The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 26, 2013, 06:24 PM   #101
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Manta - if you don't like the RKBA - we know that by now and spare us.
Probaly a stupid question but what is the RKBA. PS I don't think the UK is wonderful it has its good and bad points just like America or any other country.

Last edited by manta49; January 26, 2013 at 06:59 PM.
manta49 is online now  
Old January 26, 2013, 06:31 PM   #102
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
Right to Keep and Bear Arms


Right = Something that is not a privilege, something not granted by the government, but something that is inalienable.


to

Keep = To posess as an item of personal property, IE: Not something issued by the state and then subject to being returned.

AND

Bear = To be able to carry the property into public, IE: to shoulder ones arms and march, or to carry elsewhere for lawful purposes.

Arms = Weapons suitable for use as offensive and defensive arms, IE: "not for sporting purposes".


Willie

.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 06:31 PM   #103
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,622
What I look at:
This idea is put in a marketing wrapper,to give it emotional appeal.Words like "common sense","reasonable",etc are attached to it,the implication being those in opposition lack common sense ,or are unreasonable.

What is not brought to the open and discussed,How will it be implemented?

Ever heard"The devil is in the details"

How about"If its not written down,or if you cannot verify,measure,etc,iit not valid?

You see,the only mechanism I can think of to enforce compliance of "No uncontrolled sales,background check,etc"

The Federal Government would require an inventory off every firearm you own.Via audit,if you have any firearm not on the inventory,or,if you cannot produce a firearm that is on the inventory,you are now a criminal.

Before you blow this off,you tell me,by what other method could the government effectively control face to face sales?Your plan must be enforcable.

My Sheriff is one of those who will refuse to enforce,and in his open letter to the public and lawmakers,he came to the same conclusion.

This is,by the way,reasonably close to provisions in the treaty the UN would like for us to sign.

An aside,in Colorado,for years now,at gunshows,every sale must go through an ffl transfer.A table is set up,you fill out the 4473,they phone it in,you pass NICS or you don't.The parking lots are patrolled,no private sales are permitted.There is no gunshow loophole at Coloraado gunshows,period.
HiBC is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 06:33 PM   #104
RockSmoot
Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2013
Location: Rogers, Arkansas
Posts: 36
From the politico article:

Quote:
“Most Americans support background checks, but they … have very little clue about what that means,” said David Kopel, a gun law expert and adjunct Constitutional law professor at the University of Denver.
A depressingly familiar state of affairs. Let's restrict everyone's constitutional rights even though we have no idea what that means.
RockSmoot is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 06:45 PM   #105
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Manta - if you don't like the RKBA - we know that by now and spare us.
Where in my posts did i say i didn't like the RKBA in American.

What is right for America might not be right for some other countries. Undoubtedly here if everyone was armed thousands more would have being killed over the last 40 years.

Quote:
Whether Manta thinks the UK is wonderful and we stink and vice versa
In what post did i say that.

Last edited by manta49; January 26, 2013 at 07:01 PM.
manta49 is online now  
Old January 26, 2013, 06:50 PM   #106
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
I'm okay with universal checks, I live in Illinois and the FOID card doesn't suck that bad.

Yep, you all read that right, all along nate45 has lived in Illinois. I have an Arizona and Pennsylvania CCW permit, but can't carry here in my home state, yet. I carry unloaded in the case, with ammo close by.

The reason I came out of the closet, is because I want to help Texans(where I was born and raised) and others understand that FOID isn't that bad. Sure I believe it shouldn't exist, but its not commie-ville like a lot pretend.
It is that bad. A recent audit of the FOID program.

Some highlights: Roughly 30% of the applications were not approved/denied in the 30 days mandated by law. Roughly 70% of revoked FOIDs were not turned in to the ISP. Roughly 85% of the calls to the FOID office during the last quarter of 2010 were not answered. As well as multiple procedural and policy issues, such as failures and inadequacies in the reporting. Seems like a great example of programs like that or universal background checks being a good idea...

In actuality it highlights a number of the issues that need to be ironed out with current systems before any further laws are passed in the name of "public safety".
sigcurious is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 07:12 PM   #107
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
So, because rights can be restricted, gun owners should go looking for more ways to restrict our rights even further? No, thank you. Just because rights can be restricted does not make it a good idea.

And what, exactly, are you trying to make "practically happen?" Further restriction of my rights? That doesn't seem practical to me.
I don't see any "restriction" by showing you are not prohibited. There is absolutely nothing to keep you from keeping and bearing arms if you are not a prohibited person.

