jim in Anchorage
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2009
- Messages
- 2,849
It doesn't need to go though a FFL? And how do you think it would be done?
How do you run a background check on your new employee or babysitter? With a computer.It doesn't need to go though a FFL? And how do you think it would be done?
How do you run a background check on your new employee or babysitter? With a computer.
Your FFL isn't doing anything but filling out a form and making a phone call to satisfy laws related to interstate commerce. FFLs don't have anything necessarily to do with in state gun sales, and a new law doesn't need to use them or anyone else. Citizens interact directly with the check system.
It could, but that would take re-writing the GCA, since you can't buy a handgun out of state even through an FFL. That would make the whole thing harder to pass.Frankly, could such a measure could resolve interstate transfer issues as well ... want to buy a firearm while traveling out of state - whip out the smartphone, do an instant UBC check, complete the transaction, and go on your merry way...
Why would it have to go through an FFL? All that's being discussed is a background check, and people do that all the time already without going to a physical location. It's a frankly odd assumption that a UBC would have to go through an FFL or anyone else. It just needs to be done.
For this to be accurate and true, no homicide could have ever come after a felon or someone with a block on buying through an FFL bought a gun off Armslist from a legit seller. You seem to be almost suggesting that the greatest majority of people advertising private gun sales would happily sell their gun to a criminal.
The thing is, neither does any good. I have searched and can't find a single story in CA that their registry has prevented any crimes .... nor solved any crimes.
We know that many guns used by criminals are purchased from other criminals, but many people who commit murder with a firearm have no criminal connections and rely on legitimate gun sellers to get the guns they use.
Do you really thing a Republican backed "gun control" bill couldn't get enough moderate Dem support to pass? The appearance of action and bipartisanship is more useful to win re-elections than laws that accomplish hidden agendas.Even if they did, thre is nothing suggesting at all that is what would get passed.
Registries are costly. Background checks are nearly free. The Federal background check system is already in place, the only thing needed is the interface.They are very costly and highly ineffective. I believe you have agreed to that in that last UBC/Registry thread.
Really, I'm not interested in whether anybody and prove or disprove that a UBC would be ineffective. All anyone has to do to support the "need" for a UBC is site cases where a prohibited person bought a gun in a private sale by lying. That does happen, the buyer is "prohibited" for a reason and seller's have no resources to be able to know one way or the other. Is any of that really up for debate?No. Bull malarkey.
Everybody knows exactly who "they" are. They are the ones really pushing this.I don't know who "they" is, and I don't think you do either. I think there are lots of different "them" and some of them are only concerned about felons and the insane getting guns easily.
It could, but that would take re-writing the GCA, since you can't buy a handgun out of state even through an FFL. That would make the whole thing harder to pass.
I doubt anything can "expand" our rights. But being proactive can protect them better than the alternative.Hmmm ... well how about that. Making the thing harder to pass is exactly what should happen, if the thing does not both protect and expand second amendment rights.
"Proactive" surrender?I doubt anything can "expand" our rights. But being proactive can protect them better than the alternative.
Why shouldn't a resident alien have the same same rights as citizens?The purchaser can check he is not a U.S. citizen and he will be cleared to purchase a handgun.
I'm pretty sure that checking 'non citizen' won't get you any extra latitude. It sounded like you were outraged they could buy a gun at all. Sorry if I misunderstood you.Did I say they should not? I do think an American citizen should be accorded the same latitudes.
Well since by you're thoughts we MUST pass a law(I guess you've run up the white flag and are now looking to negotiate better terms-I and many others haven't) you realize you are asking me, a private citizen, not only to do background checks but be a expert in detecting fake ID?How do you run a background check on your new employee or babysitter? With a computer.
Your FFL isn't doing anything but filling out a form and making a phone call to satisfy laws related to interstate commerce. FFLs don't have anything necessarily to do with in state gun sales, and a new law doesn't need to use them or anyone else. Citizens interact directly with the check system.
There is more liability in the current system than in one that has a concrete process to follow.You're opening up anyone selling a gun to a tremendous amount of crimail and civil liablity.
I don't think "we must pass a law", I said "if we're going to end up with one anyway".Well since by you're thoughts we MUST pass a law(I guess you've run up the white flag and are now looking to negotiate better terms-I and many others haven't)
I'd like you to go into detail on that. I think its safe to to say under UBC I the seller would have to give my name as well as the buyers.There is more liability in the current system than in one that has a concrete process to follow.
From the ATF site:I'd like you to go into detail on that. I think its safe to to say under UBC I the seller would have to give my name as well as the buyers.
As it is now no one knows I sold a gun.
And I know you think this is all about "compromise" but please don't tell me you think the the sellers name will not be included in the transaction.
Do you really thing a Republican backed "gun control" bill couldn't get enough moderate Dem support to pass? The appearance of action and bipartisanship is more useful to win re-elections than laws that accomplish hidden agendas.
Registries are costly. Background checks are nearly free. The Federal background check system is already in place, the only thing needed is the interface.
Really, I'm not interested in whether anybody and prove or disprove that a UBC would be ineffective.
That does happen, the buyer is "prohibited" for a reason and seller's have no resources to be able to know one way or the other. Is any of that really up for debate?
What you're arguing isn't really against UBCs, but against any sort of gun control or prohibited persons.
So you think theThere is more liability in the current system than in one that has a concrete process to follow.
I don't think "we must pass a law", I said "if we're going to end up with one anyway".
There is no "white flag" in doing something proactive. The Maginot Line mentality we have is not a plan. We talk all the time about how we are only going to lose more - it isn't my idea.
There is more liability in the current system than in one that has a concrete process to follow.
I don't think "we must pass a law", I said "if we're going to end up with one anyway".
There is no "white flag" in doing something proactive. The Maginot Line mentality we have is not a plan. We talk all the time about how we are only going to lose more - it isn't my idea.
I don't follow you. If there is no record or proof I sold a gun, how can I be held liable?From the ATF site:
A person may transfer a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his or her State, provided the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.
This puts an arguable burden on the seller that a prosecutor can take advantage of.
You also seem to be confusing liability with being on record. Not having a record of something you did doesn't remove you liability.
I'm sure there is nothing that you'd find interesting, but I would point out that the NICS was an upgrade in convenience for most gun buyers from the previous patchwork of systems.Do you have anything to show otherwise?