Why Aren’t gun owners reliable voters?

[American Finn]

I'll just say this; you have politicians (predominantly on the left) saying we "need to be more like Australia". Sorry but I've never hurt anyone else in my life and I'm beyond tired of being blamed for the evil in our society. This is a civil rights issue plain and simple; just as important as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

Like my father has repeated many times "we left Finland because we were afraid of it becoming communist; I wasn't even born here but went to Vietnam to fight communism and now we have it here in America". And don't get me started on illegal immigration.

 

[jmorris]

I don't think you are the poster child for all gun owners, LOL. It may be for you, but not for everybody. There are absolutely many gun owners for which guns are not the central focus of their lives or elections.

I can't disagree with that.

The 2020 presidential election had the highest voter turnout of the 21st century, with 66.8% of citizens 18 years and older voting in the election, according to new voting and registration tables released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

2020 Presidential Election Voting and Registration Tables Now Available

The 2020 presidential election had the highest voter turnout of the 21st century, with 66.8% of citizens 18 years and older voting in the election.

www.census.gov

There were 168.31 million "registered" voters in 2020.

Number of registered voters U.S. 2022 | Statista

In 2022, there were 161.42 million people registered to vote in the United States.

www.statista.com

112.43108 million voters but 55.87892 million didn't go, thats a lot that didn't vote and doesn't include the deceased ones that did vote, despite their death. Margin of victory was much, much less.

 

[JohnKSa]

A lot of what Republicans have done have been on the state level.

No question. A lot of gun legislation, pro- and anti- takes place at the state level, and although both kinds are sponsored by both parties, it would be disengenous to try to make it seem like there is no difference in that respect.

But I was asking about some specific claims about federal firearm legislation, trying to align them with my understanding of that topic.

 

[jmorris]

FWIW a lot of POTUS voters effect down ballot candidates, they are already there at that point...

Motivation to get there, is the kicker.

 

[JohnKSa]

Here's how: Lets say I buy a new gun. I go through a background check and take my new gun to the range. There I say "I don't like this gun". Some stranger overhears me and says "if you don't want that gun I'll buy it from you". I say "okay but we have to do this legally. You need a background check". We go down to Buds Gun Shop and he gets a background check. It comes back good and I sell the gun right there.
Later the gun is used in a crime. Police go to the 1st gun shop where I bought the gun and they give out my name. Police come knocking on my door. I say "No, I sold that gun. We used Buds Gun Shop as the FFL and they have the paperwork to prove my innocence."

That's an example of how it will work. Here's one of how it doesn't and a longer explanation of the general cases where it will and won't work.


Here's how: Lets say you have a gun you bought years ago from a friend, before the universal background check went into effect. You take your gun to the range. There you say "I'm tired of this gun". Some stranger overhears you and says "if you don't want that gun I'll buy it from you". You say "okay-give me $500". He does and walks away with the gun. Later the gun is used in a crime. Police go to the 1st gun shop that sold the gun and they give the name of the guy who bought it new. They go to him, but he can't remember who he sold it to and they are done. Or maybe he remembers and they go to your friend. Your friend says he sold it to you. They go to you. You say that you sold it to a guy long before the universal background went into effect and because you don't want to get in trouble, you say you can't remember the guy's name. They are done, they can't prove you are lying and prosecute you and they never figure out who committed the crime.

Basically, it will work with all new guns sold AFTER the universal background checks go into effect as long as everyone abides by the law AND remembers what gun shop they used for every transfer they do.

If anyone doesn't do the background check transfer, the trail ends--and the last person on the trail is probably going to get into trouble, but that may not be the person that committed the actual crime that the gun was used in. If the last person on the trail follows the law but can't remember the gun shop used, then the ATF has to give up or check all the likely candidates in the area, including any in the area that have since gone out of business.

The millions of guns that were already in private hands BEFORE universal background checks go into effect are going to be a problem for enforcement. Any time a trail stops with someone, that person can just say they sold it to someone without a check before the law went into effect and and they don't remember the person's name. End of trace. No way to prosecute the last person in the trail unless the gun has gone through a legitimate transfer somewhere since the rule went into effect AND before the last person in the trace bought it AND the ATF can locate the site of the transfer. Remember, they currently aren't allowed to search a database for these records, so even if the gun does go through a transfer somewhere, unless they know where the transfer happened, they won't be able to find the record to disprove the person's claim.

