Biden to announce executive order on gun sale background checks

[wayneinFL]

I'm in the same boat. I've had so many background checks for so many things, and I much prefer the person buying/selling me/my gun is at least as far as the current system can tell, up and up. And IF they aren't, as long as they passed a background check that's not on me/my fault.

I can understand why some people would be against them and the historical precedence behind why but more and more I am seeing that as a side effect that's worth the risk. They aren't perfect and we definitely need to plug the holes in the BGC system so people don't slip through but I also think if they ever did lead to confiscation they way most people afraid of that seems to imagine it (government forces kicking in your door and confiscating them) there would be enough opposition by owners that it would be impossible. Don't get me wrong, I think guns should be confiscated under certain conditions but I just don't think the mass scale that people worry about is even possible.

We had background checks in FL in the 80s, before the Brady Law applied a similar system federally.

As a kid, I thought this was a great idea. When I was working at Kmart in the 80s, a customer was complaining about the background checks. I told him why I thought it was a great idea. He said, "If I couldn't buy a gun, why wouldn't I just have my girlfriend buy it for me?".

Yeah, it's a completely bulletproof system except that a felon has to go through the complicated process of having his wife, girlfriend, brother, sister, father, mother, cousin, coworker, fellow gang member, friend, acquaintance or literally anyone without a record buy a gun for them.

I've known several prohibited persons and they all had guns if they wanted them, and this is how they got them.

One was an old man with a business, and his house paid off who got caught with too much weed in the 70s. His brother bought him a gun, so he could protect his family.

One was a guy who got punched by his 19 year old step son, wrestled him to the ground, and held him down until the police got there. Misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. He won't get a gun, because he's scared to break the law- that's who the background check system is protecting you from- the guy who doesn't want to break the law.

Background checks do nothing but make yiu feel good. If there's someone out there bent on killing they need to be under some kind of supervision. They don't need to be walking free to kill, and with a single feel good measure one particular type of weapon.

I can't see how anyone sees any value in that process.

 

[Megawatt maker]

We had background checks in FL in the 80s, before the Brady Law applied a similar system federally.

As a kid, I thought this was a great idea. When I was working at Kmart in the 80s, a customer was complaining about the background checks. I told him why I thought it was a great idea. He said, "If I couldn't buy a gun, why wouldn't I just have my girlfriend buy it for me?".

Yeah, it's a completely bulletproof system except that a felon has to go through the complicated process of having his wife, girlfriend, brother, sister, father, mother, cousin, coworker, fellow gang member, friend, acquaintance or literally anyone without a record buy a gun for them.

I've known several prohibited persons and they all had guns if they wanted them, and this is how they got them.

One was an old man with a business, and his house paid off who got caught with too much weed in the 70s. His brother bought him a gun, so he could protect his family.

One was a guy who got punched by his 19 year old step son, wrestled him to the ground, and held him down until the police got there. Misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. He won't get a gun, because he's scared to break the law- that's who the background check system is protecting you from- the guy who doesn't want to break the law.

Background checks do nothing but make yiu feel good. If there's someone out there bent on killing they need to be under some kind of supervision. They don't need to be walking free to kill, and with a single feel good measure one particular type of weapon.

I can't see how anyone sees any value in that process.

All very true, and I can add too, criminals still steal guns, and the black market does what the black market has always done...supply something somebody wants...if they are willing to pay for it. BGC do NOTHING to change any if that...

But then..we already know this..and also know it's not really about public safety.

 

[AlexanderA]

Also given the fact there are a lot more AK-74's floating around in the world than M-14's.

Large quantities of M14's were given to the Baltic countries when they broke off from the Soviet Union. Now, these M14's are being offloaded to the Ukraine. I imagine Ukraine will use them as Designated Marksman rifles.

 

[Megawatt maker]

Large quantities of M14's were given to the Baltic countries when they broke off from the Soviet Union. Now, these M14's are being offloaded to the Ukraine. I imagine Ukraine will use them as Designated Marksman rifles.

