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

Senate negotiations on "universal background checks"

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by AlexanderA, Feb 16, 2013.

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

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,056
    Location:
    Virginia
    According to Greg Sargent of the Washington Post, a bipartisan group of four Senators (Coburn, Kirk, Schumer, and Manchin) are 95% of the way to an agreement on a proposed "universal background check" bill.

    Some ideas that have emerged from this are the following:
    1. Exemption of transfers among family members from the background checks.
    2. Exemption for concealed-carry permit holders.
    3. A mechanism to insure that the background checks don't result in a de facto national gun registry.
    4. Having FFL's make the actual calls into NICS (for a nominal fee), but not having the FFL's enter the private transactions into their "bound book," and having the Forms 4473 retained by the sellers, not the FFL's.

    (This latter seems to be a sort of hybrid system between having all transactions run through FFL's (as in the ordinary course of their business), and opening the NICS to inquiries by non-licensed individuals.)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...san-deal-close-on-expanded-background-checks/
     
  2. xfyrfiter

    xfyrfiter Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    Messages:
    726
    Location:
    NW New Mexico
    Criminals are not going to purchase guns legally in any case. UBC's are simply a feel good measure foisted on us by the antis.
     
  3. Queen_of_Thunder

    Queen_of_Thunder member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,881
    Location:
    Where God purifies the soul. The West Texas desert
    And what do we get for giving up what we have now.
     
  4. Solo

    Solo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    838
    Maybe points 3 and 4, though I have my doubts.
     
  5. Tim the student

    Tim the student Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,427
    Location:
    IA
    Well, it could be worse...

    But my attitude remains unchanged: No compromise.
     
  6. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    4,413
    Location:
    'MURICA!
    Those sound a lot better but I'm still not compromising. We've compromised enough. These are our Rights and they will continue to erode if we don't do something to stop them NOW.

    Write your representatives and urge them that ANY universal background check is unacceptable and un Constitutional.
     
  7. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    I started a thread a few weeks ago about #3, asking if it was even possible, and the bottom line is, even if it is possible to make such a provision NOW, there is absolutely no way to ensure that the law won't be abused in the future.
     
  8. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    Where in the Constitution did we give them the power to regulate private sales? Congress does not have the power to regulate private sales.
    Are they going to tell us how to arrange our furniture in the living room next?

    http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=703189

    Under what power can Congress regulate private sales? No power for UBC?
     
  9. wally

    wally Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    12,549
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    Define this? $5 $25? $100?


    If we have to have it, add in:

    5) Make the C&R FFL-03 valid for all guns (non-business, individual hobby dealer) and able to call in the NICS checks (to increase the supply of dealers for individual transfers to help keep the fees "nominal").

    At least this way we'd gain something.
     
  10. r1derbike

    r1derbike Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Messages:
    848
    Location:
    Northwest Arkansas
    Beware the sweet smell of laundered scum of a bill that rises to the top, as the effluent below may not be seen, or smelled and may be miles deep.
     
  11. MartinS

    MartinS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Messages:
    815
    Any particular reason why the seller can't make the NICS call?
     
  12. Billy Shears

    Billy Shears Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,003
    If they get this passed, and the house votes it into law also (hopefully won't happen), this needs to be immediately challenged. Congress does NOT have the constitutional authority to regulate this, and we need to step up and drag them back to their limits if they can't abide by them themselves. If I sell a gun to another resident of my state or city, there is absolutely NO interstate commerce taking place whatsoever, and the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce.

    Of course, Wickard v. Filburn, where a farmer not selling wheat was deemed to to be participating in interstate commerce because his inactivity had an effect on the marketplace, proves that there are no intellectual contortions our ̶l̶o̶r̶d̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶m̶a̶s̶t̶e̶r̶s̶ public servants cannot twist themselves through to regulate what they want. This means its vital to get such a lawsuit before the courts now, not later, before one of the now elderly conservative justices dies or retires, and Obama appoints another liberal who believes in a "living" constitution, meaning it can be interpreted how they like to achieve the desired result.
     
  13. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    From the description in the article, the Senators are 95% on the way to agreeing to 95% of Senator Schumer's S.436 background check bill from the prior session of Congress.

    IF the final proposal is patterned after Schumer's bill, the landmines to watch for include:

    - the exemption for family members only applies to a "bona fide gift" and;

    - a transfer is not limited to a sale, but also includes "a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title."
     