There is absolutely no question, that to plug all the holes in universal background checks, a registry is required. If the government is satisfied with a law that can't be enforced in a wide range of easily foreseeable cases, then registration is not required. But if they want the law to actually track all private sales and result in criminal prosecution for any case where the background check law is broken, registration is a MUST.

 

[Miami_JBT]

Not all laws are about government control over citizens. Most laws are to protect the good guys from the bad guys. I'd even say that universal background checks help the good guys while helping track down the back guys.

I hear many people say universal background checks could never work without a gun registry. That's not true at all.

Here's how: Lets say I buy a new gun. I go through a background check and take my new gun to the range. There I say "I don't like this gun". Some stranger overhears me and says "if you don't want that gun I'll buy it from you". I say "okay but we have to do this legally. You need a background check". We go down to Buds Gun Shop and he gets a background check. It comes back good and I sell the gun right there.
Later the gun is used in a crime. Police go to the 1st gun shop where I bought the gun and they give out my name. Police come knocking on my door. I say "No, I sold that gun. We used Buds Gun Shop as the FFL and they have the paperwork to prove my innocence."

My family in Cuba says otherwise. The first thing Castro did was gun control, the second thing he did was confiscation of property, the last thing he did was line Cubans up along a ditch and execute them.

Also, as a cop, I completely laugh at your thought process.

 

[MikeInOr]

Not all laws are about government control over citizens. Most laws are to protect the good guys from the bad guys. I'd even say that universal background checks help the good guys while helping track down the back guys.

I hear many people say universal background checks could never work without a gun registry. That's not true at all.

Here's how: Lets say I buy a new gun. I go through a background check and take my new gun to the range. There I say "I don't like this gun". Some stranger overhears me and says "if you don't want that gun I'll buy it from you". I say "okay but we have to do this legally. You need a background check". We go down to Buds Gun Shop and he gets a background check. It comes back good and I sell the gun right there.
Later the gun is used in a crime. Police go to the 1st gun shop where I bought the gun and they give out my name. Police come knocking on my door. I say "No, I sold that gun. We used Buds Gun Shop as the FFL and they have the paperwork to prove my innocence."

That's an example of how it will work. Here's one of how it doesn't and a longer explanation of the general cases where it will and won't work.


Here's how: Lets say you have a gun you bought years ago from a friend, before the universal background check went into effect. You take your gun to the range. There you say "I'm tired of this gun". Some stranger overhears you and says "if you don't want that gun I'll buy it from you". You say "okay-give me $500". He does and walks away with the gun. Later the gun is used in a crime. Police go to the 1st gun shop that sold the gun and they give the name of the guy who bought it new. They go to him, but he can't remember who he sold it to and they are done. Or maybe he remembers and they go to your friend. Your friend says he sold it to you. They go to you. You say that you sold it to a guy long before the universal background went into effect and because you don't want to get in trouble, you say you can't remember the guy's name. They are done, they can't prove you are lying and prosecute you and they never figure out who committed the crime.

Basically, it will work with all new guns sold AFTER the universal background checks go into effect as long as everyone abides by the law AND remembers what gun shop they used for every transfer they do.

If anyone doesn't do the background check transfer, the trail ends--and the last person on the trail is probably going to get into trouble, but that may not be the person that committed the actual crime that the gun was used in. If the last person on the trail follows the law but can't remember the gun shop used, then the ATF has to give up or check all the likely candidates in the area, including any in the area that have since gone out of business.

The millions of guns that were already in private hands BEFORE universal background checks go into effect are going to be a problem for enforcement. Any time a trail stops with someone, that person can just say they sold it to someone without a check before the law went into effect and and they don't remember the person's name. End of trace. No way to prosecute the last person in the trail unless the gun has gone through a legitimate transfer somewhere since the rule went into effect AND before the last person in the trace bought it AND the ATF can locate the site of the transfer. Remember, they currently aren't allowed to search a database for these records, so even if the gun does go through a transfer somewhere, unless they know where the transfer happened, they won't be able to find the record to disprove the person's claim.

