Could we ever pass a law making mandatory background checks private sales illegal?

[AlexanderA]

Blackshirt wrote:

If you get an FFL you could not be mobile. It must be a single location approved by the BATFE.

That's mostly correct, except that FFL's can transact business at established gun shows, in addition to their fixed place of business. An FFL will not be issued for sales only at gun shows. Working out of a van is definitely out.

 

[Midwest]

Gun owners in Washington State got the law they deserve.

Washington State has a population of 6.6 million with approximately 33% owning guns. Of the 3.9 million registered voters about 2 million (51%) people voted. Initative 594 passed by 300,000 votes.

As harsh as it sounds there were a heck of a lot gun owners whose vote would have easily defeated 594 if they had bothered to vote.

I agree with you.

And shame on Colorado gun owners for not throwing out Hickenlooper. What kind of message did we send to the anti-gunners by allowing I-594 to pass and Hickenlooper to be reelected? In the scheme of things for 2A, the recent Republican wins in the Senate means very little right now in light of these two glaring examples.
.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Why would you want to make background checks for private sales illegal?

 

[Smatek1001]

Mandatory background checks leave a record of the transaction with the state. Over time, this builds a more and more complete list of who has what gun, IOW a defacto registry. The objection is the same as the objection to a registry, registration leads to confisgation.

 

[goon]

Why can't we just pass a law allowing a private person (you) to run a background check on another private person (me) when one sells a gun to another?

No universal FFL background check is necessary, nor is any further government interaction. I'd gladly run a check on someone before I sell them a gun. Allowing us to do that ourselves would solve the problem.

 

[steelerdude99]

...
Washington State has a population of 6.6 million with approximately 33% owning guns. Of the 3.9 million registered voters about 2 million (51%) people voted. Initiative 594 passed by 300,000 votes.

As harsh as it sounds there were a heck of a lot gun owners whose vote would have easily defeated 594 if they had bothered to vote.

This statement may seem contradictory: Not all gun owners favor “gun rights”. Back in the 2013 push for universal background checks, my local paper ran a multi-day series on gun owners…. One of the featured gun-owners, who seemed to be a first-time purchaser and NY transplant, was unpleasantly surprised how easy it was to buy a gun in VA now that he was a resident. Yes, you read it correctly; he wanted it to be harder for himself and others to buy a gun. More recently, there was the case of Anti-Second Amendment female Lawmaker protesting in Missouri arrested with a gun and it seemed she had a permit. There was another case where an "anti-gun person" was found to be armed at a school claiming to have forgot he had his gun. I don't seem to have right search terms to find an article mentioning it to list the specifics.

Bottom, line and as strange as it may seem, being a gun-owner does NOT automatically translate to a pro-gun vote.

chuck

 

[TanklessPro]

Yes. They could pass any law with support, me t question.

 

[Agsalaska]

No. It would never pass and even if it did I doubt the courts would uphold it.

 

[B!ngoFuelUSN]

Mandatory background checks leave a record of the transaction with the state. Over time, this builds a more and more complete list of who has what gun, IOW a defacto registry. The objection is the same as the objection to a registry, registration leads to confiscation.

Every time I hear this argument, I worry that the greater concern is not acknowledged or appreciated which is, what are they checking? Providing the facility for background checking yields a single choke point for adding ever-restrictive criteria for ownership. Have a moving violation? Disapproved. Take some mild anti-depressant? Disapproved. Are you a registered Independent? Disapproved.
In the era of 'big data' where every bit of behavior, status and history is or will be instantly accessible and modeled, the definition of 'background' becomes a minefield. It is this, far more than, 'they'll know who we are' which is the frightening part. And it's not that they can't do it today already, but a background check becomes an automated triggering event for such privacy violations and civil rights restrictions.

B