Quote:
Granted, I might not know if a fishing buddy got popped for a felony DUI. The point that you have largely ignored is that universal background checks shift the burden to the citizen to demonstrate that he or she is eligible to have a 2A right.
When buying one yes. I have no problem with that.

Quote:
It's not about special privilege for the cop. I'm not arguing that there should be. It's about the fact that I know he's not a prohibited person. It's about the fact that there's no reason for the federal government to meddle in my disposal of my private property any more than it already does. The argument that "the government already meddles in it, so it doesn't matter" is hogwash. Just because it already meddles does not mean that I should invite more meddling.
The gun shop "knows" he is not prohibited either. I don't understand this argument that you "knowing" he is not a prohibited person should make a sale ok without checking first? If it is not special privilege than what is it?

I do understand that you don't want people meddling into how you sell your guns. That is a fair argument. I don't want to people to sell guns to criminals and other prohibited unintentionally. I understand that some people will be willing to break the law and do it anyway but most people are law abiding and won't. I believe the inconvenience to us will be minimal, possibly even beneficial in other ways.

If we lived in a town with a communal well and everyone brought their own bucket to the well I would want you to clean your bucket before you drew water. This is inconveniences you I know but it is better for everyone in the long run. Can you still get water? Why yes, you can still get water.

Quote:
It may be $0 for you, or for many others. If you think it's free, though, I've got some bad news for you. The NICS system is a federal system, paid for by tax dollars. If you increase the number of NICS checks that have to be made, you'll have to increase employees, and that increases expense. There's no such thing as a free lunch. If the gov't mandates that it be free, it'll just reallocate the costs to taxes.
That may be possible. But if your argument is that we will pay $.25 a year per person more in taxes I can live with it. I am not really going way off into the bottomless tangent of fiscal policy and taxes. Suffice it to say we could build one less fighter jet and fund NICS for another 50 years.


Quote:
I also question whether your "not a restriction limit" is at $5, or some percentage of that new AR that you seem to think I can afford.
I am not mandating a high cost so I don't know why you keep bothering. Free or very low cost is much more reasonable. Free really makes the most sense since a lot of gun owners oppose the measure. No sense in making them pay extra for it if they don't want it.

Quote:
On top of all that, I have serious doubts as to whether universal checks will have any effect on crime in the absence of full firearm registration. If universal checks go through, I give it 3-5 years before more calls for full registration are heard.
Why are you waiting 3-5 years? Turn on the TV and you can hear the calls right now. The only point of a check is to place another barrier for criminals to an easy gun supply. If people mostly comply with the law then that is one less way for prohibited people to get guns. Non-prohibited people will still be able to get them. It will be less convenient though.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 07:16 PM   #108
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Alabama Shooter, unless I missed it, you have not addressed the Trojan Horse aspect of such a system as a backdoor way toward full, national registration.

Please do.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 07:26 PM   #109
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
Alabama Shooter, unless I missed it, you have not addressed the Trojan Horse aspect of such a system as a backdoor way toward full, national registration.

Please do.
Sure, if you can tell me what people will do with their gun when they buy it.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 07:31 PM   #110
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
My way, the police and courts deal with people who are actually caught breaking laws.

Your way, which restricts a right and therefor requires significant justification, helps set the stage for confiscation.

So, support your argument and address the issue YOU would create with your CHANGE TO THE STATUS QUO that would RESTRICT A CORE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

It really is that simple. The onus is on you.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 07:36 PM   #111
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
My way, the police and courts deal with people who are actually caught breaking laws.

