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. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,258
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    +1

    That's how they garnered public support to ram this excrement through here in CO. Yeah, sure, it sounds like a good idea that can't hurt the law abiding on the surface. But read a little bit, and you quickly discover that if you lend a handgun to your sister for self defense (legal no-BCG transfer for immediate family) and your brother-in-law picks it up, now he and you are in violation. Exchange shotguns or rifles with your buddy while hunting? Perfectly legal. Your buddy goes home a day before you with your gun and you still have his? Felony.

    I just got home from visiting the widow of a good friend of mine, and she is planning to sell some of his guns to long time family friends in the near future. She is 75 years old, and does not keep up with the minutia of this nonsense; she had no idea that this was going on. When he died, private transfers were perfectly legal. But if our governor signs this law, they won't be, and she likely would have violated the law by doing something that had been perfectly legal her entire life. She is a grandmother, a good person, and a very law abiding citizen, but under the letter of the law, she would be guilty of a class VI felony for each transfer.

    These laws are intended to snare law abiding people who either haven't kept up with the recent changes, did not take the time to read the law line-by-line, or did read it but didn't fully comprehend it as an attorney would. Even our own legislators were unclear on the specific exemptions and what would or would not constitute a transfer.
     
  2. Blakenzy

    Blakenzy Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Messages:
    904
    And

    5. Repeal the Hugues Amendment and re-open the MG registry.

    6. Exempt sound suppresors, SBS and SBR from the NFA

    That would make it a "compromise"

    Or... just repeal the NFA, GCA '68 all together. <That would make it a FAIR compromise.
     
  3. TNBilly

    TNBilly Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2011
    Messages:
    220
    Location:
    East Tennessee
    The open "antis" couldn't have said it better than you have!
     
  4. Romeo 33 Delta

    Romeo 33 Delta Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Messages:
    402
    Apparently some of you have missed my point ... with the exception of requiring states to provide public record information on adjudications and committments, there's NOTHING new here. What I've indicated is already the law. I'm only insisting that the government enforce the existing laws BEFORE creating infringements that clearly cross over the line of Constitutional protections.

    As to the "mental health" component (if you'll allow me that term), I can't think of a good reason it was NOT included when the whole NICS background check system was created. It's a "due process" situation, like a felony conviction ... not just the opinions of some group of shrinks or whatever. (or at least that is MY intention for it).

    As to the matter of background checks when buying from a dealer in general ... that ship has sailed. It's a matter of FACT and that will never be changed. Do I like that? NO! I'm more than old enough to remember the first Good Old Days ... Hy Hunter, Klein's ... all those cool ads in The American Rifleman. Send them a check and they send you a gun. But those days are OVER and aren't coming back.

    To sum up ... what I intended in my remarks was ... JUST FULLY ENFORCE THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE BOOKS BEFORE YOU CREATE NEW ONES. Beyond that ... I'm not interested in giving ANYTHING up. Not now ... NOT EVER!

    PS ... and the excuse that we don't have enough time or we don't have enough money or we don't have enough man-power is NOT an acceptable excuse or acceptable reason. JUST SHUT UP AND DO YOUR JOB!

    Does THAT make my position on the matter at hand more clear?:cuss:
     
  5. NeuseRvrRat

    NeuseRvrRat Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,098
    Location:
    Wilmington, NC
    how can background checks be enforced without firearms registration?
     
  6. blaisenguns

    blaisenguns Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    445
    The question still is: how do you practically enforce this without a national registry? without the latter it is a completely useless bill. Let them pass it, they wont be able to enforce it.
     
  7. jamesbeat

    jamesbeat Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    610
    ...Their next step would then be to argue that they need registration so that they can enforce the background check laws.

    Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. That has been their intent all along. An inch at a time, camel's nose, thin end of the wedge, slippery slope.

    That's how these snidy little cowards operate.
     
  8. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    Huh? This argument makes no sense to me. We have background checks now, without a registry. My state does have handgun registry, unreleated to NICS. Why would requiring you to go into a FFL to perform the background check require a registry? I oppose it on principle, but this argument seems flawed.

    The correct argument, IMO, is that regulating individuals is a police power resereved to the states. Congress does not have the power to enforce such a law. See USA v Lopez
     
  9. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    12,156
    Location:
    DFW Area
    The reason background checks (to the extent that they are currently required) are enforceable is because the background checks are performed by FFLs on their transfers. FFL transfers have a paper trail that can be traced to demonstrate if the gun was transferred without a background check.

    Right now, private transfers have no paper trail, so there is no way to enforce background checks on private sales because there's no foolproof way to demonstrate that a person acquired a gun without a background check in the absence of supporting evidence.

    Of course, stings would work, as would cases where the gun in question was demonstrably transferred after the background check came into effect. Those exceptions aside, in general, one could mount a foolproof defense by merely stating that the gun was acquired in a private transaction before the universal background check law went into effect.

    The concern is that this "obvious loophole" would be presented for remedy (universal registration) down the road. Such a remedy would have considerable traction based on the fact that no one likes unenforceable (or largely unenforceable) laws on the books.

    Your point that the Federal government has absolutely no business regulating the intrastate sale of legal items between two citizens, neither of which is breaking any state or federal law and neither of which is a federally licensed dealer is right on target. That should be the focus of letters to senators.

    People either forget or don't understand that the only way the federal government got into the business of regulating firearm sales was via the ingenious FFL system. People who want to deal in firearms (dealing in firearms being fairly reasonably defined as interstate commerce since they buy from distributors some of which are almost certainly out of state) essentially volunteer to be licensed by the federal government and thereby also volunteer to be bound by the laws applicable to FFL holders.

    FFL holders are a very special class of person under the law, however, that is now lost on many who think that the laws that FFL holders voluntarily choose to be bound by should be applicable to everyone who buys or sells a firearm.
     
  10. phil dirt

    phil dirt Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    301
    Location:
    Northwest
    NO compromise! The anti Constitutional gun grabbers will never give up. Don't surrender an inch to these scum bags. Keep the heat on your representatives. Let them know that we will remember when they run for re-election.
     
  11. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    That's non-sensical. Innocent until proven guilty. Proof on innocence is very different from proof of a crime. How can you prove you didn't pay that girl to have sex with you? You don't have to. The government must prove you did. How can you prove you didn't know the person you sold your gun to was a felon? You don't have to, the government must prove you did. That's their problem, not ours. If they can show you bought the gun without a background check, then you're guilty.
    The government can't demand you prove you didn't break the law. Our legal system doesn't work that way.

    If the only argument for registry here is that it makes it easier for the government to prove you didn't commit a crime, then it's non-sensical and not at issue here. This is about background checks, not registry or confiscation.
    IMO, that's the only argument here. States can do this, but Congress cannot pass a law regulating individual sales.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
  12. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    Another gapping hole in the argument for UBC is that all these guns did first go through an FFL and background check. Not one of these guns entered into private possesion without first going through the current background check and 4473 forms. Everyone can be traced back to the FFL they came from. The gun can be traced from birth, distribution to the FFL who sold it to the individual who's info stays on file.
    There is no "gun show loophole".

    Individual private sales are not within the power of Congress to regulate.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
  13. Black Butte

    Black Butte Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    888
    Carolyn McCarthy wants a urine and blood sample for a toxicology screening prior to any transfer.
     
  14. lilguy

    lilguy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    462
    Location:
    NE Illinois, just outside Gulag.
    Kirk is my Illinois Senator, I have confronted him at a TH meeting. His " I accept the Supreme Court decision on the second amendment but support an AWB" canned answer
    along with his F rating from the NRA makes him at trojan horse in the Republican Party.
    You folks that think this is not so bad are sleepwalking on the road to Armageddon.
     
  15. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    Who said that? I don't see a single post here that comes even close to that.
     
  16. Solo

    Solo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    838
    Maybe we should mail her a jar?
     
  17. blaisenguns

    blaisenguns Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    445
    The point is how can you prove I did or did not sell a gun with or without a background check through a private sale if there is no registry of who has what.
     
