House GOP lawmaker calls on Senate to approve gun universal background check bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
SharpDog said:
Universal Background Checks are ONLY ABOUT REGISTRATION
Click to expand...
We missed the boat for designing a UBC system without registration. It could have been done -- former Oklahoma Senator Coburn submitted one. It's too late for that now. That's the danger of taking an adamant stand in opposition. Everything's fine until you lose, but then when you lose, you lose everything.
 
alsaqr said:
Be a leader: Jump right out there and get it rolling. Don't be surprised when you have few followers.
Click to expand...

I’m not stupid enough to stick my neck out by myself. It takes numbers, lots of them. And people to get off of their asses. I’ve tried to get people to go and argue their points on the hill, people are Fudds or too lazy. I’ve even offered to pay for a few buses to get people to DC in the past and I get crickets.

If you aren’t going to contribute in any way to save your rights, then why are you here? I swear Americans get what they deserve because nobody has any balls in this country anymore. That’s the difference between now and past generations. People back then did what it took to get stuff done. Now everyone just brushes stuff off, sits on it, or sits back and thinks it’s not going to happen here. Oh wait, the NRA will save us! Look how well that has gone. You might as well turn stuff in and shut down this site if the majority of people here have this defeatist attitude.
 
AlexanderA said:
We missed the boat for designing a UBC system without registration. It could have been done -- former Oklahoma Senator Coburn submitted one. It's too late for that now. That's the danger of taking an adamant stand in opposition. Everything's fine until you lose, but then when you lose, you lose everything.
Click to expand...
There never was any "boat", just a barge to be towed into deep water and scuttled with gun owners chained onboard.

Nobody believes that "compromise" nonsense anymore. It was all taqqiya from the start.
 
All looking the wrong way.
Background Checks are worthless and ineffective the way the laws are currently. With out a change to the HIPAA Laws Background Checks do not provide pertinent information to determine if someone is mentally stable enough to possess a firearm. The last three shooters have all proven that! They all obtained their weapons legally and all passed a background check.

We and all the politicians already know for a fact, though the politicians will not admit it, that criminal felons and gang bangers do not go thru background checks.

This is all a political Knee Jerk, Do something, Anything, lie. So unless they do something to change the HIPAA Privacy Laws this is going to do nothing but harass Law Abiding Citizens and embolden the control crowed to try and go further.
 
kmw1954 said:
All looking the wrong way.
Background Checks are worthless and ineffective the way the laws are currently. With out a change to the HIPAA Laws Background Checks do not provide pertinent information to determine if someone is mentally stable enough to possess a firearm. The last three shooters have all proven that! They all obtained their weapons legally and all passed a background check.

We and all the politicians already know for a fact, though the politicians will not admit it, that criminal felons and gang bangers do not go thru background checks.

This is all a political Knee Jerk, Do something, Anything, lie. So unless they do something to change the HIPAA Privacy Laws this is going to do nothing but harass Law Abiding Citizens and embolden the control crowed to try and go further.
Click to expand...
What they seek is an opportunity. They're waiting for an opening. We shouldn't give it to them by stupidly falling for their obvious lies which were obviously lies the first hundred times they told them.

We wouldn't give our bank account information to a Nigerian internet "prince", why would we give these grifters our 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment rights?

Always assume that they're lying to gain an advantage... because they always are.
 
Then comes the RED FLAG LAWS!
Your sister, mother, brother or neighbor gets pissed at you for any reason and because they know you own firearms the next thing you know the police are at your door demanding your guns. Now it's hire a lawyer, go to court to defend yourself and then hire the lawyer again to go back to court to regain your personal property! The abuse is too easy. The legal system is really raking in the dough! Law must be working, look at the number of cases. Let's pass another.
 
It will be hard to contest a UBC that is simply to go to a NICS outlet for private sales and just checks the buyer as if you were buying a new gun. Esp. if it has a clause for family inheritance and casual temporary transfers at the range, competition or hunting.

It will be hard to contest Red Flag laws that have sufficient due process to allow the targeted person he or her chance to rebut in a timely fashion and offers penalties for false or malicious claims. Why shouldn't the Parkland or Dayton shooters have been on a no gun buy list?

Why would one be opposed to such? Come up with a coherent reason that is not just typing in capital letters about registration. All gun laws have a slippery slope risk but that isn't going to sell when some laws seem to have validity. Saying it will lead to Socialism ain't going to be an effective reply. Saying some nuts will get around it doesn't counter that some might be stopped.

