US gun law reforms

[manta49]

Everyone seems to forget...in the US we are assumed innocent unless PROVEN guilty in a court of law.

Background Checks assume you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

There are background checks for people wanting to work with children and other jobs to try and prevent child abuse, and for security reasons teachers etc. Do people think these checks should not be carried out because.

Background Checks assume you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

Quote. Serve America Act
Federal law (H.R. 1388, Sec. 1614) requires organizations whose employees work with vulnerable individuals (children, the elderly or disabled) to complete a background check on those employees, including state and federal criminal history check and a search of the predatory offender database. Appropriate permissions must be provided by the employee.

•For individuals working with youth, refer to the Child Protection Background Check Act (299C.60-64)

[silvermane_1]

plumbnut:
on topic of UBC, i say lets agree to disagree.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Several posts about cats edited or deleted. Cats are NOT the topic of this thread.

[Tinner666]

OK THIS FOR THE LAST TIME IS WHAT I SUPPORT. NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS

WHEN A FIREARM CHANGES HANDS A BACKGROUND CHECK MUST BE DONE.

IT WILL BE FREE AND NO CHARGE.

IT WILL NOT...I REPEAT WILL NOT RECORD THE TYPE OF GUN OR CALIBER OF GUN.

IT WILL SIMPLY JUST INSURE THAT THE PERSON RECEIVING THE GUN DOES NOT HAVE A FELONY OR HAS BEEN CERTIFIED INSANE.

NO GUNS WILL BE TAKEN AND THE 2ND AMMENDMENT WILL STAND STRONG JUST AS IT DOES TODAY.

At least he's stating he's against the current bill. That's a relief since that statement and the bill have no correlation to each other. I have yet to even see that proposed as a matter of fact.

[2ndsojourn]

From Plumbnut:
"OK THIS FOR THE LAST TIME IS WHAT I SUPPORT. NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS

WHEN A FIREARM CHANGES HANDS A BACKGROUND CHECK MUST BE DONE.

IT WILL BE FREE AND NO CHARGE.

IT WILL NOT...I REPEAT WILL NOT RECORD THE TYPE OF GUN OR CALIBER OF GUN.

IT WILL SIMPLY JUST INSURE THAT THE PERSON RECEIVING THE GUN DOES NOT HAVE A FELONY OR HAS BEEN CERTIFIED INSANE.

NO GUNS WILL BE TAKEN AND THE 2ND AMMENDMENT WILL STAND STRONG JUST AS IT DOES TODAY."

And this is the last time I'll tell you.

MORE BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE FOR FIREARMS MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE NEW LAW AND THERE ARE OVER 300,000,000 FIREARMS IN PUBLIC HANDS.

To not recognize that is just....umm....nuts.

[Skadoosh]

Background Checks assume you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
There are background checks for people wanting to work with children and other jobs to try and prevent child abuse, and for security reasons teachers etc. Do people think these checks should not be carried out because.

Working with children is not a right enumerated by The Constitution. The Right to keep and bare arms is.

[Mike Irwin]

I'm against pretty much anything that is adopted on "feel good" grounds, driven out of a need to "DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING!!!!" panic.

That's what the post-Sandy Hook push for background checks is all about.

Would a background check have stopped Adam Lanza from obtaining any of the firearms that he used in the shootings?

No. They were legally obtained by his Mother.

Would a background check have stopped his Mother from obtaining any of the firearms that Adam Lanza used in the shootings?

Obviously the answer is no, because his Mother fully complied with Connecticut's background check law at the time she purchased the firearms.

Similarly, would a background check have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter from obtaining his firearms?

Obviously the answer is no, because he legally purchased those guns in Virginia, which has an instant check system in place, and has had for years.

I'm also against any added hoop jumping when it's been proven time and time again that the Government (Federal AND various states) do not vigorously enforce violations of current law.

The United States has had background checks in various states for years. The prosecution rate for known violations is miniscule.

The Feds also had/have an exceptionally poor record of prosecuting violations of existing Federal firearms laws.

What's the point in having a law if it's not enforced? In effect, it is no law at all.

No study has ever shown any background check law to be an effective deterrent against crime.

So what then is the ultimate point of such a law if it's known that it A) won't be effective at stopping crime and B) most likely won't even be enforced if it is passed, and C) the only people who are going to comply with it are the law abiding in the first place?

The point is it gives ant-gun politicians a feel-good sound bite (WE'RE DOING SOMETHING TO HELP!!!"), and it gives anti-gunners another notch in their "common sense" gun control platform.

And finally the whole concept of common sense... We know that's a lie. These people don't want "common sense" gun control, they want TOTAL gun control with bans and confiscation.

NRA and the pro-gun groups are not doing a very good job at defusing the term "common sense," unfortunately. They need to figure out an effective way to expose that for the lie it is quickly.

[Mike Irwin]

"The Right to keep and bare arms is."

So roll up your sleeves and get to work!


I've used the Constitutional argument any number of times over the years in exactly that same manner.

Most times people start yapping about how you need a license and test to drive a car.

When I point out that driving a car isn't a right enumerated under the Constitution, the argument usually breaks down into either "So what?" or "The Framers couldn't have forseen XXX guns!"

At that time I counter with the question of whether it's a good idea or not to have Government licenses and tests to own a computer, or even books.

They quickly trot out the First Amendment.

And very rarely are they able to see the correlation between their gun argument and my computer argument.

Or, I should say, they see it, they know it, but they know they're backed into a corner and they can't admit it because they know they've just lost, and lost big.

That's usually when the babbling about "common sense gun laws" starts.

[cecILL]

I'm very pro 2nd amendment, and try to understand the reasoning of the UBC people. What I fail to understand, is how any sane person can trust the government.

[maestro pistolero]

I've said this before and I'll say it again.

If the goverment really wants to take your guns.....they will take your guns.

I dont think you have the firepower to even begin to stop them.

The 2nd ammendment protects your right to bare arms.

While you have the right to bare arms the government sure has the right to REGULATE the ownership.



We the people still means something to me.....i

For the love of God, it's BEAR arms, not BARE.

And if you think that three hundred million guns in the hands of law abiding people wouldn't present a formidable obstacle to confiscation (which is definitively what enforcement of a ban IS) then you have grossly miscalculated. Modern tanks and bombers are useless, UNLESS the government is willing to decimate not only it's own people, but it's own infrastructure. I find that notion highly doubtful. If I were wrong, then such a government would be completely immoral and not to be trusted even with the slightest degree of regulation of the right.

Even if we were to support so-called universal background checks, the anti-gun proponents of this legislation have announced all along it is but a first step. There is no rational basis for anyone who lawfully owns a gun to submit to a background check, and no way for such a policy to be enforced without universal registration.

The anti-gun lawmakers have demonstrated themselves to be wholly untrustworthy with that notion. Recent so-called assault weapon bans are all the evidence necessary to completely mistrust the idea of registration.

It's not paranoia if they are actually attempting the thing that you fear. Schumer, Feinstein, Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, and even McCain have LONG ago let the horse out of the barn as to their actual intent.

Hollow promises like 'We support the Second Amendment' followed by a litany of ways to eviscerate it do NOTHING to repair the the breach of trust that this crowd has not only announced but continue to demonstrate.

Now, if they were to pass national reciprocity, a national preemption, post facto, of BS assault gun bans, including feature based bans and magazine limits, and provide severe penalties for individuals in government who fail to comply with aforementioned protections of this fundamental civil right, THEN their claims of support for the RKBA might have some validity.

Until then, the there is NO reason to trust them or cooperate IN THE SLIGHTEST with what THEY HAVE ANNOUNCED is but step one in a campaign to destroy the right.

[Tom Servo]

NO GUNS WILL BE TAKEN AND THE 2ND AMMENDMENT WILL STAND STRONG JUST AS IT DOES TODAY.

First things first. Notice this key on your keyboard:



It appears to be stuck.

