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

Mandatory BG checks on ALL sales lead to registration of all guns

Discussion in 'Legal' started by abajaj11, Jan 10, 2013.

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

    hovercat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Messages:
    300
    Location:
    Texas
    For all those folks who want a private background check. Are you ready to start paying sales taxes to the Federal and State gov? There is an extra tax on firearms and ammo that you had better pay also. Make sure that you do not lose that reciept because the IRS may audit you. The gov can make the paperwork so bad that it will not be worth the hassle, an effective ban.
    Once restrictions are placed on private sales by legislation, then the EO and rule changes begin. I can see the seller being required to undergo a check as well, since they are trafficking is such a dangerous item. And if background checks slow down to 3 days, the antis have shut down the gun shows.
    Any legislation passed will be perverted. And I will take no joy in saying 'I told you so" to those who are willing to feed the stray cat to feel that they have done something, in the vain belief that it will not be back demanding more.
     
  2. tyeo098

    tyeo098 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,060
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    I HATE 4473's and BG checks.
    I am ALWAYS delayed. I have a VA CCW and a clean record, but I am ALWAYS delayed at least 3 days.

    I buy from private sales because my DL proves I'm over 18, and my CCW proves I'm not a felon. Thats all the need to know. Do I want to get delayed on a BG check for a private sale? Heck no! I buy private sales to AVOID the delay! (That, among better deals and getting to know your fellow gun nuts).

    A right delayed is a right denied.
     
  3. anchorman

    anchorman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    176
    does this mean when you flash your CHL for the FFL you are buying from, you don't have to fill out a 4473? or does the FFL fill out the 4473 and not have to call into the NICS system because your possession of a CHL shows you to not be a prohibited person. Does the FFL call in your CHL permit number to check that it is still valid?
     
  4. anchorman

    anchorman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    176
    How do they do this, given that no serial number is called into NICS when the check is made? I've stood there and listed while my FFL called in, and he tells them my name, address, social security number if I give it (I don't), height, weight, race/ethnicity, and birthdate. He tells them the type of gun, handgun/long gun, and they say "proceed". How is that going to turn up a stolen gun? his personal records of the sale and the 4473 might...
     
  5. anchorman

    anchorman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    176
    There is quite a lot that can be done at the government level to prevent criminals from committing violence. you take away the incentive to do so, by giving them other alternatives in life. This is one of the benefits of a social safety net, it takes away the motivation for a lot of people's desperate behavior. This is what quality, free, universal public education does, it gives young people the tools to survive and find work so that they can fit in with the rest of society, find work, and not be a burden on others.

    The government can't keep guns out of the hands of all determined criminals, but you and I and all the other gun owners can do their part, by refusing to sell to people we don't know without a background check. you don't need 100% compliance in order to make a dent in the crime statistics. We all know there is nothing foolproof, nothing that can make us 100% safe. But why would knowing you can't be 100% safe all the time stop you from taking precautions that would make us 50% more safe, or even 10% more safe?
     
  6. GoWolfpack

    GoWolfpack Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    500
    Violence has been with us since the dawn of man. It is inherent in human nature for the strong to try to dominate the weak, and the majority to rule of the minority through force. Guns are often the tools used to establish that dominance, but before guns there were swords, knives, axes, clubs, spears, and brute strength. Of those, guns are the only tool that allows the weak to fight back, and minority to protect themselves from the majority.

    Crime and violence are dependant on a number of factors, very minor among them is accessibility of guns. We only have to look across the Atlantic to see the results of taking away all the guns and giving the poor everything they could want. It is not a pretty picture.
     
  7. anchorman

    anchorman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    176
    Have you actually lived anywhere "across the atlantic"? I have. It was pretty nice there. I didn't feel unsafe ever, was never robbed, was never beaten. There weren't people starving and homeless in the streets. at age 22 I earned more money than I ever had before or until recently, and could afford to go on vacation 4 times a year. That was pretty nice. I couldn't find a lot of reason to complain, though they did seem to take their rulemongering a bit far for my taste, but it didn't really effect my life that much, except for the ridiculously stringent licensing requirements for motorcycles.
     
  8. xXxplosive

    xXxplosive Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,223
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Unfortunately for us...........we have all this here in NJ........NG.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2013
  9. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,413
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    Not sure if it's been said but WORST case, have a line private citizens can call and read off someone's DL # and without giving any serial # or having to keep any records get a pass/no pass. If they are legally allowed to purchase it at that time that's all that should be done.

