I am going to say it - I like the idea of universal NICS checks

Status
Not open for further replies.
I also have one more thought on this. Anyone who believes that universal background checks can't easily become de facto registration (regardless of straight-faced reassurances to the contrary from our "officials") needs to watch New York VERY CAREFULLY and when confiscation starts you may want to ask yourself how they got all the names/addresses.

I've been getting a number of emails from friends/family back in NY who kept saying I was "silly" or "paranoid" and now I'm getting a LOT of "Jaysis you were RIGHT! Whatinthehell do I do NOW?!?".
 
Not if I simply say "want to buy a gun?" and exchange cash for gun. You seriously think criminals who steal a gun are going to follow the law and go to an FFL to have it transferred?
Click to expand...

By making it harder to sell a stolen gun it creates an economic disincentive to steal guns. Will not prevent all thefts, but it will help to soften the market.
 
bushmaster1313 said:
By making it harder to sell a stolen gun it creates an economic disincentive to steal guns. Will not prevent all thefts, but it will help to soften the market.
Click to expand...
It doesnt make it harder to sell a gun for people who are going to break the law and sell it anyways!
In fact it gives it a bigger incentive! Untraceable to the buyer!
 
By making it harder to sell a stolen gun it creates an economic disincentive to steal guns. Will not prevent all thefts, but it will help to soften the market.
Click to expand...

you are telling me someone who breaks into houses and steals (among other things) guns, doesnt know other criminals who would also like to buy a gun?
 
bushmaster1313 said:
It lets the police conduct sting operations more easily.



Makes it harder to sell a stolen gun.
Click to expand...
Neither of your points effectively illustrate how a universal BC will ultimately deter violence perpetrated with a firearm. Catching a straw purchase in the act is a crapshoot: Narc officers aren't catching all deals, and the streets are flooded with drugs. People who cannot own a gun, but want a gun will still get a gun if wanted badly enough. A background check of the magnitude and depth which has been proposed is an obstacle, not a cure to criminal action.

Stolen guns will flood the market heavier than ever. If guns are made harder to buy legally, or checks are more stringent, wouldn't I, as a criminal, be more apt to purchase a stolen arm rather than trounce into Cabelas with a fistful of cash even though I'm a felon (being hypothetical here) and know I'm going to fail? All criminals are evil, not all are stupid.
 
Think of it from an economic perspective.
The thief wants to be able to sell the stolen gun.
The bigger the market the more incentive to steal

Under the current system, a thief can make a face to face sale to an honest person because there is no background check.

With universal background checks, honest people will not be able to make face to face purchases from thieves and the thieves will have a smaller market.

Smaller market = less incentive to supply it = less incentive to steal.
 
I'm not against this near as much as I am against any bans. That said I don't for one second believe that 40% of transfers are done without a background check. 100% of all new gun sales and any used sales done through a dealer already have to have a background check done. Outside of that if it's a legal transfer then the federal government shouldn't have jurisdiction as it's intrastate commerce.
 
I generally agree with Bushmaster1313.

One of the NRA's constant refrains is that the best idea to prevent gun crime is to not focus on the gun but on the criminal. They constantly recite the need to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. That seems pretty logical to me.

Well, this seems to be one step. It is not a perfect step and not a 100% effective step, but it is a step that seems to further the stated goal of keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

I will read the posts of my fellow High-Roaders because they often make points that make me consider things in a new light. Perhaps they can point out how the practical details of any such system would make it ineffective, cumbersome, unconstitutional, etc..

I understand (but don't necessarily agree with) the "don't give an inch because they'll take a mile" argument.

As far as restricting the ability sell private property: Have you considered prescription drugs? I had some legally prescribed Vicadin after a muscle pull. I couldn't sell the leftover to anyone I wished after my shoulder healed.

Good Luck to all.

Dan
 
bushmaster1313 said:
Think of it from an economic perspective.
The thief wants to be able to sell the stolen gun.
The bigger the market the more incentive to steal

Under the current system, a thief can make a face to face sale to an honest person because there is no background check.