There is absolutely no question, that to plug all the holes in universal background checks, a registry is required. If the government is satisfied with a law that can't be enforced in a wide range of easily foreseeable cases, then registration is not required. But if they want the law to actually track all private sales and result in criminal prosecution for any case where the background check law is broken, registration is a MUST.

Oregon does require background checks. In Oregon private party sales have to go through an FFL. It works without a registry. And it has kept guns out of the hands of many people with a criminal background who are ineligible to own guns. The only problem I have with the system in Oregon is that some FFL's are charging up to $100 to perform the private party transfers on top of the $10 background check fee. I would like to see a cap on what FFL's can charge AND require FFL's with a store front to do private party transfers during their business hours.

The purpose of background checks is to keep people who are not legally allowed to own guns from buying them. Bryan Malinowski is the perfect example of someone that was buying and selling guns in Arkansas and the guns went into the hands of criminals... before Bryon was gunned down by the ATF in his own house. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/may/22/house-lawmakers-clash-over-atfs-conduct-in-pre-daw/


Tracing gun ownership is a completely different issue than background checks. Putting the two into the same pool is an excuse to shoot down universal background checks.

I would like to see some stats on how many gun crime scenes have a gun that someone has left behind that can't be traced currently?

 

[JohnKSa]

In Oregon private party sales have to go through an FFL. It works without a registry.

Only if you play fast and loose with the definition of the word "works".

Tracing gun ownership is a completely different issue than background checks. Putting the two into the same pool is one of the big hurdles to universal background checks.

That's part of it.

Let's look at just that point--the point of universal background checks is to insure that ALL firearm transfers/sales go through an FFL. That's what the 'universal' part means. It's right there in the name.

If there's a simple way around the law that makes it unenforceable then it's not "working" because it's not universal.

The purpose of background checks is to keep people who are not legally allowed to own guns from buying them.

Correct. Which means that if people can buy guns without doing the background checks and without being caught then they aren't serving their purpose. People can buy guns even if they aren't legally allowed to do so and it's very easy to not get caught. That means they are not serving their purpose.

As far as the tracing aspect goes, the issue is that without tracing gun ownership, there is no way to fully enforce universal background checks. Which makes them very much NOT universal.

So, IF the government is willing to accept that they have universal background checks all the while knowing that there are literally millions of guns out there that can change hands without background checks taking place and that it's very simple for buyers to buy those guns with no way of being caught, then we don't need to worry about registration.

Look at the constant mantra of the gun control folks about the "gunshow loophole" that doesn't even exist. They won't give it up even though it's a total fabrication. Universal background checks without registration has a REAL loophole--its universal in name only. It has a BIG loophole that millions of guns can pass through. A loophole that is essentially unenforceable. But don't worry--nobody will ever notice. Nobody will ever try to close it.

By the way, there's another issue here. The federal government has no business regulating sales between private individuals within the borders of their own state of residence. Literally--it's not within their purview. That's why the whole FFL deal was set up, and even that was a stretch, but they got away with it. If a state's residents elect representatives to their state government that enact that kind of restriction, that's one thing. But the federal government is overstepping the bounds of their authority if they do it.

 

[MikeInOr]

Only if you play fast and loose with the definition of the word "works".

That's part of it.

Let's look at just that point--the point of universal background checks is to insure that ALL firearm transfers/sales go through an FFL. That's what the 'universal' part means. It's right there in the name.

If there's a simple way around the law that makes it unenforceable then it's not "working" because it's not universal.

Correct. Which means that if people can buy guns without doing the background checks and without being caught then they aren't serving their purpose. People can buy guns even if they aren't legally allowed to do so and it's very easy to not get caught. That means they are not serving their purpose.

As far as the tracing aspect goes, the issue is that without tracing gun ownership, there is no way to fully enforce universal background checks. Which makes them very much NOT universal.

So, IF the government is willing to accept that they have universal background checks all the while knowing that there are literally millions of guns out there that can change hands without background checks taking place and that it's very simple for buyers to buy those guns with no way of being caught, then we don't need to worry about registration.

