The Firing Line Forums

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

View Poll Results: Least damaging gun control measure
Universal Background Check 28 73.68%
Assault Weapons Ban 1 2.63%
Ban/limit Online Sales of Guns and Ammo 2 5.26%
Firearm Purchase Limits 6 15.79%
Excise Tax on Guns And Ammo 1 2.63%
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 13, 2020, 05:21 PM   #51
shurshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 1,819
"UBCs are bad and here's why, lets say you're going hunting with a buddy and you're lending him a gun to go hunting with, with UBCs your friend would have to go through a background check just to borrow your gun and then you would have to go through a background check to get it back."

Once the Socialists take over and start banning guns, do
you really think they will still permit hunting? This is about power hungry condescending elitists trying to erase not only our Constitution, but our very culture and way of life. Hunting, wood burning stoves, ATV's, snowmobiles, fossil fuel burning vehicles, rural living, private ownership of land, "Freedom" as we know it... its ALL on their list. Globalization & Agenda 21, not a conspiracy theory, its happening... research it.
shurshot is offline  
Old November 13, 2020, 06:07 PM   #52
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Quote:
I've read that the Imperial Japanese and the Soviets had discussed the possibility of invading the US
If you mean discussed it with each other, I highly doubt that.

If you mean each considered the possibility, then yes every war college staff plays all kinds of "what if" games...

There was a quote attributed to Yamamoto (debunked as no proof could be found he ever said it) about how "You cannot invade America, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"

He may never had said it, but he certainly knew the possibility of our industrial capacity and military potential, once we got organized and focused.

He promised his superiors he could "run wild for 6 months, after that I can promise nothing" and that is the way things worked out.

Back to UBC for a moment..
Quote:
UBCs are bad and here's why, lets say you're going hunting with a buddy and you're lending him a gun to go hunting with, with UBCs your friend would have to go through a background check just to borrow your gun and then you would have to go through a background check to get it back.
My state has a UBC law, (being contested but until settled, still the law) which requires you, your friend, and the gun to all go to an FFL (in person) and has specific provisions for when this does not apply. Exemptions are when hunting or at a "certified" range.

The issue with this is that since there are specified exemptions, that means the law applies all the rest of the time, right?? Like, in your home, for example??

There is no clarification of what is, and is not a transfer requiring the background check, which is one of the points the law is being challenged over.

The UBC concept has a SMALL degree of merit, but the proposals we are offered of imposed on us already as law are written like crap, criminalizing common everyday LEGAL behavior due to overly vague language.

SO, if you support the concept of UBC's, be sure to READ THE FINE PRINT, because you might be supporting a bill that makes you a criminal for handing a friend a gun to look at in your own home, makes him a criminal for accepting it and then moves you into FELON when he gives is back and you take your own property without both of you and the gun being sanctified by an FFL (at his location during regular business hours) running, (and you passing) the background check required by the new "holy writ" of the law.

Its a BAD THING...don't be fooled by a benign title and LIES about what it will do.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 13, 2020, 06:17 PM   #53
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,273
And never forget that these laws are the frame that an unelected bureaucracy has the power to hang regulations with the force of law upon.
Like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates.

Cases in point? How about the ITAR rules affecting your local Gunsmith,or AR pistol brace rulings.

You can fall asleep a lawful citizen and wake up a felon due to a rule change.
HiBC is online now  
Old November 13, 2020, 07:02 PM   #54
PhotonGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 146
Quote:
Once the Socialists take over and start banning guns
They won't if we don't let them.
PhotonGuy is offline  
Old November 13, 2020, 07:05 PM   #55
PhotonGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 146
Quote:
My state has a UBC law, (being contested but until settled, still the law) which requires you, your friend, and the gun to all go to an FFL (in person) and has specific provisions for when this does not apply. Exemptions are when hunting or at a "certified" range.

The issue with this is that since there are specified exemptions, that means the law applies all the rest of the time, right?? Like, in your home, for example??

