House Fires First Shot, So to Speak, on Universal Background Checks

[Speedo66]

The house of representatives announced a pending bill for universal background checks. It will include all transfers by private parties, with the exception of close relatives, transfers between LEO's, and official military.
All other transfers must be performed by FFL's.

The article mentions temporary transfers while hunting, but didn't mention while target shooting. Hopefully, that was just an omission by the article, not the bill.

According to this article it is expected to pass the now Democratic controlled house, but may be a tougher sell in the Republican controlled Senate. The article goes on to comment that they intend to take one step at a time, (chipping away?) by not including "assault" weapons or "high capacity" magazines. If this passes, guess what comes next? Also, guess what state the sponsor comes from?

Here's the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/house-Democrats-gun-control.html

 

[badkarmamib]

Now would be the great time to bargain for National Reciprocity or Constitutional Carry, in exchange for this. IF, and a big IF, they leave registration out. If you pass the UBC, then you should be able to carry anywhere. The problem lies with, how can they know the law is being followed?

P.S. This just seems like a fair compromise. For what is worth, I would rather go for HPA in trade, but I am certain the other side wouldn't begin to consider that as "fair". But, in order for dialogue, there needs to be give and take, on both sides. Neither side budging, or one side doing all of the taking, is not "compromise".

 

[Texas10mm]

Now would be the great time to bargain for National Reciprocity or Constitutional Carry, in exchange for this. IF, and a big IF, they leave registration out. If you pass the UBC, then you should be able to carry anywhere. The problem lies with, how can they know the law is being followed?

P.S. This just seems like a fair compromise. For what is worth, I would rather go for HPA in trade, but I am certain the other side wouldn't begin to consider that as "fair". But, in order for dialogue, there needs to be give and take, on both sides. Neither side budging, or one side doing all of the taking, is not "compromise".

NO!

Not one inch. Give nothing. Take everything.

 

[badkarmamib]

That would be nice, but that is not how it will go. For the record, I believe the NFA and GCA to be unconstitutional. Hey, cannons were owned by private citizens during the Revolutionary War. But, as long as both sides are digging in their heels, and covering their ears, there will be no dialogue. How well has this attitude worked for us over the last 100 years? Which side has been winning over the last 20 years of "not one more inch"?

 

[jmorris]

NO!

Not one inch. Give nothing. Take everything.

I still can’t believe POTUS threw us under the bus on bumpstocks and got nothing for it.

The answer to “what comes next?” Is easy, more of the same until everything is out of civilian hands.

No more machine guns then bump stocks make them machineguns only a matter of time before they figure out it doesn’t take sliding hunk of plastic to get them to fire like that so that’s the end of semiautos. Then it’s time to shift focus to “sniper rifles” aka bolt action rifles....

 

[dodo bird]

That would be nice, but that is not how it will go. For the record, I believe the NFA and GCA to be unconstitutional. Hey, cannons were owned by private citizens during the Revolutionary War. But, as long as both sides are digging in their heels, and covering their ears, there will be no dialogue. How well has this attitude worked for us over the last 100 years? Which side has been winning over the last 20 years of "not one more inch"?

Cannons are still for sale. Looks like fun, and expensive.




https://www.dixiegunworks.com/index...War+Field+Cannon+Barrel+-+full+scale?view_all

 

[badkarmamib]

Cannons are still for sale. Looks like fun, and expensive.

It does. If I had the room, I would be interested. My main point being, civilians had unrestricted access to the most powerful arms of the day. Which helped when America required the assistance of the "militia", i.e. the civilians who were armed and ready.

 

[ontarget]

The problem with any compromise is that the left, and I don't mean the rank and file Dems. I mean the leftists, will never stop until they compromise the 2a right out of the Bill Of Rights. To them compromise is equal to eradication. How do we work with that in a constructive way? They have a 100 percent plan their way and so should we.

 

[badkarmamib]

The problem with any compromise is that the left, and I don't mean the rank and file Dems. I mean the leftists, will never stop until they compromise the 2a right out of the Bill Of Rights. To them compromise is equal to eradication. How do we work with that in a constructive way? They have a 100 percent plan their way and so should we.

I believe that Step One is be willing to talk. Not to be trampled, but to talk. See their point of view. Not necessarily agree with, but see. But be firm in our resolve not to have our rights taken away without compensation. When we gain momentum, then WE can start the dialogue for the next step.

 

[ontarget]

I believe that Step One is be willing to talk. Not to be trampled, but to talk. See their point of view. Not necessarily agree with, but see. But be firm in our resolve not to have our rights taken away without compensation. When we gain momentum, then WE can start the dialogue for the next step.

See right here is the problem. Our rights can not be COMPENSATED. Basically that's like saying we should trade the Freedom of Religion away if they let us keep our plastic drinking straws. No just No. We can not be compensated for our God given rights.

 

[Texas10mm]

I believe that Step One is be willing to talk. Not to be trampled, but to talk. See their point of view. Not necessarily agree with, but see. But be firm in our resolve not to have our rights taken away without compensation. When we gain momentum, then WE can start the dialogue for the next step.