Look at the constant mantra of the gun control folks about the "gunshow loophole" that doesn't even exist. They won't give it up even though it's a total fabrication. Universal background checks without registration has a REAL loophole--its universal in name only. It has a BIG loophole that millions of guns can pass through. A loophole that is essentially unenforceable. But don't worry--nobody will ever notice. Nobody will ever try to close it.

By the way, there's another issue here. The federal government has no business regulating sales between private individuals within the borders of their own state of residence. Literally--it's not within their purview. That's why the whole FFL deal was set up, and even that was a stretch, but they got away with it. If a state's residents elect representatives to their state government that enact that kind of restriction, that's one thing. But the federal government is overstepping the bounds of their authority if they do it.

In Oregon buying and selling Meth Amphetamine is illegal. Will the government EVER be able to shut down the trade in Meth Amphetamine completely? NO! Will the government EVER be able to completely keep motorists from speeding? NO! Theft is illegal, does that stop all thefts? Murder is illegal, does that stop all murders? All of these laws reduce the offenses WITHOUT requiring GPS trackers be implanted under everybody's skin. Would planting GPS trackers under everybody's skin reduce the offences even more? Yes, without a doubt. Are GPS trackers required for these laws to be effective even if not 100% effective?

In my experience the vast majority of gun owners in Oregon are law abiding and do sell their guns to private parties through FFL's which means a background check has to be completed even though the transfer fee essentially lowers the price they can get for their guns. The background check system has and does keep many guns out of the hands of convicted felons... it will NEVER be 100% effective.

If all laws that can't achieve 100% compliance were eliminated there would be no laws at all!

I personally NEVER sold a gun to a stranger before the background check law BECAUSE I didn't want to sell a gun to a felon. There was really no way that I felt ethically safe to sell a gun to a stranger before the background check law.

 

[JohnKSa]

In Oregon buying and selling Meth Amphetamine is illegal. Will the government EVER be able to shut down the trade in Meth Amphetamine completely? NO! Will the government EVER be able to completely keep motorists from speeding? NO! Theft is illegal, does that stop all thefts? Murder is illegal, does that stop all murders?

Of course no law ever gets full compliance--no law is ever 100% effective. But laws are formulated to allow those who violate them to be caught and prosecuted. If they don't work, the loopholes get closed for the same reason that the laws are passed in the first place.

"Universal" background checks without registration means that it's possible to violate the law in a manner that is essentially undetectable. They can be found with a gun that they didn't buy through a background check and in spite of that fact and the fact that background checks are supposed to be universal, the law can't touch them. As long as it is one of the hundreds of millions of firearms that were originally sold before the law went into effect, all they have to say is they bought it before the law went into effect. Done.

Imagine if murder laws had a loophole that allowed someone to be caught with evidence showing they committed a murder and the person could, with a single sentence eliminate the chance of being prosecuted. Imagine if drug laws had a loophole that allowed someone caught with drugs get out of it by saying a few words. Imagine having a meth lab in your house but a loophole allows you to make a statement and the cops have to go away and leave you alone. Those loopholes would become a huge issue with enforcement. There would obviously be a huge incentive to close them. The same impetus that got them passed would be used to close the loopholes.

I'm having a very hard time believing that you don't understand. This is not a complicated concept, at all. If you don't believe that there will be a push to close the loophole, that would be a reasonable position to take. Not a strong position, but a valid one. But seeming to not understand the obvious loophole, or the difference between an obvious loophole and the lack of 100% compliance that is an inescapable reality with all laws, seems a lot more like an intentional choice than actual confusion.

Here's another interesting aspect of UBC enforcement. Let's say the cops find a person with a gun that was sold new AFTER the UBC law went into effect but is now in the possession of someone other than the original buyer. The persons involved are accused of transferring possession of a firearm without a background check in violation of the UBC law. The accused claim that they are innocent until proven guilty and have the right to remain silent, since that is the governing principle of the American Justice System. They demand that the state produce the evidence that they didn't get the background check done.

Ok, what would that evidence look like? It looks like nothing at all--it is in fact the absence of something. The evidence against the accused is that state doesn't have paperwork to show that the transfer was done legally. Let me say that again. The state doesn't have anything to show and therefore they claim the accused must be guilty. They literally have no evidence and they want to use that lack of evidence as proof of guilt.