Second, they don't have to resort to door-to-door Red Dawn style confiscation. All they have to do is set up a system under which the statute exists and people violate it, regardless of intent or knowledge. If Joe Bob gets caught shooting an old rifle he didn't think he needed to register, it's an easy bust and prosecution. If Mary Sue gets caught with an old revolver her husband left her, and she didn't even know about the law, another easy bust.

A few of those will have a chilling effect on firearms ownership as a whole, which is far easier than polishing up the fancy boots and stomping down doors. People will simply worry about potential problems with gun ownership, and they'll willingly divest themselves of their guns.

In the meantime, we'll see no net effect on crime. There will be other shootings. Each time that happens, the gun restrictions in place will be deemed insufficent, and there will be calls for even stricter ones.

"Universal" background checks are unenforceable without some sort of registration. Registration is an easy way to punish folks who unintentionally fail to comply.

[Grizz12]

OK THIS FOR THE LAST TIME IS WHAT I SUPPORT. NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS

WHEN A FIREARM CHANGES HANDS A BACKGROUND CHECK MUST BE DONE.

IT WILL BE FREE AND NO CHARGE.

IT WILL NOT...I REPEAT WILL NOT RECORD THE TYPE OF GUN OR CALIBER OF GUN.

IT WILL SIMPLY JUST INSURE THAT THE PERSON RECEIVING THE GUN DOES NOT HAVE A FELONY OR HAS BEEN CERTIFIED INSANE.

NO GUNS WILL BE TAKEN AND THE 2ND AMMENDMENT WILL STAND STRONG JUST AS IT DOES TODAY.

What good is the law then???

If bad guy sells to bad guy, and gets caught, prove the check was not done?

If good guy sells to good guy and LEO does check on new owner of the gun, who is to say a check was done or not done especially if more than one weapon is involved??

Does the UBC prevent bad guys from stealing guns?

There should only be ONE gun law on the books - commit a crime with a gun or with someone else who has a gun, and you go to jail for 10 years. Death penalty for all involved if an innocent is killed or injured during the crime.

[Southwest Chuck]

Plumbnut, it would behoove you to read this recent article to better understand the basis for the vast majority of opinions expressed in this thread.
http://m.iowastatedaily.com/mobile/o...a4bcf887a.html

I’m going to break my silence on the gun issue and speak out once more — and for the last time. This is my final column for the Iowa State Daily.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Nice post - thanks for the link. I may not agree with every point but the most telling is that in a discussion about firearms, the starting point for the antis must be that gun owners are fundamentally evil. Well, stated.

Coming into this late - the problem with the background check laws (yes, there are techy problems) is that they are indicator species of an agenda to much more draconian laws. It isn't that a NICS for private sales at gun shows would be the end point. It is portrayed as unreasonable to oppose such - but recall the proponents are only willing to settle for such as a first step. They are dishonest in their goal set if they say that would be it.

There is no reason to agree to such if that would be a first step victory. Look how Schumer wanted a registry and an apoplectic fit when a suggestion for CCW reciprocity was added. That's the game.

Given gun usage is evil by definition, there is no reason to add new restrictions as there is no reciprocal expansion of rights.

Let NY allow all its residences to buy any Federally legal gun with just a NICS check. Chuck and Mike would plotz on that one. Thus, they are hypocrites.

[maestro pistolero]

If all gun regulations that DIDN'T primarily target criminals were struck from the books there would be few left standing.

[44 AMP]

Don't confuse a background check done for employment with one done for the ability to purchase. While they are both checking on the same thing(s) -you- they are otherwise completely different.

Unless the employer did a background check on you every time you went to work, which you had to pass to get in the door, its not even close to the same thing.

Nearly everyone seems content that background checks are needed and the right thing to do. We have to keep guns out of the hands of ciminals and the insane, right? Well, a background check only does that for ciminals who have already been caught (at least once), and only stops the insane when a court has already ruled that they are insane/impaired (whatever the term).

It is still within living memory, a time when a felony conviction did not bar you from firearms ownership for life. There was a time when, after they had served their sentence, paid their debt to society, were not on parole or probation, but fully done, that restoration of rights was virtually automatic.