Your way, which restricts a right and therefor requires significant justification, helps set the stage for confiscation.
If you are making an assumption about what people are going to do before they actually do it you are making the same mistake as the antis. It is called projecting.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 07:38 PM   #112
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
I don't see any "restriction" by showing you are not prohibited. There is absolutely nothing to keep you from keeping and bearing arms if you are not a prohibited person.
There's a First Amendment doctrine called the prior restraint. I have likened the universal background check to a prior restraint in that you don't really have the right until you get gov't approval. Rights are something you have until the government can prove sufficient grounds to take them away. Privileges are what you get after you've jumped through the hoops to show the government that you are deserving of the privilege. If you don't believe that having to ask for government permission to exercise a right is any restriction at all, then you don't understand the term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
The gun shop "knows" he is not prohibited either. I don't understand this argument that you "knowing" he is not a prohibited person should make a sale ok without checking first? If it is not special privilege than what is it?
See Rights and Privileges, above. If you choose to treat your RKBA as a privilege, feel free to do so. What you've suggested though, is that the rest of us should be required to, as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
The gun shop "knows" he is not prohibited either. I don't understand this argument that you "knowing" he is not a prohibited person should make a sale ok without checking first? If it is not special privilege than what is it?
Private sales without background checks have been OK for about the last 237 years. It's the exercise of a right, rather than being given special permission by the gov't. It's not a special privilege. It's the power to deal with one's own private property without undue governmental meddling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
. . . .I don't want to people to sell guns to criminals and other prohibited unintentionally. I understand that some people will be willing to break the law and do it anyway but most people are law abiding and won't. I believe the inconvenience to us will be minimal, possibly even beneficial in other ways.
Given the admission that "some people will be willing to break the law" and sell to prohibited persons anyways, please tell me what benefits you see to mandating that every private sale have a background check to go with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
I am not mandating a high cost so I don't know why you keep bothering. Free or very low cost is much more reasonable. Free really makes the most sense since a lot of gun owners oppose the measure. No sense in making them pay extra for it if they don't want it.
I keep bothering because, in part, it's MY MONEY that you're proposing to spend. The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy. -- John Marshall. The other reason that I keep bothering the argument that "oh, it's only 5 dollars" puts us on a slippery slope. First, it's $5, then we adjust for inflation, then just a little more. Pretty soon, that background check will cost $100, and at some point before that happens, it starts preventing some lower-income folks from being able to exercise their RKBA at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
Why are you waiting 3-5 years? Turn on the TV and you can hear the calls right now. The only point of a check is to place another barrier for criminals to an easy gun supply. If people mostly comply with the law then that is one less way for prohibited people to get guns. Non-prohibited people will still be able to get them. It will be less convenient though.
And your solution is to go ahead and let the anti-2A folks have the first move? Instituting universal checks will be a much larger inconvenience than it will be for felons.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 07:41 PM   #113
Twisted99
Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2007
Location: PSL Florida
Posts: 16
The ONLY thing I agree with is the "universal" part.
I believe in every state:
A stop sign means stop
a speed limit sign means the same thing
I must be 18 to purchase tobacco
I must be 21 to purchase alcohol
So what is the problem with firearm transaction laws being the same for every state?
Wouldn't that make it easier for legal interstate sales and easier to prosecute illegal sales?
Twisted99 is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 07:42 PM   #114
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Alabama Shooter, Diane Feinstein famously told 60 Minutes back in 1995 that if she could have mustered the Senate votes required, she would have gone for full confiscation. New York's new law requires owners to dispose of magazines a year after the law goes into effect. Illinois is still under a ban, until the Court tells them time is up for a carry program.

So I am not prognosticating, I am going by the past words and actions of the people who are currently pushing for universal background checks.

If you don't see the distinction, you are either not as smart as you had seemed, or you are a mole.

Last edited by MLeake; January 26, 2013 at 08:19 PM.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 07:48 PM   #115
RockSmoot
Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2013
Location: Rogers, Arkansas
Posts: 36
Quote:
So what is the problem with firearm transaction laws being the same for every state?
By my reading of it, the 10th Amendment is the problem. It would require a constitutional amendment.
RockSmoot is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 07:52 PM   #116
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
I must be 18 to purchase tobacco
I must be 21 to purchase alcohol
So what is the problem with firearm transaction laws being the same for every state?
Wouldn't that make it easier for legal interstate sales and easier to prosecute illegal sales?
The age to purchase tobacco is not federally mandated and is not 18 in all places. Neither is the drinking age, the drinking age was strong armed by the feds in the 80's by threat of withholding funds from states that do not set the age at 21.

The problem? See everything above in the thread.

Interstate transfers with limited exceptions already require an FFL and as such a background check. Furthermore, they(the feds) already fail to prosecute many firearms offenses, it would not make it any easier as they choose not to already.
sigcurious is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 07:55 PM   #117
RockSmoot
Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2013
Location: Rogers, Arkansas
Posts: 36
This is all so much noise. Even proponents of the UBC admit that background checks don't prevent criminals or other restricted persons from getting weapons when they want them. They simply steal them or buy them on the black market. The only people being constrained by the law are law abiding citizens, which to my mind, means that it fails the effectiveness test required to restrain a constitutional right.

Whether or not people consider universal background checks a reasonable measure, imho it craps all over several rights and should either be dropped from consideration or reworked into a proposed constitutional amendment.
RockSmoot is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 08:08 PM   #118
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 676
Tyme wrote:

Quote:
We have an adversarial system, where prosecutors are tasked with, and rewarded for, getting a conviction. There are some limits; for instance, they have to disclose exculpatory evidence (and when they don't and are caught, there are usually consequences), but they are not expected to try to ensure that justice is done; they are expected to get convictions. "Justice" is up to juries (often stupid, poorly informed, or disinterested) or judges, relying on cherry-picked legal citations (because like the UK we have a common law system relying heavily on case law, not a simpler civil law system).
Ethics rules require prosecutors to seek justice. A criminal defendant may waive the right to a trial by jury and allow the judge to decide the case. The jury selection process allows attorneys to eliminate some potential jurors. Judges apply the law to the facts; the law includes statutes, rules, regulations and appellate court decisions.

Glenn, I realize this post is not focused on the background check issue, but as a retired government attorney I felt the need to correct these errors in Tyme's post. And, I felt this public response was more appropriate than a PM.
__________________
NRA Life Member - RMEF Life Member - Vietnam Vet
lefteye is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 08:20 PM   #119
Dragline45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2010
Posts: 2,462
I live in Mass where I had to pass a background check to obtain my license, and every time I buy a firearm they have to call the FBI to run a quick check on me. Never really bothered me that all my guns are registered and I need to pass a background check. I'm not a criminal, nor do I intend to use my guns in criminal activities. My only problem is the call every time I buy a gun. Usually it takes them 5 minutes, but with all stuff going on lately the call can take up to an hour.
Dragline45 is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 08:35 PM   #120
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
So I am not prognosticating, I am going by the past words and actions of the people who are currently pushing for universal background checks.

If you don't see the distinction, you are either not as smart as you had seemed, or you are a mole.


Really? A mole? You don't like my argument so now you want to cast aspersions? This thread was going really well with such civil discourse and no personal attacks too. So much for that. Clearly I don't tote whatever the main line is here but that does not make a "mole". Sad really I thought you were better than that.

The people who are pushing for background checks are not the same people who are pushing for confiscations. Background checks are supported by the vast majority of Americans. Confiscations are not.

The confiscators are pushing for every measure possible but their goal is confiscation. By trying to lump all the people who want background checks into the confiscation camp you all you are doing is creating a long list of opponents who would otherwise not be opposed.

The "if you are not for me you are against me" idea is a bad one. You only see enemies that way.
Quote:
There's a First Amendment doctrine called the prior restraint. I have likened the universal background check to a prior restraint in that you don't really have the right until you get gov't approval. Rights are something you have until the government can prove sufficient grounds to take them away. Privileges are what you get after you've jumped through the hoops to show the government that you are deserving of the privilege. If you don't believe that having to ask for government permission to exercise a right is any restriction at all, then you don't understand the term.
Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart

Quote:
"A prior restraint, by contrast and by definition, has an immediate and irreversible sanction."
Maybe you can explain it a little further how it meets that definition?
Quote:
Private sales without background checks have been OK for about the last 237 years. It's the exercise of a right, rather than being given special permission by the gov't. It's not a special privilege. It's the power to deal with one's own private property without undue governmental meddling.
It is a right only because you say it is. It says "to keep and bear" not "unrestrained right to trade as you see fit".

Quote:
Given the admission that "some people will be willing to break the law" and sell to prohibited persons anyways, please tell me what benefits you see to mandating that every private sale have a background check to go with it.
I would feel better knowing that it was unlikely that the gun I had sold was not to a prohibited person. For me that is enough.

Quote:
I keep bothering because, in part, it's MY MONEY that you're proposing to spend. The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy. -- John Marshall. The other reason that I keep bothering the argument that "oh, it's only 5 dollars" puts us on a slippery slope. First, it's $5, then we adjust for inflation, then just a little more. Pretty soon, that background check will cost $100, and at some point before that happens, it starts preventing some lower-income folks from being able to exercise their RKBA at all.
We have had NICS for nearly 20 years. Cost to the dealer was and is still $0.00.