There is no clarification of what is, and is not a transfer requiring the background check, which is one of the points the law is being challenged over.

The UBC concept has a SMALL degree of merit, but the proposals we are offered of imposed on us already as law are written like crap, criminalizing common everyday LEGAL behavior due to overly vague language.

SO, if you support the concept of UBC's, be sure to READ THE FINE PRINT, because you might be supporting a bill that makes you a criminal for handing a friend a gun to look at in your own home, makes him a criminal for accepting it and then moves you into FELON when he gives is back and you take your own property without both of you and the gun being sanctified by an FFL (at his location during regular business hours) running, (and you passing) the background check required by the new "holy writ" of the law.

Its a BAD THING...don't be fooled by a benign title and LIES about what it will do.
My point exactly about why universal background checks are bad.
PhotonGuy is offline  
Old November 13, 2020, 07:07 PM   #56
PhotonGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2019
Posts: 146
Quote:
You can fall asleep a lawful citizen and wake up a felon due to a rule change.
All the more reason why its wrong to deny convicted felons the right to keep and bear arms and why the Gun Control Act of 1968 was and is one of the biggest infringements on the 2A.

Johnson was one of the most rotten, if not the rottenest president to ever take office.
PhotonGuy is offline  
Old November 14, 2020, 03:38 PM   #57
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
If you mean each considered the possibility, [of invading the US] then yes every war college staff plays all kinds of "what if" games...
Yup.

For heaven sakes, CANADA had a 1921 plan for invading the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defenc...itish%20Empire.
DaleA is offline  
Old November 14, 2020, 03:45 PM   #58
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
And never forget that these laws are the frame that an unelected bureaucracy has the power to hang regulations with the force of law upon.
This is maddening! It's "red tape" run amok. Frustrating is much too mild a word for how bad and unfair and just plain Un-American this is. We ELECT people to make our laws and THEY should be the only ones doing so.
DaleA is offline  
Old November 14, 2020, 06:06 PM   #59
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
Question 5Whiskey on purchase limits:

Are we talking total number of weapons (ie.; New Jersey limit: 5 guns = prohibited arsenal) or I can only buy 1 gun a week limit?
__________________

Cave illos in guns et backhoes
TXAZ is offline  
Old November 14, 2020, 08:27 PM   #60
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Are we talking total number of weapons (ie.; New Jersey limit: 5 guns = prohibited arsenal) or I can only buy 1 gun a week limit?
Yes.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 16, 2020, 06:31 PM   #61
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
So, could any legal scholar folk tell me what could a POTUS do gun control wise with Executive Orders that would stand SCOTUS scrutiny?
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old November 16, 2020, 06:45 PM   #62
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman View Post
So, could any legal scholar folk tell me what could a POTUS do gun control wise with Executive Orders that would stand SCOTUS scrutiny?
Not a legal scholar, but it's my understanding he (she) has very broad powers regarding import restrictions. And that's about it. But you are assuming the SC will hear a gun case. They don't take them very often.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth
zxcvbob is offline  
Old November 16, 2020, 06:45 PM   #63
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,289
Here's two articles by Cass R. Sunstein, a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, talking about Executive Orders:

"Here's How Executive Orders Actually Work-Hint: Slowly"
https://www.twincities.com/2020/11/1...k-hint-slowly/

"There’s Nothing Nefarious About Executive Orders"
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-not-nefarious

Just putting this out for information. I too, would be interested in what the legal folk on this site have to say.
DaleA is offline  
Old November 16, 2020, 07:30 PM   #64
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
Quote:
Are we talking total number of weapons (ie.; New Jersey limit: 5 guns = prohibited arsenal) or I can only buy 1 gun a week limit?
I was thinking it would be 1 per week/month whatever timeframe limits. I didn’t know anyone anywhere has even thought of the audacious act of capping the number of firearms you own. I guess some would love to see it. But the intent of the poll is a max amount of firearms for a certain time period.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946
5whiskey is offline  
Old November 16, 2020, 08:46 PM   #65
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5whiskey
I was thinking it would be 1 per week/month whatever timeframe limits. I didn’t know anyone anywhere has even thought of the audacious act of capping the number of firearms you own. I guess some would love to see it. But the intent of the poll is a max amount of firearms for a certain time period.
That's the law in many countries, so you can be sure the anti-gun forces have thought about it -- and are thinking about it.