The few news videos I've seen, they are highly tricked out, chassis, top end optics, very nice. I suspect it's more what private donations have bought them. Keep in mind...hundreds of millions have been given to them from individuals, organizations, interest groups...etc.

I also suspect it's a big reason why it's almost impossible to find a new in store Match and super match the last year. I think someone, somewhere is buying them up and sending them over.

Either way..the M1As I've seen the Ukes using WERE NOT old issue hand me downs

I loved seeing the old war dog doing what it's supposed to do...kill Russians!

 

[buck460XVR]

Yeah, it's a completely bulletproof system except that a felon has to go through the complicated process of having his wife, girlfriend, brother, sister, father, mother, cousin, coworker, fellow gang member, friend, acquaintance or literally anyone without a record buy a gun for them.

Background checks do nothing but make yiu feel good. If there's someone out there bent on killing they need to be under some kind of supervision. They don't need to be walking free to kill, and with a single feel good measure one particular type of weapon.

Buying a gun for a prohibited person is an illegal purchase as is lying on the 4473. Both can be felonies and punishable by 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. Even tho the chances are small, I personally know of very few people willing to risk that, along with the loss of other privileges by becoming a felon. I have seen twice in a LGS where a purchase was denied by the seller, because the seller suspected the purchaser was buying the gun for the man looking over the shoulder of his wife/girlfriend. Once, I heard the clerk inform the wife/girlfriend what a straw purchase was and the buyer then walked away from the transaction.

One could say any law/regulation does nothing by make yiu(whoever that is) feel good. Speed limits are a prime example. Most everyone and their brother does not drive the legal speed all the time, basically because the chances of getting caught are about the same as lying on a 4473. Yet some get caught and the overall speed on the road is reduced and the danger is less. People commit crimes all the time with the idea that THEY are not going to get caught. Don't mean we shouldn't have any laws or regs. Means we need to keep them enforceable.....but none will ever be 100%.

All very true, and I can add too, criminals still steal guns, and the black market does what the black market has always done...supply something somebody wants...if they are willing to pay for it. BGC do NOTHING to change any if that...

But then..we already know this..and also know it's not really about public safety.

I'll admit that UBCs are not going to stop anyone from stealing guns, nor is it going to stop the illegal sale of guns completely. But they do stop some from procuring firearms that are prohibited. They do make so some FFLs stay honest. Whether or not, those numbers are worth the time and effort to go thru a UBC is what is debatable. As I said, I have be doing BCs since they were required, not only for guns, but for many other things too. Never has it been a deterrent, other than a few minutes of my time. In the case of employment and coaching/reffing/teaching, the cost was picked up by those requiring the check. With the guns, most of the time, it was just included with the cost of then gun and so minimal, it too, was moot. If UBCs for guns are not for public safety, then what are those required for me to teach/ref/work around kids then?

So many folks on these types of forums have two issues with UBCs. First, they think that if enacted, we are giving the anti's an "inch". IMHO, the amount given up, because of what the Federal and State laws are already about BCs and firearm purchases, does not add up to any measurable loss of any freedom. Especially if FTF sales are not included. The other issue folks have is because they think it's a backroom "registration" process and now they are on a list. So what? As long as we have the 2nd Amendment, that imaginary list is moot too. If we lose the 2nd, I guarantee you, ain't nobody gonna look at a "could be" list when they go door to door.

 

[wayneinFL]

Buying a gun for a prohibited person is an illegal purchase as is lying on the 4473. Both can be felonies and punishable by 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine.

...

I have seen twice in a LGS where a purchase was denied by the seller, because the seller suspected the purchaser was buying the gun for the man looking over the shoulder of his wife/girlfriend. Once, I heard the clerk inform the wife/girlfriend what a straw purchase was and the buyer then walked away from the transaction.

....

Means we need to keep them enforceable.....but none will ever be 100%.

There was a guy who killed a cop in MN a few years back. The girlfriend who bought him the gun got 1 year probation.

I've seen twice a dealer stopped a straw sale. One was a man buying his brother from out of state a gun to shoot with him while on vacation. Good thing that didn't happen.

