|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 31, 2018, 04:14 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
Universal background checks
Why not?
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
March 31, 2018, 04:24 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 8,783
|
You have my attention
Quote:
Be Safe !!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing. |
|
March 31, 2018, 04:31 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
|
I kind of believed that was what we had now with NICS.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter! |
March 31, 2018, 04:52 PM | #4 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
First, because they most certainly lead to registration, either of guns or of gun owners. You decide which is worse.
Second, because they're unenforceable against prohibited persons under either Haynes v. U.S. (SCOTUS, 1968), the A5 or the A8, depending on circumstances. Unless and until we can enforce them, at the very least, against those already convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in jail, there is no good reason to place additional restrictions on lawful gun owners. Third, given the evidence of horrible reporting problems that we've seen in the current system, the problem isn't that there aren't enough background checks. It's that gov't agencies are ignoring the flags that are being waved. Fourth, not one more inch. We've given enough. The antigunners have been openly telling us for decades that they want to take all of our guns. Their claims that "nobody wants to take your guns" ring hollow in light of what I'm seeing on the national landscape. Their use of the word "compromise" is wholly inappropriate. If I let you keep half of your cash so that I don't beat the snot out of you and take all of it, it's not a compromise. That's how a protection racket works.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
March 31, 2018, 05:05 PM | #5 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 435
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
“Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".” ― --Thomas Jefferson |
||
March 31, 2018, 05:08 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
|
Quote:
IF the holes in our current system were fixed, (as best such holes could be), isn't that what we already have? What is the difference between NICS and UBC if there is a difference?
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter! |
|
March 31, 2018, 05:10 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
|
Quote:
In other words, future Supreme Court Justices.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter! |
|
March 31, 2018, 05:16 PM | #8 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
-Benjamin Franklin, in the Continental Congress just before signing the Declaration of Independence, 1776.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
March 31, 2018, 05:20 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,313
|
Quote:
We've discussed this before. A felon is found with a gun. Who did he get it from? Without the gun being registered to someone you can't charge someone with the crime of selling a gun to a prohibited person. Without that, the law would be pretty much toothless and useless. WITH registration when a prohibited person is found with a gun you quickly and easily go back to the last legal owner and charge them with selling to a prohibited person, failing to report that the gun was stolen and/or failure to secure the gun. All might become crimes in the UBC laws. Are we willing to put up with gun registration? Last edited by DaleA; March 31, 2018 at 05:26 PM. |
|
March 31, 2018, 05:27 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
|
So when I read the phrase universal background checks what I should be reading is gun registration?
Not simply the inclusion of ALL available information regarding crimes committed and those individuals legally adjudicated mentally unstable etc. etc. into our current system?
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter! |
March 31, 2018, 06:37 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
The only way to enforce universal background checks is with registration, and registration almost always leads to gun confiscation. In addition, it is frankly not the government's business what guns and ammunition I own.
|
March 31, 2018, 06:40 PM | #12 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
I thinks Spats McGee summed up the reasons to oppose it very well. Quote:
|
||
March 31, 2018, 06:51 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
|
Thanks for the clarification and pardon my lack of understanding.
added: I should say pardon my ignorance as every time I've heard the term UBC I've thought to myself that we already have those, and I've never believed that there was anything that could honestly or accurately be labeled a loophole. My bad.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter! Last edited by turkeestalker; April 1, 2018 at 05:49 AM. |
March 31, 2018, 07:04 PM | #14 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,832
|
Why not??
Because the people writing the law won't stick to their own mandate, and that supposed mandate is false, to begin with. First off, what is the entire stated benefit of the check in the first place??? To identify people who have a legal barrier to possessing a firearm, so they cannot buy one, and thereby, cannot do harm with one. Do you agree?? So, what's the practical point (other than irritating people) of running a check on a person who already has a gun??? None I can see. If they are intent on causing harm, they already have a gun (or a dozen) so no check can prevent that. No check can see into the mind of someone who hasn't done anything wrong, yet, so it stops nothing there, either I'm not saying a background check does no good at all, anywhere, what I'm saying is that the very best it can do is less than we are being told it will do, and currently its clear that the system isn't working even close to the very best it could do. And, to make matters worse, we don't get just a law that covers buying from a dealer, we get laws that cover all "transfers" and they can be so badly written that it is nearly impossible to get a clear understanding of what does, and does not apply under the law. Want to loan a friend of 20+ years whom you know has no criminal background a gun? BOTH of you have to go to the FFL and pay for the check done on him. Then when he gives it back, another trip to the FFL, and another $$ so he can return your property to you!!! Going to work for the day? Guns at home, all locked up like a good boy?? Does your wife have a key to the gun safe? or know the combination??? Did you take her to the FFL and pay to have a check run on her, when you "transferred" all those guns to her possession when you left for work that morning?? If not, you might be a felon!! Do you do it every morning before you leave for work?? If not, you might be a felon!!! I'm not kidding, one law I've seen is written so badly that a case could be made for prosecuting what I've just mentioned! Its not that I object to the base idea that people who shouldn't have guns, shouldn't have guns, its that the background check idea is being sold as a panacea, which it can only fail at being, and its being done so poorly that the many of those it should stop aren't being stopped and those it shouldn't even be applied to are being punished with inconvenience, and costs that they don't deserve.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
March 31, 2018, 07:53 PM | #15 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
^^^ Well said.
Look at recent shootings. How many of the shooters passed background checks? Parkland shooter -- passed Sutherland Springs church shooter -- passed (he shouldn't have, but he did) Las Vegas shooter -- passed Pulse Nightclub shooter -- passed Republican baseball team shooter -- passed In a number of other recent school shootings, the gun was purchased by someone who passed a background check, and then the gun(s) was (were) stolen by the shooter. In the case of Sandy Hook, the shooter murdered his own mother to get the guns. And yet the anti-gun side says we "need" to expand the scope and reach of background checks to cover private sales. To what end? I know of a guy (whom I knew thirty years ago, and I don't have any idea where he is now so NSA don't bother to call me) who went to a ghetto area late one night and bought a handgun for his boyfriend. The state where this happened didn't allow sales of handguns between individuals without a background check, so the "loophole" had already been closed. However, it was ignored. Only a lunatic or a serious optimist would believe that criminals will submit background check requests when selling stolen guns on ghetto street corners late at night, so -- again -- what's the point? Honest people already behave honestly, and new regulations will only serve to encumber honest people. Universal background checks won't make a dent in illegal gun sales. |
March 31, 2018, 08:17 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,286
|
First,we already have too many laws and regulations.BEFORE there is one more restrictive gun law is passed,somebody needs to own up that all the gun laws already in force are ineffective failures.
Its like there is a hoarder house of laws. Clean up before adding any more. No law will make up for mediocre ineffective bureaucrats who fail at their job. Had there not been "balls dropped",nearly every one of these shootings could have been prevented. Don't ask me to give up any more of my liberty or my grand children's legacy of a US Constitution that says "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed. Now,to the OP's question: Along with a passed and signed legislation come the inevitable bureaucrat regulations with force of law that can put you in jail. They do not get a vote or a veto process. They are just written by ,if we may,the deep state. If we have such a law,don't we require a means to enforce? To ensure compliance? How? To enforce a universal back ground check,every firearm in the USA must be inventoried. Exactly every firearm you own must be registered and accounted for,AND,you must be subject to audit,perhaps by a knock on the door. "Firearms Audit!" If you have one gun too many,or come up one short,I speculate you will be a felon. That is why I adamantly oppose such "Common sense gun safety laws" It was with great Wisdom our Founders said "Shall not be Infringed" They selected the 2nd Amendment for such an admonishment. |
March 31, 2018, 10:22 PM | #17 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Under current laws, universal background checks require registration to work and registration is a necessary first step to confiscation. Given how many leading public figures openly support confiscation and bans, I'm inclined to take them at their word for a change.
Quote:
|
|
April 1, 2018, 06:36 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
IMO: The concept of background checks on private firearms sales is repugnant to the extreme.
Put to referendum; background checks on private firearms sales would pass in many states. |
April 1, 2018, 08:30 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 20, 2007
Posts: 2,455
|
I disagree with a key point of this discussion, that the only way to enforce "universal" background checks (some exceptions are necessary) is registration. That would be one way, and I'm sure a lot of anti-gun folks think it is a clever way to get the registration, and confiscation, that they really want.
But there is an easy and effective way to enforce this. Cops use it now to discourage all sorts of illegal sales: sting operations. First, most people obey the law. Mostly because...well, they're law abiding citizens. For folks that don't and want to buy or sell illegal drugs, sex, pirated videos, etc. the cops sometimes oblige them. Make the deal, make the arrest. Does it stop these sales? Of course not. But it sure gives normal people an incentive not to engage in these transactions. Personally, I wouldn't do a face-to-face transfer with a stranger, even though it's perfectly legal here. NICS is imperfect, but it does seem to be effective and reasonable. Also regarding registration, just send someone who advocates for it to Canada. Our friends to the northleft tried it, dropped it. Too costly and ineffective. |
April 1, 2018, 08:33 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 1, 2017
Posts: 391
|
I don't have a problem with universal background checks, but I'm more in favor of a national gun permit. As a truck driver, I've had to pass federal background checks to get both my HAZMAT endorsement and TWIC card. Passed both with no problems whatsoever. However, when I go to buy a gun I get delayed every time with no explanation as to why. It's very annoying.