Quote:
And your solution is to go ahead and let the anti-2A folks have the first move? Instituting universal checks will be a much larger inconvenience than it will be for felons.
A big part of the problem in this thread is a very mistaken assumption from some that everyone who wants background checks is an anti.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 08:35 PM   #121
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
And what if they did not dispose of your transaction info, and next year Massachusetts passes a capacity ban with no grandfathering, and uses the info they were not supposed to keep in an attempt to confiscate some of your guns or magazines, Dragline45?

Will you care then?

Honestly, I am sick of idiots who say, "Well, I have nothing to hide... maybe you do."

FYI, I am a retired Navy officer. I held a TS/SCI, and in my current civilian gig I still hold a TS. I have had firearms training from instructors ranging from Drill Instructors to 18B to Combat Controllers on the military side, and from Mas Ayoob on my own time. I get periodic SSBI investigations.

I do not have anything to hide. (BTW, unlike some of you - Dragline, manta, Alabama, Apom, etc - I use my name as a screen name here. M Leake. Who is hiding things, again?)

I have seen what happened in the UK, Australia, and Canada; I have followed the quotes and legislative gestures of major gun control advocates in the US; and I think Dragline45, AlabamaShooter, et al are either extremely naive or else in denial as to the potential threat.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 08:45 PM   #122
Twisted99
Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2007
Location: PSL Florida
Posts: 16
Quote:
By my reading of it, the 10th Amendment is the problem. It would require a constitutional amendment.
I wasn't referring to the legal side, just a common sense view.

Quote:
The age to purchase tobacco is not federally mandated and is not 18 in all places.
I should have said AT LEAST 18.

Quote:
Neither is the drinking age, the drinking age was strong armed by the feds in the 80's by threat of withholding funds from states that do not set the age at 21.
I was not trying to argue HOW the drinking age law came to be, just that it is THE SAME in all states.

Quote:
The problem? See everything above in the thread.
There is more than one POV in this thread, so you mean I should just see ONE side in the "above in this thread"



Quote:
Interstate transfers with limited exceptions already require an FFL and as such a background check. Furthermore, they(the feds) already fail to prosecute many firearms offenses, it would not make it any easier as they choose not to already.
I agree that not near enough is being done to prosecute illegal (interstate or otherwise) firearm transfers, but the point, which you missed , of my post was not about the good or bad of each things I noted but the general understanding of those laws as being "universal" in the US
Twisted99 is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 08:56 PM   #123
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
Background checks are supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Source?

I ask, but note that in some things, I do not care what the "vast majority of Americans support." That's the beauty of Rights. They're not subject to mob rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart

Quote:
"A prior restraint, by contrast and by definition, has an immediate and irreversible sanction."
Maybe you can explain it a little further how it meets that definition?
It is akin (meaning related, but not identical) to a prior restraint in that it requires me and other law abiding citizens to gain governmental permission before we're allowed to exercise a fundamental, individual right. I will never regain the time I lose going through the hassle, and I will never be refunded whatever fee I must pay for the privilege.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
It is a right only because you say it is. It says "to keep and bear" not "unrestrained right to trade as you see fit".
No, it's a right because the 2A says so. See "shall not be infringed. If a right is to mean anything, we must have the tools necessary to exercise the right: ink, paper, firearms, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
I would feel better knowing that it was unlikely that the gun I had sold was not to a prohibited person. For me that is enough.
Great! Go use an FFL, then. That doesn't explain your suggestion that everyone be required to use them, though. Will you really feel better about your sales if I have to do a background check?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
We have had NICS for nearly 20 years. Cost to the dealer was and is still $0.00.
Yes, and we pay for it in taxes. So?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
And your solution is to go ahead and let the anti-2A folks have the first move? Instituting universal checks will be a much larger inconvenience than it will be for felons.
A big part of the problem in this thread is a very mistaken assumption from some that everyone who wants background checks is an anti.
I have made no such assumption.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 09:03 PM   #124
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Cost to the dealer from the Feds is zero. The dealer still has to spend time, and assume liability, and where I live the standard dealer charge for a transfer is $30.

Edit: I also do not assume all those in favor of background checks are antis. I do assume they have not considered the serious potential for myriad abuses.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 09:18 PM   #125
BigD_in_FL
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,981
It sure would be nice if every person of voting age had to pass a basic civics class in order to vote.......how are so many on here so naive about government, the Constitution, and their rights that they are willing to cede even more power to a central fascist government?

Have we learned nothing over the last 20 years, let alone the last 50?
BigD_in_FL is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.17984 seconds with 8 queries