OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
A sitting member of Congress just threatened to NUKE the gun owners of America.
You have no idea just HOW stupid they are.
Universal Background Check = Universal Registration.
- Thread starter Deanimator
- Start date
- Status
You have no idea just HOW stupid they are.
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
That's EXACTLY what they want to do.
- Ban face to face transactions by mandating ALL transfers have a background check.
- Sham "universal background checks" fail to have the promised effect... AS PLANNED.
- Registration of ALL firearms is instituted.
- The "Chicago model" is followed.
The idea that the other side has good intentions or doesn't know EXACTLY what it's doing is utterly ridiculous.
Here is why. Let’s say Bob owns an AR-15. He buys it at an FFL. Now let’s imagine a nationwide turn-em-in ban on AR’s is enacted. Let’s say Bob has decided not to comply with the law. The feds know that, at some point, Bob owned an AR. So they pay him a visit when he doesn’t turn in the gun by the deadline.
If there is no UBC that would require all FTF sales to go through an FFL, Bob simply says, “oh, I sold that some time ago. Used the money to buy a new putter. Want to see the putter? Anyway, I don’t remember the guy’s name, but he probably turned it in already.” At this point, the feds may not believe Bob, but they can’t prove much and Bob has not confessed to a crime.
Now, keep everything the same but imagine that a UBC banning private sales passed before the AR ban. If Bob says he sold the gun, he has just confessed to a crime. So he’s between a rock and a hard place. He either produces/surrenders the gun, or he gets charged with violating the UBC.
That’s why it matters.
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
We need to separate the clearance of the person from information on the gun.
There should be a means of pre-qualifying gun buyers. If a person is qualified to buy a gun (by age, clean criminal record, clear immigration status, etc.), put a designator to that effect on his/her driver's license. If that status changes, recall the driver's license and issue a new one.
If such a system was in place, there would be no need for transaction-based background checks. Heck, even the Form 4473 could be done away with. At most, the dealer might have to verify that the designator was still valid.
In addition, the designator could serve as a concealed-carry permit.
Why doesn't the pro-gun side loudly proclaim such a solution? We hear nothing about taking the initiative. Instead, it is always the antigunners that take the initiative, and our side is always playing on the defensive.
There should be a means of pre-qualifying gun buyers. If a person is qualified to buy a gun (by age, clean criminal record, clear immigration status, etc.), put a designator to that effect on his/her driver's license. If that status changes, recall the driver's license and issue a new one.
If such a system was in place, there would be no need for transaction-based background checks. Heck, even the Form 4473 could be done away with. At most, the dealer might have to verify that the designator was still valid.
In addition, the designator could serve as a concealed-carry permit.
Why doesn't the pro-gun side loudly proclaim such a solution? We hear nothing about taking the initiative. Instead, it is always the antigunners that take the initiative, and our side is always playing on the defensive.
Old Dog
Member
Pretty apparent now that some here don't believe UBCs to be a big deal.
The rest of us know better.
The rest of us know better.
CoalTrain49
Member
The technology has been around awhile to identify people using their finger prints. There are roughly 600,000 carry permits in WA and every one of those people have their prints on file. A computer can ID anyone of those people using their prints in about 2 seconds. Instead it takes me days to get a proceed from a dealer even though I have a carry permit. There's something seriously wrong with a system when someone carries a concealed weapon into a store, fills out a 4473 and a state form then has to wait 3 days for a proceed to purchase a pistol.
Until the states get their act together people will just not bother to get a background check. If the fed passes the law it won't be any different. The fed won't bring NICS into the 21st century and private sales will continue to be done without a BC. Does anyone actually think that will change?
The goal is to limit gun ownership and ability to buy ammo only to those that pass certain standards. The gun owners will have to store firearms firearms in manner that makes theft or falling into wrong hands extremely difficult. This will make us all safer and help curb gun violence in our society.
It's obvious that after tragedies in Nevada, Florida, Pennsylvania, ......things can not remain as they are.
