Who is fighting for these Gun Law Proposals?

[TwoFirstNames]

A couple of thoughts.
1. I am employed as a regulator for a small government agency, in a small city, in what is generally considered one of the most "conservative" or "small government" states in the nation. I work fairly closely with many other governmental agencies at a local and state level. No, I do not believe that any government agency today is immune from the desire to expand their own power and authority.
2. My 70 year old father, who has never been arrested, always paid his taxes, hasn't even had a traffic ticket in over 35 years, must show up to the airport at least 3 hours before his flight because he is always flagged at the security checkpoint. Repeated attempts to figure out why, or how to correct it, have been in vain. All we can figure is that he has somehow been confused with a "person of interest."
Think about those two points before you suggest that a list of prohibited persons is any better that any other list of people in the hands of the government.

 

[JSH1]

And I would want that... WHY?

For the reasons mentioned above.

The flip side to that question is why do you care if private sales are handled exactly the same way was sales at a FFL?

 

[jerkface11]

The flip side to that question is why do you care if private sales are handled exactly the same way was sales at a FFL?

Because I don't want registration and I don't need government permission to sell my property.

 

[Deanimator]

For the reasons mentioned above.

The flip side to that question is why do you care if private sales are handled exactly the same way was sales at a FFL?

NONE of those reasons comes within a million miles of justifying REGISTRATION, whether by the backdoor, frontdoor or the attic window.

NO, I REFUSE.

 

[Warp]

For the reasons mentioned above.

The flip side to that question is why do you care if private sales are handled exactly the same way was sales at a FFL?

Why do we care?

Because the federal government has no business interjecting itself into a private transaction between two citizens.

Because requiring permission from the federal government to sell/trade something means you don't really own it in the first place, which is very wrong and highly unconstitutional, particularly for a Right that is protected from infringement.

Because requiring explicit government permission to get a firearm in the first place violates the Constitution.

Because of everything discussed throughout this entire thread relating "universal background checks" with registration.

Because all these things that make keeping and bearing arms more difficult to do (legally) simply puts an extra burden on lawful citizens who want to keep and bear arms, and that is wrong.

 

[Deanimator]

Because all these things that make keeping and bearing arms more difficult to do (legally) simply puts an extra burden on lawful citizens who want to keep and bear arms, and that is wrong.

Unfortunately, something being bad has historically not been a deterrent for somebody trying to achieve it... by force if necessary.

 

[Warp]

Unfortunately, something being bad has historically not been a deterrent for somebody trying to achieve it... by force if necessary.

Of course.

But the other poster asked somebody why they cared.

That is one reason why I care, and probably a big reason why so many others care, too.

 

[Deanimator]

Of course.

But the other poster asked somebody why they cared.

That is one reason why I care, and probably a big reason why so many others care, too.

They think that nobody remembers the meme of a past era of repressive, invidiously racist gun controls:

A first good step...

I aim to make sure we never take that step.

 

[savanahsdad]

Your idea of citizens carrying "OK to buy" ID cards will NOT allow the feds to monitor that a background check took place after EVERY sale. Folks with ID cards could buy or sell in private to anyone in their state WITHOUT checking IDs. .

Universal background checks can ONLY be enforced if the monitoring authority knows who owns what BEFORE and AFTER every sale. That is registration.

In fact, any activity that needs to be done at EVERY sale can only be effectively monitored and enforced with registration.

For example, if the feds stipulate that you need to be an FFL if you sell more than, say, 20 guns a year, then that means you have to update a COUNT after every sale, which again can only be effectively monitored and enforced by knowing that a sale actually took place, which can only be done by knowing WHO owns what BEFORE and AFTER the sale, which can only be done by registration.

Registration is a very very bad idea for ALL gun owners. It's ONLY purpose is confiscation down the road.
Hopefully this shows why all 2A supporters should be AGAINST universal background checks.

And in fact, against any activity that needs to be done after every sale.

.
Nowhere in my post did I say anything about universal background checks or registration just some way to prove to anyone who is selling me/you a gun , that you are not a criminal get rid of the NICS and fees , there was no fee or phone calls when I bought my first gun , just some way to prove you're not a bad guy .

 

[savanahsdad]

Simplest proposal I heard was include on state ID/drivers license if a person is under firearms disability since state ID or driver's license is the required form of ID in every state's firearms transactions. Eve private sellers could easily check an ID of a buyer. This would not affect or inconvenience the law abiding. It would only be a state registration of those under firearms disability.

^^^^^ this ^^^^^

use a drivers license as a purchase card , or a CCW card,, just have something that proves you're not a bad guy , and get rid of the NICS

 

[Leanwolf]

"If you have nothing to hide, why would you mind going through a background check?"

Uhhh, well, if you have nothing to hide, why would you mind the police searching your home without a warrant issued by a judge on reasonable cause?

If you have done nothing wrong, why would you mind being forced to testify against yourself in a court of law??

If you don't intend to write or say anything seditious or insulting of Govt., why would you mind Big Brother monitoring whatever you say and write?

Ad nauseum.



L.W.

