Nom de Forum
Member
This is not the thread for people to post their vehement opposition to a UBC Law, imply people who disagree with them are “caving”, behaving like Nazis, Fudds, Fifth Columnists, and other terms universally agreed to be insults. Making those type of comments are more about enjoying the expression of anger and frustration with mental masturbation in public than it is about making thoughtful, discussion stimulating comments. If you want to do the former rather than the later the place for that is apparently here:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=786883
This also is not a thread for people who want to discuss way to evade any law or cache guns as part of a contingency plan.
People who vehemently oppose a UBC Law are encouraged to post to this thread if they will accept for the purposes of this thread, if not in reality, that a National Universal Background Check is inevitable, and we as supporters of the RKBA should discuss what we can do to make it as benign as possible before a law is enacted.
Below are some comments and suggestions made by THR members in other threads that should be considered.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=786883
This also is not a thread for people who want to discuss way to evade any law or cache guns as part of a contingency plan.
People who vehemently oppose a UBC Law are encouraged to post to this thread if they will accept for the purposes of this thread, if not in reality, that a National Universal Background Check is inevitable, and we as supporters of the RKBA should discuss what we can do to make it as benign as possible before a law is enacted.
Below are some comments and suggestions made by THR members in other threads that should be considered.
JSH1 - I'm not sure why this is so hard to get:
• There are gun owners that support background checks
• There are hunters that support background checks
• There are gun dealers that support background checks
Supporting background checks does mean someone isn't a "real" gun owner / hunter / dealer. It just means that person supports background checks.
Nom de Forum - In this country mandatory background checks on all gun sales are inevitable regardless if you support them or not. Only a draining delaying action that drains our resources can be fought against them. Directing our resources to fight for more important gun rights issues can make mandatory background checks nothing more than an inconvenience. Mandatory background checks are not a unidirectional step down the path toward bans and confiscations. We can make mandatory background checks a step down a dead-end road.
buck460XVR - I don't think it is the background checks per-say that has folks upset, but the thought that there may be a record kept somewhere of the sale and thus a way for "big brother" to know who owns what firearms. I suspect that if UBCs are required at the federal level for all gun sales, that many folks will still buy/sell FTF without using them, just as many folks now work on the side for cash and never report that income.
Backgrounds checks in themselves are not really a bad thing, nor are they a big deal anymore. My wife uses them all the time before hiring new employees. I had to have a BGC in order to ref youth Hockey Games and to work inside of buildings in the local School District as a contractor. Friends I know that have rental properties use BGCs before they rent to someone. To some degree, you and I can go online and do a check on almost anyone we want.
Most of us with any grasp on reality know that UBCs are not going to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. They may make it a tad more difficult. They may make it more difficult for other folks such as convicted felons that are prohibited from owning firearms to obtain them. They also may keep someone mentally incompetent from buying a firearm. But they are not the solution to most mass shootings or killing sprees. They are not going to stop organized gangs and criminals from obtaining firearms, just as the war on drugs has not stopped drug usage.
gripper - The only background check I believe in is AFTER scaling back the " prohibited persons " language to narrowly focus on convictions and unresolved indictments for VIOLENT felonies... The way they've stretched and expanded the stated intent ( vs the ACTUAL intentions) for all firearms related laws and restrictions is a crime in and of itself.
Nom de Forum - I agree a UBC will not stop the anti-gun crowd. What I am proposing in not “giving the anti gun crowd what it wants”. Since there are going to get it, let them expend their resources on getting it implemented. It is a dead-end that does not lead to bans and confiscation. Preventing a UBC is never going to win the war against the anti-gun crowd. Increasing the number of people who own guns, and number of non-gun owning people who believe gun owners are responsible and reasonable, is the best tactic for the long term defense of the RKBA. Examples of better areas for us expend our resources on are increasing CCW in all states, increasing convenient opportunities for recreational shooting in areas where they are limited or non-existent, and craft our message to avoid attaching right-wing political rhetoric to the RKBA that alienates those liberals and moderates who are neither pro or anti gun. Many pro-gun people seem to forget that not all liberals and moderates are anti-gun. On a personal note, don’t accuse me of “caving” and implying there is no point where I will make a stand (“You'll then declare that one to be inevitable”) against gun grabbers. We are not going to win the fight by attempting to continue convincing people pro-gunners cannot be defeated in the legislature. That strategy has been moderately successful but future demographics make it perilous. We are going to win the fight by increasing the number of pro-gunners and neutrals.
Justin - Advocacy of the "default deny" concept is nothing short of a the removal of a person's civil rights without due process, something that anyone with respect for a society of laws should have deep-seated and serious misgivings about. The "default deny" position is essentially a presumption of guilt without putting the accused through the process of charging and convicting them of a crime.
JSH1 - I have said more than once here that UBC's could be used as a bargaining chip to get some things we want like nationwide CCW or suppressors without a tax stamp. However, the more states that pass UBCs the less our chip is worth.
Bartholomew Roberts - In theory, UBCs don't have to be privacy invasive or something that needs registration to work. Software guys work with all kinds of access and verification codes that don't require the personal information on a 4473. From a marketing standpoint, you could even sell the change as "updating" the dated 1968 system. If you look at the difference between the Schumer-Toomey-Manchin UBC proposed in 2013 and the UBC proposed by Tom Coburn, you can see a glimpse of what I am talking about - though Coburn's system was flawed and tried to use the existing 1968 GCA infrastructure.
Bartholomew Roberts - If you really feel that UBCs are some unconquerable hill and you want to compromise in that area, your first goal should be knocking down the recordkeeping of the 1968 system and envisioning a system that better protects gunowner privacy. Once you have that, UBCs are no threat to gun owners and a compromise there can make access to firearms easier either by removing a lot of the nonsensical bureaucratic barriers a la Coburn's 2013 bill. Because once registration is in, the bureaucratic requirements will become increasingly burdensome until the number of legal gun owners are no longer a politically significant force and the illegal gun owners hide out and stay quiet to avoid being spotted.
danez71 - There isn't a chance in heck that the recordkeeping outlined 1969 GCA will be destroyed. Is there any meaningful litigation or piece of proposed legislation even attempting that? That's a red herring if there ever was one. On the other hand, there's successful incremental movement forward in expanding UBC. Fighting UBC's, as others have noted, doesn't portray the Pro side well. We look like we want to hide in the shadows and sell guns like dope dealers.
Last edited: