Mandatory BG checks on ALL sales lead to registration of all guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
EXACTLY CroMo. It is not about stopping or reducing gun violence or they would be focusing on the criminals and crazies. It is about subjogating, and controlling law abiding citizens, so the government is all powerful. This is not America folks. Unfortunately, when we say these types of things many, especially liberals call us paranoid, and extremists.
They can call us what they want. The point is...how do you disarm 100 million people without a shot being fired? One baby step at a time. One "compromise" at a time.
Get public opinion ginned up.
:)
PS if the majority decided that free speech was not a good idea, would that take away our natural right to self-expression? Majority does not decide the BIll of Rights.....the Bill of Rights is not up for vote....so we should not care what the majority says....but of course we need to win them over through education of our kids....ourselves 'cos the schools are brainwashing them as quickly as possible.
 
Seems like some republicans may be looking to cave on the "gun show loophole" and may be OK with requiring federally mandated background or NIC checks for ALL sales, even those private FTF sales in states.

Here IMHO is why this is a really bad idea:

1. There is no Gun show loophole. The exact same state and federal laws hold IN a gun show as outside it. Closing the "gun show loophole" means basically mandating at the federal level that all sales of firearms HAVE to go through NIC checks (Form 4473). The Federal government should have no jurisdiction to regulate commerce within a state, so this may be a hard one to pass constitutional muster. However, it may be the Dems are hoping they can say that "if a firearm was used once in interstate commerce then we can regulate it forever". This argument has already been upheld by the US Supreme court in the GunFree School Zones Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fr...es_Act_of_1990)

2. Think about how a federally mandated background check on ALL firearms will be implemented. Right now, only firearms sold through FFL dealers have to pass a NICs (Form 4473) test in all states, and in some states the state laws mandate that all transfers have to be through an FFL dealer. The feds regulate the FFL dealers and do not keep records of transactions, but the FFL dealers have to. If an FFL dealer goes out of business, those records go to ATF for storage, and are never lost. Now imagine extending this requirement to ALL buyers and sellers of firearms. Well this is impossible.

So the feds will say, well let us just require all states to do what california, for example, does already. All transfers must go through an FFL. But what to do about the millions of unregistered guns in the USA? How do the feds know who owns them? If they don't know who owns them, how will they verify that ALL guns are being sold after a NICS check? Well, the FEDs will come back and say: "We cannot implement your new law unless you allow us to register all firearms". So the inevitable next step to mandating background check on ALL firearm sales will be a demand to Congress that all firearms be registered, without which the law will be impossible to enforce.

Registration is a VERY bad idea. Registration will not prevent a crime since a legal gun may be stolen and used by a criminal (like in the Newtown case) and of course a criminal will never register an illegitimate gun they may already own.
So, the only reason for registration is monitoring legal gun owners, harassing them slowly and whittling down their ranks and finally confiscation of firearms.

Since the 2A was written to provide a well regulated (trained) populace that could be stronger than any standing army that a tyrant could raise, the LAST thing the armed populace wants is for potential tyrants to know who has what firearm. That is why this insidious "background checks for all sales" bill MUST be resisted. it will open the door to registration in a year or two.
:)
Just my 2 cents. It would be great if we could all bring this issue to light on all forums and also when we contact our federal congressman and senators.
As some kind of universal background check law clears the senate Judiciary committee, it is worth remembering, IMHO, WHY we are all so opposed to one. Please consider calling not just our senators, but also folks like Max Baucus, etc. who may be on the fence on this one.
To get phone numbers, please us this link:
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
:)
 
Seems like some republicans may be looking to cave on the "gun show loophole" and may be OK with requiring federally mandated background or NIC checks for ALL sales, even those private FTF sales in states.

