I don't believe it-gun owners giving in

[JayBird]

How many times in this discussion and many others has it been quoted, "Criminals don't follow laws"? Nothing new here!

What happens when the laws make criminals out of law abiding gun owners?

Take for instance the new laws in NY state. Many right here will become criminals if they continue to pound their chests and refuse to obey these ridiculous new laws once they are enacted.

I absolutely disagree with these new restrictions in almost every way but, and this is what gets me slammed every time right here, I would rather comply with the laws and maintain my right to Keep and Bear Arms than to get busted and lose all of these rights. Many here call this giving in while I think it is the smarter way to go about our business and work on getting these laws repealed.
Keep in mind, once you have a felony involving guns in this state you are banned from owning guns-PERIOD! Thumping your chest will do little more than leave bruises.

I still have hope that an injunction will be handed down but I am also making arrangements to store any banned items with pals in less restrictive states until things blow over or get turned over.

As gun owners we are completely free to hang together or even just hang alone but we are still hanging either way. Makes very little sense to me.

There is a right way and a wrong way to show opposition and until I see the revolutionary flag raised I'll be sticking to my plan because no one here can help me when I am hanging.

I personally feel for you. At first, I was wondering what you were talking about, but then I looked at your location.

I am not personally asking nor advocating anyone to break any laws that are passed. That is way beyond the discussion I was hoping to have.

I want to discuss new laws that are not currently enacted at the federal level, and why someone would be in favor of the federal government passing a new law.

Again, all the best to you NY brother in arms. I do hope an injunction comes down in NY for you all soon as well.

 

[huntsman]

Big difference between "gun owners" and "gun enthusiasts". A "gun owner" might not have a problem with a universal(including private, FTF sales) because he/she has a couple of 3 firearms and has zero interest in trading or buying other than over the counter. A"gun enthusiast" is always searching for something and looking for trades or private sales to expand his personal collection.
I personally know "gun owners" who have NEVER purchased a firearm in their life. They have Grandpa's old shotgun or 22 rifle and are satisfied with it and are done. I've had people bring me guns "to be cleaned" that had been sitting in a closet for 20-30 years. They were "gun owners" but definately NOT "gun enthusiasts" and I'm 100% sure that they would see no reason not to have a universal background check.

I'll bet you'll find the enthusiasts that will claim they're uncomfortable selling FTF (I've seen them post as much here) so they favor a UBC, one can't generalize about gun owners and the real problem with any RKBA debate is that people want to inject emotion into a discussion that should only be about laws and facts.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The number is nonsense... Anyone remember 2004 when the NRA did a 180 and sunk their signature piece of legislation rather than see a renewal of the AWB attached to it (even though they had been assured it could be stripped out in committee)? If 70-80% of NRA members supported a certain restriction, the NRA would be supporting it as well. The fact that they aren't tells you all you need to know and the fact that 8,000 gun owners a day have been joining since Newtown tells you how many non-NRA gun owners view the proposed legislation as "reasonable."

I think the desire to compromise here comes from a not unrealistic fear that gun control may be passed whether we want it or not and a belief (mistaken in my view) that the consequences can be lessened if we are more cooperative with our rapists. The problem is that the antis are never going to go away. You only get to keep freedom for as long as you are willing to fight for it. It is OK to be an obstructionist when it comes to surrendering your civil rights

 

[mdauben]

The whole 70 or 80 or 90 or whatever number anti-gunners are floating around of 'gun owners' who are in favor of so called universal background checks.

Like most of the "facts" presented by the anti-gun crowd, I consider this at best a manipulation of the figures and at worst an outright lie. I admit I am less worried about UBC than banning of guns or magazines, but I am certainly not in favor of it and I have seen noi reliable figures to indicate that such a high percentage of gun owners are.

 

[GAMALOT]

Honestly speaking JayBird, We don't need any new laws when the ones already on the books are not enforced most of the time.

I think there are very few here that would not agree that "Wing Nuts" should not have access to guns. The problem with that is who gets to determine who is a "Wing Nut"?

Should every soldier diagnosed with PTSD be banned from ever owning a gun?

Should every guy who married a "Wing Nut" and had some sort of domestic dispute be banned from ever owning a gun?

From the very beginning of time men have been killing men and no legislation will stop it.
Governments themselves are far deadlier and this is proven history many times over and I believe the exact reason for the Second and Third Amendments to our Constitution.

 

[22-rimfire]

IF universal background checks is something that is ultimately approved in legislation, I would like to see the check being done for FREE by the state or federal agency AND being available for private citizens versus onl FFL holders. In my state, you usually pay about $10 for the check.

Our President keeps saying... if only one life is saved....

 

[Avenger29]

With those attitudes how many people are going to engage in discussion with you? You invite a discussion then make it clear that anyone not following along your path is going to be skewered. So you get no discussion, and no ability to change someones mind with reasoned discourse.

I'm not interested in discussion.

If you aren't with us, you're against us. And against us includes trying to compromise away our rights. If you are one of those striving "to try to reach common ground" YOU HAVE NO HONOR.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I question the value of universal background checks.

Since 1968 all new gun sales have to go through a FFL (federal lirearms licensed dealer); all FFL transactions have required a background check since Nov 1998 when NICS went on-line.

So what is this 40% they throw about as a talking point?

