Universal Background Check = Universal Registration.

[jar]

Wow. You've already gone past the slippery slope and are deep in the pit.

If you allow them to set the certification requirements they will make it so onerous that most people won't be able to handle the process.

I don't doubt you believe that however there is no evidence that I've seen to support such a conclusions. We already have background checks and folk are already able to buy firearms. And in fact the trend is that more and more states are not just creating records and doing background checks but even recognizing the licenses issued by other states. The situation in reality is very close to what we see in driving licenses.

Reality seems to win over fantasy most every time.

 

[Texas10mm]

I have no issue with not just a Universal Background Check but even some form of regular re-certification including medical records. And while we are at it, I would support a citizenship registry as well.

I don't doubt you believe that however there is no evidence that I've seen to support such a conclusions. We already have background checks and folk are already able to buy firearms. And in fact the trend is that more and more states are not just creating records and doing background checks but even recognizing the licenses issued by other states. The situation in reality is very close to what we see in driving licenses.

Reality seems to win over fantasy most every time.

You have no problem with UBC? That is just going to lead to universal registration. You have no problem with some sort of regular re-certification including medical records. You're ok with a permit system and training to own a firearm? Sorry, that's just not going to fly. Here's how the antis would set up the training requirement.

1. Training will be offered twice a year.
2. Class size is limited to 24.
3. A $10,000 fee is required to apply for training.
4. If you're accepted for training the fee will be $25,000. Note this doesn't cover meals, travel or lodging for the two weeks of required training.
5. Training locations shall be either the North Slope of Alaska (winter) or Death Valley (summer).
6. Failure to pass training shall eliminate you from any further attempts at training.
7. Republican white males need not apply. Veterans need not apply. If we don't like you don't even try.
8. You must submit 25 years of medical records with your application for training. They must be in the following format. Double spaced, single sided, 24 point san serif font with 2" margins at the top, bottom, left and right sides of the page. Paper must be 36 lb bright pink.

Also your seeming acceptance of medical review would mean that many Veterans would be barred from ownership, you're probably not aware of how many Veterans are on antidepressants and/or opioid pain medications.

 

[George P]

Guess you haven't seen the latest laws being passed restricting your rights even more?

 

[AlexanderA]

3. A $10,000 fee is required to apply for training.
4. If you're accepted for training the fee will be $25,000.

I hate to say this, but there are some in the gun community that would be OK with this. It would be an additional profit center for them. Never mind that it would be killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

[George P]

No they wouldn't, because the gov't would be the one doing the training and collecting the tax, I mean FEE.

 

[Tommygunn]

I don't doubt you believe that however there is no evidence that I've seen to support such a conclusions. We already have background checks and folk are already able to buy firearms. And in fact the trend is that more and more states are not just creating records and doing background checks but even recognizing the licenses issued by other states. The situation in reality is very close to what we see in driving licenses.

Reality seems to win over fantasy most every time.

There certainly IS evidence ....it's all in the interpretation. Think .... in 1919 you could walk into a hardware store with cold hard cash and buy a revolver, no questions asked. How did this progress over the years? In 1929 you could walk into that store, if you had $200.00, and buy a Thompson Submachine gun.
No questions asked.
Four years later that changed severely ---- The National Firearm Act was born. You had to ask permission and pay a fee. Remember: the crafty congress critters almost got handguns swept up into that law.
Somethings HAVE gotten better; more carry laws , stand your ground laws....sure.
But the antis are attacking those.

The AWB expired in 2004....now California rep Eric Swalwell wants to confiscate them, and is OK if it starts a civil war 'cause ●GOV has NUKES. Diane Feinstein has pandered to her base by reintroducing a new assault weapon ban.

Oh....Bernie Sanders .... Alexandria Occasio-Cortez and a handful of other "Democrat socialists" have ascended to kongress. Think they're friendly to assault rifles ------ or any other weapon?
In America, overall, from towns, cities, county to state, from there to federal, there are 20,000 gun laws on the books.

The overall trend isn't optimistic. Some will disagree, but there REALLY IS a SLIPPERY SLOPE.
If you don't agree there is, then 'splain 20,000 gun laws. I'm all ears.
I will not be much impressed by any explanation that evades the conclusion: 20,000 GUN CONTROL LAWS.
(Just so as to save someone's efforts).

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

Here is the upshot of where the discussion has taken us thusfar.

What were, in the eyes of the supreme court, previously seen as barriers to the right to keep and bear arms (infringements) are or will be no longer considered to be so. Infringements will continue to be framed as something required in the name of public safety until infringements are so great, so onerous, that the right itself will be unable to be exercised Except by the ultra-rich or those who intentionally break the law. In fact, it is already difficult to follow one set of laws without running afoul of another. Many, many countries are this way even today, and some of those are recognizing the error of their ways and moving away from restrictions and registrations.

And back home, with every effort to advance a specific goal, people who hate and fear the second amendment will continue to push to ensure acceptance of additional infringements. We will continue down the path of the UK as we will continue to see national shifts in attitude that favor communal safety over rugged individualism and provide protection for those who choose not to live under the rule of law.

I’m in mind of the misattributed quote that suggests we will not understand the importance of the second until “they” try to take it.

 

[HuckFinn]

I just read it again.

I think the BC is for the purchase only. No more BC's for you after you purchase it. If you sell it in WA it will have to be transferred thru a dealer and the purchaser will have to get a BC. WA laws don't apply to out-of-state sales and as far as I know there is no way to even report an out-of-state sale to the state. The dealer has to do that during the transfer and obviously if that dealer isn't in WA they aren't required to record the transfer with WA state. Basically, it's the same as pistols.

Talk to a dealer. They know the laws better than I do.

Here's some advice on out-of-state sales. Know what you shipped including SN and model. Keep all of your buyer contact information, the dealer you shipped the gun to, and any postal receipts of the shipment. If push comes to shove and you have to prove that you sold that gun you have the records. Otherwise there is no reason to give that information to anyone unless you are accused of a crime, which is highly unlikely. Just because a firearm was registered to you doesn't mean you can't legally sell it.

There is a new section that was added to chapter 941 RCW of I-1639, it reads:

That State Patrol or other local law enforcement will:
(a) Verify, on an annual or more frequent basis, that persons who acquired pistols or semi-automatic assault rifles pursuant to this chapter remain eligible to possess a firearm under state and federal law; and
(b)If such persons are determined to be ineligible for any reason, ( i ) Notify and provide relevant information to the Chief of Police or the Sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides and (i i) take steps to ensure such persons are not illegally in possession of firearms.

Notice that when they come to confiscate your semi-auto "Assault" rifle they can confiscate ALL your firearms.

 

[Old Dog]

And the WSP has no plan yet, nor is not staffed to, annually run checks on all the folks who buy semi-automatic rifles after 1 July 2019.

Hell, no more courtesy NICS checks for handgun purchasers with CPLs after 1 July 2019, so CPL holders will face the same 10-day waiting period as everyone else.

Oh, and if one "becomes ineligible for any reason" to continue owning their semi-automatic rifle (even one's 10-22), one obviously is ineligible to own any firearm.

So what's it all mean for us up here? Good luck Virginians ... and Georgians ... y'all are next.

 

[CoalTrain49]

And the WSP has no plan yet, nor is not staffed to, annually run checks on all the folks who buy semi-automatic rifles after 1 July 2019.

That's it right there.

I-1639 wasn't something the WA legislature passed, we got it by initiative. The legislature never funded it nor did they fund I-594. Consequently there are no funds to enforce either law. I-1639 is going to increase the burden on the state to keep records on rifle sales. They can't even keep up with records on pistols sales. The last thing I read about that was they were about 16 months behind sales. This will probably drop them back to 2 years easy. I doubt the legislature will fund it because they weren't responsible for it's passage.

Personally I wouldn't worry about LE monitoring. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

Crap, like the WSP isn't busy enough with all the idiot drivers on the road. It's a zoo out there.

 

[JTHunter]

That's it right there.

I-1639 wasn't something the WA legislature passed, we got it by initiative. The legislature never funded it nor did they fund I-594. Consequently there are no funds to enforce either law. I-1639 is going to increase the burden on the state to keep records on rifle sales. They can't even keep up with records on pistols sales. The last thing I read about that was they were about 16 months behind sales. This will probably drop them back to 2 years easy. I doubt the legislature will fund it because they weren't responsible for it's passage.

Personally I wouldn't worry about LE monitoring. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

Crap, like the WSP isn't busy enough with all the idiot drivers on the road. It's a zoo out there.

Since Illinois got CC several years ago, the State Police have been in charge of running the checks. While things have been getting better (slowly), there were some people that, because of police objections (the majority were from the Shi*cago & C(r)ook County area and unfounded), were delayed as much as two years before getting their permits. It was so bad that these people were said to have been "darted" because of Chicagoland sheriff Tom Dart. Even now, many people are waiting 6 months before getting their licenses.
Ill-annoy was dragged into CC kicking and screaming by a court order and they still seem to be stalling as much as they can. Now that "Lurch" Madigan has a Democrat puppet as governor and a supermajority in BOTH houses of the state legislature, we are most likely to go backwards AGAIN.

 

[CapnMac]

It's strange how I NEVER see anyone on the other side advise them to give up something in return for nothing.

This is a subtle and important point.
If asked, all you get back is the "something" is 'dead children' and 'blood in the streets.' It's always poses as an unequal argument. That we have already jumped over the side of a cliff and Must Do Something! So, despite the fact that "flapping arms" is both pointless and demonstrably more harmful, the premise of the argument is that Something > Nothing. That's a histrionic argument devoid of logic and is not winnable by reasoned debate. Only by loudest shouting.

 

[CapnMac]

There is a danger, out there. I am noting, in several media, a certain complacency based on "I have a CCW/LTC, so a UBC won't affect me" attitude.
This, I feel, is a dangerous complacency.

First off, LTC really really gets under the ant crowd's skin, as it voids all the arguments the AG crowd make. So, when a National UBC is brought out, that LTC will have no effect. And there will be a minefield of unintended consequences for everybody, including LTC holders. Like, will you be able to loan an arm to your BiL who is not LTC while plinking at a range. Or will you be able to give an arm as a gift or any matter of simple transfers that are presently of no great concern.

This is not lost on the elites who would strip we peons of our rights, and will be used to divide us from ourselves.

There are all these rumblings of "civil war" afoot, and not just on our topic here. There is a danger that it's human nature to presume fin de cecile direness in all situations. Sometimes this is dismissed as "the sky is not falling." Yet, the overcast may well be real with a lowering ceiling. Right now, the demographics for civil war are not in the elite's favor. The populations they (generally) control are typically concentrated in 40-50 Counties out of the US's ±3000 Counties. That leaves rather a lot of "deplorables" out there where the food is grown, the power is generated, etc. So, the elites have a vested interest in dividing us against ourselves.

 

[Walkalong]

So, the elites have a vested interest in dividing us against ourselves.

And you can see some of it right here.

 

[George P]

And you can see some of it right here.

I think it is more of the young and naive against us old goats who been around a while and have seen this many times before.

 

[jdc1244]

“Universal Background Check = Universal Registration”

Actually not.

The argument that a universal background check will result in universal registration fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Old Dog]

There is a danger, out there. I am noting, in several media, a certain complacency based on "I have a CCW/LTC, so a UBC won't affect me" attitude.
This, I feel, is a dangerous complacency.

First off, LTC really really gets under the ant crowd's skin, as it voids all the arguments the AG crowd make. So, when a National UBC is brought out, that LTC will have no effect. And there will be a minefield of unintended consequences for everybody, including LTC holders. Like, will you be able to loan an arm to your BiL who is not LTC while plinking at a range. Or will you be able to give an arm as a gift or any matter of simple transfers that are presently of no great concern.

This is not lost on the elites who would strip we peons of our rights, and will be used to divide us from ourselves.

This has become reality for those of us in Washington state as a result of both I-594 and I-1639.

“Universal Background Check = Universal Registration”

Actually not.

The argument that a universal background check will result in universal registration fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Didn't read the thread all the way through, eh? And can't argue your rebuttal either?

 

[AlexanderA]

The argument that a universal background check will result in universal registration fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

I wouldn't put it quite that way. It could be a slippery slope if the antis get to design the UBC system in the way they want. The idea for us is to head off this result by designing a UBC system in the way we want. Remember that there are three groups of players involved in this: the hard-core antigunners, the gun-rights advocates (us), and the vast number of well-meaning people in the middle, who are not against guns per se but want to do "something" about the perceived misuse of guns. The first two groups are each trying to persuade the third group. So far we are not doing a very good job of it.

 

[Deanimator]

There is a danger, out there. I am noting, in several media, a certain complacency based on "I have a CCW/LTC, so a UBC won't affect me" attitude.
This, I feel, is a dangerous complacency.

