Changed my mind on universal background checks

[Texan Scott]

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

Also HERE on THR: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=702992&p=8739561

This is a link to a Justice memo published 04 Jan 2013. It's only 9 pages long. It's intended to be a short summary of findings and policy recommendations. The real agenda outlined is shockingly plain and frightening in the extreme. These people ADMIT ubc will require full registration, and that registration will facilitate confiscation. They ADVISE that gun control will only work on a much larger and more restrictive scale than being publicly discussed.

This is not conspiracy theory tin hattery. This is a government document given to President Obama by the NIJ less than 6 weeks ago, and it is VERY PLAIN in its meaning.

This administration WANTS YOUR GUNS. Any statements to the contrary, any soft words about reasonable compromises that respect your rights, are UTTER BS LIES.

Don't take my word for it, but don't dismiss this as hyperbole or "tin hat" craziness until you READ THE NIJ MEMO.

 

[F-111 John]

First and foremost, this is not a Federal question. This is a state question. If a state wants to register guns, they can (and do with handguns in my state of Michigan.)

If a state wants to require that an individual first obtain a Firearm Owners ID Card, they can (and several states do.)

A transaction between two individuals within a particular state should not be of any concern to the Federal Government because it does not involve interstate commerce (but I know the Commerce Clause has been stretched to ridiculous extremes, with the blessing of the Supremes.)

The most that the Federal Government should be able to do is to tie Federal funding to a state having an FOID program.

 

[JohnKSa]

...should be able to do...

So, is your plan, when confronted by a bad guy to tell him that hurting or killing you is beyond what he "should be able to do"?

You would be right, but there are other, far more practical and effective options you could take.

 

[Ryanxia]

Sorry, but Sandy Hook was from a creep that stole his mother's lawfully acquired guns. How would UBC have prevented that mass shooting?

This.

Even if you somehow found a way to make 100% of legal purchases go through background checks the criminals will just steal them. Not to mention wasn't the crazy guy at the Aurora theater shooting able to pass a background check?

YOU CAN'T OUTLAW EVIL. "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." -Wayne Lapierre (sp)

 

[jamesbeat]

Allowing universal background checks will lead to registration laws because without them, as you point out, it's nearly impossible to prove that an illegal transaction took place.

The anti-gunners will not let that state of affairs continue long. They will (correctly) point out that the universal background check law is unenforceable and push for registration to make the UBC law workable.

^ This

 

[meanmrmustard]

This.

Even if you somehow found a way to make 100% of legal purchases go through background checks the criminals will just steal them. Not to mention wasn't the crazy guy at the Aurora theater shooting able to pass a background check?

YOU CAN'T OUTLAW EVIL. "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." -Wayne Lapierre (sp)

Winner, winner...chicken dinner.

It's a proposal that puts the whole "keeping guns from crazies" thing our problem, not the people proposing the law.

 

[texgunner]

IMO............worthless.......enforce the thousands of laws that are on the books already.........we don't need any new ones.

That's what I've always thought too.

 

[303tom]

Criminals don`t go to Wal-Mart & buy guns................

 

[shafter]

Absolutely not!!! Haven't we yielded enough already?

 

[Ignition Override]

No way. We should not appease the dictators.
What would supporters of the Second Amendment expect to get in return? We could expect 'them' to later honor such conditions that we 'request'?

An irresponsible govt. regime which allows hundreds of guns (even if it were only two dozen) to be
smuggled into Mexico, to pursue various 'agendas'-without notifying any Mex. agencies- is considered honorable?

At least one major agency "allegedly" committed at least two or three felonies, and racketeering (RICO) is probably just one of them.
Such a regime which is far above the law, and Rules in a random, very arbitrary manner (also redacting/blacking out its documents for testimony) should be given more information and control over our lives?

Let's not forgot one arbitrary ATF rule governing just a single type of sporting rifle.
Even a Norinco SKS imported with a spike bayonet should not have the bayo removed...and a bayo can't be added to those which came in without them.

 

[CBT_ENG]

If I sell to a buyer without using an FFL I have the buyer complete a Bill of Sale with a statement on it that they verify they are legally permitted to purchase the firearm and I verify their driver's license.

Why bother. A criminal can't lie?

Like I said UBC's aren't going to keep criminals from getting a gun. All I am trying to say it would be nice to know I would not be selling to a KNOWN felon.

 

[skeeziks]

Quote: "All I am trying to say it would be nice to know I would not be selling to a KNOWN felon."

Then complete your sale by way of a FFL transfer! Why is that so hard to comprehend?

 

[CBT_ENG]

Quote: "All I am trying to say it would be nice to know I would not be selling to a KNOWN felon."

Then complete your sale by way of a FFL transfer! Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Comprehension is not a problem. I thought this was a discussion. I put that out there for argument sake because that would be one reason a UBC could be used and keep private sales private.

 

[skeeziks]

But you've been given a solution to your problem without having to give up your rights.
Do you not see that Obama and his clan of Czars are just lying to you to get what they really want?

 

[Vector]

I've changed my mind on universal background checks and now think we should push for them without registration and the requirement that all background check information be destroyed after 24 hours except that a background check was run for the individual selling/gifting/transferring a gun or guns with no information kept on the buyer or recipient or the gun or guns transferred. One background check for any number of guns no requirement to specify gun or guns transferred.

