You cannot gift a gun or even hand it off with Universal Background checks

[Deanimator]

The problem with this logic is background checks are already in use. The vast majority of us have filled out countless 4473s. The sky hasn't fallen. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here, it already exists.

The VAST majority of my firearms were private purchases.

Chicago's and DC's handgun BANS already existed too.

So does the near impossibility of a normal person to get a concealed carry credential in NYC.

When I see somebody do something stupid or evil, my first impulse isn't to copy them.

 

[dogtown tom]

6. May I lawfully ship a firearm to myself in a different State?
Any person may ship a firearm to himself or herself in the care of another person in the State where he or she intends to hunt or engage in any other lawful activity. The package should be addressed to the owner “in the care of” the out-of-State resident. Upon reaching its destination, persons other than the owner must not open the package or take possession of the firearm.

If you ever plan on traveling there, you can ship them to yourself in their care and gift them in person.

And that would be a felony.
Good grief.

 

[Cannibul]

You can't really have UBC unless you also have universal registration.

Registration is ALWAYS followed by confiscation.

 

[Deanimator]

You can't really have UBC unless you also have universal registration.

Registration is ALWAYS followed by confiscation.

 

[Hanzo581]

You can't really have UBC unless you also have universal registration.

Registration is ALWAYS followed by confiscation.

Requiring background checks for private sales does not automatically involve registration. But it does make your position sound better so I understand using it.

 

[Deanimator]

Requiring background checks for private sales does not automatically involve registration. But it does make your position sound better so I understand using it.

Requiring background checks for private sales is utterly meaningless without registration. But denying that does make your position sound better so I understand using it.

 

[hdwhit]

Tirod wrote:
This is exactly what the Universal Background Check will do...

Whose Universal Background Check statute (or proposed legislation) are you referring to?

Could you post a link to the statue (or bill)?

 

[9MMare]

The problem with this logic is background checks are already in use. The vast majority of us have filled out countless 4473s. The sky hasn't fallen. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here, it already exists.

No, not fallen...yet. But it opened the door to what you now want...universal background checks (if that's incorrect on my part, I apologize). One step in the direction, then another.

That's what is most dangerous...not a huge shift, but seemingly innocent small changes leading in one direction.

Similar to the frog in a pot of water on the stove....

 

[9MMare]

Requiring background checks for private sales does not automatically involve registration. But it does make your position sound better so I understand using it.

It certainly can hand your personal information over to strangers exposing you to identity theft and other abuses. You never commented on that, aside from pointing out that we give it to business staff. And didnt seem to understand the difference.

 

[Walkalong]

Requiring background checks for private sales does not automatically involve registration. But it does make your position sound better so I understand using it.

Those who believe this simply don't get it. It is a tool the antis want to further their end goal of confiscation. They desperately want to know where every single firearm is, for one reason, and one reason only. Anyone arguing for universal checks is just ignorantly/innocently (or not, like anti trolls) helping their cause.

It can sound like a good idea until you study the whole picture. Those who have been around the fight for many years understand. They never quit chipping away at their ultimate goal. Nothing will ever satisfy them or be "enough" until they have registered, confiscated, and destroyed all guns.

 

[Hanzo581]

It certainly can hand your personal information over to strangers exposing you to identity theft and other abuses. You never commented on that, aside from pointing out that we give it to business staff. And didnt seem to understand the difference.

I'm not sure you get how it would work, you wouldn't be giving your personal info to the seller (stranger) you'd be giving it to the FFL dealer handling the transaction. Just like you do had you bought it from the store.

Those who believe this simply don't get it. It is a tool the antis want to further their end goal of confiscation. They desperately want to know where every single firearm is, for one reason, and one reason only. Anyone arguing for universal checks is just ignorantly/innocently (or not, like anti trolls) helping their cause.

It can sound like a good idea until you study the whole picture. Those who have been around the fight for many years understand. They never quit chipping away at their ultimate goal. Nothing will ever satisfy them or be "enough" until they have registered, confiscated, and destroyed all guns.

As I said earlier, I'd prefer no checks at all. Wouldn't mind one bit going back to the days of ordering guns out of the Sears catalog. But those days are long gone. So while background checks already exist, they should apply to every sale. I simply will not accept the illogical nature of the current system. Either no checks, or checks on all. You are welcome to your opinion but I'll be sticking with mine.

 

[Deanimator]

I simply will not accept the illogical nature of the current system.

So you prefer EVIL to "illogical"?

What gives you the right to make that choice for ME?

 

[Bad Ninja]

I'm not sure you get how it would work, you wouldn't be giving your personal info to the seller (stranger) you'd be giving it to the FFL dealer handling the transaction. Just like you do had you bought it from the store.



As I said earlier, I'd prefer no checks at all. Wouldn't mind one bit going back to the days of ordering guns out of the Sears catalog. But those days are long gone. So while background checks already exist, they should apply to every sale. I simply will not accept the illogical nature of the current system. Either no checks, or checks on all. You are welcome to your opinion but I'll be sticking with mine.

You mean like California right?

I actually live this wonderful idea you support right now.

Every transfer of any firearm requires an FFL and background check every time in CA.

Do you think it stopped there?

 

[Leanwolf]

Hanzo, you are extremely naive and ignorant. Naive about government to believe that once UBC was passed, there would never be any further incremental regulations, rules, laws, attached to it by left wing anti-gun/anti-2nd politicians, and all their nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats in the various agencies that would be required to enforce said laws.

It is axiomatic that once a restrictive law against a Right is passed, it is slowly magnified until it is so onerous that most people can not obey it, either by choice or ignorance. New regulations upon new rules upon new regulations would surely be added to compound the old ones.

