Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Background checks? Yes; Registration? No.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by revolversrbetter, Feb 8, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. velojym

    velojym Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    617
    "We" get the government "We" deserve? Bull.
    "We" get saddled with the government the idiot majority is told to vote for. The rest of us are left in the cold, no matter how much feeling and logic we put into our own votes.
     
  2. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    No, but what about exercising the right to VOTE? The risk of felons voting may justify screening prior to voting. And with firearms the risk of felons obtaining firearms may justify screening prior to buying one. If there are permissible restrictions on who can own firearms lawfully, then a screening mechanism to make sure they aren't able to buy them makes sense. There is a risk of registration but then again does the Second bar the federal government from knowing who owns what? Wouldn't the government need to know what we own in order to know the state of the nation's strength?
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2013
  3. PRM

    PRM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,060
    Nope...its wrong and against the Constitution. And, that document is what makes us uniquely American.

    Some things are none of the government's business. If I want to transfer my private property to a family member or swap that property with a friend, and they are not otherwise prohibited by law - then that's nothing the government should be involved in.
     
  4. velojym

    velojym Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    617
    Screening and other regulations only drive people (most of whom were never violent in the first place) to the grey or black market. The more onerous those regulations, or even a downright ban, was demonstrated decades ago, and we all know how well Prohibition worked out.
     
  5. gripper

    gripper Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    824
    Location:
    Nashua NH
    When one has served their sentence, any and all civil rights- voting, RKBA; etc- should be reinstated. If one is deemed to have " lost them", or is " too dangerous " why release them ever?
    Again, this constant expansion of terms " felon" and " prohibited person " is deliberate and has NOTHING to do with public safety.
     
  6. Deaf Smith

    Deaf Smith Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,672
    Location:
    TEXAS!

    revolversrbetter, your clearance as been rejected to by a gun. You have no recourse to protest and get a fast hearing to find out why you have been rejected.

    So what do you do? Your rights have been denied by a faceless bureaucrat and you can't even argue with them.

    And tell me, what if the NICS system gets 'delayed' for 'technical' reasons. What are you going to do? You can't buy the gun until you are cleared.

    See there are problems with this 'instant' background check in that they can just shut down the system or slap your name on the 'no buy' list and then what?

    Deaf
     
  7. HorseSoldier

    HorseSoldier Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,297
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    I can see some logic to that. Or at least that the felon in possession idea should recognize that not all felonies are created equal.

    Since there is good documentation that there are ethnic trends in what charges people are tried for and convicted for, I wonder if both the rescinding of the right to vote and RKBA could be challenged as a infringement of civil rights for minorities?
     
  8. Voyager

    Voyager member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages:
    25
    Location:
    Duluth MN
    Precisely! We are dealing with unscrupulus, highly devious, master manipulators. Whats worse, the opposition is painfully inept, you cannot compromise with wolves as they prepare you for their dinner, even if its only one limb at a time.
     
  9. Cdigman

    Cdigman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    64
    <<<Can these guns not be sequestered with another family member? An untainted brother? Cousin? Unrelated Friend?>>>

    Since Cali has registration, they KNOW if you've transferred them to someone else, which you'd have to do, to get them legally out of your name.
     
  10. silicosys4

    silicosys4 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    2,376
    saying someone is a "felon" and denying them their rights to keep and bear arms for life is a dangerous thing. It has become fairly easy these days to become a "felon". Who has the power to decide what constitutes a felony? Not me.

    Poking your brother in the chest with a fingertip during an argument can lose your firearm rights for life if he decides to call the police and report a "domestic assault". Automatic loss of firearm rights for life in my state to have that on your record.
     
  11. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    If we're going to do things properly then every felon must be executed or banished from the country on pain of death. The country has chosen to stop doing this, and as a result we have a lot more felony crimes and a lot more felons still among the living. And they have lost many basic freedoms. Including the right to vote and to keep and bear arms. I very much doubt even one in a hundred voters wants to see such rights restored automatically. You'd find more support for going back to the original intent and killing them all.

    You appeal the denial. Make no mistake, I would absolutely rather not have background checks. But I do not see a legitimate argument against them on Second Amendment grounds. So to my mind, they represent a point of argument we could yield IF we can get something meaningful in return. Like terminating the BATFE with extreme prejudice and replacing it with a licensing agency that does no enforcement at all. Given the extremely poor performance of BATFE in the past years this is far from impossible. A good argument can be made that a user-funded licensing agency would better serve the gun owners and the FBI would be better in charge of any enforcement. The agency was Nixon's baby, so how can the liberals argue against killing it? Also it would save $$$ and that's music to DC's ears right now.

    There are too many federal and state criminal laws that sweep too broadly. But that's a separate question from whether we should have UBC's. For example if a man murdered his wife, do you want him to be able to buy firearms when he's out? I do not. I'd prefer it if he'd been hung 20 years earlier. But we're stuck with him now, and I don't want him armed. The law says he shouldn't be armed. How do we best keep him from being armed? One place to start is to make sure he doesn't get to buy one face to face from someone. As a policy I can see problems with it, but is it an infringement of the RKBA?

    That sounds more like a Right to Privacy issue. Not something the Second deals with at least directly. But if we're going to view the Second as some form of privacy right, then the further you go into the public sphere the less of a privacy right you have. Advertising a sale and completing it would not be as private as giving a gift to your son. So the law might have an exception for intra-family transfers as it does now for straw purchases.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2013
  12. hogshead

    hogshead Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    987
    Location:
    North Carolina
    cosmo maybe you should join the Brady campaign.
     