Then a person could legally decide to gift/sell one gun and effectively all their guns would legally be off paper, no way to know if they all were sold or gifted in one transaction or not.

Got any guns? Hmmmm, did I sell or gift them all from that one recorded transfer I made in the government database to that now anonymous person who passed the background check? I hope I remember, let me think. I know we would all answer honestly and support such a system.

The irony in your premise is that someone, presumably a government entity knows to come to you to make such an inquiry. That is exactly the fear many of us have with a federal background check. We believe it would be used to create a registry of gun owners, thereby identifying who owns guns. Then it would be a much easier to send out notices demanding a gun/mag/ammo turn in. If the people failed to comply, they could have their guns confiscated, and even be hauled off to jail and charged with a crime.

Federal Background Check = Registration
Registration = Identification
Identification = Confiscation


`

 

[CBT_ENG]

But you've been given a solution to your problem without having to give up your rights.
Do you not see that Obama and his clan of Czars are just lying to you to get what they really want?

I guess with that reasoning I give up my rights each time I buy a firearm through a dealer. Why aren't we fighting to do away with the instant checks that are in place now?

 

[skeeziks]

Quote: "I put that out there for argument sake because that would be one reason a UBC could be used and keep private sales private."

Yeah...and there are other "Reasons" a UBC could be used.

You don't need a BC to make yourself feel good about the sale.
One Last Time: Background Checks DON'T WORK !!!

 

[Alaska444]

I guess with that reasoning I give up my rights each time I buy a firearm through a dealer. Why aren't we fighting to do away with the instant checks that are in place now?

According to the statistics, they don't do a whole lot of good right now, so many think that is a good idea as well. However reality sets in that the anti's will never step backwards. That is why it is so important to hold fast what we have.

It is a dream to think we can turn the tides of change back to our not so distant past. Shucks, when I was nine years old, I bought hand gun ammo for my dad's .38. When I was 16, I walked into the Kittery Trading Post and bought a single shot 12 ga shotgun. Yes, I would very much like to have the freedoms I had as a kid but that is no longer the reality quite sadly.

 

[22-rimfire]

UBCs will not prevent straw purchases or criminals from getting guns. It will however put an impediment to the lawful sale and transfer of firearms by lawful citizens. The only way to make UBCs more effective is through registration where the actual gun is tracked from transfer to transfer. But there will still be unlawful transfers.

Then there is the cost element.... common sense would dictate that UBC would be done by FFL dealers. They must be paid for their time and as a result, they will charge for the service which in itself is an impediment to the transfer of firearms.

 

[PCCUSNRET]

Why bother. A criminal can't lie?

Like I said UBC's aren't going to keep criminals from getting a gun. All I am trying to say it would be nice to know I would not be selling to a KNOWN felon.

I agree, it would be nice but it shouldn't be a required by the government.

What if you sold a car to an alcoholic and the next day he got drunk and ran this car into a school bus full of kids. Are you saying you are somewhat responsible for this accident because you sold your car to someone that didn't tell you he was an alcoholic when he purchased the car?

 

[Blakenzy]

No more restrictions on RKBA. Why do we HAVE to accept more restrictions? School shootings did not occur when gun laws were more lax and even full autos could be bought in hardware stores. Restrictions and prohibition of gun ownership is an end in and of itself. It is not about preventing crime or violence, because GUNS DO NOT CAUSE CRIME OR VIOLENCE, it is about ending ownership of effective weapons for the common man. It is a governmental powergrab, a political move necessary for the establishment of an authoritarian regime.

NO COMPROMISE.

 

[joeschmoe]

Show me where in the Constitution Congress has the power to regulate private actions? If Congress could do this then there is no limit to their power to limit private actions. No they can't. Read USA v Lopez which rejected such an attempt by Congress.

 

[razorback2003]

I respect your opinion but the only way to do background checks is through an FFL and to pay an FFL.

Criminals generally steal guns.

Background checks unfortunately have not stopped any of these shooting sprees, whether because the criminal passed the background check or the criminal killed the gun owner to steal the guns.

NFA of 1934 with the tax stamps for machine guns was supposed to fix crime. Mail order sales banned in 1968 was supposed to fix crime. Machine gun ban 1986 again fix crime along with the Brady Act in 1994 with these instant background checks. NONE have worked and NONE will work. Stop compromising on their terms or you will lose what rights we have left.

 

[Deanimator]

The truth is that you work the percentages, and make a massacre less likely.

Instituting a Soviet style system of internal passports and mandatory tying people's residences to their place of employment won't eliminate serial killers... but it'll make it VASTLY harder for them to operate without being discovered.

So, how about it? Will you support THAT proposal?

 

[beatledog7]

Catching, trying, and convicting violent criminals and keeping them locked away is the answer to keeping violent criminals from getting guns. That keeps the criminals away from where the guns are but does not infringe on the law-abiding. Further, it ends the practice of presuming anyone who would want to own a gun will someday commit a crime, so he must not be allowed unfettered access to guns.

I cannot understand why this concept is so hard for people to get.