I saw a dealer stop a girlfriend buying a gun for her boyfriend. What do you think happened when they left that shop? Betcha a dollar they went to one of the other 3 shops within 5 minutes of the shop I was in, and the boyfriend sat in the car while she bought the gun.

My problem is not that the law isn't 100% effective. It's that it's maybe 5% effective (0% for anyone who really wants a gun), except at getting dealers and other honest people in trouble.

Somehow we went over 200 years in this country without background checks, almost 200 where you just buy it through the mail, and didn't have these problems.

You don't set a dangerous person loose on the public on some kind of pinky swear that he won't get a gun, and that he'll only kill people with knives, blunt objects, illegal guns, or his feet and hands. It's absurd to me that this is something we're doing. Put the guy in a prison or loony ward until he's safe.

 

[Megawatt maker]

Buying a gun for a prohibited person is an illegal purchase as is lying on the 4473. Both can be felonies and punishable by 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. Even tho the chances are small, I personally know of very few people willing to risk that, along with the loss of other privileges by becoming a felon. I have seen twice in a LGS where a purchase was denied by the seller, because the seller suspected the purchaser was buying the gun for the man looking over the shoulder of his wife/girlfriend. Once, I heard the clerk inform the wife/girlfriend what a straw purchase was and the buyer then walked away from the transaction.

One could say any law/regulation does nothing by make yiu(whoever that is) feel good. Speed limits are a prime example. Most everyone and their brother does not drive the legal speed all the time, basically because the chances of getting caught are about the same as lying on a 4473. Yet some get caught and the overall speed on the road is reduced and the danger is less. People commit crimes all the time with the idea that THEY are not going to get caught. Don't mean we shouldn't have any laws or regs. Means we need to keep them enforceable.....but none will ever be 100%.



I'll admit that UBCs are not going to stop anyone from stealing guns, nor is it going to stop the illegal sale of guns completely. But they do stop some from procuring firearms that are prohibited. They do make so some FFLs stay honest. Whether or not, those numbers are worth the time and effort to go thru a UBC is what is debatable. As I said, I have be doing BCs since they were required, not only for guns, but for many other things too. Never has it been a deterrent, other than a few minutes of my time. In the case of employment and coaching/reffing/teaching, the cost was picked up by those requiring the check. With the guns, most of the time, it was just included with the cost of then gun and so minimal, it too, was moot. If UBCs for guns are not for public safety, then what are those required for me to teach/ref/work around kids then?

So many folks on these types of forums have two issues with UBCs. First, they think that if enacted, we are giving the anti's an "inch". IMHO, the amount given up, because of what the Federal and State laws are already about BCs and firearm purchases, does not add up to any measurable loss of any freedom. Especially if FTF sales are not included. The other issue folks have is because they think it's a backroom "registration" process and now they are on a list. So what? As long as we have the 2nd Amendment, that imaginary list is moot too. If we lose the 2nd, I guarantee you, ain't nobody gonna look at a "could be" list when they go door to door.

You have a lot of trust in the Demoratic party if you think they read the 2nd Amendment the way it should be read.

They don't. They true and fully believe it DOESNT give the right to keep and bare arms to the people. They think it gives the states the right...so they can form their own militias. On the other side of the mouth, seldom in the same conversation, they also say the National Guard is now the State Militia...so the people still have no right to keep arms.
Then there are real dim light bulbs that see "well regulated" and they twist that up to mean that it gives the government the right to regulate arms as it see fit...it's nuts.
You think the 2nd will stop them from doing anything? They don't respect it. They don't even acknowledge its real meaning. They only respect the rest of the Constitution only when it's in their favor.

I'm sorry, but sir, with the greatest respect here...you are FLAT OUT WRONG!

BGC checks for working with children are a different thing entirely. Those make perfect sense, because they ACTUALLY protect people.

Apples and oranges sir.

 

[wayneinFL]

Honest to God, I think the real test before they send someone on parole or release him from a mental institution is ask yourself, "Would I hand him a gun?" If you can't trust him not to kill people, don't let him out.

