Background checks, round two?
- Thread starter Solo
- Start date
- Status
Certainly no more of a "registry" than we have now (countless millions of 4473 forms) and removing the "Internet Sales" restrictions would allow you to continue to complete private-party transactions within your state of residence, so we'd be right back to where we started (except for the new freedom to conduct interstate purchases at FFL dealers w/ no background check for CCW permit holders).
Of course a "defacto registry" would result in a "defacto felony"... there may be a case there that would require FFL's to destroy their 4473 forms.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
There is 0 ways for UBC to have any effect unless you know who owns the gun to start with. If they succeed in enacting 1/2 of it there is no doubt they will soon be trying to finish the deal.
Don't go after some carrot on a stick trick that makes you feel like your rights have been restored because when the other boot hits the ground on this UBC we will pretty much be finished.
Don't go after some carrot on a stick trick that makes you feel like your rights have been restored because when the other boot hits the ground on this UBC we will pretty much be finished.
Bruno2
Member
God help us all if people cant see that this a foot in the door to registration. The fence sitters and the "I am cool with UBC's" crowd is going to end up helping to sell us out.
Everybody knows that this wont stop any crime or keep criminals from getting guns. So why do they keep pushing for it? It's simple this is the way to get all the guns registered. Why are they not regrouping and pushing for a AWB or Hi cap mag ban? Because they never really wanted it to start out with. That was the red herring to keep people from thinking about the UBC so they could sneak it in. Then they get all the guns.
The stats are already in place to call for banning pistols. That's what all the gun murders are committed with. Hand guns killed thousands times more people every year in the past than AW's. So how hard do you think it would be to get the people in a frenzy to ban pistols? Not very hard and if you know where they all are at then you just tell people to bring hem in or go get them.
Everybody knows that this wont stop any crime or keep criminals from getting guns. So why do they keep pushing for it? It's simple this is the way to get all the guns registered. Why are they not regrouping and pushing for a AWB or Hi cap mag ban? Because they never really wanted it to start out with. That was the red herring to keep people from thinking about the UBC so they could sneak it in. Then they get all the guns.
The stats are already in place to call for banning pistols. That's what all the gun murders are committed with. Hand guns killed thousands times more people every year in the past than AW's. So how hard do you think it would be to get the people in a frenzy to ban pistols? Not very hard and if you know where they all are at then you just tell people to bring hem in or go get them.
As long as it is not reported as stolen, why does it matter where the gun came from?
Bruno2
Member
Then how does anybody know if you did a bg check or not?
How does anybody know that I had a background check done on any of the guns that I've bought from an FFL holder?... the FFL holder has the record.
I'd want to read through the real proposal but last time "Internet sales" was defined so broadly that every sale was an internet sale. advertise it online? discuss it in email? internet sale.
Telling me it is fine to sell something but I cannot advertise it for sale is the same as saying I cannot sell it.
The 4473 is a defacto registry, sitting there waiting for the day when one it not illegal. They could be scanned into a database very quickly. Forcing more and more transactions through that system just makes a more complete registry if the day comes.
Telling me it is fine to sell something but I cannot advertise it for sale is the same as saying I cannot sell it.
The 4473 is a defacto registry, sitting there waiting for the day when one it not illegal. They could be scanned into a database very quickly. Forcing more and more transactions through that system just makes a more complete registry if the day comes.
the ATF aided terrorism.......pretty sure that is a felony........how many ATF agents have gone to jail?
Bill Clinton committed Perjury......a felony......tell me how many days he spent in jail.
David Gregory committed a felony on national TV.......never even saw handcuffs.
the law is only valid if people are willing to enforce it.......how many federal agents do you think are going to be knocking down doors because a politician broke the law?
just because it would be a felony to create a gun registry......do you honestly think that would stop anyone.
Obviously the vagaries of banning "Internet Sales" was as much of a non-starter as banning all private-party transactions outright, especially in the age of the "smart phone".
I'd rather have "creating a registry" be on the books as a felony, than the current situation where it is extraordinarily hard for me to believe that they aren't already actively filling a database with all the data that they can get their hands on under the auspices of "domestic terrorism prevention" or some such mumbo-jumbo, "just in case" they need it or are allowed to use it in the future.
They should first put forth a 'good faith' effort to repeal many of the current laws which infringe our rights.
Then, they should mandate that 'universal' be truely universal. That is, the maximum standard any state/city/county can impose. including NYC, Chicago, etc.
"Shall issue" to every US citizen with no felony conviction, 100% free, office must be available at least 80 hour per week, 24/7 online, must-issue within 15 minutes.
Put teeth in it: make it a federal felony with mininum of 25 years, 25 million fine for any politician or public employee to even attempt to not comply with the law, or work towards overturning it. Court shall be administered by the NRA, with a jury of NRA members.
