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. Jaymo

    Jaymo Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,530
    I am opposed to BG checks, purely because they are in direct violation of the US Constitution, as are ALL gun laws currently on the books.
     
  2. goon

    goon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    7,251
    Jaymo - even those laws that keep convicted felons from owning guns?
    Even among ourselves we disagree about what is Constitutional and what is not.
    Right now, the letters I write to my reps say "no compromise," but that is only because it is impossible to approach this issue with the idea of compromising with the other side in mind. They are unreasonable and would take it all if they could. They'd leave us all defenseless and they'd even strip hunting firearms away from those in remote or poor areas when that actually is an important source of food. And they wouldn't care.

    But the background check, as long as it doesn't lead to a registry, isn't a bad idea. People who are prohibited from buying guns do try to buy them in stores at times and they are denied. Why not allow a normal joe to run the check too?
    IIRC, all that is required is the DL number, but it's been about ten years since I ran one on anyone. But even when I sell a gun privately to someone, I still keep a record of their name, address, and DL number just to keep a paper trail.
     
  3. anchorman

    anchorman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    176
    tell that to the supreme court. They have ruled otherwise.
     
  4. anchorman

    anchorman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    176
    Why must one worry about it being 100% effective? no law is 100% effective, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have any laws. How many of us have been audited by the income tax people? probably not that many, but knowing it's a possibility makes people less likely to cheat on their taxes. Reduction in the number of illegal sales is the key, knowing full well that eliminating them completely is probably impossible without a police state, violating amendments #4 and #5. It would be perfectly easy for ATF agents to go out in the field occasionally and pose as buyers to verify that sellers were performing background checks on purchases. They wouldn't need to do it every time, they could even stop the sale after the background check is performed so that the government wouldn't be out there buying guns it doesn't need. But they could do it enough that people would know it's a possibility they don't want to run into. Make the system easy, accessible and free.



    I don't think we can have all sales go through FFLs legally, since it puts an undue burden on people who live great distances from the nearest FFL.
     
  5. coloradokevin

    coloradokevin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,621
    Which is exactly why federal registration would be the natural next step. A background check requirement could be implemented as a stand-alone measure today, then in 5 more years we'd be hearing passionate cries for more "common sense regulations", which would naturally include registration, since that step would clearly be required to enforce the background check transfer requirement. Such a law would probably easily pass since it would be pitched as a 'clarification' to an existing law, under the guise of protection our children, or some such nonsense.

    It seems like every few years we pick up another couple of "common sense laws", only to find the other side crying for more "common sense laws" a few years later. After three decades of playing this game, I've caught on to the scam.


    Here's the way I see this progressing:

    1) Mandatory background checks are required for all firearms sales as of a few months from now. Our side will eventually "come to the table" as the other side tries to make us look like we're unwilling to compromise (our rights). As such, I'd no longer be able to sell the gun I sold to my buddy last year without going through an FFL (for a fee, of course... but the fee is merely a side effect).

    2) A short time later it will become apparent that this background check requirement can NEVER be enforced without additional laws. Without a registration requirement it would be impossible for the government to know who owned which guns, which means that the previous law would be a pointless waste of paper. As such, registration would quickly be on the horizon. We can all see why law #2 would be necessary to enforce law #1. As one example: if we didn't have the second law, I could buy a gun from a guy, then claim that I bought it before the new law went into effect, and no enforcement action could be taken against me.

    3) Some time in our future, probably not too far down the road, some other tragedy will take place, which will lead to another call for bans on XYZ type of firearms. Who knows what that could be: semi-autos, "assault rifles", autoloading shotguns, pistols, or whatever else can be incorrectly linked to crime. Anyway, if (or when) such a restriction goes into place, the government will know exactly who has which guns, thanks to registration... efforts at confiscation (or partial confiscation) then become ridiculously easy: turn in your XYZ registered gun, or get charged with a felony. Oh, you "lost it"? Too bad, you didn't report the loss, here's a felony charge. Oh, you "sold it"? Well, we don't show any record of that transfer... you get another felony charge. Oh, you don't want to turn over your property to the government? Sorry, it's the law, turn it in or pick up a felony charge.

    To someone who hasn't been around guns since the 1980's or early 90's, my statements may sound paranoid on the verge of delusional. For those of you who have been around that long, you probably understand exactly what I'm saying.

    The guy I bought my first gun from was a cranky old guy who was a class 3 dealer where I lived back in Ohio. I used to hear him barking about how: "registration leads to confiscation", and to this day I can still picture the sound of his voice. I used to think he was a bit of a paranoid nut, but now I understand. The other side isn't interested in common sense solutions, they are interested in a 100% gun ban. The only problem for them is that they need to achieve their goal in baby steps.
     
