The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 5, 2016, 08:58 PM   #26
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 2,662
I believe there are several valid arguments against UBCs that may reach the masses. For instance, I want to purchase a rifle for my adult son as a gift. Since that would technically be a transfer (but not a straw purchase), and I couldn't wrap it up for his birthday. Oh no, off to the FFL we go to transfer his gift. On top of that, if you want to get technical you could also forget loaning a rifle to friends or family to hunt with.
5whiskey is offline  
Old November 5, 2016, 09:07 PM   #27
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5whiskey
I believe there are several valid arguments against UBCs that may reach the masses. For instance, I want to purchase a rifle for my adult son as a gift. Since that would technically be a transfer (but not a straw purchase), and I couldn't wrap it up for his birthday. Oh no, off to the FFL we go to transfer his gift. On top of that, if you want to get technical you could also forget loaning a rifle to friends or family to hunt with.
Well, those are all issued created by a universal background check requirement, but they hardly tug at the heartstrings. You've described inconveniences -- nothing that is likely to generate enough sympathy to get non-gun owners to vote against a UBC.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 5, 2016, 09:34 PM   #28
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,981
One has to face the fact that the majority of people don't care about causes that do not affect them, personally and directly.

And they especially hate to have to pay for them, when that is only way they are affected.

The coffee drinkers don't care about a tax on soda or beer, but scream bloody murder if you want to put a tax on "their" coffee.

People who don't own guns, or plan to, simply don't care much, if any, about the right to keep and bear arms. Only a very few who don't have a dog in the fight even bother to watch the fight. They only care when the dog bites them, and then they want all dogs banned.

or so it seems to me..
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 6, 2016, 12:49 AM   #29
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
One has to face the fact that the majority of people don't care about causes that do not affect them, personally and directly.
....
Yes and no. There are things people will care about and things that they won't care about.

Humans can be very charitable at times. People will care and take action when a child needs a bone marrow transplant and must find a compatible donor. People will give time and money to provide Thanksgiving dinners to the homeless and disposed in their communities. Such causes don't necessarily affect them directly and personally, but people are able to empathize.

But a homeless child going to bed hungry on Thanksgiving is different from some guy having to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to buy or sell a gun. The well fed, well housed person can empathize with the former, but the non-gun owner doesn't empathize with the latter.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 6, 2016, 06:45 AM   #30
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 4,118
Here is the message:

Universal background checks sound like a way to keep guns out of criminals hands. The country will spend millions to do this, there will be unintended consequences.

Result: We will have the fact reenforced that criminals move guns through criminal actions without regard to laws. So no reduction of guns in criminals hands. Then there is the "desperate persons"(mall shooter, suicide, etc) argument. They too often steal guns from family in the heat of the moment or have a planned approach which allows time/struggle to get their weapon. So no reduction.

Unintended Consequences:
Continued barrier building to prevent Americans from doing something fundamentally American. Are we losing what it means to be American?

Difficulty added by the government to the death and separation of assets.

Ruins Christmas.....Many folk give a first rifle, hunting rifle, etc at Christmas. Who doesn't love Christmas?

ROL vs RWOL creep....The increasing number of laws that we may be unknowledgible of that we can be held accountable for. I maintain that in America, we are a country of laws that we expect to enforce 100% for the betterment of all the people. Many other "not free" countries have laws that everybody violates every day so that through selective enforcement, people can be jailed easily for government control We do not want this foundation laid. This is real. Look at FFL harassment levels depending on who is in office. Think letter from ATF.
Nathan is offline  
Old November 6, 2016, 07:09 AM   #31
Mainah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 731
Here in Maine the most effective arguments against the ballot involve the implications of loaning a gun to a friend or relative. My buddy just borrowed his father's 20 gauge for a bird hunt, if this passes that could cost him $100 in transfer fees next year.

We have plenty of folks who live here in the summer, and head south when the snow flies. Some of them opt to leave their guns with friends or relatives. Others who live here full time do the same when they go on vacation. If this passes they'll all be far more likely to leave them in empty homes, where they'll be more vulnerable.


Plus many of us recognize that if this passes Bloomberg will come after our Big Gulps next.
Mainah is offline  
Old November 6, 2016, 09:15 AM   #32
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
The coffee drinkers don't care about a tax on soda or beer, but scream bloody murder if you want to put a tax on "their" coffee.
I may be an exception but I have been against, in general, additional taxes and expansion of government power, even when it doesn't seem to affect me directly. I hardly drink soda, for example, but I can't see a useful purpose by increasing taxes on it. Even if the politicians claim the new taxes will all go to schools or whatever and it actually does, I'm convinced the politicians will just alter the current funding according to the new taxes
ATN082268 is offline  
Old November 6, 2016, 12:04 PM   #33
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,294
Seems to me from the discussion, that a mandated NICS at the gun show would be hard to oppose. Private sales if portrayed as major infringements of passing on family firearms would be easier to oppose. Exempting inheritance then woud remove this objection. Exempting short term loans at a range or in the field would get rid of some objections.

The Maine problem of long term storage by friends - that's harder but since that is mainly for long guns, the public might seem an exemption for them.

The problem is for the initiative folks would be if overreach led enough gun owners to oppose in numbers. The gun show NICS is the tougher proposition as I said before. We will see what happens in gun friendly states. CA is a lost cause, unfortunately.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 6, 2016, 01:53 PM   #34
Old Bill Dibble
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2016
Posts: 802
If you remove all of the common exchanges (family, inheritance, temporary loans, etc) and limit it to sale transactions between non-family members then it becomes difficult politically to oppose.

One of the problems of course being that we have always had illegal gun traders in these country... since before it was a country. Since demand creates supply the government will create a large market in illegal gun trade the minute it becomes law.
__________________
"Tragedy has been and will always be with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it, but each horrible act can’t become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us."
Old Bill Dibble is offline  
Old November 6, 2016, 02:46 PM   #35
Mainah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 731
People don't like out of state billionaires paying for laws they don't want. And that's what the ballot initiatives are.
Mainah is offline  
Old November 6, 2016, 05:21 PM   #36
Old Bill Dibble
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2016
Posts: 802
The tens of millions goes into advertising to convince people that they want something that they don't actually want. And to line the campaign coffers of the elected to grease the wheels.
__________________
"Tragedy has been and will always be with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it, but each horrible act can’t become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us."
Old Bill Dibble is offline  
Old November 6, 2016, 06:32 PM   #37
cjwils
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2010
Location: Washington state
Posts: 291
Quote:
People don't like out of state billionaires paying for laws they don't want. And that's what the ballot initiatives are.
And yet such ballot initiatives pass in states where the liberal urban population outnumbers the rural and small town population. More and more states are becoming like that.
cjwils is offline  
Old November 6, 2016, 07:57 PM   #38
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,981
My biggest problems with "universal" background checks, beyond the fact that the checks cannot and will not do as much as their proponents claim they will, is the "universal" part, and the mandatory part.

Current laws allow the seller to exercise their own personal judgment. The proposed (and in some places passed) UBC law does NOT allow that.

There is nothing stopping anyone, under current law from doing a transfer through an FFL and having a check run. What bugs me is the requirement I do it that way, no matter what.

Some of the UBC laws have exemptions, for certain "transfers" some don't, and even those that do, don't exempt transfers to non-immediate family members, or people who are not family, no matter how well, or for how long you have known them.

I see no sense, and nothing even remotely furthering the stated goal of keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, in requiring me to go to an FFL dealer and have a check run on a friend of over 20 years (who is not family) and who owns more guns than I do, in order to LOAN him a gun to check out.

Yet that is one of the things NOT excepted in the UBC law.

(my stumble fingers keep wanting to type UBS instead of UBC. I think it may be my subconscious trying to tell me that UBC laws are Universal BS..

I don't have a real problem with the concept, only the draconian form of it that they want to force us into.

Also, I rather resent the government attitude that considers my judgment valid when it comes to voting, but irrelevant on everything else...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 6, 2016, 09:27 PM   #39
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,969
Quote:
Seems to me from the discussion, that a mandated NICS at the gun show would be hard to oppose.
What is the legal definition of a gun show? Is a trap shoot with 50 shooters where two guns are sold traded a gun show? I'm sure some would write it that way.
I think the best defense is to say we have to fix the problems with the system now before we try to expand it to cover more things. For instance, UBCs do no good if every felon in the country knows NICS processors are swarmed on black Friday and they can likely get an automatic transfer after 3 days. Then be certain no one will investigate after the fact.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. Second Amendment Foundation is a solid alternative.
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old November 6, 2016, 11:34 PM   #40
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 2,662
FWIW I wouldn't kick and scream over a UBC requirement so long as provisions could be made for gifting or loaning firearms. But... I see the law not serving the stated purpose of preventing prohibited persons from acquiring a firearm if this is the case. So I couldn't be for it for that reason, but I can't be for it if I have to take my child to an FFL to give them a gift. So I just can't be for it. Why don't people who commit murder go to prison for life, and convicted felons in possession of firearms for many years? Enforcing current laws with teeth would prevent a good bit of violence.
5whiskey is offline  
Old November 6, 2016, 11:39 PM   #41
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
What is the legal definition of a gun show? Is a trap shoot with 50 shooters where two guns are sold traded a gun show?...
See 18 USC 923(j):
Quote:
(j) A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer may, under rules or regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, conduct business temporarily at a location other than the location specified on the license if such temporary location is the location for a gun show or event sponsored by any national, State, or local organization, or any affiliate of any such organization devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the community, and such location is in the State which is specified on the license....
An FFL may conduct business under his license only at the location specified in his license or at a temporary location which satisfies the criteria set out in that statute. So if the universal background check requirement relies on NICS checks being performed by FFLs, the locations at which such transactions take place will need to satisfy those 18 USC 923(j) criteria.

How that might work in connection with a law which simply requires a NICS check at a gun show will depend on how that law is written. An inartfully written law specifically saying only that a NICS check is required for any firearms transfer at a gunshow could wind up allowing private transfers without formalities at locations where an FFL could not conduct business. I doubt such a law would be written like that. It would not satisfy the purposes of the anti-gun crowd. That would be a loophole one could drive a truck through.

So looking at Glenn's comment in full:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
....Seems to me from the discussion, that a mandated NICS at the gun show would be hard to oppose. Private sales if portrayed as major infringements of passing on family firearms would be easier to oppose. Exempting inheritance then woud remove this objection. Exempting short term loans at a range or in the field would get rid of some objections. ...
the way to deal with inheritance and lending issues would be to provide properly written exceptions to an otherwise universal background check rule.

Thus federal law has some exceptions under its interstate transfer laws for inheritance and temporary loans of a gun for lawful sporting purposes. For another example, California firearms transfer laws (which has had a universal background check requirement for many years) expressly provide exceptions from the FFL transfer requirements for (1) inheritance from certain family members; (2) short term loans to family; and (3) short term loans as long as the owner is present.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 7, 2016, 04:45 AM   #42
Old Bill Dibble
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2016
Posts: 802
I guess they could just delete paragraph (j) and no more gun show. That will close the "loophole" forever and everybody else can just go back to whatever they were doing before that.
__________________
"Tragedy has been and will always be with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it, but each horrible act can’t become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us."
Old Bill Dibble is offline  
Old November 7, 2016, 05:10 PM   #43
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,294
One of the big LGS in San Antonio opposed allowing gun shows in the city. Why - it was bad for their business as they sold at MSRP. They took out ads arguing all the gun show cliches at the time.

They weren't particularly nice either - arrogant, loaded with good ol' boy attitude.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 7, 2016, 08:01 PM   #44
Old Bill Dibble
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2016
Posts: 802
Thats weird. Around here most of the LGS's send a crew to area gun shows to expand their base and sell off their slow moving items that all the local customers have passed on.
__________________
"Tragedy has been and will always be with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it, but each horrible act can’t become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us."
Old Bill Dibble is offline  
Old November 8, 2016, 04:00 PM   #45
Old Bill Dibble
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2016
Posts: 802
Here is some light analysis from Reuters as well as other gun measures on the ballot in different states.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN13317Q
__________________
"Tragedy has been and will always be with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it, but each horrible act can’t become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us."
Old Bill Dibble is offline  
Old November 9, 2016, 05:59 PM   #46
Mainah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 731
Bloomberg got his ballot stuffed in Maine, down in flames. We also approved a higher minimum wage, a tax increase, and legal recreational pot via referendum. We're living in an interesting time.
Mainah is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 05:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08178 seconds with 8 queries