Basically unless they have video of the transfer taking place or one of the people involved admits guilt, UBC laws without registration are an enforcement/prosecution nightmare. The odds that state of affairs will be allowed to persist for very long seem very slim.

 

[MikeInOr]

Of course no law ever gets full compliance--no law is ever 100% effective. But laws are formulated to allow those who violate them to be caught and prosecuted. If they don't work, the loopholes get closed for the same reason that the laws are passed in the first place.

"Universal" background checks without registration means that it's possible to violate the law in a manner that is essentially undetectable. They can be found with a gun that they didn't buy through a background check and in spite of that fact and the fact that background checks are supposed to be universal, the law can't touch them. As long as it is one of the hundreds of millions of firearms that were originally sold before the law went into effect, all they have to say is they bought it before the law went into effect. Done.

Imagine if murder laws had a loophole that allowed someone to be caught with evidence showing they committed a murder and the person could, with a single sentence eliminate the chance of being prosecuted. Imagine if drug laws had a loophole that allowed someone caught with drugs get out of it by saying a few words. Imagine having a meth lab in your house but a loophole allows you to make a statement and the cops have to go away and leave you alone. Those loopholes would become a huge issue with enforcement. There would obviously be a huge incentive to close them. The same impetus that got them passed would be used to close the loopholes.

I'm having a very hard time believing that you don't understand. This is not a complicated concept, at all. If you don't believe that there will be a push to close the loophole, that would be a reasonable position to take. Not a strong position, but a valid one. But seeming to not understand the obvious loophole, or the difference between an obvious loophole and the lack of 100% compliance that is an inescapable reality with all laws, seems a lot more like an intentional choice than actual confusion.

Here's another interesting aspect of UBC enforcement. Let's say the cops find a person with a gun that was sold new AFTER the UBC law went into effect but is now in the possession of someone other than the original buyer. The persons involved are accused of transferring possession of a firearm without a background check in violation of the UBC law. The accused claim that they are innocent until proven guilty and have the right to remain silent, since that is the governing principle of the American Justice System. They demand that the state produce the evidence that they didn't get the background check done.

Ok, what would that evidence look like? It looks like nothing at all--it is in fact the absence of something. The evidence against the accused is that state doesn't have paperwork to show that the transfer was done legally. Let me say that again. The state doesn't have anything to show and therefore they claim the accused must be guilty. They literally have no evidence and they want to use that lack of evidence as proof of guilt.

Basically unless they have video of the transfer taking place or one of the people involved admits guilt, UBC laws without registration are an enforcement/prosecution nightmare. The odds that state of affairs will be allowed to persist for very long seem very slim.

When was the last time you exceeded the speed limit? Were you detected? Should all speed limits be thrown out because the majority of speeders aren't caught? ALL laws can be circumvented in a manner that is undetectable! Again, does that mean we get rid of ALL laws?

If you are arguing FOR universal gun registration I disagree with you!

If you are arguing against universal background checks due to a "slippery slope" argument that it has to lead to universal registration I reject your "slippery slope" logic that the two HAVE to be linked and that universal background checks HAS to lead to universal gun registration.

Even the most fervent 2A supporters that I know in Oregon transfer their private firearm sales legally through FFL's even though they could VERY EASILY circumvent the law. I honestly feel safer knowing that meth dealers with a record have to go through more hoops to illegally acquire a firearm than they did before the background check law.

 

[Buzznrose]

…

I'm 79 years old, and increasingly faced with my own mortality. Probably the worst thing is the realization that after I'm gone, nobody is going to give a damn about my legacy. I've dealt with the aftermath of too many deaths, to harbor any illusions…..

I hesitate to go “off topic”, but 99.9999% of us will be long forgotten by the second or third generation after our passing if not sooner, so the only legacy you need be concerned with is that your name is written in the Lambs Book of Life.

Took me a while to understand this…

That said, I do try more now than ever, to leave my grandkids as good a future as I can. But in the end, the best thing I can ever do for them is show them the path to a good life that leads them to Heaven.