Good Ol' Boy
Member
We're already talking about non compliance so I feel like there would probably be a lot of boat accident stories.
Like I said there's no way to enforce registration.
Good Ol' Boy
Member
Good attitude to take. About eight years ago I had discussion with retired high ranking law enforcement official when I was considering buying an FNC. In state law enforcement/military dealer offered them at bargain price of $7000. He told me not to worry about the paperwork and go through if I wanted to buy the gun at fantastic price. The only inconvenience law enforcement could examine gun at its location if they needed, no problemo. I decided againt the purchase because I did not need another "dust collector" that could not be used for defensive use if needed.
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
And what ARE those "standards"?
History says they involve a "paper bag test".
The history of gun control in North America is the history of White supremacism and the efforts of its proponents to create for themselves a "safe working environment".
NO, I REFUSE.
Sorry, most of those individuals that you used in your examples that committed mass murder PASSED background checks and a few used straw buyers who passed the background checks. One such murderer killed his own mother to access the firearms out of a safe. There is no demonstration that background checks, by and large, will reduce those aiming at mass murder. The urge to "do something" via new symbolic laws versus requiring law enforcement and other government institutions to do their jobs better enforcing existing laws is evergreen and ultimately futile.
Nonetheless, quite a few of these mass murderers that passed federal background checks could have been disqualified IF the mental health professionals and the court system had adjudicated them as harmful to themselves and/or others, for example, Arizona, Colorado, CT, etc. Others, if properly charged criminally for prior behavior or if reported properly to the FBI background check folks would have also been prevented from directly buying firearms--e.g. the Texas church murderer, VA Tech, Navy Yard, and Miami mass murderers. Others might have prevented by actually investigating terrorists and their supporters--Orlando, California, and Ft Hood massacres for example.
What we cannot say is whether or not a ban on private sales (which is really what this is about) would have prevented someone willing to die to carry out evil from obtaining arms from a different source and whether the fact that most of these occurred in gun free zones and delayed police response (the whole immediate confrontation by solitary law enforcement versus assembling a team issue) may have had a greater impact.
Unfortunately, the general run of homicides and violent assaults with firearms are largely those with criminal backgrounds shooting others with criminal backgrounds. In criminal disputes, one cannot go to the law so they make violence their law, judge, and jury. People that are accustomed to resolving issues via violence and lawbreaking in general do not view themselves bound by the law, surprise, surprise. By and large, the sordid mundane world of criminals do not resemble TV detective dramas, do not involve glamorous people, are not Hollywood type crimes of passion, Mafia hitmen, etc. Few, if any, Hollywood movies or blockbuster novels deal with the day to day reality of crimes in the big cities.
You will find these depressing vignettes buried in the police reports in the newspapers if your local one still has such but you will not find them in a lurid front page trial coverage over someone in a bad marriage having their spouse killed. A large proportion of violent crime in major cities is gangs taking out each other and they acquire guns from straw buyers (and sometimes from theft). A UBC would do little to them as straw buying is already illegal under federal law, so is transfer to a disqualified individual. Criminals are not going to obey UBC laws anymore than they obey drug laws, laws against violence, etc. Furthermore, they already have a system to acquire these weapons anyway. The main reason is that Americans buying illegal drugs give the gangs the resources necessary to buy what they want regardless of borders and illegality of conduct. As when Prohibition ended, the Mafia had to find new ways to make money other than selling illegal booze. Whether the violence and corruption spread by making certain desired drugs illegal is counterbalanced by saving lives via these laws is beyond this thread's discussion.