Here IMHO is why this is a really bad idea:

1. There is no Gun show loophole. The exact same state and federal laws hold IN a gun show as outside it. Closing the "gun show loophole" means basically mandating at the federal level that all sales of firearms HAVE to go through NIC checks (Form 4473). The Federal government should have no jurisdiction to regulate commerce within a state, so this may be a hard one to pass constitutional muster. However, it may be the Dems are hoping they can say that "if a firearm was used once in interstate commerce then we can regulate it forever". This argument has already been upheld by the US Supreme court in the GunFree School Zones Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fr...es_Act_of_1990)

2. Think about how a federally mandated background check on ALL firearms will be implemented. Right now, only firearms sold through FFL dealers have to pass a NICs (Form 4473) test in all states, and in some states the state laws mandate that all transfers have to be through an FFL dealer. The feds regulate the FFL dealers and do not keep records of transactions, but the FFL dealers have to. If an FFL dealer goes out of business, those records go to ATF for storage, and are never lost. Now imagine extending this requirement to ALL buyers and sellers of firearms. Well this is impossible.

So the feds will say, well let us just require all states to do what california, for example, does already. All transfers must go through an FFL. But what to do about the millions of unregistered guns in the USA? How do the feds know who owns them? If they don't know who owns them, how will they verify that ALL guns are being sold after a NICS check? Well, the FEDs will come back and say: "We cannot implement your new law unless you allow us to register all firearms". So the inevitable next step to mandating background check on ALL firearm sales will be a demand to Congress that all firearms be registered, without which the law will be impossible to enforce.

Registration is a VERY bad idea. Registration will not prevent a crime since a legal gun may be stolen and used by a criminal (like in the Newtown case) and of course a criminal will never register an illegitimate gun they may already own.
So, the only reason for registration is monitoring legal gun owners, harassing them slowly and whittling down their ranks and finally confiscation of firearms.

Since the 2A was written to provide a well regulated (trained) populace that could be stronger than any standing army that a tyrant could raise, the LAST thing the armed populace wants is for potential tyrants to know who has what firearm. That is why this insidious "background checks for all sales" bill MUST be resisted. it will open the door to registration in a year or two.
:)
Just my 2 cents. It would be great if we could all bring this issue to light on all forums and also when we contact our federal congressman and senators.
As the UBC debate heats up, fueled by POTUS, it seems appropriate to remind folks why UBCs are just a way to registration. UBCs IMHO are the holy grail for the anti 2As.

How will they ever enforce Universal background checks if they do not know that a sale even took place? To know that a sale took place, they need to know WHO owns WHAT already.Knowing that means creating a federal level registry of who owns what.

Gun registration has always led to confiscation. How do you disarm 100 million people with guns, peacefully? You do it one segment at a time, afer knowing who owns what and then slowly taking away the rights of one segment at a time. Within 3 years or so, the population is effectively disarmed.
CALL your national Senators to tell them NOT to support UBCs. Please. YOu can get their contact info at:
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
 
The so called Universal Background Check can easily be abused. Right now the background check can only be accessed by FFL holders and law enforcement. If anyone can call to do a check, I can see how it could be abused.

For example, a gun owner is going through an ugly divorce that involves children, and resides in a state that isn't firearm friendly. The soon to be spouse wants to muddy the waters in the court's eyes so they make 100 background checks on their soon to be ex in a short period of time. They would have the personal information on the spouse to make this look convincing.

This causes flags to be raised with local law enforcement and they decide to go check on this new extremist, as his or her kids might be in jeopardy . The spouse's lawyer brings it up in court, that the soon to be ex has been investigated recently by law enforcement. You will be looked at as guilty until until you can prove yourself otherwise.

As it stands an FFL would not do this, as this kind of shenangain would put their business in trouble. Chances are LEO wouldn't do it either, but just allowing anyone else into the system raises many questions. How about calling on someone who you only sort of know just to go data fishing?
 
FFL holders don't get any details when they run a check. The result is basically pass (proceed) or fail (deny). Their access to information in the database should not be compared to the access of LEO.
 