  14. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,388
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    +1
    It gets the camels nose under the tent. Schumer will reveal the rest of his camel as time goes by.
     
  15. bhk

    bhk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,042
    Location:
    Wooded acreage in rural midwest
    What constitutes a 'transfer' needs to be carefully defined. Does passing a handgun to my buddy on the range for him to try a transfer? Does lending my hunting partner a deer rifle for the afternoon a transfer? If not defined in detail, we could be in big trouble.

    No new laws on this issue are best, of course.
     
  16. Romeo 33 Delta

    Romeo 33 Delta Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Messages:
    402
    Just my opinion, but I don't believe anti-gunners or whatever you wish to call them are even remotely capable of writing a bill which I would consider acceptable. I would reject it out of hand just based on who crafted it and who signed on as sponsors. I'll come to the table ... but I offer NO COMPROMISES.

    All I will offer is this:
    1. States shall be required to provide data on those adjudicated mentally defective or under involuntary committment orders on the same basis as they report felony and DA convictions. The same frequency to the same data base.

    2. The DOJ shall be required to:
    a. Prosecute all instances of prohibited persons attempting to buy a firearm
    b. Prosecute all instances of intentional falsification of information on a 4473
    c. Prosecute all instances of a prohibited person in possession
    d. The penalties for the above shall be the maximum
    e. The sentences for conviction shall be consecutive, not concurrent

    That's all I'm willing to give.
     
  17. jamesbeat

    jamesbeat Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    610
    Yep, enforce the laws we already have!
     
  18. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,184
    Location:
    The Texas Hill Country
    ^ We don't have time for that, apparently.
     
  19. Billy Shears

    Billy Shears Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,003
    It's not a matter of not having time for it, it's a matter of perception. The politician who passes a new law is seen as having "done something," while the politician who says "we already have the laws we need, let's just try enforcing them" doesn't look proactive enough for the low-information voters out there who comprise the majority of the electorate. It's a fundamental weakness of our system that will always provide a strong incentive for politicians to engage in meaningless, symbolic gestures that will accomplish nothing, and may even make things worse. Like gun control.
     
  20. medalguy

    medalguy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,208
    Location:
    New Mexico
    You clearly don't understand. They don't have the money to enforce the laws already on the books according to the government. It's better to bargain down a felony offence to a misdemeanor and allow the miscreants to serve community service than to send them up the river to already overcrowded prisons.

    But Sheriff Joe figured out how to handle that problem, forgot about that.:D
     
  21. InkEd

    InkEd Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,575
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Can you say useless crap and nationwide non-compliance.
     
  22. JERRY

    JERRY Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    2,349
    so what are they offering in return for these further infringements?
     
  23. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    When the camel gets his nose inside the tent it will not be long before the rest is there too. What gun control advocates (Democrat and Republican) want is a beachhead. Get the ball rolling and then build more on the foundation. None of them has explained exactly how this will prevent criminals and the insane from getting firearms when what we have now hasn’t worked.

    The BATF&E has admitted on a number of occasions that they are generally unable to trace guns made or sold through dealers prior to 1968. Registration of rifles and shotguns simply wasn’t done before that, and only a few states or cities registered handguns – by whatever method. No one knows how many souvenir firearms were brought into the country after World War’s One and Two.

    If gun owners choose to ignore the new law – if there is one – how does the government propose to prove that a particular gun hasn’t been handed down through a family for decades? What are they going to do about literally tens of thousands of inexpensive .22 rifles and some shotguns that never had a serial number?

    The fact is that the cited Senators don’t have the slightest idea about the subject, or what stands a chance of working and what doesn’t.

    Unfortunately their ignorance is not limited to this one issue. :banghead:
     
  24. Anmut

    Anmut Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    242
    How would this be enforced - with MILLIONS of firearms in non-nazi states that have traded hands since they were originally bought from an FFL, how would there even be a paper trail to prosecute someone? The ONLY way to make a UBC law work would be to have a Universal Registration.
     
  25. PRM

    PRM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,060
    It will take more than 4 corrupt Senators to change the Constitution. Then the Supreme Court will weigh in.

    Folks need to quit talking about compromise... the left is willing to give up nothing. The only people who are loosing in these hypothetical talks are law abiding citizens. There is nothing in the OP's post that would have impacted Sandy Hook at at all.

    Personally, I'm continuing to email all my reps.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page