    Even then I don't think we should have to do that. If someone is too dangerous for society they shouldn't have let them out of prison (I know that doesn't make sense but that's my stance :) )

    Anchorman
    "Have you actually lived anywhere "across the atlantic"? I have. It was pretty nice there. I didn't feel unsafe ever, was never robbed, was never beaten. There weren't people starving and homeless in the streets. at age 22 I earned more money than I ever had before or until recently, and could afford to go on vacation 4 times a year. That was pretty nice. I couldn't find a lot of reason to complain, though they did seem to take their rulemongering a bit far for my taste, but it didn't really effect my life that much, except for the ridiculously stringent licensing requirements for motorcycles."

    That's great that it's nice where ever you were but I'd rather keep my freedom and have to be a bit 'unsafe'.
     
  10. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,056
    Location:
    Virginia
    From the point of view of the seller, the main incentive to do this is to CYA if the gun is later misused. It would seem that the seller would want to keep written proof that the call was made and that a "proceed" indication was received. The best way to do this would be a 4473-like form that could be filled out by the parties and copies kept by each of them. Like the current Form 4473, this would not be filed with the government, but unlike the Form 4473, it would also not be subject to routine inspection by the ATF. In making the NICS call, the seller would not give any information on the gun being purchased, but only on the identity of the buyer.
     
  11. anchorman

    anchorman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    176
    I wasn't advocating anything, just pointing out that europe is not the "hell" that many would like to believe it is... They make their choices, we make ours. I think most gun restrictions are pointless, and won't reduce violence in a meaningful way. but along with that one must understand that the low murder rates in most of western europe have a lot more to do with their social contract, and a lot less to do with availability (or lack thereof) of guns. We can still learn things from the old country at times...
     
  12. Claude Clay

    Claude Clay Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,700
    Location:
    CT
    in Connecticut we have had gun registration for decades. about 6 years ago the state police were upgrading their gun records and they lost a large tape...mostly names A---G.
    instead of going public they sent legal demand letters to us with a 10 day limit to re-reg ALL guns again or to be FELONS. lier's that they are--they compared the new lists to their back-up copy and ....no surprise there were 20% errors on me. same gun with transposed ser #, not entered sales ( i had all my paperwork).

    Trust should be a 2 way street but all I've had so far is the State's gun to my head.

    coupled with the ever increasing number of home invasions made by our own police in the dark...over something that could of been handled politely with a phone call and a trip the the police sty with the papers to show them their error. any wounder myself and many others fear our own police more than any terrorist act.
     
  13. Jim K

    Jim K Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    17,706
    How come a proposal to keep records of those persons with mental problems is an invasion of privacy but proposing a nationwide warrantless house-to-house search for guns isn't?

    Jim
     
  14. huntsman

    huntsman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,507
    Location:
    ohio's northcoast
    I would think this could be done IF they required all 4473 forms to be done on-line, since some states already have registration what if .gov required all states to collect and store the data and used the threat of withholding .gov funds to force compliance. I just don't see the total ban yet but instead .gov would tax gun owners heavily first.
     
  15. hovercat

    hovercat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Messages:
    300
    Location:
    Texas
    It cannot be done without giving the gov the power to say NO. The initial law may be OK, but then the 'rules and regulations' come in. Suddenly the fee goes up to $100 per check. Or the fact that you got into a fistfight over a girl in high school and suspended is now a disqualifier because it shows that you cannot control your emotions.
    If you would sell the person an axe at a garage sale, without thinking that they would kill with it, then trust your instincts and sell the gun.
    I would offer a compromise that would never happen. EVERYONE on their drivers license or state ID has a little go/nogo mark. When you are convicted of a felony/insane/etc your card is taken away and a new nogo one issued. They run you through a system to check for warrants when you renew anyway. Then there would be no way for the gov to know who has a firearm, because everyone who could, could.
    No FOID cards for the newspaper to print. And no requirement to buy a gun. If the gun ban folks don't like it, they should do it for the children.
     
  16. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,824
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    I'm not looking for or interested in finding "creative" ways to give up my rights.
     
  17. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,056
    Location:
    Virginia
    What if the vote in Congress looked like it might go against us? Wouldn't you be looking for creative ways to preserve your rights? All I'm saying is that we need to have a Plan B waiting somewhere in the wings. I hope to God someone in the bowels of the NRA-ILA is thinking about this. If the NRA doesn't have secret contingency plans (on what can be seriously counterproposed), it's guilty of political malpractice.

    Clearly, the NRA's recent successes (in spreading state shall-issue concealed-carry licensing, etc.) have gone to its head. It's been caught flat-footed after this recent tragedy and the media furor that followed it. On the other hand, the antigunners have been preparing for this big push for years. All they needed was a suitably tragic incident to put their plans into operation.
     
