August 8, 2019, 03:48 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2015
Location: coastal NC
Posts: 645
|
The fact that I can go to a store, buy an AR with tons of ammo and be back home in 30 minutes is an issue.
I am all for background checks, safety courses, and waiting periods. They wouldn't affect me and shouldn't affect any law abiding citizen either. And I am 100% for the 2nd amendment but we as a society can't act like adults so until we can, things like background checks need to be implemented. |
August 8, 2019, 04:19 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 4, 2016
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 166
|
Totally agree with this statement. Times change and gun owners will have to change as well.
|
August 8, 2019, 04:28 PM | #28 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
August 8, 2019, 04:40 PM | #29 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
Do you have a carry permit? Were you asked to show it? |
|
August 8, 2019, 04:42 PM | #30 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
|
|
August 8, 2019, 04:46 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,869
|
Simple:
1. No UBC can function w/o universal registration -- which is an anathema to the whole purpose of the Founders that the whole of The People shall be armed ... w/o government controlling forces involved -- in a society governed by consent at the most basically enforceable level by those same People. 2. If "transfer" shall encompass such mundane transfer acts as leaving your wife w/ a weapon in the house; handing a weapon to your son/friend to go hunting; allowing someone to try your weapon at the range; teaching someone gun safety while handling a weapon.... (you get the picture.) 3. There is no practical mechanism to handle the volume of background checks if EVERY change of possession (hand-off) between two individuals requires one. 4. Nothing can be set up to oversee/restrict street corner sales with the gangbangers -- wherefrom most "gun violence" occurs. 5. If there's no practical way to control/enforce a law, don't be so utterly STUPID as to pass such a law. 6. Such stupidly-unenforceable laws (will) make instant felons out of the better part of 70-80 million people. Instant . . . . Last edited by mehavey; August 8, 2019 at 04:59 PM. |
August 8, 2019, 06:07 PM | #32 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
August 8, 2019, 06:31 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,765
|
Quote:
https://www.ispfsb.com/Public/Firear...mTransfer.aspx Yet recently the democrats in Illinois found this not good enough, though so far efforts have failed to change this. Why? Because there was no registration component with the state of Illinois even though the potential buyer was approved by the FOID system. What we know again is that in numerous examples including California and new Zealand is that registration is wanted for future confiscation of firearms. When insane psychopaths have proven they will murder their mother to get the firearm they want to do their mayhem and shoot up a school it is clear that background checks of any sort will not prevent these horrid mass shootings.
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin |
|
August 8, 2019, 07:00 PM | #34 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
August 8, 2019, 08:51 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 2018
Posts: 217
|
Did anyone read that BS liberal article the op posted a link to ? Walmart should use it's financial power to over ride the 2nd Amendment .
|
August 10, 2019, 02:30 PM | #36 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
Quote:
The check is done on YOU, NOT the gun. However, that being said, there is no plan being offered (or acceptable to one side) that does NOT include detailed information about the gun and you, which is easily turned into "universal registration". This is DELIBERATE!!! We could, simply check our CITIZENS and leave what gun they want to buy completely out of the equation. We COULD simply put an identifier on the ID of any and all prohibited persons. Why aren't we even discussing doing that?? I believe that is because that doesn't further the agenda of the people who want all guns removed from private hands. They don't want, and won't accept any solution but their own, despite the constant claims of being willing to compromise, and wanting "common sense", their behavior is otherwise. I did read the linked article, and its clear to me that the author has already decided that the NRA is to blame for mass murder. TO me, that removes all credibility, so nothing they say is worthy of consideration. And, besides which, what they are saying is both stupid and unethical, and might even be illegal. Now, can anyone explain to me, in small words I can understand just what an "extended" or "enhanced" background check is??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
August 10, 2019, 05:03 PM | #37 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
The registration = confiscation and UBCs can’t work using the existing 1968 GCA infrastructure without registration has been explained a dozen times here. And yet there are still members here who support UBCs. I can’t tell you why they continue to ignore that argument or downplay it.
