Universal Background Checks

[JohnBT]

"I really see no other solution to accidentally selling a gun to someone who shouldn't possess a gun."

Don't sell guns to people you don't know or don't come recommended by a friend or relative. There, now you have an option.

Come to think of it, I've sold a bunch of cars over the years and I never once asked to see a valid driver's license, insurance certification or checked to see if the buyer had one or more DUIs. Maybe I need to be as careful with my car sales as I am with my personal firearm sales.

John

 

[Deanimator]

Of all the various talk, attempts, and outright attacks on the second amendment, I'm mostly fine with requiring background checks for all firearm transfers that are not immediate family. But that's about it.

The ONLY way to enforce that is REGISTRATION.

The only REAL purpose of registration is the facilitation of future BANS and CONFISCATION.

NO, I REFUSE.

 

[Deanimator]

Without reading 111 previous post, I understand peoples objections to UBC's but I really see no other solution to accidentally selling a gun to someone who shouldn't possess a gun.

I really see no other solution to the problem of roaming serial killers except Soviet style internal passports and tying people's residences to their places of employment.

Sometimes the "solution" is worse than the problem.

 

[abajaj11]

In reading all the for/against arguments here I'm not convinced that a UBC is an infringement of anyone's right. Why is such a requirement for an individual sale onerous but a dealer sale not? Is anyone suggesting that a dealer NICS check is an infringement of your right? Why the inconsistency? It would make sense to either have all transfers and sales require a check or none. This is a prime example of how the laws we have on the books are a patchwork of ineffectiveness. Some here state that a fee to the FFL for making the check could result in it being prohibitive to make a sale. How is it not prohibitive for them to do so on their own sales? Obviously they do not charge for that service in making a sale so the act of doing so does not eat into the overhead of running a shop. Performing that service for private sales should only incur the cost of a sales associate's time and use of the system. The fee could be reasonably low and anyone abusing that would also likely be turning off customers to that dealer for their future sales. I don't think dealers would object to this at all. Most are supportive of the shooting community and they would also get people in their door who may buy other merchandise while there for the transfer. Those claiming that a UBC is a few meters further down the slippery slope of confiscation may be claiming that any clarification, modification, or enforcement of present regulations is intolerable. I'm not buying it. We are not above laws that regulate who may have firearms but are above laws that prohibit firearms themselves. The rub is being vigilant that the first effort does not cross over into the second. Registration and confiscation are real concerns. They have been enacted not only in historical examples of totalitarian regimes but here as well. NYC created it's own AWB grandfathering and requiring registration of existent owner then later enacted confiscation. I think in light of Heller & McDonald those sort of efforts would be difficult to enact now. The fact now is that most grabbers' most ambitious efforts heel up before the spectre of depriving citizens of their property. The Fienstein national bill and the recent Cuomo state bill omitted such things despite both their initial rhetoric as they know it would get an immediate court challenge that they don't feel confident about. I say let confiscation battles be fought on their own merit and not roll the idea of consistent background checks into ideas that they are tendrils of confiscation.

If a law is created that says all firearm sales MUSt go through a background check...then the only way to monitor with any degree of effectiveness if that law is being carried out is to know who owns what to begin with....so that if anyone sells a firearm, it will be known if they performed a BC or not. If the feds do not know who owns what, then firearms can circulate amongst the unwashed population without the feds being able to monitor at all.
Knowing who owns what is effective registration...even if it is called by any other name.

 

[Old Fuff]

Why is such a requirement for an individual sale onerous but a dealer sale not?

Because FFL's deal in interstate commerence (buying and selling new guns) the federal government can license dealers, and regulate what they can and cannot do.

However the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate intrastate sales between individuals making private sales, as it was the founders intention to leave regulation of intrastate commerence to the individual states, and they would have likely seen background checks by the national government as prohibited by the 2nd. Amendment. This is the only reason thay haven't tried up until now, and if Universal Background Checks does become law it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court sees it as a reasonable regulation.

 

[michaelbsc]

Did you read Roberts decision on Obamacare? There will be no saved by the bell from that court, ever again. Obama and his marxist political party, bought themselves a chief justice, or more likely made him an offer of some kind, that he couldn't refuse.

Yeah, one has to wonder just what went on in those few months between the closing arguments and the public disclosure. That was some twisted argument.

But at least now we have precedence that its "just a tax" and nothing more. Period.

 

[gbw]

(Abridged) A law that all firearm sales MUSt go through a background check...the only way to monitor if that law is being carried out is to know who owns what to begin with....registration [of all firearms]...