With universal background checks, honest people will not be able to make face to face purchases from thieves and the thieves will have a smaller market.

Smaller market = less incentive to supply it = less incentive to steal.
Click to expand...
Only if a criminal has one day decided to obey the law.

Ridiculous laws = higher gun prices and stimulated market = incentive to steal and sell arms illegally.
 
Think of it from an economic perspective.
The thief wants to be able to sell the stolen gun.
The bigger the market the more incentive to steal

Under the current system, a thief can make a face to face sale to an honest person because there is no background check.

With universal background checks, honest people will not be able to make face to face purchases from thieves and the thieves will have a smaller market.

Smaller market = less incentive to supply it = less incentive to steal.
Click to expand...

you are also assuming the criminals sole intention was to break in solely for the guns....

typically a home invasion is for money, TVs, computers, phones, Personal info......guns just sweeten the deal......if you are already in the house stealing stuff, theres no reason not to steal the guns also.


a stolen car is pretty hard to sell legitimately.....yet cars get stolen all the time......why wont the same apply to guns?
 
(Skipping past the responses.)

I would live with the process and the fee, if I believed that the check stopped at the check. Meaning, I would want to see black and white law that says that information provided may be used to verify the identity of the buyer, and retained buy the dealer ONLY, to prove he made the check and cover his own butt. It may not be used for gun traces and would be inadmissible in court. If they are serious about checking the background of buyers, then it should be used ONLY for that purpose, nothing else.

For the record, I don't think this will ever happen, and therefore I won't support any new laws.
 
I work in a gun shop. I hate having to call them in. It ties up the phone, takes WAY TOO LONG (INSTANT MY A$$) and you get delays on good honest people ALL THE TIME. I love when people come in with a concealed carry permit, because then I don't have to do the check. As long as a permit, purchase or carry, from any state, exempts you from the NICS checks, I could deal with "mandatory back ground checks." We have gun shows here in NC, and everyone that shows up either gets called in, or, the smart ones, have their permits and don't need to be called in. Keep that, and I could get behind it.
 
The country was outraged at the newspaper that printed the list of handgun owners.
Why would we want the gov to have such a list.
Before the arguement of fighting crime, I have some proposals that would be more effective.
Eliminate the option of trial by jury. Too many folks are getting off on an emotional plea.
Forget the rules of evidence. Too many criminals are getting off on a technicality.
The need to get a warrant is slowing down law enforcement. Let's get rid of that.
That whole self incrimination thing is soooo outdated.

All the above can be put in place of 'firearms' and you can say that they will reduce crime. In fact, more effectively than background checks. Most would say that it is crazy talk, we cannot give up our rights, better that a child molester go free than have his rights violated. Somehow, many have a disconnect when it comes to gun rights.
 
By making it harder to sell a stolen gun it creates an economic disincentive to steal guns. Will not prevent all thefts, but it will help to soften the market.
Click to expand...

Wait, wait - are you seriously thinking that someone who just broke into a home or car and stole a firearm is then going to throw up their hands in frustration because the law says that they can't sell it without a background check? Stolen guns are already trafficked through shady backwards channels to other criminals anyways. That's why most thieves have a fence.

The whole idea is useless bureaucracy, not to mention the havoc it plays with transferring guns between family members. Can't you just imagine - someone's father dies as instead of just the will they also have to cart a dozen or two guns down to a gun dealership to have them transferred.
 
Please tell me where in the Constitution it says background checks are legal?

Further, I don't see anything in the 2A that says anything about who can and cannot have a gun.

Criminals will continue to be armed. It's what criminals do. Crazies will find weapons. Whether a handgun long gun or baseball bat...

Bush, you sir are misguided.
 
Right now the government is not able to keep searchable records on gun transfers. Each transfer is written on a form and then a picture is taken and stored on microfilm. The original document is destroyed. In order to find out who owns guns they would have to search microfilm and find the S# of the gun they are looking for. Then they would have to contact the gun manufacture and find out which dealer they sold it to. Then they would have to see if the dealer has a name of the person who they sold this particular gun to.
I asked my LGS about this. They said that paper work has a tendency to get lost easily ;-)

Universal background checks will not likely hurt any of us. Guns would cost $25 more... But I don't have a problem with the idea of background checks. We will have to give a little bit, this is not a bad area to toss them a bone. As long as this will not lead to national gun registration. Those executive orders about information sharing and gathering does worry me some.
 