That ended in 1968, along with a lot of other things we used to do as ordinary everyday things. And while many states allow for the restoration of rights after petitioning a court to so rule, on the Federal level, the mechanism to do this has not been funded for quite some time.

Our Founders believed that even criminals had a right to defend their lives and property, once they had served their punishment and returned to society. And, if the several states didn't want this, it was their right to decide it, each one for themselves, not the Federal government's. (10th Amendment, etc..) (of course in those days, criminals generally served their entire sentences behind bars...)

Background checks cannot work with registration? Sure they can, as well as they work right now. What they cannot do with out registration is answer the question "was a background check done for your purchase of this gun?"

No check I have ever been involved with ever identified the gun by make, model, caliber, or ser#. Ever. What was checked was ME, by my identifying information, and the gun only as handgun or long gun (so to check the age requirement, 18 for long gun, 21 for handgun).

Background checks are nothing but an irritation to the fellow who already owns a gun or three. Or three dozen. Even if delayed/denied it does nothing to prevent any harm the buyer is considering doing. They are already armed, so total irrelvance to the check in those situations.

You want a check, every time? The only one that I could accept as even remotely useful would be one where the buyer simply stops in any cop shop, and has the instant check run on them, preferably for free, as our tax dollars already pay for the cops. Buyer gets a little card, with a unique PIN# (from NICS) which includes the date of the check. Show that card to any dealer/seller, and legalities are met.

(of course, there is the possibility of fraud, countefiting, etc, but that's possible right now, short of a fingerprint ID.)

No registry of weapons, just a registry of people (and we already have lots and lots of those). Seller could just call a special number, or go to a website, and have the PIN# verified. Seems simple to me.

But that isn't what the people pushing universal checks seem to want. If it was, why haven't they proposed it?

[Skadoosh]

But that isn't what the people pushing universal checks seem to want. If it was, why haven't they proposed it?

That is the question that seemingly no gun-control advocate will ever likely answer...because it would reveal their true intentions.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think the gun control position is quite clear. It was an enhanced AWB and servere mag limits. As we've seen in some states. Background checks was a PR position after it was clear that the above would fail in the Senate and House.

Then, background checks were seen as a reasonable comprise despite all the problems with them. Note, bills that would go along with background checks at shows and enhance some gun rights were seen as obscene by Chuck and company - some compromise.

The agenda is no private ownership except for some limited classic sporting arms that might also be used for limited SD (with those guns registered).

Shotguns and bird shot - that's all - but not in the major cities either.

[Plumbnut]

Glenn e meyer,

You cant hunt deer with birdshot,so your saying the goverment is tryin to ban deer hunting?

If so I would like to read all about that.

[Skadoosh]

You cant hunt deer with birdshot

say what?

[SPEMack618]

Glenn was referencing a remark, well several, by our illustrios Vice President where he discussed how a double barrel shotgun, with bird shot so as to be less deadly, was all one "needed" for home defense.

[Plumbnut]

Skadoosh,

Read the last sentence of Glenns post......says only thing left will be shotguns and birdshot.

Well you cant hunt deer with birdshot and if nothing else is available you wouldn't be able to hunt deer.

Thats what conclusion I come to when I read that last sentence of that post

[Tom Servo]

Well you cant hunt deer with birdshot and if nothing else is available you wouldn't be able to hunt deer.

Well, the 2A has absolutely nothing to do with deer hunting. It has to do with self-defense. Birdshot isn't very viable for that.

[Al Norris]

Plumbnut, are you that obtuse that you didn't read the sarcasm Glenn used to parrot what Biden had publicly stated?

Really?

[Aguila Blanca]

The premise of background checks, even as they exist today, is flawed. I have a carry permit from my home state, which required a background check. I also have non-resident permits from three other states, at least two of which did their own background checks on me despite my having a home state permit. So I've already been background checked up the wazoo. What constructive purpose is served by requiring that an FFL run yet ANOTHER background check on me each and every time I buy a firearm? And what constructive purpose would be served by extending that requirement such that even a member of my own family couldn't sell OR GIVE me a firearm without running a background check on me?