Are we going to lose the battle on background checks for every gun purchase?

[Aim1]

I have no problem with background checks at guns shows or stores that sell guns. I do not think they should be mandatory for private sales. Anti-gunners call this the gun show loophole I believe and are demanding ‘universal background checks’. They also just passed this in Minnesota today.

Are we going to eventually lose this battle and background checks on all gun sales, private and public will become the law?




https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/us/politics/gun-control-bill.html

 

[MachIVshooter]

Are we going to eventually lose this battle and background checks on all gun sales, private and public will become the law?

Eventually, yes. This session? Not likely at the federal level. But more and more states are enacting such legislation, so at some point it'll be about moot anyway.

Personally, I think we would do well to leverage it for something like national reciprocity and/or hearing protection act. That's not giving in so much as realizing that UBC will be a reality in the next decade regardless, so we might as well get something for it while we can, have an actual compromise where guns are concerned for once.

 

[LRDGCO]

MachIV says it well.

McConnell is very unlikely to hold a vote on the House Bill in any event and the President has already said he wou of veto it if it passed.

But in the not so distant future, this, and worse, will pass

 

[Deanimator]

No, but regardless it's a moot point since absent registration it's an utter nullity. It will be ignored.

Naturally, when it inevitably falls, the push will be for registration, which has NO purpose beyond facilitation of future confiscation.

That's when things get ugly.

 

[Deanimator]

Eventually, yes. This session? Not likely at the federal level. But more and more states are enacting such legislation, so at some point it'll be about moot anyway.

Personally, I think we would do well to leverage it for something like national reciprocity and/or hearing protection act. That's not giving in so much as realizing that UBC will be a reality in the next decade regardless, so we might as well get something for it while we can, have an actual compromise where guns are concerned for once.

You're not going to "leverage" ANYTHING. The ONLY thing you're going to get in exchange for racially invidious gun control is MORE racially invidious gun control. The other side is infinitely deceitful and infinitely malicious. Expecting any anything else from them is simply foolish. It's Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football, only instead of a football, it's a bear trap and she NEVER pulls it away.

 

[kmw1954]

Many of these laws come about because of social morals and changes as to what is acceptable. 60 years ago pornography and nudity were a no-no. There was a long list of words that were forbidden to be used on radio or TV. Cigarette smoking was everywhere and promoted. Now today there is a public fight to make legal marijuana.

Today the environment is that guns and gun owners are Evil and unnecessary. That the only purpose for a gun is to kill. Well the purpose of the gun has always been to kill, no way around it. Now as the world also becomes more populated and we keep loosing open spaces the need for a gun to hunt with will diminish even more as well. In my area the number of places that are still open to gun hunt are becoming fewer every passing year. There just isn't the open cow pastures, hay fields, corn fields or meadows to access for squirrels or rabbits. I cannot remember the last time I'd seen a pheasant. Even the waterfowl areas are all disappearing.

So many young kids just are not being exposed to guns the way they were even 30 years ago. Where is this going to lead them in another 30 years? The interest just won't be there. no one is promoting firearms or shooting sports to young people. The Boy Scouts/Explorer Scouts use to. It's also not just limited to guns. I see the same attitude by some even when it comes to sport fishing. Gee that is cruel!!!

So yes in a way I can see that at some point in time society is going to declare guns are unnecessary and unacceptable. Hope I am wrong or at least not in my lifetime.

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

What I don't understand is why don't they acknowledge that background checks are already a thing? They imply in the news articles that no such current background checks exist and so people are buying guns online 'without going through a check'. When you buy a gun online, it has to ship to an FFL who will then perform the background check for the person who sold the gun online .
They are purposfully ignoring that fact, so they can easily convince people to be okay with more extreme measures. They use words like "registered or unregistered weapon" to make people think that gun registration is already a thing, so that they'll be more okay when it registration comes

 

[Deanimator]

What I don't understand is why don't they acknowledge that background checks are already a thing? They imply in the news articles that no such current background checks exist and so people are buying guns online 'without going through a check'. When you buy a gun online, it has to ship to an FFL who will then perform the background check for the person who sold the gun online .
They are purposfully ignoring that fact, so they can easily convince people to be okay with more extreme measures. They use words like "registered or unregistered weapon" to make people think that gun registration is already a thing, so that they'll be more okay when it registration comes

As with the Holocaust denial movement, without disinformation, there literally could be no anti-gun movement. They both exist on a foundation of calculated deceit. NOTHING the proponents of either say should be taken at face value.