I didn't even address stealing. If I ever go to prison, all I have to do when I get out is go to the first brodozer pickup truck with a Punisher sticker that I see in the mall parking lot, and grab the gun out of the console. Way cheaper than the gun shop.

 

[Poper]

And that's assuming the government agency doing the checking is fair and honest.

And therein lies the rub.
In this day and age, after all the corruption that has reared its ugly head (think George Papadopoulas persecution, Russian collusion hoax, Hunter Biden Laptop, J-6, etc.) can you really trust any government bureaucracy?
Please understand, a government bureaucracy is a self perpetuating entity who's only allegiance is to itself.

 

[Appalachiannative]

We had background checks in FL in the 80s, before the Brady Law applied a similar system federally.

As a kid, I thought this was a great idea. When I was working at Kmart in the 80s, a customer was complaining about the background checks. I told him why I thought it was a great idea. He said, "If I couldn't buy a gun, why wouldn't I just have my girlfriend buy it for me?".

Yeah, it's a completely bulletproof system except that a felon has to go through the complicated process of having his wife, girlfriend, brother, sister, father, mother, cousin, coworker, fellow gang member, friend, acquaintance or literally anyone without a record buy a gun for them.

I've known several prohibited persons and they all had guns if they wanted them, and this is how they got them.

One was an old man with a business, and his house paid off who got caught with too much weed in the 70s. His brother bought him a gun, so he could protect his family.

One was a guy who got punched by his 19 year old step son, wrestled him to the ground, and held him down until the police got there. Misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. He won't get a gun, because he's scared to break the law- that's who the background check system is protecting you from- the guy who doesn't want to break the law.

Background checks do nothing but make yiu feel good. If there's someone out there bent on killing they need to be under some kind of supervision. They don't need to be walking free to kill, and with a single feel good measure one particular type of weapon.

I can't see how anyone sees any value in that process.

I know what you mean. When I was a teenager I dated a girl who's parents had both done time in prison first time I met them her step dad was showing off his new Glock to me

 

[Hugger-4641]

I know what you mean. When I was a teenager I dated a girl who's parents had both done time in prison first time I met them her step dad was showing off his new Glock to me

That was probably thinly veiled threat about your treatment of thier daughter. Lol.
I always made sure I was cleaning a gun or practicing when one of my daughters brought a boyfriend around.

 

[Megawatt maker]

That was probably thinly veiled threat about your treatment of thier daughter. Lol.
I always made sure I was cleaning a gun or practicing when one of my daughters brought a boyfriend around.

When I met my daughters first date, O had him sit down at the table and told him he couldn't date my daughter unless he could field strip an AK blindfolded. The kid actually did it.

He was a farm boy...raised right. I found out later too...my daughter warned him I might pull something along those lines. He gave it right back to me.

I was bummed when they broke up...I liked him.

 

[CoalTrain49]

So many folks on these types of forums have two issues with UBCs. First, they think that if enacted, we are giving the anti's an "inch". IMHO, the amount given up, because of what the Federal and State laws are already about BCs and firearm purchases, does not add up to any measurable loss of any freedom. Especially if FTF sales are not included. The other issue folks have is because they think it's a backroom "registration" process and now they are on a list. So what? As long as we have the 2nd Amendment, that imaginary list is moot too. If we lose the 2nd, I guarantee you, ain't nobody gonna look at a "could be" list when they go door to door.

We've had a UBC here for awhile. Any transfer has to be done by a dealer. The prices of transfers went up to $50 for most dealers in my area.

All a UBC will do is drive up the cost of buying a firearm. Some states already have a form that looks like a 4473 that gets filled out and goes into a state database. I know OR and WA both do that. Your purchase is now registered and available to any federal LE agency. If you live in a POC state that is likely the case. States are not bound by federal law regarding registration. They capture that info for LE.

file:///C:/Users/james/Downloads/nics-participation-map-august-2021%20(1).pdf

So the reality is the registration already exists for most of us. It won't be the feds kicking in the doors anyway. They don't have the resources. It will be the state and local police. Mostly the state and local police don't do the feds work.

