Background checks?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Curator

Curator

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
1,360
Location
Bonita Springs, Florida
Having had a FFL prior to the "Clinton-purge", I have a great distrust of the Federal ATFE bureaucracy. However, I would have no problem with a national law that mandated a background check before a firearm sale PROVIDED the agency that provided the background check was OPEN to the General Public, not just FFL dealers. If anyone could access the background check agency for free (or a very small charge)

I believe most gun owners would go along with this provision. Of course, that would not prevent the Feds from changing the rules after the fact like they did on the 1967FFA law that promised FFL licenses would be easy to get and renew. I have never sold a firearm where I did not check the buyer's driver's license (unless I personally knew them) and ask them if there was any reason why they could not legally purchase a firearm.

I would love to have access to the background check apparatus should I decide to sell off my gun collection. Having mental health records on the background check list may pinch some innocent folks but keeping guns out of the hands of unauthorized users is a good goal provided the system actually works for everyone, not just those who the BATFE approves.
 
ooh, you are going to get lashed for this, just watch ...
as somebody replied to me few days ago:
" what if some anti-gun doctor violates somebody's 2A rights ?"
 
I have found that my intuition is superior to any database I have available, JWI, TLO, Accurint, Coplink, etc.

I can reserve the right to refuse a sale to anyone.

Background checks are as useless as Carfax. Sure, it may help the hopelessly ignorant, but for anyone with an eye for detail it's not as accurate as your internal instinct.
 
Last edited:
The legislature and governor in my state just forced universal background checks on the public. Unfortunately the UBC process isnt what you think it is. If I want to sell or give a gun to say, my brother, or even a stranger I cant just go to a dealer and have him run a blind NICS check on the guy. I have to let the dealer log the gun into his books and transfer it to the person purchasing the gun just like a normal dealer sale on a 4473. The dealer can charge as much as he wants for the "service" and he can refuse to do it completely. There were 69 "private" transfers done in the state in the state of Oregon in September. I don't believe the compliance rate is high. Also my state doesnt participate in the national system directly for some reason. The dealer has to call the state police who charge $10 to log onto the NICS system and run the check for the dealer. I bought an AR-15 receiver last week . It took me 2 hours to make it through the queue.
 
The legislature and governor in my state just forced universal background checks on the public. Unfortunately the UBC process isnt what you think it is. If I want to sell or give a gun to say, my brother, or even a stranger I cant just go to a dealer and have him run a blind NICS check on the guy. I have to let the dealer log the gun into his books and transfer it to the person purchasing the gun just like a normal dealer sale on a 4473. The dealer can charge as much as he wants for the "service" and he can refuse to do it completely. There were 69 "private" transfers done in the state in the state of Oregon in September. I don't believe the compliance rate is high. Also my state doesnt participate in the national system directly for some reason. The dealer has to call the state police who charge $10 to log onto the NICS system and run the check for the dealer. I bought an AR-15 receiver last week . It took me 2 hours to make it through the queue.
__________________
Click to expand...


You're pretty close to the truth. The real purpose of having UBC's is to force private sales and transfers to be brokered by FFL's, complete with a #4473 form with an entry in the dealer's bound book, as well as a background check. Sometime in the future the #4473 forms and/or bound book can provide the basis for UFR (Universal Firearms Registration). With this in place the government can impose whatever regulations they want, including confiscation of some types and or models. :uhoh:
 
you can't have 100% background checks without 100% registration of every firearm.
I think that is what most people have an issue with,
 
Without registration, "universal background checks" are UTTERLY meaningless.

The REAL goal is REGISTRATION, without which, CONFISCATION is FAR too onerous.
 
I agree totally that registration is the goal,but we are not getting that message to the general public. The concept of UBC is being peddled as harmless. We should be paying more attention and shouting REGISTRATION from the roof tops.
 
If the anti gunners want to get somewhere they need to negotiate with us a little. I MIGHT considers new stricter legislation if in return some in-effective legislation was at the same time repealed. Get rid of something like the Hughes Amendment, the sporting purposes clause, allow the importation of of title 2 firearms or make silencers title 1.

Dan
 
Get rid of the NFA and the 1968 GCA and I will consider universal background checks. But those laws have to go first.
 
dekibg said:
ooh, you are going to get lashed for this, just watch ...
Click to expand...

A lashing? Hardly. Although there will be impatience in repeating some of the multitude of objections to universal background checks that have already been addressed in 40 threads in Activism and 62 threads in Legal.
 
I would have no problem with a national law that mandated a background check before a firearm sale PROVIDED the agency that provided the background check was OPEN to the General Public, not just FFL dealers.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is you are ok with giving the Federal Government the authority to give you (and all of us) permission to buy, sale, trade or gift your firearms.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin






________________________________________________________________________

Just call me Elmer.
 
If the anti gunners want to get somewhere they need to negotiate with us a little. I MIGHT considers new stricter legislation if in return some in-effective legislation was at the same time repealed. Get rid of something like the Hughes Amendment, the sporting purposes clause, allow the importation of of title 2 firearms or make silencers title 1.
Click to expand...

yeah boss, im not willing to negotiate with them at all.....theyve taken enough, i really dont feel like giving them any more.

being willing to negotiate sends the message that passing anti gun legislation is OK, since we agreed to it.
 