What do you got?
 
GEM said:
It will be hard to contest a UBC that is simply to go to a NICS outlet for private sales and just checks the buyer as if you were buying a new gun.
Click to expand...
Forcing all private sales to go through FFL dealers is problematic. First of all, the FFL dealers would charge their usual transfer fee in addition to the state-mandated fee for the NICS check. Secondly, the dealer would have to enter the gun into his "bound book" which will leave more of a paper trail than the NICS check alone.

Here in Virginia, we already have a voluntary program in which the State Police (who handle dealer background checks anyway, rather than the FBI) are required to have a presence at every gun show, so that individuals selling guns can get a BG check, if they want, without going through a dealer. (This facility is rarely used today.) If this program is made mandatory rather than being voluntary, Virginia would satisfy the proposed UBC requirement.
 
What red flag law allows for due process or provide no cost quality legal assistance for the accused? Why would you leave someone free if they are a danger to themselves or others? Nothing good will come from red flag laws. Look at MD to see how many false reports they received since implemented.
 
So have public defenders be available. Leaving someone free is irrelevant. There are provisions for involuntary commitment of individuals. I ask you - what should we do if someone posts a manifesto of violence or tells folks that they want to kill people? You admit that there are folks like that. If someone at work told you that they hated immigrants and wanted to kill them, mentioned a location and then asked for a lift to the LGS - ball is in your court for the next action.

My point is that none of the objections mentioned (expense - tough), a little more paper trail, so what, false claims (tighten up on that with penalties), public defenders - supply them - will be convincing to negate the surface validity of Red Flag laws.
 
Now I am confused. Is this thread about universal background checks, or red flag laws? Two entirely different topics.
 
Public defenders? You have to be kidding. I stated quality legal support and public defenders are not even in the same universe. How would someone, who is determined to be a threat, left free be irrelevant? It is very relevant. If someone posts an intent to do harm, the current laws cover this. Currently, if someone saying they’re going to kill them selves, they will find themselves in a hospital just as someone who shows intent to do harm to someone else will find themselves in jail without the need of the red flag fraud.

As for universal checks between two private parties, why? It is currently available now to anyone who wishes to use it. More laws, more regs, more restrictions is the intent of these.
 
Last edited:
GEM said:
If you plan to hide illegal guns, what are the plans in place for your spouse and/or kids when you die? Tell them to turn them in and deny they knew of them?
Click to expand...
I'm leaving a map to my buried guns in my safe deposit box to be opened after I die. The family can dig them up if they want, or pas them map down the line. Maybe they will be a nice surprise to archaeologists in future centuries.

p.s I don't actually have any buried guns. They're all hidden behind the drywall.
p.p.s I don't have any guns hidden behind the drywall.
 
I have a question about Universal background laws on on the Federal level. I realize we got the background laws in the 1990's by using the interstate commerce laws I believe. But, forcing person to person sells ie intrastate to under go Federal background checks is just assumed constitutional ? I am asking cause I do not know and this was a question in the past? We all know the USSC has allowed over broad use of the interstate commerce clause since the new dealers were in control.
 
Maggie said:
I have a question about Universal background laws on on the Federal level. I realize we got the background laws in the 1990's by using the interstate commerce laws I believe. But, forcing person to person sells ie intrastate to under go Federal background checks is just assumed constitutional ? I am asking cause I do not know and this was a question in the past? We all know the USSC has allowed over broad use of the interstate commerce clause since the new dealers were in control.
Click to expand...

With out going into detail (I don't know them all) CA DOJ worked out a deal with Fed DOJ. All private part transfers (PPT) go thru CA DOJ which I assume is linked to the Feds data base somehow.
 
I have nothing to hide or fear from a background check. Though I stick with what I said that these checks are absolutely useless the way they are now. The only persons using the checks are Lawful citizens. We all know and politicians all know that criminals do not acquire their guns with background checks. So are they exempt? All of the recent shooters have bought their guns through legal channels and have passed Background Checks. Only 2 were questionable and should have been found before their purchases. The Texas Church shooter that was failed to be reported and the Aurora Illinois worker whose FOID was revoked but not taken away.