 

[MachIVshooter]

You're not going to "leverage" ANYTHING. The ONLY thing you're going to get in exchange for racially invidious gun control is MORE racially invidious gun control. The other side is infinitely deceitful and infinitely malicious. Expecting any anything else from them is simply foolish. It's Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football, only instead of a football, it's a bear trap and she NEVER pulls it away.

I've been fighting this fight for quite some time. I've learned which arguments we can make effectively and which positions become untenable.

The fact that UBC won't do a thing to prevent crime doesn't matter. The proponents don't care, and the plebians supporting it/them can't be bothered to have it explained. The fact is that, prima facie, it seems like a good idea to a huge number of people, and that's good enough to win their support. It's also very easy for them to paint opponents as callous or even bloodthirsty in this sound bite world. All they have to do is point to a case where a violent actor was denied a purchase from an FFL but was able to get his weapon in a legal private sale and do the deed. That he would have done it regardless is irrelevant; they make their point that he was able to legally procure a firearm in a private transaction because there was no background check requirement.

I've seen it before. Back in 1999, Colorado was still a pretty conservative state, and we had a conservative state government. After Columbine, when it came out that the duo had procured one of their weapons from a gunshow, a bill sailed through the legislature and was signed on Owen's desk requiring BGC on sales made at gun shows. That the girl who actually made the purchase for them was 18 and could have passed a BGC anyway didn't matter.

Meanwhile, we have a solid argument for national reciprocity and HPA, but not a lot of public support or enthusiasm in the legislature. Neither are gonna happen on their own, especially with dems controlling the house now. But if we attach one or both to a UBC bill, one of two things happen:

A) The libs will kill the amended bill in the house and now we can argue that they're the unreasonable ones or

B) They grudgingly pass it, and we get some benefits out of a deal that was going to happen within a few years one way or another.

If you think we're gonna be able to fight off UBC for more than a few sessions, you'd better open your eyes. The left gained a lot of traction in 2018, and unless they screw up big time, they're in a position to not only hold what they got but increase their winnings. We have only two years of guaranteed conservative control in the senate and oval office. Maybe we'll hold one or both in 2020, maybe not, but eventually the pendulum always swings back. A quid pro quo may be tough now, but the mere idea will be completely laughable once the dems control both houses again. Maybe it'll be 2 years. Maybe 4. 8. Who knows, but it will happen.

 

[BSA1]

I have no problem with background checks at guns shows or stores that sell guns. I do not think they should be mandatory for private sales.

Why? You have accepted the Anti's propaganda about criminals buying their guns from Gun Stores and Gun Shows. You have surrendered over half of battle already. Why should private sales be exempt? After all a criminal will merely answer a gun ad and buy his gun that way.

Are we going to eventually lose this battle and background checks on all gun sales, private and public will become the law?

Not as long as enough gun owners get out and vote, let their Congress people know their position and join and support the big dog pro-gun organizations.

Eventually, yes. This session? Not likely at the federal level. But more and more states are enacting such legislation, so at some point it'll be about moot anyway.

Seeing how you live in a occupied State I can understand your attitude. However Pro-2A gun laws are being enacted in more States than are restricting ownership.

You must of missed the news about Oklahoma yesterday.

 

[MachIVshooter]

You must of missed the news about Oklahoma yesterday.

I follow all of the significant state level legislation. That constitutional carry went through easily in OK doesn't change what's coming at the federal level. Did you not see what happened last November? Do you not watch the national polls on "moderate" gun control issues like UBC? Gun owners only account for 1/4 of the population, and not even half of us are opposed enough to even sign an online petition.