The last federal attempt at UBCs in 2013 excused CHL holders from having to undergo a NICS check; but it still forced them to go to an FFL and fill out a 4473 for the transfer. There is only one reason for that and its got nothing to do with making sure that person is “safe” to own a gun.* *At least as safe as the Virginia Tech shooter, the Sutherland Springs shooter, or any of the more than a dozen mass shooters who passed the same background check. |
August 10, 2019, 05:08 PM | #38 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
*As defined by federal law, blackpowder firearms and some firearms made prior to 1898 are not legally considered firearms. |
|
August 10, 2019, 05:09 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,765
|
Quote:
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin Last edited by sigarms228; August 10, 2019 at 05:15 PM. |
|
August 10, 2019, 05:20 PM | #40 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
August 10, 2019, 06:14 PM | #41 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
Quote:
Consider this historical fact, The St. Valentine's Day Massacre Fed 14 1929 Made the history books, for the huge number of people killed. 7 SEVEN, and all members of or affiliated with a criminal gang. Weapons used, two (2) Thompson SUBMACHINE GUNS and two shotguns. This happened at a time when there were no background checks, no federal prohibited persons no FFL dealers, no records requirements other than perhaps a sales receipt. ANYONE with the cash could buy a machine gun, and walk out the store with it, or have it mailed to their door. High Capacity magazines (20, 30, 50, and even 100 rounds) existed. FULL AUTOMATIC as well as semi auto existed. There were NO Federal regulations or restrictions on them until 1934, and the NFA only restricted full auto, "sawed off" weapons, and "silencers", not semi autos. SO, arguments about how these things are a modern phenomena are bogus. What is a modern phenomena is people's willingness to shoot other people. Why might that be? Are we fundamentally so different from our forefathers? I don't think WE are but I think society's values have clearly changed. One thing that HAS changed is the punishment for murder. Compared to even 50years ago, execution for murder is rare, and even when it is done, it is usually years (if not decades) AFTER conviction. This wasn't the case in earlier times. The gas chamber and the electric chair (and other methods, including hanging) were regularly used, and it might be only weeks, or perhaps a few months until they were. Punishment was considered to be real, and PERMANENT. Even if a killer escaped the death penalty, they usually spent their remaining life behind bars. There was no 7 years and out with good behavior on a 20 to life sentence. Today, there is. Another thing that didn't exist back in the Roaring 20s, was constant exposure to people being shot, for hours a day, and 24/7 over the last few decades. People, if well off enough, might go to the movies once a week, and see people being shot for an hour or an hour and a half. The rest of their lives, unless personally exposed to violence, didn't consist of constant "training films" showing how everyone, bad guys and good guys, solved their problems by shooting each other. I doesn't take endless studies by learned folk to recognize a basic fact, that repeated exposure to anything (not immediately lethal) builds up a tolerance. Might that not have a bearing on where we are today? I think it does.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
August 10, 2019, 07:25 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
I’ve given some considerable thought to the issue of so-called “Universal Background Checks.” While no responsible person wants to see firearms in the hands of an Adam Lanza, Jerrod Loughner, or similar deranged psychopath, neither do we wish to see our firearms listed in some Federal database, or be subject to prosecution for loaning a gun to a hunting buddy or giving one as a present to a family member. Perhaps an “outside-the-box” approach, using the carrot rather than the stick, would enable responsible gun owners to ensure they are transferring firearms only to those eligible to receive them. Here's an idea that just might actually work:
First of all, the ATF form 4473 will be eliminated. Firearms dealers will no longer be responsible for running background checks on you every time you purchase a gun. Instead, you may run a background check on yourself, at your leisure, from any Internet-connected computer or smart phone. You would have to enter your full ID data, plus read through a list of prohibitions like the questions that are on the 4473. If you passed the background check, you would be issued a unique alphanumeric ID# that would be valid for, say, 90 days. This number, and your ID data, would be on a PDF file, which you could print out in however many copies you wished. For convenience, it might also contain blanks for the make, model, caliber, serial number, and additional descriptive data for the firearm you wish to purchase. This would be for you to fill in at the time of purchase, and would not be furnished to the gov’t. To purchase a firearm or firearms, you would present this form to the seller. The seller could then call a toll-free number and enter the ID number from your form. The seller would then be informed that your number was valid, and provide your ID data. You would then show your ID to the seller to confirm you are the one who received a clean background check, and the transaction(s) would proceed. The firearm’s ID data would be entered onto the form, and both you and seller would sign the form. The seller would then retain the form, with a copy going to you, if you wished to have one, and would act as a bill of sale for the firearm. A dealer would retain the form as a record of sale. A dealer would be required to check your ID