Proper storage has little to do with it either--car jackings occurred when vehicles got to difficult to hotwire. Note, that the police consistently have had weapons stolen from their vehicles etc. Most storage devices can be easily defeated with either an angle grinder, hammers, bolt cutters (those with security cables), etc. and each requirement that increases the difficulty of access can also result in innocent people being killed due to that difficulty in access. Locally, gangs of criminals seek to break into gun shops on a regular basis. Like Willie Sutton, gun stores are where the guns are. Others are even stolen from baggage and mass shippers such as UPS, the Post Office, etc. Criminals adapt their procedures to whatever new devices and laws are out there. As a society, it is wiser to take on the criminals themselves via law enforcement rather than burden the innocent with a proliferation of new laws and liabilities.
It should be the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt rests on those proposing new laws and that any new law should rest on its efficacy in its primary purpose that results in undeniable societal benefits balanced with its harm to rights. Laws that do not work are foolish and a rather stupid allocation of political system time as well as giving law enforcement another unfunded mandate. The only people that might like such laws are prosecutors as it gives them more leeway to find a charge to fix on someone for good or ill. Laws that infringe rights must meet a very high standard, have very limited application, and provide clear indications of success in the law's stated purpose. Most firearm laws fail in that respect.
The sad fact is that guns are the scapegoat for far too many in society as the blame for violence --guns do not create criminals, guns have no volition and do not shoot individuals, etc. They, like the car, or even drugs, are tools that can be used for good or evil depending on a particular person's makeup. Criminals will use them for ill and good people for good. Thus, criminal control should be the guidance based on actions that are directly harmful, not gun control.
Treating everyone as the same as potential criminals and children, gets you the the appalling spectacle of Britain which now finds itself awash in illegal guns, acid attacks on the streets, honor killings, knifings, home invasions, etc. because of criminals and their activities. The government and the media over there are now talking about licensing for kitchen knives. At the same time, they prosecute an innocent bloke that brings in a shotgun found in the field TO THE LOCAL POLICE for illegal possession of a firearm.
To people that study in this field that are not ideologues or activist, the violence in American society since the 1960's, can be traced to a few causes which one can find are generally agreed upon are major contributors. Working solutions to fix this problem involve money and limiting individual/societal prerogatives (not rights per se), rebuilding society and families, fixing the mental health system and individual predilections for taking drugs, providing jobs to unskilled laborers, and so on. Access to firearms is not one of the primary causes. Thus, UBC's represent a process tool rather than a serious attempt to resolve violence in society--it is bound to fail to do what is promised and therefore will be used as a stepping stone to prohibition which is what leftists want.
If the political winds blow and the rather stupid idea of UBC's comes about at the federal (or your state for example), as Alexander A says, the major way to blunt the effect is to exempt C&R holders and those with a state's concealed carry permit and that the federal (or state) law will override all state (local) laws regarding states and private sales via the commerce clause (via state preemption). This can also be used as a poison pill amendment that flushes out the real purpose for the backers of such laws.
Relying on the courts to stop such an action, I believe is futile. I think that too many of the current judges on the bench are perfectly amenable to approve limiting individual citizen's liberties via government legislation regardless of what the 2A says or did not say or even what the SCOTUS has to say about the matter.
By exempting the most law abiding portion of firearms holders, little is risked on future outrages, no comprehensive listing beyond what exists anyway of those who presumably carry weapons, etc. Politically, it also creates a larger bloc of folks with something to lose who are generally more effective at limiting actions directed against them.
Last edited:
Using that logic there is no need to pass any new laws.
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
But of course the other side would never agree to such a thing because it negates the very purpose of the legislation, which is not to deter crime, but to deter LAWFUL firearms ownership, and to facilitate its future elimination.
Something like this would be an ideal solution in my mind. Once you have either the state issued or federally issued permit you should be able to walk into any gun store in the country and walk out with whatever you want. Honest law abiding citizens don't want to sell guns to felons or other people barred from owning guns. Today individuals do not even have the ability to run a background check on a buyer. Having the permit should replace the need to fill out the 4473. FFL's would still probably need to keep a log of the who purchased what, but that system could basically mirror what the 4473's accomplish today. Unfortunately this would probably cost billions of dollars given the huge inefficiency of the government, however any system will be expensive. The federal government would end up with a list of people authorized to buy guns, however they would have no idea whether you own 1 derringer or 27 AR-15's.