Utopia doesn't exist. Criminals don't obey laws. Yes, that's criminal. Criminals will not obey new laws. Surprise! Restrict the law abiding citizens to death, but the criminal element will still have their firearms. Oh, and those criminals in NY will put more than 7 rounds in their 'high capacity' mags. Again, Surprise!
 
Not only am I against any more government intrusion into my life I am also against police "sting" operations. There are plenty of real criminals on the street without trying to set up someone who is merely ignorant of the law. The local law enforcement agencies use a minor who appears to be about 25 to "sting" bar tenders, waitresses, and liquor store employees all the time around here which results in a heavy finacial cost to those who are stung. Meanwhile, liquor store owners, bartenders, and waitstaff confiscate phony drivers licenses from minors trying to pass themselves off as older but the law enforcement agencies won't do a damn thing to them for actually breaking several laws. This is a screwed up country........
 
coolluke01 said:
We will have to give a little bit, this is not a bad area to toss them a bone.
Click to expand...
No, we don't, and yes it is. How would you like to have to start assessing and giving inventory of everything you own, without any ideas as to the items' relevance, to the Federal government? Remember doctor/patient privilege? Remember the other nine amendments in the BOR that are to protect you from tyranny?

Cave on an issue that you don't find that important, and you'll see how quickly denying self incrimination, free speech, and maybe jury trial disappear. Are those important to you guys? I'd hope your privacy is too.
 
This type of thinking did not help the German people back in 1934 but lead to the death of millions that thought they would be safer.

Do not fool yourself into thinking it would be for your benefit. Washington, Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and the rest knew what they were doing when they helped write the consitution, let us not trampple their work into the ground under the guise of public safety, for no one will be safe if any of this goes through. How do you plain to protect your family and liberty?, with your IPhone????

Jim
 
I have thought long and hard about this question and depending on how it was set up, I would also be in favor of a "universal NICS" check. So long as the law currently identifies a list of prohibited individuals I like the idea of everyone being able to determine if the sale they are about to enter into is with a prohibited individual.

I am not for requiring every purchase to go through an FFL. I am not in favor of the check as being linked to any particular firearm. I envision a "credit check" like system where one can check on whether an individual is a prohibited person. Heck I would like to be able to "check my status" sometimes to make sure that there is nothing hinky going on. A fee should not be associated with it, and it should not be tied to an actual firearm. That is definatly different from the way current FFL style NICS checks are done, (correct me if I am wrong, I'm not a GSO).

That said, it protects me. If a firearm that was in my possession for some reason ever is used in a crime and it gets back to me, I have something to rely on that I did my due diligence. I have not sold very many of my firearms, but I want the option to.
 
Please tell me where in the Constitution it says background checks are legal?

Further, I don't see anything in the 2A that says anything about who can and cannot have a gun.

Criminals will continue to be armed. It's what criminals do. Crazies will find weapons. Whether a handgun long gun or baseball bat...

Bush, you sir are misguided.
Click to expand...

You, sir, are very polite.

But we have gotten far from my original point.

If certain people should not have guns it makes sense to have background checks.
If there should be no limit on who can have a gun there should be no background checks.
I think it makes sense to keep guns out of the hands of the insane and those convicted of violent felonies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not
2 3
Replies
72
Views
5K
Robert
Robert
D
  • Locked
Coburn Amendment: Sane Universal Background Checks
Replies
24
Views
2K
joeschmoe
J
B
  • Locked
Why Universal Background Checks Are Bad for Gun Owners
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
4K
Robert
Robert
A
  • Locked
Would Universal Background Checks be acceptable if no firearm information was required?
2 3 4 5
Replies
106
Views
6K
GEM
G
M
  • Locked
No Way Out: Feds Stop Processing NICS Denial Appeals
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
stchman
stchman
Back
Top