Background Checks

[FITASC]

NICS should be mandatory for private face to face sales. It is a loophole like it or not.

As should car sales in case the buyer is a DUI risk......and let's not forget other possible weapons like hammers, machetes, baseball bats, kitchen knives, chain saws and on and on.

There is NO loophole, has never been and please stop insinuating that there is (unless you're an anti mouthpiece trolling here)

[natman]

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

NICS should be mandatory for private face to face sales. It is a loophole like it or not.

It is NOT a loophole, regardless of who calls it one. It is not an oversight or mistake in the law. When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was written, it was deliberately left up to the individual states whether to require NICS or not.

Whether or not that is still a good idea is open to debate, but it is not a loophole and changing it is a major modification to the act.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

There's nothing ambiguous in the Brady Act. They knew it wouldn't pass if it had to cover private sales, so they took what they could, and they exempted private sales as a deliberate concession.

Exactly. They took what they could get at the time and before the ink was dry they started demanding more.

They’ll do the same thing here. Expand background checks to private sales with no change and then call the lack of registration a loophole. Then they’ll demand registration. I’d say that after that they’ll demand confiscation but they’ve been demanding that for 30 plus years now even as they try to claim “Nobody wants to take your guns.”

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

Exactly. They took what they could get at the time and before the ink was dry they started demanding more.

They’ll do the same thing here. Expand background checks to private sales with no change and then call the lack of registration a loophole. Then they’ll demand registration. I’d say that after that they’ll demand confiscation but they’ve been demanding that for 30 plus years now even as they try to claim “Nobody wants to take your guns.”

Not exactly

A new Fox News poll shows a majority of Republicans supporting background checks and red flag laws, and Trump has hinted at his support.

Politico reports that more Republican lawmakers appear to be ramping up their support for background checks and red flag laws in the wake of the recent weekend of mass shootings, President Donald Trump has signaled his interest in these mild gun control moves, and a majority of lawmakers' Republican constituents now appear to be on board.

at least some of McConnell's Republican caucus may be ready to take action. In addition to Collins, Sen. Mitt Romney said that he supports “enhancing existing background checks,” while Sen. Marco Rubio is supportive of red flag laws, which allow law enforcement to take firearms away from a gun owner if they're believed to be a threat to themselves or others. “My gut tells me that Leader McConnell wants to bring something to the floor for a vote,” Republican Sen. Mike Braun told Politico.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You misunderstand my point. Political leaders (they) certainly wanted registration and confiscation then, just like they do now. They understood this was politically unpopular with the people who elected them though (as well as being near technologically impossible to do at the time given a decentralized registration system that existed only on paper.) This was bipartisan, even though something like 98% of the politicians supporting it were Democrats.

I oppose any person who supports expanding the current system of background checks regardless of their party. They are traitors to the Constitution in my view.

[Onward Allusion]

Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member

Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,094
You misunderstand my point. Political leaders (they) certainly wanted registration and confiscation then, just like they do now. They understood this was politically unpopular with the people who elected them though (as well as being near technologically impossible to do at the time given a decentralized registration system that existed only on paper.) This was bipartisan, even though something like 98% of the politicians supporting it were Democrats.

I oppose any person who supports expanding the current system of background checks regardless of their party. They are traitors to the Constitution in my view.

LOL! Anyone who disagrees with your opinion in the slightest (and expanding background checks to private Intrastate sales is pretty damn small) is a "traitor to the Constitution"?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If you are going to quote me and call it an insult, at least have the courtesy to quote me correctly.

As has been pointed out multiple times, the current system of background checks cannot effectively be expanded to private sales without centralized registration. Given that prominent political and media personalities have been demanding confiscation for decades, centralized registration will eventually result in confiscation. As has been pointed out, that doesn’t mean it is impossible to extend background checks to private sales in a manner that protects the 2A - just that the foundation of our current gun laws doesn’t allow it.

People who advocate expanding the current system are thus advocating a slow, drawn-out death of the Second Amendment. Therefore, yes, I believe those people are betraying the Constitution of this country.

You want expanded background checks? It is easy to get gun owners on board - make it so they can’t be used for registration or confiscation. The gun control crowd knows this. They read these forums too. Yet never once have they even attempted this - even when Tom Coburn joined with them in 2013 to try and reach a compromise. They still insist on only expanding the current system. Expanding that system is not pro-Second and people who pretend otherwise aren’t fooling anybody but the most dimwitted.

[BBarn]

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

I guess you don't give a crap if you happen to sell one of your guns to a prohibited person, eh?

However do not go around saying stupid crap to people you don't know.

For your own consideration.

[zxcvbob]

LOL! Anyone who disagrees with your opinion in the slightest (and expanding background checks to private Intrastate sales is pretty damn small) is a "traitor to the Constitution"? I guess you don't give a crap if you happen to sell one of your guns to a prohibited person, eh?

Like I'd said previously, YMMV. However do not go around saying stupid crap to people you don't know. You got any idea how insulting your statement is?

Before 1968 there were no background checks nor "prohibited persons", and it wasn't really a problem. The whole thing is a manufactured problem, and you've obviously bought into the lie.

[Tom Servo]

I think we've all made our respective points, and things are getting uncivil.