And that of course leaves aside the mounting attacks on shall issue concealed carry, like that of the imbecile Zack Ford on Twitter who bemoaned the fact that a Chicago woman defended herself with a gun from an armed robber. That freak even wished that she'd just LET HERSELF GET ROBBED.

 

[Deanimator]

“Universal Background Check = Universal Registration”

Actually not.

The argument that a universal background check will result in universal registration fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

ONE of two things will happen with a sham "universal background check":

1. It will fail to diminish crime in any measurable way and the proponents will give up on further attempts at racially invidious gun controls.
2. It will fail to diminish crime in any measurable way, it will rightfully be seen as utterly meaningless WITHOUT registration, and proponents of racially invidious gun controls will push even harder for registration.

If you believe 1 above, there's a Nigerian prince just waiting to share $20,000,000 dollars with you. For a small commission, I'll be happy to get you two in contact with each other...

 

[jar]

There certainly IS evidence ....it's all in the interpretation. Think .... in 1919 you could walk into a hardware store with cold hard cash and buy a revolver, no questions asked. How did this progress over the years? In 1929 you could walk into that store, if you had $200.00, and buy a Thompson Submachine gun.
No questions asked.
Four years later that changed severely ---- The National Firearm Act was born. You had to ask permission and pay a fee. Remember: the crafty congress critters almost got handguns swept up into that law.
Somethings HAVE gotten better; more carry laws , stand your ground laws....sure.
But the antis are attacking those.

The AWB expired in 2004....now California rep Eric Swalwell wants to confiscate them, and is OK if it starts a civil war 'cause ●GOV has NUKES. Diane Feinstein has pandered to her base by reintroducing a new assault weapon ban.

Oh....Bernie Sanders .... Alexandria Occasio-Cortez and a handful of other "Democrat socialists" have ascended to kongress. Think they're friendly to assault rifles ------ or any other weapon?
In America, overall, from towns, cities, county to state, from there to federal, there are 20,000 gun laws on the books.

The overall trend isn't optimistic. Some will disagree, but there REALLY IS a SLIPPERY SLOPE.
If you don't agree there is, then 'splain 20,000 gun laws. I'm all ears.
I will not be much impressed by any explanation that evades the conclusion: 20,000 GUN CONTROL LAWS.
(Just so as to save someone's efforts).

And I see no problem with even a Brazillion gun laws. Saying there is some problem with 20,000 gun control laws is a problem is one of those utterly silly juvenile arguments. The number of laws is irrelevant. The content of some specific law may be relevant. Local laws are irrelevant, they are the laws the local population wants and can be changed by the local population.

 

[Walkalong]

“Universal Background Check = Universal Registration”

Actually not.

The argument that a universal background check will result in universal registration fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Actually yes, they have made no bones at all about their end goal.

 

[Walkalong]

And I see no problem with even a Brazillion gun laws. Saying there is some problem with 20,000 gun control laws is a problem is one of those utterly silly juvenile arguments. The number of laws is irrelevant. The content of some specific law may be relevant. Local laws are irrelevant, they are the laws the local population wants and can be changed by the local population.

Completely invalid. It does matter that 20,000 gun laws don't stop crime now, it is a good way to show the on the fence types why voting for more gun laws won't help, if we enforced the ones we have it would help, but the ones we have are not what the antis want, they want totally registration so that it will be easier to round them all up, whether it is here and there or if they are ignorant enough to try to come get them.

You could always move to Brazil instead of helping the antis here.

 

[jar]

Completely invalid. It does matter that 20,000 gun laws don't stop crime now, it is a good way to show the on the fence types why voting for more gun laws won't help, if we enforced the ones we have it would help, but the ones we have are not what the antis want, they want totally registration so that it will be easier to round them all up, whether it is here and there or if they are ignorant enough to try to come get them.

You could always move to Brazil instead of helping the antis here.

And that's yet another really silly sophomoric suggestion.

It is only folk that stay here that can elect local and national legislators that can eliminate the bad laws and help educate the public. My moving to Brazil is just a stupid idea.

Nor am I helping antis. What I am doing is trying to actually realistically address the problems.

 

[George P]

And I see no problem with even a Brazillion gun laws. Saying there is some problem with 20,000 gun control laws is a problem is one of those utterly silly juvenile arguments. The number of laws is irrelevant. The content of some specific law may be relevant. Local laws are irrelevant, they are the laws the local population wants and can be changed by the local population.

Are you serious or just that naive? I think you're just trolling