You have to be willfully ignorant to not know what their point of view is. I'll sum it up. NO GUNS.

What compensation are you willing to accept for the loss of your Rights? How about $100 for the loss of freedom of speech? $50 for your Fourth Amendment Rights?

To the Left compromise means that they chip away your Rights little by little instead of all at once.

 

[badkarmamib]

To the Left compromise means that they chip away your Rights little by little instead of all at once.

I agree with you. I don't want to see it. What do you think we should do about it? I am honestly asking what your thoughts are on what will actually work. Our viewpoint is rapidly becoming the political minority. How are we supposed to keep our freedom un-infringed when the majority wants to take everything? Is yelling "NO MORE!" going to work in the long term? I truly wish it would, I truly don't believe it will, and I truly want to learn, understand, and benefit from dialogue, including from others on our side. I know that the "easiest" course of action would be to insure that we elect officials that agree with our stance, but, as we have seen, that is not "easy". Again, I am NOT trying to be argumentative, I am trying to learn new ways as to how to keep our freedom, because the old ways are failing us.

 

[shoobe01]

Almost all of us will stipulate that there should be some access control: crazy folks, certain ex-criminals, known terrorists, and others (to be debated: e.g. foreigners generally or not?) should not have access.

Okay then. Just passing a law saying you aren't allowed does — as we well know — nothing. So, it needs an enforcement scheme.

That would seem to be a loophole-free Check For Eligibility To Possess Firearms. Or, a background check. Even if we leave out "gun shows!" and "the internet!" as scary new threats (ugh) the face-to-face in-state exception has long been a loophole indeed.

(Exceptions seem logical also: trusted individuals, and those under your direct control while they use the firearm).

So, if we believe that some should not have firearms, what is really wrong with the current NICS check expanded to everyone?


And try not to say "don't give an inch." I mean, even in the dreamy dreams I can have of removing all firearms laws and starting over, I don't just go wild west, and consider there would have to be an access control method, and probably a bit more (e.g. liability for failure to secure or legally transfer). I can go on, but what is the real loss with this proposal.

Not that it'll get anywhere, but in principle, why not close the loop to meet the talking points of keeping them out of dangerous hands?

 

[Tommygunn]

That would be nice, but that is not how it will go. For the record, I believe the NFA and GCA to be unconstitutional. Hey, cannons were owned by private citizens during the Revolutionary War. But, as long as both sides are digging in their heels, and covering their ears, there will be no dialogue. How well has this attitude worked for us over the last 100 years? Which side has been winning over the last 20 years of "not one more inch"?

Some could argue it's gone fairly well; more ccw, open carry, extinction of the 1994-2004 AWB.
IMHO, it's the difference between "the death by a thousand cuts" and outright confiscation and banning. Compromise sounds good, but what are we giving up versus what are we getting? Much of the time, it seems to me, "compromise" really means "DO WHAT I NOT WHAT YOU WANT," and we wind up with a new restriction, and no relief on any other front.

I'm not totally against debate, but the real solution, as I see it, is at the voting booth. We need to keep antigunners, either republican or Democrat, out of office.

 

[badkarmamib]

I'm not totally against debate, but the real solution, as I see it, is at the voting booth. We need to keep antigunners, either republican or Democrat, out of office

Agreed. This is the only "social media" I am on. I despise FaceBook. So, what are other ways to have our voices heard? Most of the people I work, talk, and deal with on a daily basis are in the same camp. I am in a very conservative part of VA. Any thoughts?

 

[LRDGCO]

The devil is in the detail but, this is a perfect example of where the Hearing protection Act can come into play. GOP leadership in the House should announce that they are of course supportive of "common sense gun laws" and constantly work to find "common ground" on issues of such importance, so they are perfectly willing to consider "compromise" and possibly support the UBC legislation, provided the Hearing Protection Act is included as a combined bill.

When Dems reject this "compromise", the message is that Democrats reject common sense gun laws, reject common ground solutions, and simply cannot compromise.

 

[Deanimator]

NO, I REFUSE.

This has NO conclusion save bans and confiscation, facilitated by registration.

As a famous Georgian ex-seminarian once said, "NOT ONE STEP BACK!"

 

[Jack B.]

They got voted into office by the people. If you want to stop this you must vote.

 

[pbearperry]

In Mass. like many other states do a background check on you before issuing a Gun permit. Also you can only sell privately to people who possess gun Permits. Requiring additional background checks would be overkill plus I am sure a fee would be involved. This new bill smells.

 

[AlexanderA]

All other transfers must be performed by FFL's.

I bet the FFL's would be jumping up and down with glee, since this would be an additional major profit center for them. This is another ploy by the antis to divide the gun community. And make no mistake -- FFL's have a lot of clout in the gun world. And once you involve FFL's, you have a paper trail of Form 4473's, which could be de facto registration.