  6. coloradokevin

    coloradokevin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,621
    I'll add one more thing:

    I'm a police officer, I'm one of the good guys, and I'm a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights (well, lets just even go as far as saying the Constitution in general). But, like most decent people, I obviously don't want to make it easier for violent felons to run around with guns. I also realize that almost all guns used by felons on the street are stolen, not purchased.

    Personally, I don't think a background check requirement for private party sales is necessary. I don't really think it will do much to reduce crime. Regardless, I could support a background check requirement if it was done in this manner:

    The seller can call a phone number with the buyer's name, DOB, and state of residence (information that isn't damaging to identity). The background check is performed without any knowledge of what gun, or how many guns, are being sold, or who is selling them. The seller is then given a "transaction number", and can legally sell the gun to the buyer. Both the buyer and seller can keep this transaction number for their own security, should they ever be questioned about the legitimacy of the sale. Doing something like this would allow for background checks without giving away too much information about what guns are being conveyed, or by who, and why.

    Frankly, I think a lot of people would feel better about selling their guns if they could get a criminal clearance on the person they were selling it to, and I think the anti-gun crowd is trying to capitalize on the fact that many gun owners seem okay with this requirement. But, most of us on this forum recognize the inherent dangers of registration, and can see how easily the private party background check requirement could lead to de facto registration. So, if we start to lose the fight on this topic, I do think we should try to sculpt the law into something like what I described above.
     
  7. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    I'm not really sure why the Dems haven't been pushing the expansion of NICS instead of the idiotic AWB. It's been by far their most successful gun control measure in the past generation, and enjoys general acceptance. It's also not a gun ban per se, so it doesn't touch those hot buttons.

    But they seem to be lost in their own rhetoric, which is all for the good.
     
  8. Wolfman131

    Wolfman131 member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    30
    You are in contradiction of your own stated position, even knowing the facts, you are willing to capitulate to the state, and allow them to illegally invade your last liberties, all in the pursuit of what, denying a felon?

    You're not going to stop a felon with nics, not seriously that is. You are simply advocating for the state to create an enormous new bureaucracy, which will be turned on the citizen, and his guns. Felons will continue to aquire them the old fashioned way, and knowing this, you'd still opt for the loss of your liberties?

    I know people who have been approached by ATF agents, who in violation of all existing law, had documentation of every firearm that they had ever purchased, or sold! The anti-gun political class has already initiated a push to have the FBI absorb ATF, so as to better fund the agency, so that it may interdict Americans pursuing their rights.

    ATF has committed atrocities no less appalling as Sandy Hook, worse even, with a shiny new budget, and an illegal new mandate to register all transactions, and track all gun owners, you will so swiftly lose your rights, you'll never knew that you ever had them to begin with, which is exactly what they intend.

    And you know the facts?

     
  9. GoWolfpack

    GoWolfpack Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    500
    Someone should probably tell Winnie Stachelberg that BATFE isn't supposed to be a law enforcment agency, but a tax collecting agency.
     
  10. Hit_Factor

    Hit_Factor Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    315
    Location:
    St. Joseph, MI
    You should apply for a UPIN, it should help cut down on the delays.

    Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk HD
     
  11. Pointshoot

    Pointshoot Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    WA state
    Lots of interesting and thoughful comments here.

    As I see it - we seem to be made up of two broad groups.

    Those who think the new gun control proposals are about taking action to try to prevent future violent gun crimes and,

    Those who think the new gun control proposals are about eventually eliminating
    the 2A as an effective defense against tyranny.

    Which broad group you fall into, will make a big difference in how you view the various proposals.
     
  12. coloradokevin

    coloradokevin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,621
    Relax, I didn't contradict anything, or advocate anything other than trying to avoid registration.

    Reread my last post in its entirety, and I think you'll see what I'm driving at. I'm simply saying that I think we may be losing ground on this issue. Private party sales are not a problem, and I've never wanted to see the government intrude more into these sales. But, a lot of people (including a lot of gun owners I know) seem to be surprisingly comfortable with that idea.

    IF we end up in a situation where we get outvoted on this issue, I'd like to see the background check requirement implemented in the way that I described above, which is about the only way I can imagine it being done without infringing on our rights. And, that wouldn't involve the creation of a new bureaucracy, it would merely require the government to allow us to phone in background checks through the existing NICS system, with far less info than an FFL would be required to provide (in essence to get a "clearance" that a person isn't a felon, without any collection of information about them beyond that).