For example, in Greece citizens are only allowed to own two handguns. To be allowed even that many, they must shoot in 'X' competitions every year to keep their license active. Reloading is not allowed, and if you think ammo prices in the U.S. are high now -- they ain't nuthin' compared to what ammunition costs in Greece.

https://ezine.m1911.org/showthread.p...l-Focus-Greece
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 16, 2020, 09:01 PM   #66
BJung
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2019
Posts: 773
I have this book that is a translation of an interview with one of the Japanese High Command during WWII. That's where I got the information.
BJung is offline  
Old November 16, 2020, 10:55 PM   #67
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by burbank jung
I have this book that is a translation of an interview with one of the Japanese High Command during WWII. That's where I got the information.
Are you referring to the famous "... a rifle behind every blade of grass" quotation? If so, the quotation is unsubstantiated, and generally considered to be fiction.

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

http://everyblade.us/

https://www.quora.com/Did-Isoroku-Ya...-grass?share=1
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 24, 2020, 11:36 AM   #68
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
Quote:
For example, in Greece citizens are only allowed to own two handguns. To be allowed even that many, they must shoot in 'X' competitions every year to keep their license active. Reloading is not allowed, and if you think ammo prices in the U.S. are high now -- they ain't nothing' compared to what ammunition costs in Greece.
Having lived in Greece for several years a couple of decades ago I can tell you that, just as with all of Europe, equivalent First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment citizens rights are also not theoretically, nor practically, anywhere near as strong either.

What you see in Greece and most of Europe is broad acceptance of government preemption of harm through constraining liberty at the outset, instead of post harm penalty we have in the US, and as a result regulatory regime on almost all of civil and business spheres that is Orwellian in volume -- and in southern Europe -- disobeyed or end run as a matter of habit. For example I had the "fixer" at our Athens office (and any corporate office of more than five people has a full time local hire fixer to deal with beurocracy in S. Europe) handle my shotgun license. I don't know, nor want to, if or what portion of the fixing involved bribes or simply expertise in the regulations. What I do know is with EU wide "conformity: rules coming into effect gun ownership in the EU, even formerly loose enforcement places like Greece, is and will get harder and more prohibitive.

Quote:
My state has a UBC law, (being contested but until settled, still the law) which requires you, your friend, and the gun to all go to an FFL (in person) and has specific provisions for when this does not apply. Exemptions are when hunting or at a "certified" range.

The issue with this is that since there are specified exemptions, that means the law applies all the rest of the time, right?? Like, in your home, for example??
That is a sage and central observation. What is transfer of possession? If I am going to take someone to the range who has never or rarely shot before, I would give first basic operation and safety lesson at the comfort of home. Would any of us teach the parts of a revolver or semi auto handgun and have the very first time a person touched a gun be while standing in a booth with ear protection on and distraction of other shooters and time constraints??

I think the antis want to stop transfer and possession alright -- they make it difficult for anyone to transfer knowledge. Why? because people who dont know about guns at all are the most likely to see them as a totemic power, fetish instead of what they are, a tool. You and I and all of us here know that demystifying firearms makes people more accepting, and for example certainly makes younger persons more safety conscious. But for the other side gun knowledge means gun acceptance and they see it as viral and therefore it needs to be prevented.


In terms of another subject in this thread: Executive orders in the US, or more to the point on presidential power -- executive orders, agency appointments, promulgation of regulatory law, and longer term, judicial appointments-- there is a whole lot Biden can do. Can he do AWB with that? No. Can he do scores of things that make lawful gun ownership more expensive, complex and exposed to legal sanction? Yes.