Apologies for the OT post…

 

[Miami_JBT]

In Oregon buying and selling Meth Amphetamine is illegal. Will the government EVER be able to shut down the trade in Meth Amphetamine completely? NO! Will the government EVER be able to completely keep motorists from speeding? NO! Theft is illegal, does that stop all thefts? Murder is illegal, does that stop all murders? All of these laws reduce the offenses WITHOUT requiring GPS trackers be implanted under everybody's skin. Would planting GPS trackers under everybody's skin reduce the offences even more? Yes, without a doubt. Are GPS trackers required for these laws to be effective even if not 100% effective?

In my experience the vast majority of gun owners in Oregon are law abiding and do sell their guns to private parties through FFL's which means a background check has to be completed even though the transfer fee essentially lowers the price they can get for their guns. The background check system has and does keep many guns out of the hands of convicted felons... it will NEVER be 100% effective.

If all laws that can't achieve 100% compliance were eliminated there would be no laws at all!

I personally NEVER sold a gun to a stranger before the background check law BECAUSE I didn't want to sell a gun to a felon. There was really no way that I felt ethically safe to sell a gun to a stranger before the background check law.

Meth ain't an inalienable enumerated civil right. Guns are.

I've sold firearms in the past to strangers and bought them from strangers. There's this thing called "want ads" online, on gun forums and even at the local range's clubhouse bulletin board.

Bad people do bad things because they're bad people. Criminals are criminals because they break the law. All gun control does is infringe on the rights of the law-abiding.

As a former cop, I can tell you without a dhadow of doubt. Everything you want, never deterred a scumbag from being a scumbag.

Sucks to be you bro. Keep gripping that government nice and tight. Eventually it'll bite you.

 

[Miami_JBT]

When was the last time you exceeded the speed limit? Were you detected? Should all speed limits be thrown out because the majority of speeders aren't caught? ALL laws can be circumvented in a manner that is undetectable! Again, does that mean we get rid of ALL laws?

If you are arguing FOR universal gun registration I disagree with you!

If you are arguing against universal background checks due to a "slippery slope" argument that it has to lead to universal registration I reject your "slippery slope" logic that the two HAVE to be linked and that universal background checks HAS to lead to universal gun registration.

Even the most fervent 2A supporters that I know in Oregon transfer their private firearm sales legally through FFL's even though they could VERY EASILY circumvent the law. I honestly feel safer knowing that meth dealers with a record have to go through more hoops to illegally acquire a firearm than they did before the background check law.

Come to FL, where speed limits are more like a suggestion on I-95. It is liberating when you're doing 85mph and FHP doesn't light you up, instead, they pass you.

Most gun owners in Oregon that I know have told the government to piss up a rope and they fled or they just don't care and aren't following the law.

And meth dealers don't care either. If they want a piece, they'll get a piece. Just like they get dope, whores, etc....

Again, UBC and Registration is bad. Has been and always will be.

Again, ask my family in Cuba how it turned out. Ask the Venezuelans right now how it's turning out.

 

[Boattale]

This is an easy answer as indicated by many previous answers - gun owners are not a homogeneous group. Even if gun owners were consistent voters, that would not mean that they would vote the same way. Guns are not the central focus of the lives of many people, either in day to day activities or in their voting.

There are people for whom reproductive rights are more of an issue. Other people are worried about health care, religious issues, retirement issues, wage issues, etc. etc. etc.

So you can be a gun owner, and you can be a voter, but a voter without a central gun focus.

This is a classic example. Boattale has his/her own particular perspectives and will vote accordingly. We all vote our own agenda, if we vote, whether or not that agenda is in agreement with anybody else doesn't matter to a lot of folks.

Thanks for being a thinking person without a knee jerk reaction. Much appreciated.

 

[AlexanderA]

One problem in trying to vote based on the gun issue is that politicians never spell out the details of what they plan to do. They talk in vague generalities. For example, Kamala Harris, in her latest speeches, lays out a gun program of "background checks, red flag laws, and an assault weapon ban." What does this mean? Background checks and red flag laws are already in existence, and have not proven particularly successful in solving the "gun problem." As for an assault weapon ban, if it resembles the one in effect from 1994-2004, all it would be is a moratorium on new guns, and not a confiscation. To go further would be to invoke the 5th Amendment's "taking" clause, and require FMV compensation. Not happening. On the other side, Donald Trump has said that "the attack on the 2nd Amendment is over." Yet he tried to ban bump stocks and said, in relation to red flag laws, "take the guns first and worry about due process later." It's clear that none of these politicians understand guns, and none of them understand gun owners. (In particular, they don't understand the vast dimensions of gun ownership in America, and the fact that these guns won't disappear with a mere snap of the fingers. This is not Australia or England.) Why should we trust any of them?

