A new take on so-called UBCs

[CoalTrain49]

As per a memo from our Attorney General himself, UBCs will necessitate firearm registration.

You mean Eric Holder, the only cabinet member in US history to be held in contempt of Congress? Well I wouldn't give you a nickle for any of his brilliant ideas. He will be lucky if they don't indict him before his term is up.

 

[barnbwt]

The 2nd promises no infringement on having guns, but good grief, we MUST have infringement.

I guess those guys who'd just fought a protracted war partially over this exact issue were just smokin' hemp when they agreed to prominently insert forceful language into the central document of our government to that exact end.

The ATF is the same way regarding guns. They make the laws. They create the forms and set the parameters of what is legal or not.

It's more Orwellian than that; they actually just control the language. They can't write statute, but they can argue in court through expert witnesses that it states whatever they think they can slip past a judge and jury who likely don't know any better with regards to these obscure issues.

Now, let that settle. When you see the insanity of that, you might be able to see that gov't gun control is necessary and good.

If those criminals actually received punishment commensurate with their crimes, there would be no need to fear. There would be those we could trust back in society after sentence, and those we could not ever have faith in again.

It's like a person disturbed at a traffic ticket. He thereafter hates cops and interference with his "right" to drive his car however he pleases.

You don't have to be a Civil Libertarian to know a speed trap is nothing more than a shakedown, dependent upon you not fighting back over small change. If the "crime" were actually a threat to anyone, they'd book you on reckless driving.

I find it extremely ironic a poster by the name of "short barrel" would be anything but contemptuous of gun-control procedures and paperwork

TCB

 

[Midwest]

Which leads me to wonder what the GCA was about ...

To stop interstate sales of firearms (especially mail order) was a big thing. Of course there was a whole lot more.

(There was mention that after NJ passed that FID law in 1966, neighboring states were selling firearms at roadside stands just over the border to cater to NJ customers.)

Some of the politicians originally wanted a whole lot more than what was in 1968 GCA including from banning handguns to total registration of firearms. I think President Johnson was for banning firearms outright.
.

 

[happygeek]

To stop interstate sales of firearms (especially mail order) was a big thing. Of course there was a whole lot more.

I don't get it, if someone can pass a background check while being a WA resident why is it so wrong for them to buy a gun in OR? Or in the case of the 68 GCA, if they can check the box on a 4473 (they could easily be lying), why is it a big deal what state they do it in?

I'm sure stopping interstate sales was a stepping stone for them to something else, I'm just wondering what "logic" they used to sell it to the public.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

This is all geared to registration which will enable confiscation. Don't think that this scheme will be the last, either. They'll dream up something else soon after this scheme fails to gain ground.

Woody

 

[CoalTrain49]

Here's a fact. In 1965 I was 16 years old. I purchased a used Webley revolver and ammo by sending a check in the mail to a company that was selling surplus firearms. The gun came in the mail with the ammo and was put in our mailbox. We had a big mailbox because we were on a rural route and didn't want to drive to town to get our packages.

I now have about 6 handguns in my safe. I had to wait to buy just about everyone of those through an FFL and got delayed on the NICS check almost every time. It's really no different today than it was 49 years ago regarding the availability of firearms. People still have access to guns and if they want to use them to gun down a bunch of people they will.

As was posted above the Brady bill didn't change anything in any measurable amount and neither will a UBC. It was a feel good, do something now law. UBC supporters think that gov't regulation is the answer to all of societies problems and if you could just pass another law then everyone is going abide by it.

So I guess we get more legislation that has no effect other than having all of the people who normally follow the rules line up for more gov't regulation while all of the people that commit murder and mayhem continue to do so.

Personally I'm preparing myself for a UBC. I won't vote for it and I will find out which one of my representatives did and x them off of my good guy list but I feel it coming. Just another day in the life of a tax payer, voter, veteran, civil servant and law abiding citizen. The NSA, FBI, CIA and ATF can check me off their list one more time.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I'm sure stopping interstate sales was a stepping stone for them to something else, I'm just wondering what "logic" they used to sell it to the public.

JFK was shot with a mail order gun. I think that had a lot to do with it. It worked, another president still got shot (Reagan), just not with a mail order gun.

 

[barnbwt]

The emphasis on interstate sales was because that was the extent of acceptable federal involvement in commerce at the time. If there'd by any legitimate legal rationale in play for subjecting all sales to the same scrutiny, they'd have gone for it. Which is why we've seen the emphasis on private sales pretty much ever since.

TCB

 

[happygeek]

So the 68 GCA was a knee jerk reaction to the JFK assassination that introduced busywork paperwork into interstate firearms sales; and if they could have at the time they would have gladly extended that to all sales?

 

[barnbwt]

Yes. The GCA was a modification of the NFA, which was passed as a revenue measure on the basis of regulating interstate commerce. There really was a time when the majority of the nation did not think the feds should be managing every facet of our governance, but rather the states themselves.

TCB

 

[CoalTrain49]

There really was a time when the majority of the nation did not think the feds should be managing every facet of our governance, but rather the states themselves.

Where did we go wrong.

 

[Frank Ettin]

And reflect on where this thread went wrong. Some snarky posts have been deleted, and the bickering was starting. So let's all go home.