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

"Universal Background Checks":Code for Universal Gun Registration

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Dean Weingarten, Jan 13, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dean Weingarten

    Dean Weingarten Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    423
    The latest liberal code is to push for "universal background checks". I will set aside the fact that the whole idea of preventing criminals from buying guns, rather than preventing them from possessing guns, is a failed paradigm that should be abandoned.

    Let us examine what is being proposed as "universal background checks". It sounds as if, when you want to sell a gun, you go to the internet, put in the person who wants to buy the gun's drivers license to see if they are on a prohibited list. If they are not, sell them the gun. Of course, there are all sorts of problems with this approach, foremost being who is allowed to access the list, and what information you are required to put in. How many Robert Smiths are there?

    What the left is really proposing is universal gun registration, where anytime you transfer a gun to another person, you have to record the guns serial number, who you transfered it to, and this will have to be done through a licensed government agent.

    It will accomplish nothing to reduce crime, as it never has, anywhere it has been tried. Canada just repealed their expensive failed long gun registry. What it does do is lead to confiscation of firearms over time. Not all at once, not right away. Simply keep narrowing the group of people that are allowed to own guns. Narrow down the guns that are allowed. Make the storage requirements more expensive and onerous. That is the real motive here. Make it difficult to own guns. Make it difficult to sell guns. Gradually reduce the number of gun owners until they are politically insignificant. The left hates the American gun culture. They want to be sure that their political opposition is disarmed. That is the reason for ineffective and intrusive "universal background checks".

    It sounds so much nicer than Universal Gun Registration.

    Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation

    Dean Weingarten

    http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/01/universal-background-checkscode-for.html

    http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-registration-is-gun-confiscation.html
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013
  2. Ehtereon11B

    Ehtereon11B internet infantryman

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    983
    I don't think requiring background checks would force gun registration. The bout of requiring checks for every purchase is probably the only gun control measure I can semi-agree with, although I don't plan on building a summer home around it. If the method you suggest would be implemented I wouldn't like it. But if the sale was completed by a FFL like it is done now with interstate transfers I would not have an issue with it. Most of us buy our firearms legally either through FFL or currently legal intrastate person transfers. If the antis win in passing universal checks and nothing else, it would be a small price to pay and they can toot their horn for closing the "gun show loophole" they always bring up.
     
  3. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,056
    Location:
    Virginia
    You are jumping to a conclusion here. That may be what the "left" is "really" proposing, but it doesn't necessarily have to end up that way, after input from the opposing side. Your original scenario is just as plausible:

    This sounds to me like a free, and easy, NICS check open to all. Heck, this could even be made voluntary, with incentives such as immunity from civil liability if this is done.

    Ironically, opposition to a free NICS check might come from FFL holders, who would want their $15 (or whatever) for processing the check. The Administration may be trying to bribe FFL holders into supporting this idea by specifying a "closed" system that would funnel all the checks through them, allowing them to charge fees. (Co-opting stakeholders was a technique that we saw used in the runup to Obamacare.)
     
  4. ZeSpectre

    ZeSpectre Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    5,503
    Location:
    Deep in the valley
    Free? Oh believe me there will be a cost someplace!
     
  5. Billll

    Billll Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    402
    Location:
    Littleton, CO
    It creates a paper trail on your gun, and adds a $35 "tax" onto the sale price.

    Call and write your rep and tell them NO!
     
  6. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    48,343
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Background checks are not the same as registration. Registration is registration. While a lot of people like to argue that Registration leads to confiscation (because it has in some countries), the absurd idea that a background check is registration is absurd.

    There are already places in this country that require a background check for every firearms transfer. It is what happens to that information that is critical in whether registration might grow out of it. In TN the background check system is a state not fed function. It is a flat $10 fee. In other states you don't have to go through a background check on every firearm if you have a carry permit.

    Ignorance of the laws and how they work make us look...ignorant.
     
  7. abajaj11

    abajaj11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    149
    Think about how a federally mandated background check on ALL firearms will be implemented. Right now, only firearms sold through FFL dealers have to pass a NICs (Form 4473) test in all states, and in some states the state laws mandate that all transfers have to be through an FFL dealer. The feds regulate the FFL dealers and do not keep records of transactions, but the FFL dealers have to. If an FFL dealer goes out of business, those records go to ATF for storage, and are never lost. Now imagine extending this requirement to ALL buyers and sellers of firearms. Well this is impossible.

    So the feds will say, well let us just require all states to do what California, for example, does already. All transfers must go through an FFL. But what to do about the millions of unregistered guns in the USA? How do the feds know who owns them? If they don't know who owns them, how will they verify that ALL guns are being sold after a NICS check? Well, the FEDs will come back and say: "We cannot implement your new law unless you allow us to register all firearms". So the inevitable next step to mandating background check on ALL firearm sales will be a demand to Congress or an Executive order that all firearms be registered, without which the law will be impossible to enforce. Since this EO will be to implement a law passed by Congress, there is a good chance, IMHO, that it will be held legal.