This is correct. Universal background check in any form would require registration of everything. Courts are very unlikely to prevent it.

So what? Registration is not infringement and it doesn't make confiscation more likely. If the gov't does get the power to confiscate they'll have the people and courts behind them - and it won't matter what is or isn't registered. At that point the game's over and lost.

I cannot see a valid objection to registration, or to a national non-expiring FOID that includes a background check and training first.

And then a required check that the FOID is still valid, and registration, for every transfer - a simple phone call would do it.

All of this would be a one time minor inconvenience, but it's not infringement.

I do see that such a scheme over time can reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands, in untrained hands, or in impulse driven hands.

Guns are by far the most dangerous, lethal objects commonly available to the general public, and among the most easily and commonly misused, too often with tragic results. Exercising our right to own them should a considered decision, and preceeded by some minimal show of responsibility.

 

[JohnBT]

"Guns are by far the most dangerous, lethal objects commonly available to the general public"

And you have evidence of this "fact"?

You also keep saying certain things aren't infringements? Again, is that an opinion or fact? Things are never as clear cut as they seem.


"I cannot see a valid objection to registration, or to a national non-expiring FOID that includes a background check and training first."

And the cost would be? There will be a cost, won't there? If there is a cost, the plan could run into the same problem encountered with the poll tax - it discriminates against poor people.

 

[steelerdude99]

...
So what? Registration is not infringement and it doesn't make confiscation more likely. If the gov't does get the power to confiscate they'll have the people and courts behind them - and it won't matter what is or isn't registered. At that point the game's over and lost.
...

GBW, you say “so what?”? With registration, a warrant can be issued to take by force a firearm as they know you have it (or them). If they don’t know who has what, the government would just have to search everyone’s house and throw away the Fourth Amendment while they are at it.

chuck

 

[Akita1]

This is correct. Universal background check in any form would require registration of everything. Courts are very unlikely to prevent it.

So what? Registration is not infringement and it doesn't make confiscation more likely. If the gov't does get the power to confiscate they'll have the people and courts behind them - and it won't matter what is or isn't registered. At that point the game's over and lost.

I cannot see a valid objection to registration, or to a national non-expiring FOID that includes a background check and training first.

And then a required check that the FOID is still valid, and registration, for every transfer - a simple phone call would do it.

All of this would be a one time minor inconvenience, but it's not infringement.

I do see that such a scheme over time can reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands, in untrained hands, or in impulse driven hands.

Guns are by far the most dangerous, lethal objects commonly available to the general public, and among the most easily and commonly misused, too often with tragic results. Exercising our right to own them should a considered decision, and preceeded by some minimal show of responsibility.

"So what?" said the fly to his friends as the spider led him into her nice shiny parlor…

Agreed in principle, but guns are not even in the top 10 leading causes of death - albeit they are made for that specific purpose (yes, we use them to hunt and plink too so relax on the comebacks please…). A little conflicted here because I believe that every time we fill out a 4473 a record is kept anyway so they may just be legitimizing an already active practice.

Here are the top ten per CDC as of 2011:

1. Heart disease: 597,689
2. Cancer: 574,743
3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
4. Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
6. Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
7. Diabetes: 69,071
8. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
9. Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
10. Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

So, by this logic, we REALLY need to start registering body parts and viruses.

 

[Deanimator]

So what? Registration is not infringement and it doesn't make confiscation more likely.

"Registration is not infringement"?

Tell the class how the Chicago handgun ban was implemented.

Take as much space as you need... keeping in mind that some of us actually lived there at one time or another.

 

[Old Fuff]

While you're at it, look at what happened in Washington DC and California. I know of no instance where confiscation or proabition wasn't preceeded by registration.

 

[Deanimator]

While you're at it, look at what happened in Washington DC and California. I know of no instance where confiscation or proabition wasn't preceeded by registration.

As I've been saying a LOT lately, anti-gunners have real contempt for us. They think that not only are we stupid, but that we're so stupid that we'll believe literally anything they tell us. They'll look you right in the eye and tell you never saw what you actually saw.

That is an advantage for us. They underestimate us EVERY time.

The Japanese and the Germans did the same thing in 1941...

 

[gc70]

So what? Registration is not infringement and it doesn't make confiscation more likely. If the gov't does get the power to confiscate they'll have the people and courts behind them - and it won't matter what is or isn't registered. At that point the game's over and lost.