You are ignorant in that you seem to have absolutely no idea how huge the United States is, and that millions of gun owners DO NOT live in metropolitan centers within a couple of miles of a FFL dealer. Therefore, those millions of gun owners living "out in rural flyover country" would be at a supreme disadvantage and severe inconvenience anytime they wanted to buy, lend, trade, loan, or sell any firearm to anyone for any reason.

Perhaps that is meaningless to you but it is not meaningless to millions of people who would be subject to the law ... and imprisonment if they broke the law and the continuing new regulations that would be added by the bureaucrats, etc.

I also find it strange that you believe that a person should have to get permission from Big Brother & Big Nanny to exercise a Constitutional Right.

There is an old adage, "Life is hard by the yard but a cinch by the inch." The gun control zealots work on that premise. A new, restrictive gun law today, another tomorrow, another the next day, and the next and the next and the next, until ..... they've finally accomplished their long sought goal, ban guns and subsequent confiscation. Inch by inch by inch by inch by inch ..........................

It was the slimy, detestable Senator from Calif., Diane Feinstein, who said on 60 Minutes, CBS, regarding same, "Turn them in, Mr. and Mrs. America, or we'll come get them." But she lacked a couple of votes to implement her dictatorial desire. She meant what she said and there were plenty of her left wing comrades in the Senate and House who agreed with her. They still do.

You obviously trust big government and left wing politicians to restrict your Rights. I don't, having watched them for too many years at work.

L.W.

 

[FROGO207]

One poster was saying that we do not even know what the law would actually include for a national UBC. That would be a wrong assumption on your part. Just go back to the recycled UBC proposal that Nancy Pelosi and company has tried to get implemented several times in the past. It has very specific rules laid out and the text is available on line. There actually ARE some countries that have implemented UBC schemes. The next step was to registration and that quickly moved to confiscation of complete classes of previously legally owned firearms. Just ask the firearms owners in the UK and Australia what happened there due to not having a constitution and the associated rights. If you believe the US government has the best interests of the individual gun owner as it's top priority you would be sadly mistaken IMHO. I bet there would be a lot of us gun owners that would be OK with a UBC if it was free and there was NEVER A POSSIBILITY that it would be used for registration. But reality intrudes in that utopian dream as well. If a record exists it can be used for a registration if the next massacre is bad enough to sway public opinion (after all it would be for public safety, like the no fly list), and the case can be made to implement such program. For now the private sales that are not required to have UBC's would put massive holes in that list if implemented today. Personally I prefer a little possible danger/freedom as opposed to complete dependence on our government to be safe. YMMV

 

[CoalTrain49]

Requiring background checks for private sales does not automatically involve registration. But it does make your position sound better so I understand using it.

Some states that run BC's use their own database and the FBI database. The states that use their own database are known as POC states. I believe there are 21 states that conduct their own BC's in full or in part. The information on a 4473 can't be retained by the fed by law but it can be by the state and many do. There is nothing preventing that. When a state enacts a UBC one of the reasons is to build a database of firearms and owners.

In reality there already is a registry in many states, people just don't realize it. Oregon has had a registry for a long time. Supposedly they keep the records for five years but there is no oversight. The records are not available to the public so how would anyone know exactly how long they keep them. WA. has also had a hand gun registry for a long time.

A background check can also be a registry. Just depends on which state you live in.

 

[armoredman]

Confiscation from registration has already happened in the US at least twice, if not three times, New York City and California. UBCs without registration doesn't work very well for the simple fact that you cannot require all guns go through background checks if you do not know where all the guns are to begin with. Failing that, you're waving a piece of paper in the air, "Stop giving guns back and forth or I will scream some more"...because you won't know. So any UBC scheme to work the way the Left wants it to will have to have a registration scheme added later, "We know the law isn't working quite the way it should, but if you let us pass THIS law everything will be wine and roses!"
What was the original cost of a handgun license in New York City when Sullivan was passed? What is it now?
I don't like someone running a background check on me for buying a legal product legally, as it is a presumption of guilt, and I have to prove my innocence, not even myself, but to depend on faceless others to prove my innocence for me. I do not believe this to be right or Constitutional. I am glad to live in Arizona where the state wisely and rightly has kept itself out of the business of it's citizens, and has gone so far as to prohibit any city, county or political subdivision from keeping any registration of firearms from law abiding citizens. My Dept had to change policy to no longer register our off duty sidearms. That was nice.
BTW, from the first and second pages, the percentage of criminals who will get out in approximately 96%.. They may be old and grey, but 96% of all inmates will be released. Also, to the guy who declared he was waiting for opponents of keeping them inside the wire "if they are a danger". You made that decision by electing the people who make the laws in your state/city/area, and also by NOT getting rid of elected activist judges when they prove to like wrist slaps instead of orange jumpsuits. You did it when you voted for politicians who won't increase prison budgets - you cannot lock them away and throw away the key...they have to be fed/clothed/housed/medical care/etc. That's federal mandates you cannot ever hope to undo, courtesy of those activist judges I mentioned earlier, these appointed by the President. You want stronger sentences for criminals? Elect those who will pass them/enforce them/provide the fund to carry them out.
Thank you for your time, have a nice day.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

There is a lot of speculation and assumptions about what the UBC system would look like in the original post, but beyond that..

The question should be a simple one. Do you believe before someone takes possession of a firearm it should be verified they are not prohibited from doing so?

So much for the presumption of innocence. What other constitutional rights do you think need to be accompanied with background checks and a $30-$50 fee?

 

[Helidude]

A back ground check will not show that you are not a criminal. It will only show that you havent gotten caught.

 

[Helidude]

Prohibition didnt work.

 

[Helidude]

The government isnt quallified to do anything. How many times does your mail go somewhere else with the correct address on it?

 

[Spats McGee]

This one is going in circles, so I'm putting it to bed.