 

[CapnMac]

but it definitely isn't true in the vast majority of the country.

Sadly that's more true of land area than of head count.
A rather disproportionate number of US voters (close to 50%) are concentrated in just 32 super-dense urban Counties in the US.

 

[AlexanderA]

Honest to God, I think the real test before they send someone on parole or release him from a mental institution is ask yourself, "Would I hand him a gun?" If you can't trust him not to kill people, don't let him out.

I see this sentiment a lot on gun boards. But the fact is, there is not enough prison space to incarcerate everyone who should be incarcerated. And the public doesn't want to appropriate the money to build more prisons. So, many prisoners have to be released early, or provided alternatives to incarceration. That doesn't mean that we should willy-nilly restore all of their rights.

 

[AlexanderA]

A rather disproportionate number of US voters (close to 50%) are concentrated in just 32 super-dense urban Counties in the US.

That doesn't mean that all residents of urban areas are dyed-in-the-wool gun banners. If you take the pro-gun voters living in metropolitan areas, and add them to the number living in the rest of the country, they form the large majority.

 

[I6turbo]

How is that war on drugs doing??

After a 40-year "War on Drugs" with practically unlimited resources:

• They can't keep drugs off the street.
  
• They can't keep drugs out of Elementary schools.
  
• They can't even keep drugs out of FEDERAL PRISONS.

But the same people who've been running that clown show want us to agree to disarm ourselves and trust them to get and keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Is there even a scale to measure the stupidity that would be required to believe that plan is going to work?

Or for that matter, is there even a scale to measure the stupidity that would be required to believe that the people who are proposing that plan actually believe it will take guns out of criminal hands? (HINT: reducing crime or making people safer is NOT the purpose of these proposals.)

 

[Megawatt maker]

I'll add another truth to this....

I'm not going to comply with anything these people tell me, because, after all, they have no moral right to tell me to do anything after THEY are the ones who gave the Taliban 80 BILLION dollars worth of weapons we US civilians can never even buy for ourselves.

After that fiasco...they can go to hell.

I will not comply.

 

[wayneinFL]

I see this sentiment a lot on gun boards. But the fact is, there is not enough prison space to incarcerate everyone who should be incarcerated. And the public doesn't want to appropriate the money to build more prisons. So, many prisoners have to be released early, or provided alternatives to incarceration. That doesn't mean that we should willy-nilly restore all of their rights.

Going to sound crazy here, but you could open up the asylums that Kennedy and Reagan let people out of. Rehabilitate people in prisons. Stop locking up drug offenders. About a fifth of the people locked up are in pre-trial detention- you could try them faster.

Then there's room to lock up the dangerous ones.

This all worked up until the 60s and 70s. Lock up the mental cases, and sell guns mail order. All of a sudden we needed to lock more and more people up, as crime continued to go through the roof.

I blame TV.

 

[buck460XVR]

We've had a UBC here for awhile. Any transfer has to be done by a dealer. The prices of transfers went up to $50 for most dealers in my area.

All a UBC will do is drive up the cost of buying a firearm. Some states already have a form that looks like a 4473 that gets filled out and goes into a state database. I know OR and WA both do that. Your purchase is now registered and available to any federal LE agency. If you live in a POC state that is likely the case. States are not bound by federal law regarding registration. They capture that info for LE.

Wisconsin is a POC state for handguns. Long guns they still use the Federal data base. Just bought a new 1911 a week ago from my LGS. Price was the same as the best price I could find on Gunbroker. No transfer fee, no shipping fee, no CC fee and no BC fee. Turned out cheaper by at least $80 than buying online. If local FFLs are charging $50 just for the UBC, then they are gouging you.

At one time most anyone that liked guns around here had an FFL. You sent in an application with $25 and you were now an FFL. Then the regs changed and most of those kitchen table FFLs disappeared. If it becomes easier for folks to become an FFL, those transfers over the kitchen table will probably be cheaper than $50. Still....what does $50 get you anymore? 1 box of ammo that used to be $9.99?