Registration is the ONLY way to make wide-scale confiscation feasible. There are not enough law enforcement, military and government personnel in the country to be able to go door-to-door randomly searching for guns in every building and hiding spot in the country. Even if there were enough forces to search everywhere, the vast majority of people who were not gun owners would not tolerate such an unwarranted invasion of their privacy.

 

[clutch]

The universal background check is ultimate goal of this current gun control campaign. They know mag limits and banning scary looking guns will have no impact on violent crime.

They also know that if you ban all guns, other tools will be used, knives, clubs, force of numbers, ect.

Their end goal is to make it safe for them to rule us. A body of citizens that are capable of resisting a despotic government (them), scares the heck out them.

Their solution to cure their problem is to ban all firearms and the first thing you have to do is to generate a list. It might take 20-40 years to get the list but once the list is complete enough. Game over, hand them in, we know what you have.

 

[oneounceload]

And the solution to THEIR solution is to pull out the guillotine like the French did in 1789 when they adopted our style of government by taking care of the their tyrannical rulers.

Let those politicos eat cake

 

[JRH6856]

The French didn't adopt our style of government. They adopted Napoleon I.

 

[cluck]

This is correct. Universal background check in any form would require registration of everything. Courts are very unlikely to prevent it.

So what? Registration is not infringement and it doesn't make confiscation more likely. If the gov't does get the power to confiscate they'll have the people and courts behind them - and it won't matter what is or isn't registered. At that point the game's over and lost.

I cannot see a valid objection to registration, or to a national non-expiring FOID that includes a background check and training first.

And then a required check that the FOID is still valid, and registration, for every transfer - a simple phone call would do it.

All of this would be a one time minor inconvenience, but it's not infringement.

I do see that such a scheme over time can reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands, in untrained hands, or in impulse driven hands.

Guns are by far the most dangerous, lethal objects commonly available to the general public, and among the most easily and commonly misused, too often with tragic results. Exercising our right to own them should a considered decision, and preceeded by some minimal show of responsibility.

Absolutely incorrect! Automobiles are the most deadly commonly available tool! More deaths in 2010 from unintentional injuries related to an auto accident than firearms!
ChecK CDC data. But a salesman will sell an 18 year old a brand new Corvette ZR-6 with no problem. So long as he has the cash.

 

[robhof]

robhof

And yet when people are killed by autos, there is no outcry to ban cars or specific models of them even, and they're readily driven by felons and mentally unstable people, as well as many impairede by drugs or alcahol!!!

 

[abajaj11]

This is correct. Universal background check in any form would require registration of everything. Courts are very unlikely to prevent it.

So what? Registration is not infringement and it doesn't make confiscation more likely. If the gov't does get the power to confiscate they'll have the people and courts behind them - and it won't matter what is or isn't registered. At that point the game's over and lost.

I cannot see a valid objection to registration, or to a national non-expiring FOID that includes a background check and training first.

And then a required check that the FOID is still valid, and registration, for every transfer - a simple phone call would do it.

All of this would be a one time minor inconvenience, but it's not infringement.

I do see that such a scheme over time can reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands, in untrained hands, or in impulse driven hands.

Guns are by far the most dangerous, lethal objects commonly available to the general public, and among the most easily and commonly misused, too often with tragic results. Exercising our right to own them should a considered decision, and preceeded by some minimal show of responsibility.

Gun registration is a very very bad idea. There is NO reason for a government to register firearms, unless it is to make sure they are "responsibly stored and managed" which means inspections, and to confiscate them.
The second amendment was explicitly created to give citizens in states the ability to not get taken over by a tyrannical power with a standing central army. Allowing the feds to know who owns what is like asking the fox to guard the hen house.

There has never been a time in history, IMHO, when gun registrations has NOT led to major tightening of what guns can be owned, and in mos t cases it has led to confiscation.

Please read these links carefully and then make up your own mind.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-registration-is-gun-confiscation.html

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html

 

[henschman]

Mandatory background checks absolutely are an infringement on our rights. They are a prior restraint on our rights that threaten prison and fines against people who are harming no one. That is called initiation of force. It violates the most basic of moral principles... The non-aggression principle. Also, it is massively unjust to take away the freedom of 300 million people just to try to lower the chances of a few madmen getting ahold of something that they will probably be able to get anyway. Talk about an over-broad remedy. It is always that way with prior restraints on rights. They also always have a chilling effect on the exercise of the right in question.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Too much heat, not enough light.