|
April 1, 2018, 08:42 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,451
|
Quote:
Guns don't have backgrounds, so it doesn't make sense that the licensee identify the arm you purchase and retain a record unless the point is to register that arm to you. He doesn't need a record of the arm to know whether you are an eligible buyer. The rational answer to a problem of ineligible buyers would be to issue an ID to any eligible buyer and permit him to buy as he pleases from whoever he pleases without further interference. Whether that poses a constitutional problem is a different matter.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; April 1, 2018 at 09:00 AM. |
|
April 1, 2018, 08:56 AM | #22 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
Aside from the burden that would pout on private sellers (I can't imagine that if I sold a gun next week I might be able to find where I put the buyer's name and address five years from now), having such information recorded anywhere becomes a de facto registration. After all, 4473s aren't submitted to the federal government, they stay with the FFL. Yet after any major shooting where the firearm(s) is/are recovered, the BATFE knows within 48 hours or less exactly where and when it/they were bought -- by tracking the 4473s. It's a mystery to me why any state's carry license/permit isn't all you need to buy a firearm, even from an FFL. Not just those states whose licenses/permits formally qualify for NICS -- I'm talking about all states. I believe all states that issue permits conduct a background check first. Even states like Pennsylvania, which has no training requirement. Ergo, if I have a carry permit, I have already passed a background check. Why do I have to pass another one if I want to buy a gun? Likewise, if I walk into a gun shop wearing a gun on my belt, and especially if the FFL knows that I have bought guns from him and passed the background check -- what's the purpose of subjecting me to yet another background check? I already own a gun! I could walk in wearing two Glocks with true high-capacity magazines, yet I have to pass a background check to buy a Ruger Single Six .22 caliber revolver. Why? Last edited by Aguila Blanca; April 1, 2018 at 09:05 AM. |
|
April 1, 2018, 09:23 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2017
Posts: 316
|
Repeal GCA of 68 and give Freedom a try.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
April 1, 2018, 10:39 AM | #24 | |||||||||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
I stumbled across an article in the Guardian that was written by the Parkland students. It's interesting for showing us what they are demanding ... as well as for showing us how their demands demonstrate their ignorance of the topic they are speaking and writing about:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ricas-gun-laws Quote:
Further, except for .22LR, pretty much every semi-automatic rifle fires "high velocity" rounds. So this isn't a call to ban just "assault weapons," taken on its face this would ban ALL semi-automatic rifles, and possibly many semi-automatic handguns. Bye-bye Ruger Mini 14 and Mini 30. Quote:
Quote:
Registration leads to confiscation. Canada proved that registration was NOT effective in reducing crime. A registration system would not have stopped the Las Vegas shooting, and (by itself) a registration system would not have prevented the Parkland shooting. Registration also would not have prevented the Pulse Club shooting. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Aguila Blanca; April 1, 2018 at 10:49 AM. |
|||||||||
April 1, 2018, 10:53 AM | #25 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,832
|
Quote:
This goes back to what I said earlier, the problem isn't just the idea of background checks, its also the specific way the law(s) are worded. WA got a UBS..er, pardon.. UBC law a couple years back. After being defeated in the Legislature, over 3 different election cycles (that I know of), they went the ballot initiative route. Because they were able to manipulate the opinion of enough people in the 5 counties of the Seattle metro area, it passed there. It only passed in those five counties, every other county in the state defeated it. That didn't matter. Those five counties has enough people in them that passed the law to make it the law for the entire state. It's the most poorly writing law I've ever seen. It's so poorly written that the WA State Police (and other WA LEOs) have refused to enforce it. (qualified with, refused to enforce it absent further clarification of what is, and is not a covered "transfer") Its been a couple years, but so far, as far as I know, that clarification has not been forthcoming, yet. I see voluntary compliance at gun shows. One dealer sets up and does nothing but run the background checks for all the other dealers at the show. And, yes, its one check per gun, if you buy from different people. Same day, could even be in the same hour, but if you buy a gun from two (or 3 or..) different dealers, each time you need a background check run. I can see, a degree of justification (other than the wording of the law) for A check. One. The first one. I can see no valid reason or use for the 2nd, or 3rd, or whatever check other than to obey the wording of the law. I have met dealers who, speaking as private citizens, detest the background check idea, but speaking as an FFL dealer (a businessman), they love it., It makes them MONEY!!! (nothing makes you money like a law that requires people to use your business...) As to being able to have a "system" that does not require/create a registration database, it can be done. It could be done, except the anti's absolutely will not accept any idea that doesn't create a registration system. They won't even entertain the idea. They refuse to consider, let alone support, any idea that isn't their own on this issue. As someone else said, so much for "compromise".... As to enforcing such a law, after the point of sale..what a nightmare.. What are they going to do, come into my home and demand proof I had a background check run (which I do not, and CANNOT have) on each and every firearm I own??? They aren't doing it, today, but that doesn't mean that they never will... It's a scary thought, that some jackbooted thug of an enforcement official (and whether they wear their jackboots openly or concealed doesn't matter, its an attitude, not an article of footwear I'm referring to..) demanding to see "proof" that I had a background check run on my grandfather's double barrel shotgun that has been in my family for 110 years!!!!! You want to check something? How about, instead of checking me, and millions of other people who are not doing anything wrong or criminal, each and every time we buy a gun, you put that effort into creating a "watchdog" agency, who SOLE function is to go through all court records, everywhere, at all levels, to ensure all are/have been reported to NICS?? (and be sure to check and include the records of all those who have since died, as well. After all, they still vote in some places, so they might be out there trying to buy a gun, as well... No doubt such a task is a moving target, but it would create lifetime employment for a number of people. Isn't that a good thing??? (and no, don't ask me to pay for it, and don't steal my money to do so without even the courtesy of asking.)
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
|
|