14 states already have state level UBC, and several more are poised to fall. Half of the states which do not have UBC or red flag laws already have house or senate bills (or both) on the table, and some of them are gonna get it. I'm telling you, it's a losing battle. Yes, this state is lost. I'll be in WY by 2025. Doesn't matter, because as solid as WY is, it's stil subject to federal law. All the state & local pro-2A legislation, resolutions, enforcement refusals are meaningless when they contradict federal law. A number of people have already found out the hard way that ATF doesn't care what your local ordinances say or your local LE won't do.

 

[fpgt72]

Yes this is going to happen.....and really to tell the truth it is going to be a pain in the kabootie but not the end of the world.

As a guy that buys lots of old stuff, this is going to be a bit of a pain, but really eh it is ok.

Being in the business I would bet that gunny runs every "used" gun he buys....at least.....we all don't have that ability.

IMHO there are other things to worry about, and yea I get the slippy slope and all that.

 

[George P]

What I don't understand is why don't they acknowledge that background checks are already a thing? They imply in the news articles that no such current background checks exist and so people are buying guns online 'without going through a check'. When you buy a gun online, it has to ship to an FFL who will then perform the background check for the person who sold the gun online .
They are purposfully ignoring that fact, so they can easily convince people to be okay with more extreme measures. They use words like "registered or unregistered weapon" to make people think that gun registration is already a thing, so that they'll be more okay when it registration comes

Not in every case. Here in Florida, I can ship a long gun to another Floridian without going through a FFL

 

[Tommygunn]

While MachIVshooter makes a good argument, it isn't a reason, IMHO, to simply give in. Fight. Give $$$$ to the NRA, to GOA, to any and all pro 2A organization you can. Give until IT HURTS. Write to your kongresskritters.
If a UBC is inevitable (I don't fully buy it is) getting some type of pro stuff written in is a good idea.

"It is easy to lead a populace to a certain belief .... but it is difficult to hold them to it. The nature of men is fickle." ~~ Niccolò Machiavelli.

Well, that could be why conservatism may be ascendant one year and liberalism the next .... but it could ultimately be why gun control may eventually become a dinosaur.
But we will have to fight. It won't go away by itself.

 

[AlexanderA]

A "universal background check" system can be structured without registration. We've discussed this here in detail before, so I won't belabor the point. Sure, such a system would not be 100% airtight, but nothing is 100% airtight. The idea is to satisfy the public demand for some kind of checks, without facilitating a future confiscation.

The problem is that the gun community, by and large, won't even discuss such a system. The strategy appears to be simple stonewalling. Well, the outcome of this strategy will be that when UBC's eventually pass (and it's almost certain that they will, at some point), they'll contain all the worst features, such as running all sales through FFL's (which means transfer fees and a Form 4473 paper trail). It's as if the antigunners and the FFL dealers are conspiring against us, and we're too dumb to realize this. We should be taking the lead on UBC's and not sitting back and waiting to get raped.

 

[Sistema1927]

Even with an organized opposition, we are probably going to lose that battle in NM this session. Democrats on top of Democrats, on top of Democrats, all the way down. I don't think that this is going anywhere, at least for now, on a Federal level.

I do have hope, however, that we might be able to prevail in the courts.

 

[Kaybee]

I’ve said this before, the BGC themselves is a nuesance but the registration that goes with it that is the real fear. Right now it is the greatest threat there is to the 2A.

Registration, both logically and historically, is the first step required forwards confiscation. We’ve seen it play out like that in other countries in the past, and recently we’ve seen it play out that way in anti gun states. Confiscation cannot be enforced without first implementing registration.

1. Register
2. Ban
3. Confiscate

Beware! I think that UBC’s are intentionally being pushed (by well funded anti-gun strategists) as an "easy sell" to achieve that essential first step towards confiscation. I cant prove that, but it doesn’t matter, even if you take these laws at face value the threat is still there.

To combat this, the "easiest sell" for people against confiscation would be to pass explicit federal laws against government tracking & registration. No one likes the idea of their name on a creepy government list.