    Do I think a system like that would prevent many crimes? Obviously not, and my thousand plus posts on this website should make that clear enough. But, do I think a system like I described would really infringe on my rights very much? Not really. Do I think that my concept would be what they implement? Unfortunately not. I think they'll move for outright registration, or at least a background check system that amounts to little more than de factor registration.

    Basically, I'm trying to brainstorm my way through this, in hopes of avoiding the worst case scenario. We don't owe anything to anyone, but you'd better start working on the gun owners who are strongly advocating backgrounds if you want to have the political capital to avoid such a system. Right now I think we're in a tough spot on that one, because the politicians have sold their beliefs pretty strongly to a lot of half-hearted enthusiasts who don't spend nearly as much time involved in shooting-related activities as the average THR member.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2013
  13. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    2,059
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Over the last few days, I've been seeing more and more of this clam that "private sales make up 40% of the nation's gun sales." I am somewhat puzzled by this statistic and its source. Private sales are, by definition, private. My back-of-the-envelope, no-money-back-guaranteed guesstimate is that something like 40-45 states do not require a private firearms transfer to go through an FFL, nor that any record of the transaction be kept. So how can anyone come up with a reliable estimate of "40%?"

    Even assuming, but only arguendo, that the 40% is right, I cannot support mandatory BG checks on all firearms transfers.

    1) How many hoops will we gun owners be required to go through to exercise a fundamental, individual constitutional right?

    2) I think that most of us agree that violent, drug-dealing felons seem unlikely to go through the NICS check, anyway.

    3) I do think that registration of all firearms will be the next logical step, once it is "discovered" that mandating BG checks on all transfers hasn't reduced crime. It will be a situation of "the last gun control measure wasn't effective, because it didn't go far enough."

    4) I've also seen statistics about "X% of NRA members support blah, blah, blah." I say, "so what?" The Bill of Rights is very undemocratic. The individual gets to exercise those rights, regardless of what the majority thinks about them. For a First Amendment example, consider the Communist Party. I may not agree with the beliefs of its members, but those members have a right to those beliefs, regardless of the majority opinion of them. Why should the Second Amendment be any different? I frankly don't care what X% of Americans believe. I hold my right to defend myself and my family as inviolate. What's more, with few exceptions (the usual "violent felons and mentally ill"), I hold everyone elses right to do the same, as inviolate, as well.
     
  14. Wolfman131

    Wolfman131 member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    30
    All that they are looking for, is registration, and tracking! This sets the stage for further, more radical invasions in the not to distant future.

    I am appalled at how large a contigent of gun owners have been successfully conditioned by a certain political class, into not trusting themselves, and certainly nobody else, the reality is that these measures will not stop a single schoolhouse massacre.

    Sandy Hook had absolutely nothing to do with private party commerce, nor did Aurora, for that matter! These measures are the long sought after "holy grail" of gun confiscation legislation, and here we are, with a good 50% or better of the gun owning public, more then eager to implement them! Absolutely appalling.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2013
  15. abajaj11

    abajaj11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    149
    The Congress cannot make a law and then depend on the good will of the people to obey it, while denying the Executive branch the power to execute it effectively. For example, they cannot say "pay taxes" and then hope everyone will pay them, while denying the IRS the ability to monitor who is paying taxes and who is not, and to punish people who are not paying taxes (breaking the law).

    If Congress passes a law that ALL gun sales must involve a background check, and the BATFE is the executive body in charge of managing the execution of this law then Congress cannot also say..."oh, by the way you cannot monitor guns in the country and know who owns what. ". BATFE will say, rightfully "then your law is unenforceable".

    Of course, no law is hundred percent followed, we know that....
    but the Executive branch's powers derive from needing to effectively implement the laws passed by Congress. At the very least this involves being able to monitor if the law is being followed and when it is being broken. So if Congress passes a new law, it needs to increase the powers of the Executive branch so that they can monitor if the law is being obeyed, and pursue punitive action if it is not.

    At present, NO guns are federally registered and BATFE has no idea who owns what (except for NFA class 3). In order to monitor if the universal BG check law is being implemented or not, they will need to know who owns what. Otherwise they simply cannot monitor it at all.
    An executive Order issued by POTUS to this effect will likely be upheld if the universal BG check law is passed.
    Of course they won't use the term "registration"...they will probably call it "federal firearms safety database" or some such crap.
    Hope this clarifies seriousness of the issue somewhat.
    If you are convinced this is a serious issue, please bring it up every time you see the work universal background checks mentioned in ANY forum or when talking to your reps / senators. The more people that know about this, the better.
    :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2013
  16. huntsman

    huntsman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,450
    Location:
    ohio's northcoast
    WOW I nailed it in post #40

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/report/2013/01/13/49510/preventing-gun-violence-in-our-nation/
     
  17. Pointshoot

    Pointshoot Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    WA state
    For all you guys who think youre just being 'reasonable' in thinking BG checks for all firearms are fine (a national registration would be required to make it work - that's the only way to insure compliance):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPaa7TiK_Gk&feature=player_embedded



    You may not like this guy, but take the time to actually research every point he brings up - even if its outside your 'comfort zone'. Just don't discount it out of hand. Study history.