After doing a bit of light reading....It appears that even if the UBC is passed there can be no implementation of a federal gun registry. Its contained in FOPA as follows...

"No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation"

So if I'm reading it right, the Feds would have to repeal FOPA to implement a federal registry...which would mean revisiting the GCA 86, which is probably something they don't want to do at this time.
I still expect them to try though....
 
^^^Right. What they want to do now with UBC is make sure records are being kept of all transfers which will happen if all must go through an FFL. At a later date, when they can point to the "registration loophole", they will seek to repeal FOPA and create a registry from the records (as well as requiring registration of all guns that have not been transferred via FFL).
 
Universal Background Checks simply accomplish what the anti gun crowd has wanted to do for a long time, which is make it difficult to buy a gun that can't be easily traced back to you and confiscated.

The only thing I see coming from the UBC if they become law is sting operations against gun owners much like the police does now against the war on drugs. Ignorant people will be targeted and undercover officers will offer to buy guns from them under the radar. If they agree they'll be arrested and charged with attempting to sell a firearm illegally.
 
There are all sorts of horror stories out there about what they will do if it passes. But first it has to pass and like Obamacare, they have to pass it before we can know what it in it.

So the best thing to do is not worry about what might happen IF, and work now to see that IF doesn't happen. .
 
I just read THIS article that the AP put out, the very last sentence is the best idea I have heard of in this entire debate. It would ALMOST certainly prevent any kind of real registration.



the last sentence is
Even without a bipartisan deal, Schumer is expected to expand the exemptions to more relatives, people with permits to carry concealed weapons and others, in hopes of winning more support.
I personally sell very few guns, but if I were to sell one it would have to be to a CCP holder, thus keeping the Gov. out of the sale while being legal, and I would of course have mine so no BGC for me. Looks like that is enough to make it almost impossible to create a "real" registry.

It would also seriously increase the people who have CCP's simply to avoid the BGC's and probably save money. :D
 
Even without a bipartisan deal, Schumer is expected to expand the exemptions to more relatives, people with permits to carry concealed weapons and others, in hopes of winning more support.

OK. Just as soon as he recognizes the 2nd Amendment is a carry permit Which pretty much exempts everyone.
 
OK. Just as soon as he recognizes the 2nd Amendment is a carry permit Which pretty much exempts everyone.

Don't be holding your breath on that one.
:cuss:

Schumer has a "plan" and so does Feinstein, and the end result is unilateral citizen disarmament, despite the 2A.
 
UBC is not their goal: registration is their goal.
If they were serious about background checks, they would pursue the existing NICs checks that fail....they don't. Check this out:

http://www.newsmax.com/JohnLott/bradylaw-gunownership/2011/06/14/id/399967

NICs right now are useless as the above link shows.
Why would they want to expand them? Because they really want to prevent firearm violence? No, it is to create a registry.
:)
 
Last edited:
I am for enforcing the laws on the books. When the laws on the books are enforced I can get on board for further regulation. Anything less is just punishing the honest, law abiding gun owner. The law is supposed to punish criminals, not honest hard working people.

The only way to enforce a UBC is to create a registration of guns. Registration of weapons will lead to confiscation.
 
If these background checks (that lead to registration, which is their real goal) are passed, I am turning third party. It will be the end of the republican party in my mind.
If these moderate republicans want to commit political suicide, let them.

More conservative folks like Jim Bridenstine or Rand Paul need to form a third party if they want my vote in the future.
If gun control passes, I AM NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR ANYONE RUNNING UNDER THE TICKET OF THE PARTY THAT ALLOWED OUR GUNS TO BE TAKEN AWAY.
I am planning to call my 2 senators and congressman, as well as Spkr Boehner in the house, and tell their aides this.
Please consider doing something along those lines as well. Perhaps if these idiots are faced with the demise of their precious party, they may see sense.