  18. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,824
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    What if a shark looked like it might bite me?

    My first inclination wouldn't be to offer it one of my legs.

    The other side sees ANY concessions as weakness.

    I'd bet that what he could offer the Germans if we lost the Battle of the Bulge wasn't foremost in Patton's mind.

    Those who plan for defeat usually achieve it... sometimes intentionally.

    No plan I EVER have will involve how I can work with somebody who wants to put his boot on my throat. If I can't defeat him now, I'm only interested in how I can monkeywrench his operation until I can defeat him.

    This is a fight to the death with no compromise possible or even desired by the other side. You can be the Judenrat or the Bielski brothers. I pick the latter.
     
  19. GoWolfpack

    GoWolfpack Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    500


    Remember who gets to decide what actions are felonies and what problems qualify as "insane." The same people who want to round them all up by force.

    We always concede that "felons" and the mentally ill shouldn't have guns because we want to sound reasonable. But if the government has the power to define those terms our concessions are meaningless; the people who do not believe anyone should have guns are given the power to define people as prohibited if they can stretch the definition of "mentally ill" far enough.

    This is not compromise. This is giving the government more power, just not as much as they want.
     
  20. winterhorse290

    winterhorse290 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    80
    when, not if, they start that, you had best have all the guns and spare parts you need. don,t sell, don,t buy. all new arms purchases will be in the data base and when(not if) the govenment decides to pick them up only those on the list will be known. guess
    that,s one of the reason for the empty gun racks in gun stores.
     
  21. abajaj11

    abajaj11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    149
    Check this out:
    "Gun-safety activists were coalescing around expanded background checks as a key goal for the vice president's task force. Some advocates said it may be more politically realistic - and even more effective as policy - than reinstating a ban on assault weapons.
    The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said some 40 percent of gun sales happen with no background checks, such as at gun shows and by private sellers over the Internet or through classified ads.
    "Our top policy priority is closing the massive hole in the background check system," the group said Friday.
    While not backing off support for an assault weapons ban, some advocates said there could be broader political support for increasing background checks, in part because that could actually increase business for retailers and licensed gun dealers who have access to the federal background check system."
    __________
    from:
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...01-11-21-48-28

    We have to prevent this loophole closing from being passed because it will lead to mandatory registration via executive order, IMHO. Please consider talking about this when you call your senators and reps.
    IMHO, this should be our line in the sand.
    :)
     
  22. goon

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,251
    I fully support background checks on every sale.
    Some argue that there is no point because criminals will get guns anyway. Fair enough I guess, it is possible to club a cop with a crow bar and steal the patrol rifle out of his car if you really want to.

    Still, that doesn't mean you would actually knowingly sell a gun to a criminal, then claim it is OK because he was going to get a gun anyhow. That would be nuts. I am sure that a great many private sales are nothing more than two people trading or selling guns that are never used in a crime, but the fact is that criminals do get guns. Legal guns become illegal guns somewhere and if we can do something to prevent that, I don't see it as a concession of my right to keep and bear arms. I actually do see that as common sense.

    I'd support a comprehensive list of those who are barred from owning guns and a solid check system, which is what I thought we had anyhow.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  23. Gordon

    Gordon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    8,383
    Location:
    central Kali.
    You mean when perp A gives perp B an AK for a kilo they are gonna have a background check ?:rolleyes:
     
  24. abajaj11

    abajaj11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    149
    Here is another one from the Center for American Progress (CAp), a think tank that is very influential in the current administration:
    "CAP’s top recommendation is to require criminal background checks for all gun sales, closing loopholes that currently enable an estimated 40 percent of sales to occur without any questions asked. "
    from:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...192d26-5c2a-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_print.html

    It seems the anti-2Aers are really pushing for Congress to pass the "gun show loophole ban" because, IMHO, that can open the door to a lot of executive actions to enforce it...mainly a national database of all firearms.
    :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013
  25. abajaj11

    abajaj11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    149
    I am not opposed to BG checks...I am completely opposed to registration of firearms or creation of a national database of firearms and who owns what...that is a guarantee for harassment and then confiscation.
    To keep track that a BG check was performed on ALL firearms, the government's executive arm (DOJ) would need to keep track of all firearms first. Right now they keep track of NO firearms (except NFA and class 3 destructive devices).
    Some here have argued that it is possible to set up a BG check for ALL firearms without registering firearms, but I still believe that is not enforceable without a registration of all firearms. I believe if Congress passes a mandate that all firearm sales MUST have BG checks, then that will open the path to firearm registration via executive order.
    That, IMHO, is why anti 2A folks are pushing this so strongly.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page