A UBC system could be structured in such a way as to leave FFL's entirely out of it. Use modern technology. For example, a prospective gun buyer could go online, identify himself, get a NICS clearance with a secure code number (valid for a limited time), and then give that code number to the seller, who would verify it online. And the beauty of such a system is that there would be no record of the guns themselves -- only of eligible buyers. No danger of setting up a registration system.

By digging in our heels and saying "not one more inch!" we preclude ourselves from having input into the legislative process, and from promoting suggestions such as this. So instead of making the best of a bad situation, we get 100% of the bad situation.

Anyway, the bills that are being introduced at this stage are just markers for what will happen after the next election. They won't pass, but they are nevertheless worth studying as a preview of what's coming.

 

[Deanimator]

By digging in our heels and saying "not one more inch!" we preclude ourselves from having input into the legislative process, and from promoting suggestions such as this.

Gun owners have no more "input" into this "legislative" process than the residents of the Lodz Ghetto had into the "resettlement to the east" process.

The other side doesn't want "compromise". It wants annihilation.

In a war of annihilation, you either fight to a successful finish or you disappear.

The other side wants widespread gun ownership (and in some cases, gun OWNERS) to disappear.

The idea that THAT can be "compromised" with is sheer delusion.

Gun owners can either fight the other side, or fight each other to see who gets in the boxcars last.

NOT ONE STEP BACK.

 

[badkarmamib]

NOT ONE STEP BACK.

How do you propose we put those words into action? Saying it isn't enough. Elections are obvious. Any other ways?

 

[shoobe01]

I bet the FFL's would be jumping up and down with glee, since this would be an additional major profit center for them. This is another ploy by the antis to divide the gun community. And make no mistake -- FFL's have a lot of clout in the gun world. And once you involve FFL's, you have a paper trail of Form 4473's, which could be de facto registration.

A UBC system could be structured in such a way as to leave FFL's entirely out of it. Use modern technology. For example, a prospective gun buyer could go online, identify himself, get a NICS clearance with a secure code number (valid for a limited time), and then give that code number to the seller, who would verify it online. And the beauty of such a system is that there would be no record of the guns themselves -- only of eligible buyers. No danger of setting up a registration system.

By digging in our heels and saying "not one more inch!" we preclude ourselves from having input into the legislative process, and from promoting suggestions such as this. So instead of making the best of a bad situation, we get 100% of the bad situation...

Like everything you said.

Agree that the industry is often against what many of the rest of us want. See the 1989 Bush rules change, that really leaned into sporting-use. They involved a bunch of industry experts who said "we're fudds, screw the black gun crowd" and here we are now.

My idea—if anyone asked me—is certainly much like this use of connected technology to do instant checks. Oh, and also check some of the other things we've put into place to save ourselves. NFA branch has to do stuff on paper, which is where much of the insanely slow speed comes from. Released to do their job as well as they could, no reason Form 4s should be approved in 10 minutes. We could do NICS checks as robustly as we do NFA checks, nearly instantly, if we just tried to.

I like the idea of admitting buyers are the "checked" item, but if there's a record of buyers, that freaks out a lot of folks still. I don't care, would be fine signing up for a voluntary registration scheme even, but I see that being a problem for many.

 

[Deanimator]

How do you propose we put those words into action? Saying it isn't enough. Elections are obvious. Any other ways?

Confront anti-gun cultists and refute their lies whenever and wherever possible.

Virtually every time the Cleveland Plain Dealer runs an editorial cheerleading racially invidious gun controls, I point out the Jim Crow history of gun control. When they try to censor me, I shame them into posting what I write.

I REFUSE to let anti-gun cultists set the terms of debate. I refute their lies and reject their terminology. I tell others the things they REALLY say, especially when they think I'm White. I never tire of recounting the story of the elderly cleaner in a Lakewood MacDonalds who after berating me for my NRA ballcap, opined that he "wasn't so sure that the Holocaust was a BAD thing".

During the fight for shall issue concealed carry in Ohio, gun owners learned of anti-gun fanatic Toby Hoover's plan for a rally against a major proponent in a city park in Independence. Gun owners mobilized, showed up before she and her goosesteppers did and outnumbered them conservatively five to one. The local news outlets literally couldn't get a shot of her without getting one of our signs in frame. To add insult to injury, John Lott showed up unannounced to give a speech. The news people practically trampled Toby into the mud rushing to the other side of the park to cover Lott. It was a crushing humiliation for the forces of racially invidious gun control.

This is as much a political and cultural battle as a legislative one. Treat it like one.

 

[luzyfuerza]

UBCs don't reduce gun transfers between criminals. Gun grabbers know this. Their one and ONLY goal is to reduce the number of guns in society.

For the law-abiding, this translates into reduced freedom. To defend ourselves and our loved ones. To hunt. To practice. To compete. As a rewarding pastime. To defend or curb government power.

Criminals break existing laws when they trade firearms face to face. These laws are seldom enforced. Tell you what, House Democrats, demand that every Felon-In-Possession arrest followed by a conviction results in application of the mandatory five years in federal prison. THEN, AND ONLY THEN can we begin a conversation about the merits of UBCs.