  13. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    I follow the logic. It sure as heck ain't with the Brady Bunch. But simply declaring that every regulation is unconstitutional or will lead to JBT's kicking in the doors won't cut the mustard. Look at the polls. We're winning or breaking even on most issues, EXCEPT this one. And that needs attention. Either the arguments need tightening, or we should consider using this as a playing piece.

    In any case I don't see much moving at the federal level right now. Make no mistake if Obama had been on the ball he could have had UBC's enacted by now. Thankfully he's dithering and I suspect he's hoping nothing passes so he can use NRA intransigence as an argument in the midterms.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2013
  14. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,854
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    The "universal background check" con is just a stalking horse for REGISTRATION.

    REGISTRATION has NO purpose beyond facilitation of future BANS and CONFISCATION.

    Tell the class how the Chicago handgun ban was implemented.

    NO, I REFUSE.
     
  15. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,854
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Which is why they won't pass it WITHOUT registration.

    This is a stalking horse for REGISTRATION, and after that, there's no end in sight.

    Obama's from Chicago, and that's how Chicago enforced their handgun ban. Don't try to snow me. I lived there.

    NO, I REFUSE.
     
  16. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,854
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    In what "Fringe" type alternate universe do you think THAT'S going to happen?

    This is NOTHING but an attempt to start REGISTRATION.

    REGISTRATION is the path to BANS and CONFISCATION.

    Some of us have been there and can't be hoodwinked.

    NO, I REFUSE.
     
  17. Mp7

    Mp7 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,149
    Location:
    Hamburg
    How everything that does not comply with a pro RKBA stance is socialism or dictatorship .. is lost on me.

    That's like calling everything non-jew antisemitic.



    I find it embarassing.
     
  18. Roadking Rider

    Roadking Rider Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    466
    Every time I buy a gun in Pa. the state is called to see if I have a criminal background of any type. Same thing as when I applied for a CC permit/Carry license in Pa. They do not have a record of the gun I purchased only the GS and myself has that to protect there butts from illegal gun sales and straw purchases. The state is not concerned about the gun only that I'm cleared to have a gun. The whole process takes about 20 minutes and I'm out the door with a new gun. I do not have a problem with this. If it helps keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill,straw purchases, and BG's. Gun registration I do have a problem with,because you know reguardless of what the Gov't says that information will be shared with people who have no business knowing your business. Love my country but,I trust these politicans about as far as I can pee.:mad:
     
  19. VegasAR15

    VegasAR15 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    467
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    There are many reasons why I oppose universal background checks. I believe it is an infringement on the second amendment, I do not believe the government needs to be involved when I sell a gun to my brother, I believe that it is another step in the road towards universal registration, I don't believe background checks really work and it is a major and costly inconvenience.

    In the county I live in a gun that is sold to a gun store must be held for thirty days. In the state I live in you must pay $25 for every background check. Here is how a private party background check would go down in my county as explained to me by a local gun store owner. The gun is brought into the store, the buyer and seller are present. The seller must know that the buyer can legally purchase the firearm so a background check is run, $25. The gun has legally crossed the counter in the gun store so it must be logged into their books. It now must be held for thirty days. In thirty days you go back to get the gun, because it has been entered into the books of the gun store, sales tax must now be charged. The first background check is now one month old so another one must be run, $25. I assume most gun stores will also be charging a transfer fee for performing this service, in my area $20-25. So you have a month wait and assuming the seller was selling the gun for $400 I am now paying $511 out the door to comply with universal background checks.

    Meanwhile, down the street a crack head has just sold a stolen gun to a gang member.
     
  20. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    The problem with all of these alternative proposals is that while they are well intended the legislators in Washington are paying absolutely no attention, and couldn't care less about what you might think is acceptable and what is not.

    The bills entered in both the Senate and House on Universal Background Checks offer one way, and one way only.

    PRIVATE SALES MUST BE CONDUCTED THROUGH AN FFL! Period. :banghead:

    That means the buyer must fill out a 4473 form, and one or both of the parties must pay the dealer a fee it whatever amount he demands. :eek:

    Some folks need to wake up and smell the coffee, and understand that it's better to be careful what you wish for - because you might get it.

    Background checks have never been proven to be a serious deterrent to determined criminals or insane madmen, and when 4473 forms are involved they provide a basis for future registration.
     
  21. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,570
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    If "we" would get off out butts and work for better government, "we'd" have better government. Too many of "us" are couch potato citizens -- "we" lie on the couch, drink beer and eat chips and cheer for the team or candidate of our choice, but do nothing "ourselves" to move the ball down the field.
     
  22. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    Why?
     
  23. itsa pain

    itsa pain member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    sam was right to put up the part of the right to bear arms after a background check sarcasticly. we allow people to drive cars which kill way more people then guns without a background check. background checks are intrusive and give them the foundation for a data base for registration which is their goal. they dont care if illegals drive cars with false ID yet we are held to the letter of the law
     
  24. VegasAR15

    VegasAR15 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    467
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    That is the law in Clark County where I live. It probably isn't the rule everywhere, but it is the crap I will have to go through to buy private party should a universal background check become law.
     
  25. wild cat mccane

    wild cat mccane Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Might want to Google the NRA supporting universal background checks not but a few years ago...

    Their argument for switching positions is about as silly as some of the arguments in here.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page