number, just as (s)he is now required to do a background check. A private seller would not. There would be no criminal penalty for a private seller not checking the ID#, or not asking to see one. However, firearms sellers who can prove that they checked the buyer’s eligibility by producing a copy of the bill of sale would be statutorily absolved of any criminal or civil liability for selling the firearm, or for any misuse of the firearm by the buyer. The ID# would be valid for the purchase of any number of firearms during the validity period. Upon its expiration, within three working days, the ID data associated with that number would be required to be purged from gov’t records. The only data the gov’t would retain would be the ID# and the dates it was valid. An individual could get an ID# as often as (s)he wished. While there would be no requirement for a seller to ask for and check the buyer’s ID#, the fact that the law provides legal protection to the seller would be a strong incentive, especially since plaintiffs’ attorneys would be quick to seize upon the fact that failure to check the buyer’s ID# could easily be construed as negligence, with consequential civil liability. You wouldn’t have to swear to a bunch of statements like on the Form 4473, but if you are, say, an illegal alien, you can still be charged with unlawful possession; just not the “stacked” charge of perjury. In short, gives anyone the ability to check a buyer's background, provides relief from liability for selling to a buyer who misuses the firearm, and the gov't has no permanent record of who purchased a firearm, and has no record at all of the number or types of firearms the buyer purchased.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
August 10, 2019, 07:50 PM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 11, 2012
Location: Mountains of Appalachia
Posts: 1,598
|
Quote:
|
|
August 10, 2019, 08:27 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 22, 2015
Posts: 887
|
Given that so many of the individuals commiting these crimes passed background checks in the process of obtaining their guns it seems foolish that UBCs are being considered a solution. I guess most people don't wish to be confused with facts.
As a society I'm afraid we are reaping what we've sown. |
August 11, 2019, 12:41 AM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Location: Tahoe
Posts: 360
|
I passed background checks several times.
So did the three shooters in Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton. My problem is "common sense" gun control that doesn't do anything. We shouldn't pass laws just because something bad happened. We should pass laws that work. Assault rifle bans, background checks, waiting periods - pablum that won't solve the problem. Truthfully - the only gun control laws that ever worked were stop, question, and frisk. It worked because it actually targeted criminals, not innocent people. |
August 11, 2019, 04:06 AM | #46 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
August 11, 2019, 04:49 AM | #47 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think you and I have different definitions about what "100% for the 2nd amendment" means. I've acted like an adult for a long time now, and don't believe my rights should be curtailed just because someone 1000 miles away with whom I have never had any contact whatsoever did bad things.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
August 11, 2019, 07:40 AM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
There is no doubt that people who cannot pass a BGC, still get their guns through private sales where that is legal..even at gun shows...THAT will be closed, IMHO and some sort or RFL, plus 21 the minimum age for buying anything...BUT, with this congress and POTUS, every day is 'interesting'...
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
|
August 11, 2019, 10:01 AM | #49 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Bad guys who can’t pass a background check have no need to go through the trouble of locating private sellers; because if they go to an FFL and fail a background check, nothing will be done about it.
As I explained to you in our previous conversations on this subject, out of 76,142 denials in 2010, 62 prosecutions, 23 guilty, and 12 pending. And some considerable evidence of false positives on denials throughout the system. This is the system we are now proposing be applied to every private sale as well - a system that hasn’t stopped dozens of mass murderers who WERE legally prohibited and that we can’t enforce when it does actually work. And in return, peaceable gun owners will bear the burden of the regulation and it will be used as a stepping stone to take more rights. You don’t even have to take my word on it. You can already read the opinion pieces saying “The background checks and red flag laws we haven’t even passed yet of course will do nothing to solve gun violence, we must also *insert wish list for next massacre here*.” And there will be another massacre, because these laws do nothing to address the problem. In fact, they are just extensions of the same law that has already failed to prevent dozens of mass shootings. It’s almost like the goal is to create restrictions that affect only peacable people and give excuses to come back for more. |
August 11, 2019, 12:38 PM | #50 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
I read it just a few minutes ago, and now I can't find it. Someone commented that the Virginia Tech shooter, the Sutherland Springs shooter, and the Aurora, CO, shooter were legally prohibited but had not been reported as such to NICS by the appropriate authorities.
I knew about the VT and Sutherland Springs shooters. If I knew that the Aurora shooter should bave been prohibited, I've long since forgotten it. Can anyone explain why he should have been prohibited?
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|