 

[Durango_Dave]

Sure guns are an "inalienable enumerated civil right" but that doesn't mean we can't do a background check to try to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

I support UBC but vehemently oppose gun registries. A UBC obviously is not retroactive. There was no background check on guns sold before any UBC. Some of you seem to insist that a UBC will lead to a registry as assuredly as if the UBC Bill actually has fine print saying "in five years a gun registry will be enacted." I almost never agree with the slippery slope argument and it is much more prevalent in the gun debates than anywhere else. Does anyone ever say "No we can't lower the speed limit on the boulevard to 35 mph because then they'll lower it to 20 mph then they'll only allow pedestrian traffic."

And please stop saying if we don't agree with you about background checks we'll become like Cuba or Venezuela or some other communist country. We can have the right to keep and bear arms at the same time as restricting access to those that shouldn't have guns.

Sure you don't have to insist on a background check when you sell but why? That check is to prove your innocence if the gun is used in a crime. I'd keep a record of every gun I ever sell and the FFL used. I'd keep those records on my computer and redundantly in the cloud. They'd be my "Get out of jail free" cards.

 

[JohnKSa]

When was the last time you exceeded the speed limit? Were you detected? Should all speed limits be thrown out because the majority of speeders aren't caught? ALL laws can be circumvented in a manner that is undetectable! Again, does that mean we get rid of ALL laws?

No. I already explained this. There's a fundamental difference between the fact that not all violators are caught and laws where even if the violators are caught it's still very difficult to enforce the law. In the former case, that's just reality. In the latter case, it's a problematic law and one that will almost certainly lead to more laws being passed that add additional restrictions. In the case we're talking about, it's the latter case. UBCs are problematic to enforce and that will almost certainly lead to registration since it neatly solves the enforcement problems.

If you are arguing FOR universal gun registration I disagree with you!

I am absolutely NOT arguing for registration, in fact it's because I am strongly opposed to registration that I am also against UBC. Because UBC laws are very hard to enforce and will almost certainly lead to registration laws to plug the very obvious enforcement loopholes in UBC laws.

If you are arguing against universal background checks due to a "slippery slope" argument that it has to lead to universal registration I reject your "slippery slope" logic that the two HAVE to be linked and that universal background checks HAS to lead to universal gun registration.

I haven't claimed that they HAVE to be linked, only that it's very likely that they will because of the obvious enforcement problems when you have UBC but no registration. I've explained the loopholes and the enforcement problems and it's easy to see how registration plugs the loopholes and virtually eliminates the enforcement problems.

Sure guns are an "inalienable enumerated civil right" but that doesn't mean we can't do a background check to try to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

I'm not against background checks, in principle, although they certainly present some great opportunities for government abuses. But UBCs are problematic because:

They have large and obvious loopholes and it's clear that the antis will want to plug those loopholes by further restricting/infringing on the rights of gun owners/gun purchasers.
If implemented by the federal government, they are an overstep of federal authority.
Enforcement is a nightmare without registration and I'm strongly opposed to registration.

Does anyone ever say "No we can't lower the speed limit on the boulevard to 35 mph because then they'll lower it to 20 mph then they'll only allow pedestrian traffic."

Probably some do, but, as I have explained multiple times now, that's a very different situation than the one that UBCs without registration present.

That check is to prove your innocence if the gun is used in a crime.

I don't have to prove my innocence. That's not how the justice system works. The state has to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that a gun I used to own was used in crime is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt because I could have sold the gun to a non-prohibited person at any time between the time I bought it and the crime was committed, thus providing far more than reasonable doubt that I owned it at the time that the crime was used or that I sold it to someone I shouldn't have had.