For Congressman: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
For Senators: https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
:)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderA View Post
A 100% NICS requirement could be designed in such a way that it wouldn't lead to registration. However, the source of creative ideas from our side has dried up, because a collective decision has apparently been made to stonewall on everything. Maybe this is the right strategy -- if it's successful. I'm worried that if the antigun proposals proceed to a certain point (and they appear to have increasing momentum), we won't be ready with a Plan B to try to mitigate the damage.
^^^
This

There seems to be at least some limited consensus that society should keep criminals/mentally ill persons from getting arms, but it also seems any mechanism to aid in checking for such things is immediately rejected out of hand.

As a thought exercise, how might one regulate transfers (via background check) without tracking where the arms go (i.e. no registration), while letting people currently legal to purchase arms buy anything currently legally available? Could the check of the purchaser (to verify that they're legal to make the purchase) be done without logging what they actually bought? Could a NICS-type check be done on private sales (again, only verifying that the person is allowed to purchase the arm) be done without being terribly onerous? What might such things look like?

Why acknowledge the false argument of manage the object, not hold people accountable.

On a tour at Williamsburg I saw an old but good idea. If found guilty of a crime you could ask for clemency and get your hand branded. They walked out free that day. If they committed another crime they were hung, no questions asked.

Dead people can't buy guns. Brand the bad guys, not the good.
 
Seems like some republicans may be looking to cave on the "gun show loophole" and may be OK with requiring federally mandated background or NIC checks for ALL sales, even those private FTF sales in states.

Here IMHO is why this is a really bad idea:

1. There is no Gun show loophole. The exact same state and federal laws hold IN a gun show as outside it. Closing the "gun show loophole" means basically mandating at the federal level that all sales of firearms HAVE to go through NIC checks (Form 4473). The Federal government should have no jurisdiction to regulate commerce within a state, so this may be a hard one to pass constitutional muster. However, it may be the Dems are hoping they can say that "if a firearm was used once in interstate commerce then we can regulate it forever". This argument has already been upheld by the US Supreme court in the GunFree School Zones Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fr...es_Act_of_1990)

2. Think about how a federally mandated background check on ALL firearms will be implemented. Right now, only firearms sold through FFL dealers have to pass a NICs (Form 4473) test in all states, and in some states the state laws mandate that all transfers have to be through an FFL dealer. The feds regulate the FFL dealers and do not keep records of transactions, but the FFL dealers have to. If an FFL dealer goes out of business, those records go to ATF for storage, and are never lost. Now imagine extending this requirement to ALL buyers and sellers of firearms. Well this is impossible.

So the feds will say, well let us just require all states to do what california, for example, does already. All transfers must go through an FFL. But what to do about the millions of unregistered guns in the USA? How do the feds know who owns them? If they don't know who owns them, how will they verify that ALL guns are being sold after a NICS check? Well, the FEDs will come back and say: "We cannot implement your new law unless you allow us to register all firearms". So the inevitable next step to mandating background check on ALL firearm sales will be a demand to Congress that all firearms be registered, without which the law will be impossible to enforce.

Registration is a VERY bad idea. Registration will not prevent a crime since a legal gun may be stolen and used by a criminal (like in the Newtown case) and of course a criminal will never register an illegitimate gun they may already own.
So, the only reason for registration is monitoring legal gun owners, harassing them slowly and whittling down their ranks and finally confiscation of firearms.

Since the 2A was written to provide a well regulated (trained) populace that could be stronger than any standing army that a tyrant could raise, the LAST thing the armed populace wants is for potential tyrants to know who has what firearm. That is why this insidious "background checks for all sales" bill MUST be resisted. it will open the door to registration in a year or two.
:)
Just my 2 cents. It would be great if we could all bring this issue to light on all forums and also when we contact our federal congressman and senators.
The battle is not over....please consider calling your senators to thank them. They will get calls from Bloomberg fueled bots, we need to counter that by showing our appreciation !
also, please consider contributing to the NRA and GOA, maybe the cost of a box of ammo each? IMHO, it's WORTH IT!
:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top