There are currently about 9,000 plum job appointments, meaning federal executive jobs given by a presidential to politically aligned persons, de facto jobs that are part of the Prudential administration. At least a hundred impact 2A to some degree or anther. There certainly can be administration decisions impacting 855, 80%, braces, whether if you ever smoked dope, even where legal, disqualifies you, whatever.

On the unsourced Yamamoto quote: We should avoid repeating the quote since it is unsourced and harms credibly. But on the other side of the equation we know that potential and actual military occupiers have long (and I mean millennia) considered the level to which a subject population is armed, and in virtually every known case made confiscation of even hunting firearms owned by civilian in occupied counties a top level prohibition. We are talking summary death penalty offense. When the Nazis went in anywhere pretty much the first thing on the posters they put up were: "would all the Jews come down to the town square tomorrow," and "everyone and anyone with a firearm turn in their guns immediately, or face the death penalty." The Japanese issued summery laws on firearm possession in the Philippines, occupied China, Indonesia, malaysia etc. And even the US occupation authorities made this illegal. it is a obvious that the armament level of a civilian population was a major concern of anyone including the Japanese Imperial Staff.
TDL is offline  
Old November 24, 2020, 11:52 AM   #69
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
When we say if we had to swallow one more, is the we those of us that are here and aware of what Justice Ginsburg raised as the slippery slope , or are we better off thinking what the other side can claim gun owners most accept?

If the latter it is clearly by the polls UBC. Now there is in polling here are known and often major inaccuracies, a) people answering the way they think pollster wants to hear; b) phrasing of question different over time and different polls making establishing trends difficult ands c) people being ignorant of many aspects of the issue. But in this case how much can the surveys/polls really be off in showing UBC is the least resisted of the menu of gun control?

I think so much of this depends on one thing: Georgia in about five weeks. If both seats in Georgia go Democratic than there is a plausible argument that will be made that something will need to be thrown under the bus. I dont agree that anything should be, but it is a plausible argument

I think we need to keep in mind that there is no workable scheme of national UBC that doesn't invovle a national registry, meaning we are not talking aobut UPC per se, but also establishing a national registry, which has several negative for us, and which is a goal of the other side even more helpful to them long term than UBC alone.

WE should also be aware of the successful game our side played, twice, on killing UBC by saying ok, as long as we have quid pro quo of national reciprocity on carry, which poisoned pilled UBC nicely.

so I say when we ask which will we accept, it should be -- in trade for -- in order to set the conversation as a give and take
TDL is offline  
Old November 24, 2020, 02:52 PM   #70
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Quote:
But in this case how much can the surveys/polls really be off in showing UBC is the least resisted of the menu of gun control?
they're probably quite correct the UBC, as described by the pollsters, is the least resisted gun gun control proposal.

Because they don't describe the actuality of the measure, usually only describing it by its title. And THAT leaves out a whole bunch of vital information.

Do you think they would find the same degree of public approval if they told people everything that is in the law(s)?? I don't.

How do you think people would react if they were told that in order to hand a friend one of your guns to look at, you would both have to go to the local FFL dealer, (in person, WITH the gun) and pay him "no more than $35" to process the required transfer?? AND, do it AGAIN when he gives you your own property back??

Quote:
I think we need to keep in mind that there is no workable scheme of national UBC that doesn't invovle a national registry, ...
Not quite correct, we've discussed such here before. Its not that there is no workable scheme without national registry, it is that there is no scheme without national registry that is acceptable to the other side. Every time a system is proposed WITHOUT a registry component, they REFUSE to have anything to do with it. Period.

OTHER THAN to create a registry, there is no need or point to linking the person checked with ANY SPECIFIC gun. The other side simply will not accept that, or even discuss it. THEIR PLAN THEIR WAY is the only thing they will talk about.

There is no reason any govt agency needs to have on file that J.Doe (SSN, address, physical descriptors, etc) owns/ is purchasing S&W ser# 12345.