    As Einstein said "Condemnation without investigation, is the height of ignorance."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJw-NjgcWZk
     
  18. GoWolfpack

    GoWolfpack Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    500
    I'll never understand why some people seem to believe that after we give up this last little bit of our rights, that'll be the end. All they want is a background check law, and nothing else.


    RIGHT! PM me about the bridge I have for sale while you're at it.

    To a certain class of people, mostly politicians who have armed guards to protect them, this is not about crime control, or stopping mass killings. This is about taking your guns away. All of them.

    Their ultimate goal is that you have nothing! It may not be their top priority all the time, but it's always bubbling under the surface waiting for some tragedy to help them pass some small law to move them in the direction they want to go.

    Hunting rifles aren't safe. Duck guns aren't safe. Black powder revolvers aren't safe. Your CCW handgun certainly isn't safe.

    This is not about the constitution. A lot of people will go to jail between the time a law like that is passed and when (if) it makes it to the supreme court. And that is assuming the supreme court would rule correctly and overturn it.
     
  19. REDMASTA

    REDMASTA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    I agree with universal background checks and keeping it to checking the person not the gun as others have mentioned. It should also again have provisions to prevent abuse by the government.

    I prefer not to sell ftf as I dont know who Im selling to. The firearms Ive sold have been shipped to an ffl and they handled the transfer.

    I dont think this is a bad comprimise to make, If we stonewall we risk to lose a lot more. If we allow universal background checks they can no longer go on and on about how easy it is for a criminal to get an "assault weapon". We effectively remove that vital card from their scare tactics aimed at banning MUCH more.
     
  20. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,696
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Exactly what "compromise" do you make with a salt water crocodile?

    Offer him a leg? Once you do that, how do you keep him from taking the rest?

    They want it ALL, today or tomorrow.

    If you think ANY "compromise" would change that, you're living in a fantasy world.

    And by the way, in a "compromise", BOTH sides give something up. What are THEY giving up?

    If I say, I'm going to kill you today, is killing you TOMORROW a "compromise"?
     
  21. Pointshoot

    Pointshoot Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    WA state
    "provisions to prevent abuse by the government"

    youre kidding, right ?

    Ever look into the National Defense Authorization Act ?

    There are 'provisions' in that for secret charges and secret trials against Americans that can lead to imprisonment and even 'elimination'. No trial by civilian jury of your peers.

    The history of government is filled with abuse - and no 'provisions' made any difference.

    Thats why we can't let these things get a foot in the door. Especially when its over matters where these proposals would make no difference. Your odds of being struck by lightening are higher than being a victim of a mass shooting.

    The US Bill of Rights is about the prevention of abuse by government. Thats why these true provisions were amended to the US Constitution.

    We should follow it.
     
  22. abajaj11

    abajaj11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    149
    I fear we cannot have universal background checks and still be able to prevent abuse. Universal background check will require a national database of firearms and who owns what. This is the only way to have any kind of monitoring of this law.
    :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2013
  23. REDMASTA

    REDMASTA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Yes of course they are always going to want more. Always have and always will. What Im saying is they are effectively using the lack of universal background checks as a scare tactic to get what they really want; which is a ban on several types of firearms, magazines, etc...

    Personally I dont think its such a bad thing that every purchase of a firearm requires the person to get a background check. This would solidfy the arguement that only sane law abiding individuals can legally purchase firearms, which we could use to our advantage to protect our rights.

    The ball would be in their court to improve the mental health care system and do a better job of going after those who traffic firearms illegally.

    As far as compromise, not saying to expect them to give back right away but this could open up venues later on. We have been succesfull here in my state passing gun friendly legislation (especially related to ccw). I think this would be a strong point to argue with in the future.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2013
  24. abajaj11

    abajaj11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    149
    Even if it means that all guns are registered in a federal databases, along with who owns it? Check out:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPaa7TiK_Gk&feature=player_embedded
    :)
     
  25. Pilot

    Pilot Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    6,633
    Location:
    USA
    EXACTLY CroMo. It is not about stopping or reducing gun violence or they would be focusing on the criminals and crazies. It is about subjogating, and controlling law abiding citizens, so the government is all powerful. This is not America folks. Unfortunately, when we say these types of things many, especially liberals call us paranoid, and extremists.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page