I'd keep a record of every gun I ever sell and the FFL used. I'd keep those records on my computer and redundantly in the cloud. They'd be my "Get out of jail free" cards.

I don't keep records for the government unless required to do so by law, or unless it is advantageous to me. Any possible advantage to keeping records of gun sales is outweighed by the possible disadvantages** so there's no overall advantage to me and since the government doesn't require me to keep records of gun sales, I don't.

**Possible disadvantages:

• Using those records to try to prove I made a profit (or am buying and selling too often or with too little interval between the purchase and sale) and might be an unlicensed dealer.
• Using those records to tie me to someone who turns out to be a prohibited purchaser.
• Using those records to tie me to a person who used a gun in crime.
• Using possible holes or ommisions in those records to try to prove that I concealed some sales to hide something.
• Using my records to try to convict someone I sold/gave/traded a gun to.

 

[AK Hunter]

I read that there are two categories that don't always vote. That's gun owners & church goers. That sounds to me to be odd because they have the most to lose if the vote goes against them.

 

[Durango_Dave]

I don't have to prove my innocence. That's not how the justice system works. The state has to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'd agree with this statement if and only if the judicial system has never convicted an innocent man. But it happens all the time.

What if you are standing trail and a witness said "I saw someone at the crime scene that looks like JohnKSa. Yes I'm sure that was JohnKSa."

At that point you'd be wishing that you insisted on a background check and kept a record when you sold that gun. I see no disadvantages to these simple steps to prove your innocence.

 

[Eutycus]

I read that there are two categories that don't always vote. That's gun owners & church goers. That sounds to me to be odd because they have the most to lose if the vote goes against them.

I am a gun owner who attends church at least weekly. But I vote consistently. Maybe I'm the odd one?

 

[Eutycus]

It is going to be interesting from now to the election what with Kennedy in the mess too.It seems alot of those who do vote don't like any of the 2 main choices. They now have a 3rd choice. Granted he'll never win, but I bet he does draw alot (millions) of votes from Trump or Kamala.

 

[JohnKSa]

But it happens all the time.

It happens. Certainly not all the time. The justice system is intentionally set up to make convictions difficult. One of the founding principles was that it was considered desirable to let many guilty people go free rather than convict a single innocent person. Franklin said it was better to let 100 guilty people go free rather than to imprison one innocent person.

What if you are standing trail and a witness said "I saw someone at the crime scene that looks like JohnKSa. Yes I'm sure that was JohnKSa."

At that point you'd be wishing that you insisted on a background check and kept a record when you sold that gun. I see no disadvantages to these simple steps to prove your innocence.

If the state has evidence against me, I would rebut the evidence if I could. If they don't have evidence, then I don't have to do anything.

Showing that I owned a gun at one time that was later used in crime doesn't prove anything at all since I can legally sell or give or trade any gun I own to any person who is a resident of my state any time I want to as long as I have no reason to believe they are a prohibited person. And since I don't keep records of sales, the state can't use them to prove that I sold it to the person who used the gun in crime, or even to someone who later sold it or gave it to someone who used it in crime. it is not evidence against me so I don't need to do anything or prove anything.

If a witness sees me, or someone who looks like me, at the scene of a crime, that's an entirely different situation and that has nothing to do with any gun I own or used to own.

If you want to keep records and feel that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, then you keep records. I don't want to keep records because I perceive that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages and also on principle since I don't keep records for the government unless they require it.

 

[21H40]

I used to be a primarily single issue voter for gun rights, but over the past decade, things have changed. I am generally opposed to government overreach, but if I vote for pro-gun candidates, state or federal, they are also advocating passing laws that support government oversight into many other areas

I am a gun rights advocate, but I am more than just that. The loudest message I've heard from so called pro-gun politicians has been that people like me cannot have gun rights AND the freedom to live they way I want to.

 

[Jim Watson]

Let me smooth out my tinfoil hat...
I doubt that NICS background checks are deleted as specified in the law. They may not be in NICS files, but I think likely to be archived with a commercial contractor for audits or some such excuse. Not GUN registration, gun BUYER registration; with a dealer ID affixed. Said dealer required to maintain detailed sales records.
From there, go back to the private sales "background check" debate.