  18. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    12,156
    Location:
    DFW Area
    That's exactly correct. And since, in the general case they will have no way to do so, the law is unenforceable. With universal registration it is enforceable.
    It's their problem right up until they point out that they can't enforce the universal background check and need registration to make enforcement feasible. Then it's our problem.

    I think you're missing the point of my response. Nothing I said was intended to imply that we have to (or should have to) prove innocence. The point was that for a law to be feasible, there needs to be a reasonable plan for enforcement. If a law is passed that will obvously, ultimately require registration to make enforcement feasible, then people need to understand that a push for registration will be coming in the future. They also need to understand that push will be strengthened by the fact that it is required to enforce an existing law.

    You and I agree that the feds don't have the authority to regulate private, instrastate sales, but many people don't understand or believe that. A lot of people don't see the harm in requiring universal background checks. What they don't understand is that to make the law workable, registration will be required.
     
  19. Blackhawk30

    Blackhawk30 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    328
    Don't forget the NRA came up with the instant check system back in the 80's as a replacement for the waiting period.How many states still have waiting periods?
    I thought that Senator from OK was supposed to be pro-gun.Whats up with Coburn?
     
  20. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,869
    Location:
    Virginia
    1. He announced that he's not running for re-election, so now he doesn't care what his constituents think.
    2. He grew a beard, so now he has to live up to his new image as a hipster.:)
     
  21. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    There is no "did or did not", "with or without" in law. It is innocent until proven guilty. The government must prove you commited a crime. Not require you didn't commit a crime.

    How do they catch people in murder for hire schemes? Same as other laws on the books now.

    By;
    getting caught in the act
    informant
    sting operation
    as part of another investigation gathering evidence
    confession of guilt
    etc

    If, you sell me a gun in a parking lot and I go and tell my LEO handler what happened. Here is the gun, audio and video recording. Then you go to jail.
    Or, you advertise a gun for sale and an undercover cop buys it from you without a FFL background check. Then you go to jail.
    Or, you get busted for something else, then you stupidly admit to more crimes (amazingly this is one of the most common ways to land in jail)

    There is nothing different about enforcement of this from other laws that would require registration. I don't see why you guys think it does.

    The real issue here is Congress simply does not have the power to regulate private sales. Never did, never will. Read USA v Lopez (also v Morrision).
     
  22. Torian

    Torian Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Messages:
    929
    Agreed on the "we are done compromising". The minute you trust liberals to safeguard your rights, they will take that inch you give them, and take it for miles. It happened in NY state before anyone even realized what was happening.

    The time for being reasonable is done. Any laws that target law-abiding citizens instead of criminals are nonnegotiable in my book.
     
  23. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    No. It can easily be enforced just like any other laws. Your conclusion is faulty. There is nothing to prevent them from prosecuting you if you are caught commiting this offense in the act, or afteward if there is proof you did it. Just like any other law.
    If you sell your gun to an informant or under cover cop without going to NICS, then you go to jail. No registraion required.
    No. No registration is required. It can be enforced just like other laws, except Congress does not have the power to regulate private sales in the first place.
     
  24. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,869
    Location:
    Virginia
    Of course it does. Practically all guns move in interstate commerce, and those that don't, "affect" interstate commerce.
     
  25. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,184
    Location:
    The Texas Hill Country
    http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516...olicy-memo.pdf

    Also HERE on THR: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=702992&p=8739561

    This is a link to a Justice memo published 04 Jan 2013. It's only 9 pages long. It's intended to be a short summary of findings and policy recommendations. The real agenda outlined is shockingly plain and frightening in the extreme. These people ADMIT ubc will require full registration, and that registration will facilitate confiscation. They ADVISE that gun control will only work on a much larger and more restrictive scale than being publicly discussed.

    This is not conspiracy theory tin hattery. This is a government document given to President Obama by the NIJ less than 6 weeks ago, and it is VERY PLAIN in its meaning.

    This administration WANTS YOUR GUNS. Any statements to the contrary, any soft words about reasonable compromises that respect your rights, are UTTER BS LIES.

    Don't take my word for it, but don't dismiss this as hyperbole or "tin hat" craziness until you READ THE NIJ MEMO.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page