Being able to control the narrative and coming up with a logical solution that results in a win-win isn't impossible.
WestKentucky
Member
I don’t see it as a huge deal, but only because I see it from another angle. If they get serious about trying to locate guns then they will simply decree that all guns must be registered. At that point they have leverage to enforce the registry laws. If we think Bill owns a gun but he didn’t register it then we can go pay Bill a visit with a search warrant obtained on reasons why we think Bill owns a gun. Those reasons to believe that Bill owns a gun are pretty simple to figure out... Do you swipe an ID or credit card to buy ammo? Do you buy a hunting license? Do you go to firearm related websites? Does Alexa or Siri hear you talking about a gun and report that to the fuzz? If they want it it’s simple. The guy who has grandpas single shot rusting away in a closet isn’t the problem because those guns may as well not exist, but the guns that see daylight are the ones they would be chasing...and when those are gone the market for the one in the closet goes up and somebody need cash then somebody else will need ammo again at some point.
Cannot restate this enough.
That is the reason it is a poison pill amendment--persuades the general public that gun owners are concerned about societal violence but want such laws aimed exactly at the sort that are already breaking laws to being with.
Those with ulterior motives are smoked out and will reject it. However, it would be hard for those folks to argue straight faced that people with permits are dangerous as they have already been through a greater background check than the average gun buyer with fingerprints, background check at the local and federal level, etc.
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
Even not using that logic there is no reason to pass any new laws. We have thousands and thousands of gun laws already on the books; the judicial system keeps coddling criminals, reducing sentences, releasing them early, etc so they can prey on folks again. New gun laws restricting even further the right of law abiding citizens to protect themselves from these vermin are not needed. What is needed is swift, strict incarceration
Sistema1927
Member
Here in New Mexico that Legislature opens today for a 60 day session. Following last November's election we have a Democrat governor and both sides of the legislature under Democrat control. Guess what they are talking about? UBC, along with other infringements. It's going to be a long, hard, ride.
BOHICA, but maybe we can convince some of the more rural members of the fallacy of these short sighted measures.
BOHICA, but maybe we can convince some of the more rural members of the fallacy of these short sighted measures.
I think there are very real reasons why it seems impossible that there could be any sort of compromise on this one issue.. or any issue to be honest.
1. There are some very rich people pouring a ton of money into this, and they don't want a compromise. They want all average citizens disarmed completely. Part of their strategy will surely to be to derail any sort of compromise in a way that makes gun owners seem unreasonable..
2. Gun owners are pissed and sick of compromising, especially when they know it will never end.
3. Even if gun owners did try to have some sort of reasonable discussion, the nature of the media these days is that only extreme points of view are reported, so any discussion with nuisance or boring policy talk won't get any press and will not be heard by anyone expect people that already agree with them.
4. (I thinks that's a two way street as well, and left leaning people that aren't completely anti gun are usually not heard from by either side).
5. It's been proven that there are some bad actors out there that want Americans fighting with each other (over anything) and they are constantly stirring the pot.
1. There are some very rich people pouring a ton of money into this, and they don't want a compromise. They want all average citizens disarmed completely. Part of their strategy will surely to be to derail any sort of compromise in a way that makes gun owners seem unreasonable..
2. Gun owners are pissed and sick of compromising, especially when they know it will never end.
3. Even if gun owners did try to have some sort of reasonable discussion, the nature of the media these days is that only extreme points of view are reported, so any discussion with nuisance or boring policy talk won't get any press and will not be heard by anyone expect people that already agree with them.
4. (I thinks that's a two way street as well, and left leaning people that aren't completely anti gun are usually not heard from by either side).
5. It's been proven that there are some bad actors out there that want Americans fighting with each other (over anything) and they are constantly stirring the pot.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Deanimator
Member
Are they "smoked out" if the media never reports it?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