It's always interesting to see what someone is willing to negotiate when the issue is that the Right is "Inalienable" and the language clear, "shall not infringe."

Let's apply that to the First Amendment. You want to send a letter to the editor on a subject - and do - but when you get it published in the paper you see it redacted, edited, and it transforms your opinion from obvious clarity in opposition to confused support.

You can't object, the editor wields the legal authority to change your wording as he's been delegated the bureaucrat in charge - due to his obvious credentials and certification. And, by the way, they have the two previous rough draft copies, too, as your computer has to be "open data base" and accessible to government oversight. It's a terrorist weapon in the wrong hands.

Your friends and issue sensitive acquaintances then avoid you for your apparent flip flop and steer clear of you. While chronologically out of sync, guess what, it's "1984." Your free speech can be changed to suit the agenda of the government's mavens.

No different with an open background check database. Me, I'm not for it as my qualifications would also point an interesting finger to those who might take offense at my military service - in GTMO. There were 300 there at the time, many released, and I don't want to worry about them traveling around the country exacting revenge on their captors.

What the proposed idea fails to consider are the unintended consequences - how it would go very badly. It's not hard to figure out given some thought and research into the history of men oppressing each other. Generally feel good ideas lack that in any depth as those who propose them only consider the "greater good," not the actual agenda and how it is used to restrict freedoms.

The first rule of Government is that you have Rights infringed to gain collective agreement - the minority is ALWAYS oppressed by the majority. What happens in a working society is that it prevents evil and those who propose it don't get to prey on us.

When society doesn't work right, and starts spiraling into the next phase change, the majority gets it's rights oppressed and the usual result is open warfare. The final determination of who wins, in modern history, is the side with MORE guns and the willingness to use them.

That brings up the issue of confiscation - and why many of us are quite completely convinced It Will Never Happen. Much the same as the MAD doctrine of the '50s and '60s, the implied consequence of confiscation is open warfare. Exactly why there are so few complying with the CA AWB registration, an estimated 75% failure to comply with the NY SAFE act, along with almost 95% of the NY county Sherriffs publicly stating they will not enforce it.

We are quite a bit down the road from cooperating with the disarmament agenda when public officials campaign for reelection on a platform of defying state law.

There's very clearly a line drawn in the sand on the issue, what's sad is to see so many thinking there isn't - because they are wearing blinders and refuse to look at the obvious around them. If any of the facts mentioned in the thread seem to be unsupported, the first thing to do would be research them to understand the real issue - gun registration is a long term scheme to confiscate them. If the British and Australian efforts in that regard don't clearly indicate that roadmap to oppression, then it might be an indication that rational thought on the matter isn't likely.

WE are the government, WE tell it what to do. When the government starts telling US what to do, it becomes a red flag that we are spiraling into totalitarianism and it's time to wrest control back to the citizens - not those hired to manage things for us.
 
Curator,

I understand your sentiment, but if we look at this from a risk based instead of compliance based approach the "problem" that we're trying to solve, mass shootings/pervasive criminal violence, isn't mitigated by universal background checks.

The claims that UBCs would help prevent these high profile mass shootings are false upon simple examination of the shootings themselves.

If you look at recent threads on the origins of the firearms in the high profile mass shootings you'll note that the firearms were almost all purchased legally using a NICS background check system. This same system if applied universally would have still approved the sale regardless of the increased bureaucracy needed to support UBCs and done nothing to stop these tragedies.

This leads us to the fact that firearms are not the cause of the shootings, but behaviors are. If we want to stop these we need to look at the root cause of the behaviors which is a much more difficult issue to address than the pretense offered by gun prohibitionists.
 
IL has mandated this for private sales requiring check online of potential buyer's FOID card status. PROVIDED it never went beyond this I'd be OK--and we not it will never be enough. The problem is always manifest in the grabber agenda--they need a registry to facilitate their endgame of confiscation.
 
Not to mention that here in south Florida UBC will add $40 to $60 to any and all gun transactions. Business wise it's a bad deal, one deal that U normally wouldn't make. Imagine U sell an old shotgun to your friend for $200 and U have to pay $50 for the stupid transfer. 25% mark up just to sell or trade, not a good business deal.
 
I have never understood why any gunowner would think that background checks - any background checks - is a good plan.

One of the great things about this country is that you are "presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty".

Unless you are buying a gun. Then you are presumed to be a criminal, until proven innocent by the background check.

Why would anyone be happy with a system that presumes you are a criminal from the git-go?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Warp
  • Locked
Oregon gun laws improved last year by implementing universal background checks?
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
211
Views
9K
Spats McGee
Spats McGee
A
  • Locked
Senate negotiations on "universal background checks"
2 3 4 5
Replies
108
Views
5K
jon_in_wv
J
D
  • Locked
‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not
2 3
Replies
72
Views
5K
Robert
Robert
A
  • Locked
Background checks
2 3
Replies
64
Views
4K
yugorpk
Y
A
  • Locked
Would Universal Background Checks be acceptable if no firearm information was required?
2 3 4 5
Replies
106
Views
6K
GEM
G
Back
Top