They can run a full records check and determine if J.Doe is or is not a prohibited person without any gun information at all. And if you believe in the idea of UBCs, that is what they should do, and ALL that they should do.

But that is not acceptable to those with their own vision of what UBCs should do, which includes the possibility of creating a national registration database.

They flat out LIE about what a background check can do, and when pressed, often default to "if the regular check isn't enough then we need an enhanced/extended check" which means ... nothing, really. Because a "deeper" or "enhanced" check won't stop the things a regular check won't stop, either.

When asked (as VP) why the govt didn't prosecute any significant number of people who broke the law trying to buy guns when they were prohibited, from his own lips, I saw Biden say "We don't have time for that".

Does make you wonder about how much we need new laws when the Fed Govt isn't going to "waste its time" prosecuting people who break existing Fed law. It should.

Its not like Federal cops are running short of things to arrest people for, is it??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 24, 2020, 06:52 PM   #71
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
So, could any legal scholar folk tell me what could a POTUS do gun control wise with Executive Orders that would stand SCOTUS scrutiny?
I'm not sure, but if a measure didn't meet SCOTUS standards, would most of the harm have been done already?

Let's say an exec had issued an EO that bump stock would be considered NFA items, but that one could avoid the tax by turning the instrument of mass death into the state. If 85% turn them in before the Sup Ct issues its decision, that EO looks like a significant harm even if everything works.

That doesn't reach the issue of whether the supreme court's posture will change in a way adverse to the right.
zukiphile is offline  
Old November 24, 2020, 07:24 PM   #72
Kevin Rohrer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2010
Location: Medina, Ohio
Posts: 1,049
The OP should have added the option of: Not one step further

I will never agree or take part if any of those options. And there is already a healthy excise tax on new guns and ammo.
__________________
Member: Orange Gunsite Family, NRA--Life, ARTCA, and American Legion.

Caveat Emptor: Cavery Grips/AmericanGripz/Prestige Grips/Stealth Grips from Clayton, NC. He is a scammer
Kevin Rohrer is offline  
Old November 24, 2020, 09:35 PM   #73
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Quote:
And there is already a healthy excise tax on new guns and ammo.
The Pittman-Robertson tax has been in effect since 1937, was widely supported by sportsmen then, and still is. The money goes, by law, to wildlife work, studies and habitat support. It doesn't go to the general fund for congress to waste on their cause de jour...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 24, 2020, 11:15 PM   #74
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
Quote:
I think so much of this depends on one thing: Georgia in about five weeks. If both seats in Georgia go Democratic than there is a plausible argument that will be made that something will need to be thrown under the bus. I dont agree that anything should be, but it is a plausible argument.
That’s exactly my point. As much as I refuse to admire the man, if Mitch McConnell remains the senate leader this question is moot until the next election. We won’t have to discuss what to offer as a sacrificial lamb when gun control caucus starts warming up in unison, because the senate will be there to break up the chorus. If the senate goes in a direction more friendly to gun control, then all of our talk about not one more inch may be forced into pragmatic negotiation... no matter how much we wouldn’t like it.

Quote:
The OP should have added the option of: Not one step further
While I wholeheartedly agree that I don’t want to see any new gun control, see the above. As has happened so many times in the past through unfortunate circumstance, we may have to leverage our political capital to sheepishly agree with the lesser of an evil to try and block support for much more difficult to accept legislation.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946

Last edited by 5whiskey; November 24, 2020 at 11:25 PM.
5whiskey is offline  
Old November 24, 2020, 11:35 PM   #75
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
Let's say an exec had issued an EO that bump stock would be considered NFA items, but that one could avoid the tax by turning the instrument of mass death into the state. If 85% turn them in before the Sup Ct issues its decision, that EO looks like a significant harm even if everything works.
Could there be an injunction that would stay things till SCOTUS decided. Not sure how that works.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Closed Thread

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 06:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11925 seconds with 9 queries