 

[JSH1]

Universal Background Checks have momentum, not at the national level but at the state level. Washington and Oregon last year and UBC is on the ballot in Nevada and Maine this year. The Brady campaign has promised to put UBCs on the ballot in every state that allows ballot initiatives. For those of you that want to block UBCs you need to come up with good answer to the following question:

Why are background checks required to purchase a gun from a licensed gun dealer but not from an individual?

Background checks = registration = confiscation isn't going to work.

 

[jerkface11]

So you don't want the truth being used? Too bad.

 

[JSH1]

So you don't want the truth being used? Too bad.

You can say background checks = registration = confiscation all you want. I'm just telling you that it won't work on the majority of the population.


I'll just repeat my opinion on registration. You don't need a registry to ban assault weapons or anything else. All you need to do is get enough votes to pass the ban. If that happens the battle is already lost. We should be focusing on preventing the ban, not a plan to keep illegal weapons after a ban.

 

[Warp]

So you don't want the truth being used? Too bad.

Huh?

 

[Deanimator]

Universal Background Checks have momentum, not at the national level but at the state level. Washington and Oregon last year and UBC is on the ballot in Nevada and Maine this year. The Brady campaign has promised to put UBCs on the ballot in every state that allows ballot initiatives. For those of you that want to block UBCs you need to come up with good answer to the following question:

Why are background checks required to purchase a gun from a licensed gun dealer but not from an individual?

Background checks = registration = confiscation isn't going to work.

Well certainly it won't work for those whose ultimate goal is that confiscation.

But then you're no more going to convince them than you would have convinced Juergen Stroop that Germans WEREN'T the "master race". You don't convince them. You DEFEAT them.

There's NO "momentum" for registration followed by confiscation in places that aren't already in the thrall of those pushing invidiously racist repressive gun controls. Registration and confiscation are no more likely in Ohio than establishment of Zoroastrianism as the state religion.

It's interesting to see people doing the equivalent of calling for "compromise" with Germany in February 1945. You have to wonder why they're doing it...

 

[JSH1]

You don't think background checks would pass a pass in Ohio if the voters are allowed a direct vote? I think you might be surprised.

Considering that the majority of people support background checks - Yes, you will need to convince some of them that they are wrong.

Do you really think that 60% of Washington voters support gun confiscation?

 

[Deanimator]

You don't think background checks would pass a pass in Ohio if the voters are allowed a direct vote? I think you might be surprised.

Considering that the majority of people support background checks - Yes, you will need to convince some of them that they are wrong.

Do you really think that 60% of Washington voters support gun confiscation?

NO, they WOULDN'T... if they even got on the ballot AT ALL.

It has something to do with the fact that gun owners in Ohio are well organized and don't let the facists and racists of the gun control cult set the terms of debate. Don't believe me? Ask Toby Hoover.

The ONLY time sham "universal background checks" have ANY traction is when their proponents are allowed to LIE WITHOUT CONTRADICTION about their means of implementation and their ULTIMATE goals.

The ONLY hope for that snake oil is an IGNORANT public. You won't find that here.

 

[JSH1]

Well I guess time will tell. Ohio allows citizens to put initiatives on the ballot so a vote on UBCs is coming your way.

 

[Deanimator]

Well I guess time will tell. Ohio allows citizens to put initiatives on the ballot so a vote on UBCs is coming your way.

Sounds like you know something the rest of us don't.

Do you have plans?

 

[JSH1]

Sounds like you know something the rest of us don't.

Do you have plans?

Only if you haven't been paying attention. As I stated above, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has publicly announced they will be putting UBCs on the ballot in every state that allows voters the option. Ohio is one of those states.

My plans concerning guns are to buy a 357 revolver and matching rifle. I did my concealed carry class last week so I still need to file the paperwork.

 

[Deanimator]

Only if you haven't been paying attention. As I stated above, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has publicly announced they will be putting UBCs on the ballot in every state that allows voters the option. Ohio is one of those states.

My plans concerning guns are to buy a 357 revolver and matching rifle. I did my concealed carry class last week so I still need to file the paperwork.

The odds are those curs will have the same level of success that Toby did.

You KNOW who Toby is, DON'T you?

If not, you don't know the gun control landscape in Ohio.

 

[JSH1]

The odds are those curs will have the same level of success that Toby did.

You KNOW who Toby is, DON'T you?

If not, you don't know the gun control landscape in Ohio.

Toby Hoover - founder of Ohio Against Gun Violence?

I'm not aware that they attempted to get UBCs on the ballot in Ohio.

 

[Deanimator]

Toby Hoover - founder of Ohio Against Gun Violence?

I'm not aware that they attempted to get UBCs on the ballot in Ohio.

Toby and her freakshow tried a LOT of things.

Tell me how many of them succeeded.

 

[JSH1]

Toby and her freakshow tried a LOT of things.

Tell me how many of them succeeded.

Getting something passed through the legislature and getting something on the ballot are two very different things.

Ask the people of Washington about that. UBCs were blocked in the legislature for years. Supporters got it on the ballot and UBCs passed with 60% of the vote.