Those two examples are just failures of the system, most of the others are failures because of the way HIPAA Privacy Laws are written. These Laws restrict the type of information that can be disseminated. So maybe those laws also need to be updated and rewritten also.

I have also in the past asked and suggested a National FOID card. Complete background check including medical records. Once completed no more checks on any purchases or transfers. Show the card, good to go. No card no sale. Then just like a drivers license just because you have one doesn't mean you own a car.
 
From my understanding, both shooters did not have any diagnoses that would have prevented them from buying a firearm thus; changing HIPA laws would not change anything.

The stigma those with mental health issues face is bad enough and Trump, the media, and some here are trying to blame mental illness as the source of the problems. Those with mental health issues are not anymore likely to be violent than the general public but are much more likely to be victims of violence.

Those with mental health issues are not the boogie man, it’s our current social fabric that lacks morality, encourages casting misfits aside, lack impulse control, and rewarding bad behavior. No law will change the further shootings that will happen again and again.
 
jr45 said:
From my understanding, both shooters did not have any diagnoses that would have prevented them from buying a firearm thus;

Those with mental health issues are not the boogie man, it’s our current social fabric that lacks morality, encourages casting misfits aside, lack impulse control, and rewarding bad behavior. No law will change the further shootings that will happen again and again.
Click to expand...

Maybe the reasons they were not reported is because HIPAA Privacy laws restricted their behaviors from being reported! Just maybe if these behaviors had been reported then they wouldn't have been able to obtain those guns? James Holmes the Colorado shooter wasn't reported either because of HIPAA Privacy laws and he had a Dr. that knew he was dangerous.

Now I have a 12yo granddaughter that was born with many defects including deafness and cerebral abnormalities and is also Autistic. So no one here is insinuating that people with defects are the Boogie man or Monsters. There are many, many different forms of mental illness. Many are non-violent yet many are also. Question is how to separate them and identify the ones that should never be allowed to have any type of weapon.
 
GEM said:
It will be hard to contest a UBC that is simply to go to a NICS outlet for private sales and just checks the buyer as if you were buying a new gun. Esp. if it has a clause for family inheritance and casual temporary transfers at the range, competition or hunting.

It will be hard to contest Red Flag laws that have sufficient due process to allow the targeted person he or her chance to rebut in a timely fashion and offers penalties for false or malicious claims. Why shouldn't the Parkland or Dayton shooters have been on a no gun buy list?

Why would one be opposed to such? Come up with a coherent reason that is not just typing in capital letters about registration. All gun laws have a slippery slope risk but that isn't going to sell when some laws seem to have validity. Saying it will lead to Socialism ain't going to be an effective reply. Saying some nuts will get around it doesn't counter that some might be stopped.

What do you got?
Click to expand...

The thread started with a federal level. A Fed requirement to force a state to do something that is a state right, will garner several if not many states just a wee bit kickback, as it currently is a state right to govern inside state lines firearm sales, especially long guns.

AA in post #35 shows where an individual state does in fact have a way for one citizen to check another before a sale. Doesn't sound like there is a recording mechanism and I would not support such, but again, that is the individual state to decide.

And not veering into red flag, but, why is it that 5 seconds after the gun goes bang, everyone comes out of the woodwork, oh, I knew Mary was insane, oh, he just put a gun to my head a few months ago, press conference from Police, we were watching him/her; are they not culpable to the crime for NOT saying something?

What ya got... can we at LEAST get a causal link from the current crimes, whereas a UBC would have helped...anything? Someone show me how, what , where I knew about tragic event X, and was in some small part responsible. THEN charge me, take my property, etc HAVE AT IT. Not simply breathing; I ate at restaurant #3; prefer blue cars, part my hair on left.

Until then , I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE. period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dobedo
Maine Senate Shoots Down Universal Background Checks
Replies
5
Views
412
CapnMac
CapnMac
A
  • Locked
Democrat Chris Murphy Introduces Universal Background Check Bill
Replies
1
Views
332
GEM
G
A
  • Locked
Senate negotiations on "universal background checks"
2 3 4 5
Replies
108
Views
5K
jon_in_wv
J
Poper
  • Locked
And so it begins.... House Bill Passes on UBC
Replies
22
Views
1K
Odd Job
Odd Job
U
  • Locked
Could we ever pass a law making mandatory background checks private sales illegal?
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
B!ngoFuelUSN
B
Back
Top