Then, they should mandate that 'universal' be truely universal. That is, the maximum standard any state/city/county can impose. including NYC, Chicago, etc.
"Shall issue" to every US citizen with no felony conviction, 100% free, office must be available at least 80 hour per week, 24/7 online, must-issue within 15 minutes.
Put teeth in it: make it a federal felony with mininum of 25 years, 25 million fine for any politician or public employee to even attempt to not comply with the law, or work towards overturning it. Court shall be administered by the NRA, with a jury of NRA members.
All that "registration" crap is FUD propagated by people getting paid to create FUD. No big deal.
The UBC legislation that was proposed (and didn't get 60 votes) had language in it making registries illegal. If another UBC bill is proposed it will be weaker than the first one, if anything.
Everyone relax (and quit hoarding ammo LOL)
The UBC legislation that was proposed (and didn't get 60 votes) had language in it making registries illegal. If another UBC bill is proposed it will be weaker than the first one, if anything.
Everyone relax (and quit hoarding ammo LOL)
meanmrmustard
Member
Not worried about it.
MO went the way of Kansas, thumbed its nose at Holden, and voting HB436 into law in August will be sublime.
MO went the way of Kansas, thumbed its nose at Holden, and voting HB436 into law in August will be sublime.
76shuvlinoff
Member
No new infringement, no concessions, no compromise, period.
a registry is already illegal (on federal level)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926?quicktabs_8=1#quicktabs-8
all those 4473 waiting to be put into a searchable database. Start talking destruction of records and we have an improvement over now. Another statement saying Gov cannot do what it is already disallowed to do is not a concession on their side.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926?quicktabs_8=1#quicktabs-8
all those 4473 waiting to be put into a searchable database. Start talking destruction of records and we have an improvement over now. Another statement saying Gov cannot do what it is already disallowed to do is not a concession on their side.
Well said. Kick back and have a beer until we have something concrete we can attack in earnest. We must remain ever vigilant but for now we watch and when the time comes make sure to write your reps as ferociously as we did before. Our voices will stop Bills like this, and reelection needs to be the time to unseat as many of those oath breaking Senators as we can.
I think they should get data on how many of the pistols are illegal ownership (ie Chicago firearm deaths)
That is a state issue. The federal government doesn't have the right to tell states how they should regulate weapons.
+1 for HB436
Ed Ames
Member
Just a minor point...
You can enforce a ban on selling sans-BC without a registry. The method is well established and, I would argue, far worse than a registry.
You do what they are already doing in the "drug war" ... stings, secret (undercover) police, forcing businesses that sell "related" goods (e.g. hydrophonic gardening and aquarium supplies, reloading equipment and ammo) to produce their customer lists and then get warrants to search the homes of people who are suspicious (e.g. just turned 21 and buying ammo), and in general make people afraid of getting caught up in the whole thing so that sellers won't risk selling and buyers won't risk buying unless they are already pegged as a suspect.
Yeah it tears at the fabric of society and is ineffective (people still buy and sell drugs) but people seem OK with that.
You can enforce a ban on selling sans-BC without a registry. The method is well established and, I would argue, far worse than a registry.
You do what they are already doing in the "drug war" ... stings, secret (undercover) police, forcing businesses that sell "related" goods (e.g. hydrophonic gardening and aquarium supplies, reloading equipment and ammo) to produce their customer lists and then get warrants to search the homes of people who are suspicious (e.g. just turned 21 and buying ammo), and in general make people afraid of getting caught up in the whole thing so that sellers won't risk selling and buyers won't risk buying unless they are already pegged as a suspect.
Yeah it tears at the fabric of society and is ineffective (people still buy and sell drugs) but people seem OK with that.
MagnunJoe
Member
Some people don't get it. It's not really about UBC. more is never enough for the antis. When they get that, they will want more & more.
pockets
Member
Now I have those AT&T commercials in my head....but with all the congressional seats filled with little girls chanting in unison,
"More is better than less because if stuff is not less... if there's more less stuff then you might, you might want to have some more and your parents just don't let you because there's only a little. We want more. We want more. Like, you really like it. You want more."
.
sansone
Member
yes, in order for UBC to function ALL firearms must be in a national database..
This is very different from your dealer's stack of 4473 forms that go nowhere..
A national database also helps ANY governmental body to collect private arms
FROGO207
Member
A stack of 4473's (really a bound book) that can go nowhere for 20 years----or are turned in when FFL retires/sells out/ATF yanks license for violation. Some FFL's never fill a complete bound book in their entire business lifetimes. So SOME are now being stored at ATF today.:banghead: How many of them will get destroyed after 20 years by them??
So no need to worry?
So no need to worry?
Joke & Dagger
Member
I will keep my thoughts simple:
Not one more inch.
Not one more inch.
- Status
Similar threads
