a prohibited person.

With universal background checks, it still wont prevent anything.

While all of the "opening up the NCIS" talk sounds good, implementing it is going to be completely impossible. Completely!

So "Universal Background Checks" honestly becomes code for "No Private Sales" once it becomes law.

It's classic bait an switch I've decided. Any time they start trotting out some pretty phrase like that, then look out.

Let's do a check on car buyers, as drunk drivers kill more folks than guns.....or a background check on folks who own knives - no garage sales without a check, because knives kill more folks than guns.....let alone bats, blunt objects, etc...........

We never had these issues when kids brought guns to school or you could order anything from the back of a magazine without a FFL

THOSE WHO DO NOT STUDY HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT

Why are folks "willing" to give up even more of their rights?

CIVICS needs to be brought back into the schools

Click to expand...

oneounceload nailed it, every sentence is true.

The anti-gun propaganda has been so effective that even people in the gun culture appear willing to give up more rights.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I'm really a wild west kind of guy and am not in favor of ANY new restrictions.

One of the things that some of you aren't aware of is the fact that not all instant back ground checks are instant. I've bought 3 guns from dealers. Twice, I've had to come back later. Like days later. Apparently there is some glitch that basically says that the system doesn't like me so they can't sell me a firearm today, but if there is no further action from the feds, I can pick it up in a week. Wouldn't that be a fun thing to deal with while trying to settle a private party sale.

There are to many infringements now. There is no reason to budge another inch.

Something that hasn't been mentioned here is the unlimited axcees to your medical history by the goverment. Let's say you were put on anti depressents after a death of a loved one,will that preclude you from buying a firearm as it could be construde as a mental disorder even though you will have been on them for a short time. Or maybe you don't have 20/20 eyesight or any of a miriad of possible disqualifiers added by the government at their discretion. How does the saying go "no one's life,liberty or income is safe while Congress is in session." or something to that effect.

OK OK I withdraw the question. Even the Democrats don't insult me by saying "Wake up." ...no need to reply "Old Fuff". I'm turning of notification on this thread!

Click to expand...

It is not my intention insult anyone, but wouldn’t it be advisable to read the bill now before the Senate (S.22) to see what is actually proposed, rather then alternatives that are not under consideration, and aren’t likely to be.

1 ‘‘(c) RESPONSIBILITIES OF TRANSFERORS OTHER
2 THAN LICENSEES.

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If any part of a firearm transaction takes place at a gun show, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to another person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless the firearm is transferred through a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer in accord with subsection (e).

Click to expand...

S.22 is the so-called “Gun Show Loophole” bill that was recently reintroduced by:

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. REED, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. CARPER, Mrs.
FEINSTEIN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. COONS, Mr. WHITEHOUSE,
Mr. LEVIN, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mrs. GILLIBRAND,
and Mr. WYDEN)

Click to expand...

Who without exception have reputations of being strong supporters of the most extreme firearms’ control legislation.

Following its introduction S.22 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it now rests.

Now it has been suggested that this bill should be expanded to include ALL PRIVATE TRANSFERS using the procedure originally stated.

Discussion of alternative procedures being proposed on this thread are not under consideration – in particular ones where individual unlicensed (meaning non-FFL’s) can make they’re own background checks.

It should be clearly understood that the Senators behind the Universal Background Check proposal have never suggested that non-FFL’s should be allowed to make they’re own background checks.

There is an old saying that applies here: Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

The way I read the tea leaves, there's going to be a total ban on private sales (all transactions will have to go through FFL's for the "background check"), unless we make a strong push right now to open up NICS to private sellers. There are many in Congress who would vote to open up NICS to private, non-licensed sellers, even on a quasi-voluntary basis, but who would vote for the more stringent bill if the alternative wasn't on the table.

Without REGISTRATION, the so-called "universal background check" is utterly meaningless.

Registration has no real purpose apart from facilitation of future CONFISCATION.

The answer yet again is, "NO, I REFUSE."

The problem, as I see it, is that the decision of the gun community to stonewall this proposal precludes meaningful input that would make it more acceptable. So, if it passes, it will likely be in the most draconian form desired by the antigunners.

Click to expand...

The only "input" the other side wants is abject submission.

NO, I REFUSE.

"Mis-use of arms can result in instant death to innocent people "

Misuse of cars can also. Misuse of texting while driving compounds the threat to the innocent. Misuse of alcohol. Misuse of prescription drugs. Misuse of fertilizer and fuel oil. Where are the background checks?

The list is long of objects that be misused and result in the death of others.

Without REGISTRATION, the so-called "universal background check" is utterly meaningless.

Registration has no real purpose apart from facilitation of future CONFISCATION.

The answer yet again is, "NO, I REFUSE."
__________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This. If they dont register the guns how would they know if private party sales were even going on. All you would have to do is say I owned this gun before ubc was required. I can't believe how many gun owners are falling for this load of crap.

AlexanderA said:

The way I read the tea leaves, there's going to be a total ban on private sales (all transactions will have to go through FFL's for the "background check"), unless we make a strong push right now to open up NICS to private sellers.

Click to expand...

I don't see the NICS being opened to private individuals.

As I mentioned earlier, so far as I'm concerned it's a mechanism to ban private sales via the back door.

Maybe it will take a while. But only a moron thinks his social security number isn't an identification number these days.

How about a voting record check? If seller, buyer, and all family members did not vote for obama then the $100 each of you paid for the check goes directly to the democratic party and you all go to gitmo forever! Plus, your residence gets searched and anything of value found gets sent to the coffers of said gov't. Same for any financial assets, real estate, or whatever the obama youth leaders want. It is coming, they need our goods to handle this deficit spending.