    Hence, IMHO, Universal background checks will lead to registration.
    and being watched and monitored by a bureaucracy that does not want you to own arms is a total infringement. It's like the fox guarding the hen house.
    The 2A is supposed to allow citizens to defend themselves and the State from enemies of the republic, foreign and domestic. You know, like a tyrannical government with a standing army.

    Would anyone like background checks before one is allowed to speak or post on the Internet? Would you like a bureaucrat monitoring everything you say? The ability to only post with your government supplied Internet ID? Because that WILL be next, right after we have been disarmed.
    Stop Universal Background checks. It is very very dangerous.
    Please feel free to pass this message along to other forums and social media as well. The more pro 2A folks know about this the better.
    :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013
  8. HorseSoldier

    HorseSoldier Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,297
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    Honestly, I would prefer to have the ability to check the serial # on a firearm I was receiving to make sure it wasn't stolen property and to check that a guy I might be selling a weapon to determine that they were not a felon or other prohibited person -- both in terms of potential civil liability and my own peace of mind.

    Neither of which is any support for registration of firearms. As noted, two different things.
     
  9. abajaj11

    abajaj11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    149
    For all folks here thinking that we can placate the anti 2A folks with some legislation, and Universal Background checks are the least harmful of their proposals, please think about this. The antis are NOT interested in preventing gun violence. They don't CARE about people dying. If they were, they would be closing gun-free killing zones.
    No, the anti2A folks care about taking guns away from the population. Any proposals they make are aimed at that.
    Their top proposal is emerging as a Universal Background check. This is NOT because they think "Oh...we would love a mag cap ban and an assault weapons ban, but those evil NRA types won't let that pass, so let's just settle for a Universal Backgroun Check..."
    No No No...the reason a Universal background Check is their top priority is because it will allow them to take away the maximum number of guns quickly. It will open the door to executive order after executive order that can be used to monitor and disarm citizens. Mag cap bans and Assault weapon bans are distractions/red herrings to throw some meat to the congress for voting against, so Congressmen and Senators can go to the NRA and say "we fought the good fight, and we managed to stop mag cap bans and assault weapon bans, but we HAD to give them something so we gave them Universal Background checks."

    The fact that Universal BG check is the anti2A's top priority means that this should be our top priority to defeat as well.

    And forget the FFL's wanting this and being some kind of lobby. ...FFLs have no power politically.
    They don't contribute to the NRA or number nearly as much as the 100 million+ gun owners. Legislators and NRa are not concerned about FFl holders...instead they are concerned about us, the voters.
    So let us work together and call our Senators and Congressman once a week, (3 calls a week, 5 min of your time) for the next 8 weeks, and tell them that we will work to defeat folks who compromise with anti-2A in any way, and work to elect those who do not compromise in any way.

    remember, it is not our fault that Newtown happened. We are the good guys here. we train others and are responsible gun owners. there are 20,000 laws already that govern how we can buy guns and keep and bear them. we do not need to compromise any further.
    We can win this if we stick together.
    :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013
  10. DeepSouth

    DeepSouth Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,182
    Location:
    Heart of Dixie
    OK, help me out here. There are millions of guns out there that no one other than the owner even knows exists.

    I have some like that, and if they passed a law saying I couldn't sell them without a background check on the buyer then, ok, I would do that. But the majority of the public doesn't keep up with laws like us, so I would argue MOST private sales would probably be unknowing illegal. I would also argue that because virtually no one other the seller and buyer would know the gun exists then the law would be almost impossible to enforce.

    The short version is they either know where they are and can therefore track them and know when they are illegally sold, OR they don't know where they are and therefore will have no effective way to enforce a law that has anything to do with private sales.

    Am I wrong?


    BTW:
    This is honest question, I am trying to figure out how they could make this work...with out registration.
    I am not trying to be argumentative.
     
  11. abajaj11

    abajaj11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    149
    Who would you like to maintain this database for you? The government.... who does not want you to own any firearms? They will monitor you every day, pick off segments of gun owners for "violations of common-sense gun safety" and effectively disarm this country within 2-3 years.
    :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013
  12. abajaj11

    abajaj11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    149
    You are dead right.
     
  13. hogshead

    hogshead Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    987
    Location:
    North Carolina
    That is exactly right Deep South. The only way they could know would be complete registration. Which ALWAYS leads to confiscation. This must be stopped or all is lost. The gun owners who agree to this are worse than the antis.
     
  14. Wolfman131

    Wolfman131 member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    30
    From another gun forum. I would urge folks to read the posts within the thread from all of the NRA types that are not just okay with the idea of universal government intrusion(universal nics), but lobbying hard for it! Please read it, look at the numbers for, v against. Its really quite shocking.

    I hope you folks see the importance of whats unfolding here, that mentality is loose within our 2nd amendment community, its crucial that we understand whats at stake, because gun owners themselves, capitulating liberty for no other reason than to capitulate something, is not a recipe for success.