AlexanderA I don’t think we need to give in UBC to achieve a ban on registration. With a ban on registration , you could still resist UBC’s, but now at least if (when?) they do win that fight, UBC would have lost its most dangerous teeth. It will be forced to be implemented without registration. Again, as the first step torwards confiscation it is the greatest threat the 2a that our country has ever seen.

The iceberg is coming right at us. So I really found it frustrating that when conservatives controlled everything, the bills they put forward were silencers and cc reciprocity. My God! Prevent wholesale confiscation first! The other side is going right for it!!! Think! Wake up!

 

[AlexanderA]

I do have hope, however, that we might be able to prevail in the courts.

How do you frame a constitutional issue, given the existing jurisprudence (Heller, etc.)?

 

[AlexanderA]

So I really found it frustrating that when conservatives controlled everything the Bills they were going for were silencers and cc reciprocity. My god, prevent wholesale confiscation first because the other side is going for it!!!

I agree. I think the gun community got sidetracked pushing for HPA and reciprocity when the other side had bigger fish to fry.

Now, it's been said that UBC's will lead to registration, which will be a path to confiscation. But look at it this way -- if there is enough support for confiscation, the antis will go directly for confiscation without bothering with the intermediate steps. The practical effect will be the same whether or not there's registration beforehand. People that won't comply with confiscation orders won't comply regardless. (Nor will they comply with registration.) The antigunners know this. They're smart enough to know that a gun ban cannot be 100% effective. What they're trying to do is drive guns underground and destroy the public gun culture. Then after a couple of generations there won't be a "gun problem" any more. Criminals, of course, will still have guns, but the general public won't. Just look at Europe for an example.

 

[MachIVshooter]

How do you frame a constitutional issue, given the existing jurisprudence (Heller, etc.)?

That's just it. You can't. We tried here in CO in 2013 when they rammed it down our throat, framing it as a poll tax since CBI is charging a fee for background checks. We had almost every sheriff in the state on our side with that challenge, too, and it still went nowhere.

 

[748]

It's BS.
Something like 70,000 or so 4473 forms are lied on by criminals trying to buy a gun and nothing happens to about 99% of them.
Eric holder was asked about it once and said that law enforcement doesn't have time to enforce it.
So mandating more background checks isn't going to do anything.

 

[Rockrivr1]

This will be one of the Democrat's leading battle cries in the 2020 election. With the latest move towards Socialism that has the backing of Millennials and Gen-Xers, it's going to be a hard election to watch. We also have to watch out for the Moderate Republicans as some of them in the House voted for this as well. Unfortunately this will only be the tip of the iceberg if the Dems take back control of both houses and the presidency. No matter what happens, we need to keep at least one to fend off any real attack on the 2nd Amendment.

 

[P5 Guy]

What good it to deny a person for perjury on the 4473 and near never prosecute?
https://freebeacon.com/issues/prosecutions-lying-gun-background-checks-fall-new-low/

 

[Kaybee]

Im not scared of the socialist boogey men. That movement gets a lot of playtime on the news but its never going to go very far, when it comes down to it, these kids will never give up their blue jeans, their iphones, and all the other benefits capitalism has given them. Besides Gun control is pretty low on their agenda. Sanders was from VERMONT. He has no strong convictions about guns. It’s not a priority for him. Even crazy AOC rarely talks about guns. In the threat against the 2A, those socialists take a back seat to the corrupt establishment Democrats that are all bought out by Billionares and they are the ones funded to push the hard for gun control... and they +hate+ the socialists stirring the pot in their party and messing with their donors. They rig their own primaries.

Money talks. Campaign donations. Anti Gun groups have deeeep pockets. Billionaires don’t want average citizens armed for some reason. I don’t know why.

 

[alfsauve]

I do not think they should be mandatory for private sales.

Oh wait. Here's one of the rubs. SALES. That's not what they're regulating. They want to regulate TRANSFERS.

You could conceivably drill TRANSFERS so far down that the clerk in the gun store can't let you handle the gun without first completing a background check. And given the chance the anti-gun crowd will do such.

The whole idea is to put a strangle hold on gun ownership. To make it onerous to even try to buy a gun and then to own it afterwards. They'll do it one step at a time. Little by little.