 

[CoalTrain49]

That doesn't mean that all residents of urban areas are dyed-in-the-wool gun banners. If you take the pro-gun voters living in metropolitan areas, and add them to the number living in the rest of the country, they form the large majority.

Maybe in the US but when you break it down to the state level it's different. It's not the federal laws that are jamming people up anyway. Most of the gun regulation is coming from the state legislatures in states with large metro populations. Makes no difference if you have lots of pro gun folks in fly over country, the state where you actually live is what matters.

Not everyone who lives in a metro area are gun banners, that's true. I used to live in Seattle. I've had a concealed carry permit for 30 years and carried in Seattle. The fact that I've never voted for anyone who is AG hasn't stopped the gun and mag restrictions.

 

[wayneinFL]

Wisconsin is a POC state for handguns. Long guns they still use the Federal data base. Just bought a new 1911 a week ago from my LGS. Price was the same as the best price I could find on Gunbroker. No transfer fee, no shipping fee, no CC fee and no BC fee. Turned out cheaper by at least $80 than buying online. If local FFLs are charging $50 just for the UBC, then they are gouging you.

At one time most anyone that liked guns around here had an FFL. You sent in an application with $25 and you were now an FFL. Then the regs changed and most of those kitchen table FFLs disappeared. If it becomes easier for folks to become an FFL, those transfers over the kitchen table will probably be cheaper than $50. Still....what does $50 get you anymore? 1 box of ammo that used to be $9.99?

I met someone halfway in a Burger King parking lot 20 miles away to swap a CZ52 for a 742 Remington. We both had guns before the trade and we both had guns after the trade. What is the $100 of transfer fees supposed to accomplish? It accomplishes we're out $50 each and have to take off work to make the trade during business hours, and take off work again 3 days later if he doesn't have a CCW.

And what would happen if we had UBC here and we broke the law? Nothing. Even if a cop walked up and saw us do it, there's no registration to prove who the guns belong to.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Wisconsin is a POC state for handguns. Long guns they still use the Federal data base. Just bought a new 1911 a week ago from my LGS. Price was the same as the best price I could find on Gunbroker. No transfer fee, no shipping fee, no CC fee and no BC fee. Turned out cheaper by at least $80 than buying online. If local FFLs are charging $50 just for the UBC, then they are gouging you.

At one time most anyone that liked guns around here had an FFL. You sent in an application with $25 and you were now an FFL. Then the regs changed and most of those kitchen table FFLs disappeared. If it becomes easier for folks to become an FFL, those transfers over the kitchen table will probably be cheaper than $50. Still....what does $50 get you anymore? 1 box of ammo that used to be $9.99?

I just pay the gougers and move on. It only happens with firearms I buy online anyway. If I bought from a brick and mortar store the cost is hidden in the retail price which works out to be about the same as buying online and having a dealer transfer it here. I just purchased on GB last summer and once I paid everyone it was about 20% more than the gavel price.

No big deal. My barber even raised his prices about 25%. I'm used to it. As they say, you have to pay to play.

 

[GEM]

Said this before, the real challenge is on the state levels as the ambiguity of Bruen as led to an effective counterattack: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/D...with-wave-of-blue-state-bruen-response-bills/

Despite the Clarence love - he was out thought on Bruen and Scotus is slow to respond (if they ever do - that remains to be seen). Specifically, the opt in and sensitive locales destroys all useful carry. Unless, Scotus specifically speaks to that (not another rule about some doofus in 1791), we are screwed. Same with AWBs.

The Democrats support gun rights in a weak statement that Uncle Dick can have a bolt gun in his deer blind or an O/U to shoot down Daffy and Donald Duck. Gov. Hochul said on the tube last night that she supports the 2nd Amendment while banning all useful carry. Wife told me - enough, I've heard it. Watch the news, I want to hear the weather - LOL. She agrees with me though.

The GOP is useless on the legislative level Federally, even if they had majorities, their history is that they don't act - as they want to keep gun bans hot for SEND A CHECK.