    Subjugating private American citizens to this data gathering system, is exactly what the anti-gun political class is hunting after. If we succumb to this initiative, they will have the mechanism firmly in place, to not only register, but track each and every gun owning citizen.

    Thats the goal.
     
  15. blkbrd666

    blkbrd666 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,301
    Location:
    Georgia
    Okay, why are there so many people compromising around here? Why is anyone evening trying to dream up a "suitable" compromise? Are these just people fresh out of the modern day brainwashing establishment they call school, or are people visiting the wrong neighbors and drinking the Kool-Aid? I would think anyone over 30 has had their toes stepped on enough in life. :banghead:
     
  16. hovercat

    hovercat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Messages:
    300
    Location:
    Texas
    I forget the case. It is in my copy of 'American Historical Documents', Harvard 5' shelf of books.....
    Had to do with setting up the bank of the US. Supreme Court ruled that if the Constitution gives the gov a right A, it also gives the gov the power necessary to achieve A, in that case form the bank.
    The legal experts here can clarify, but to my fuzzy thinking, the gov can say that Congress passed a background check law. Necessary to properly implement that law is registration, so no further votes by lawmakers are needed.

    I think I have presented my theory, can someone please clean it up and flesh it out properly? Or tell me that I have bats in my belfry?
     
  17. abajaj11

    abajaj11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    149
    You are absolutely right.
     
  18. abajaj11

    abajaj11 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    149
    we need to forward the real meaning underlying Universal Background checks to as many forums as we can...also to the NRA, SAF and GOA.
    :)
     
  19. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    7,005
    Location:
    Frozen North
    Technically
    there is a provision in the brady bill which is supposed to PREVENT them from compiling a database...

    just like Trace Records are NOT supposed to be a database....
     
  20. suemarkp

    suemarkp Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    458
    Location:
    Kent, WA
    My problem with everyone doing mandatory background checks:

    • What to do when NICS is down?
    • What to do when you get a Delay?
    • Do you get a transaction number? If not, you need something if you have to prove you conducted a check. Better not lose that number, and I'm NOT giving you the gun serial number.
    • All guns currently in existence in private hands could have been sold to someone already without a paper trail. These will be "PRE-NICS" guns and you could easily sell them without conducting a check because you could say "I sold that guns years ago". These will become more valuable to people wanting to skirt the check.

    That being said, I would certainly consider using NICS if I was allowed to, and didn't cost much if anything (money or time). I'd want to be able to call it from my house and get an go or no-go quickly.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2013
  21. Chris-bob

    Chris-bob Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2011
    Messages:
    351
    Location:
    Ketchikan, Alaska
    Next thing they will want to know the serial of the gun during the NICS check. All in the name of 'safety'. Give them an inch, they will take it and in a few months push for another inch. Slowly, inch after inch, they will have taken everything.
     
  22. Wolfman131

    Wolfman131 member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    30
    Why on earth would you want to do something like that? This is exactly what is wrong, individuals conditioned by the state, into not just accepting the invasion, but more then willing to perform it for them!

    With friends like this, the 2nd amendment will swiftly fall.
     
  23. suemarkp

    suemarkp Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    458
    Location:
    Kent, WA
    I'm saying I may use it if it were available to me. I also may ask for a concealed pistol license if I'm not sure how savory the buyer is. I'm not saying make it mandatory, for all the reasons given.

    I have a gun safe, and I don't have to. I think it is responsible. I'm not going to say safe storage has to be mandatory either.
     
  24. Wolfman131

    Wolfman131 member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    30
    Why you would even "consider" such an intrusion upon a fellow citizen, is appalling.

    Frankly, its my considered opinion, that this is the by-product of statist conditioning, and softening processes. Over the decades, they have softened you(the masses)up to their extra-constitutional intrusions, getting you(them) not just comfortable with their constant invasions, but afraid, or unsure of yourself(themselves)without it!

    You're not "just being reasonable," you're being taken in a highly complex confidence scam. Think about it, deeply! Elimination of the so-called gun show loophole, would not have saved a single Sandy Hook child, or any of the children murdered in school house massacres in America over the last decades. This is intended as a prequel to full on registration, which is itself prelude to confiscation. Its not going to affect a single criminal, its aimed squarely at the law-abiding American citizen.

    You might ask yourself why it is, that you are open to doing it for them?
     
  25. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    "Universal background checks" is a convenient new term to reflect aspirations beyond the former gun control demand for background checks at gun shows. The reality is even worse than the expanded term "universal background checks" suggests.

    The gun control crowd does not just want background checks for all sales of guns, but for all transfers of guns.

    H.R.21 was introduced by Rep. Moran on the first day of the new Congress; Title I of that bill contains the same language about background checks as Senator Schumer's bill from the prior session of Congress. After stating that the purpose of that Title of the bill is "to extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms" the word "sale" is never used again and "transfer" is used exclusively. Subsequently, the bill specifically covers "a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page