The government survey that gave 64% gun acquistions through dealers (FFLs) and 36% non-FFL gun acquisitions--NSPOF 1994--broke the non-FFL acquistions down as including 19% gifts, 3% trades and 5% inheritances, and the non-FFL sources being 29% family, friends or acquaintances.

SO when my parents gave me a .22 rifle for Christmas, they should have run a background check on me, hunh. When I inherited a gun from a relative, he should have run a background check on me. When I traded a pump shotgun for a .30-30/12ga over/under, we should have run background checks on each other.

The background check system is limited by DHS to FFLs and LEAs: they would not let Tennessee Department of Safety have access to the background check system. DHS is going to give "family or friends" access to the background check system on private gifts, trades or inheritances? Really? Or will universal background check mean the end of gift, trade or inheritance between family, friends and acquitances?

The facts sure as heck are not the "40% of guns sales are at gunshows without a BG check" talking point either. Congressional [strike]BS[/strike] testimony:

LOBUCHAR: And is it true that about 40 percent of gun sales take place at the gun shows?
J. JOHNSON: Statistics reveal that 40 percent of gun sales take place at gun shows and other non-licensed dealer sales arrangements. Nearly 6.6 million guns through that process a year. . . .

The NSPOF survey gave 4% total of all gun transactions at gun shows. Four percent of all gun acquisitions, about 60% of gunshow sales with FFLs and 40% (of the 4%) being private transactions. In other words, if you accept the NSPOF stats, gun show transactions by private individuals without a BG check would be 1.6% of the total of all gun acquisitions.

NSPOF survey covering 251 people who acquired a gun in 1993-1994 and answered a survey conducted by Chiltons for the Police Foundation under a grant from the US gov't.
(National Instant Check System NICS background check went on-line Nov 1998.)

Exhibit 5. Methods and Sources for Gun Acquisition in 1993 and 1994 
           (NSPOF Estimates)
                            Percentage     Percentage    Percentage 
                            for Long Guns  for Handguns  for All Guns
                               (N=121)        (N=128)       (N=251)
What Best Describes How     
You Obtained Your Gun?      
   Bought it                       69             77            73
   Received it as a gift           22             16            19
   Traded something for it          3              2             3
   Inherited it                     5              4             5
From What Source Did You    
Obtain This Gun?            
   Gun store                       33             55            43
   Pawnshop                         5              8             6
   Other store                     18              3            11
   Gun show or flea market          4              4             4
   Through the mail                 3              3             3
   Member of the family            22             12            17
   Friend or acquaintance          12             13            12
   Other                            5              3             4


NSPOF had a survey sample of 2,568 persons; N positive gun respondents 
totalled 251 persons who reported acquiring guns in 1993 and 1994.

NOTE on 3% mail-order sales from report authors Philip J Cook and Jens Ludwig: "The 3 percent of respondents who indicated that they obtained guns "through the mail" (which is illegal for all but FFLs) may have misremembered or may have referred to a mail-order purchase arranged through an FFL." Muzzleloading guns (antiques and replicas) can be sold, ordered and received by mail-order today; modern cartridge firing guns cannot be sold directly by mail order: they can by ordered by mail or by internet, but must be shipped to a FFL and the transaction completed as a dealer sale.

I feel we should not give in to lying talking points.

 

[Godsgunman]

#1) Who are these "polls" being done by? I personally give no credit to any poll especially any done by our media which will be extremely scewed to fit their agenda. You also need to know where they polled, NY, DC, their own like minded fiends (or "friends") or somewhere like TX or the Midwest.
#2) We have alot more uneducated gun owners now that don't realize what something like registration brings about. On the surface it seems somewhat harmless and maybe even a good idea. They can't see whats underneath. It only takes a quick history lesson to help educate them on this.
#3) Absolutely NO COMPROMISE!! Compromise is kin to a slow, painful defeat. Compromise leads to complete destruction. Its like being in a race and you and your opponent start off with the same lightweight shoes, shorts, and shirts. A little through the race your opponent convinces you to put on some windbreaker pants, you don't see them as a disadvantage at first so you slip them on. Next he convinces you to put on a windbreaker jacket, you figure "its a little chilly, what could this hurt?" so you put it on. Next he offers you some boots. You notice the track is a little rough in spots and you say "what harm can come of this? These boots will protect my feet better". So you put them on while your opponent is still unemcumberd by the things he was able to get you to compromise on. Who then will win the race? You? Or him?

 

[JRWhit]

I wouldn't get to caught up with the polling unless you see the exact questions asked and who was asked. It is way to easy for networks to easily lean polls in a particular direction. Are you in favor of making firearms safer? Well yeah, if there is a way to do that I would support it. O.k., what's safer? cause if you answered yes you just got counted as in favor of gun control.
Besides, in all the hype of Universal background checks, why are we allowing that to be the narrative. Especially when it has nothing to do with the mass shooting events we propose to prevent. When we are talking about someone who has an ending goal of taking his own life after the shooting than all laws and or punishment for said crime is of no relevancy. I know that I am preaching to the choir for the most part here. A man that is hell bent on leaving this world and taking as many others with him will not be confined by any law including Universal background checks. There is but one thing to protect from this event, another armed good guy. It has been portrayed as a back woods idea but no matter how many years you studied at what ever ivy league institute or whatever accolades you have received it is 100% true.
The main reason we cannot budge on universal background checks is because it is so obvious that it has nothing to do with mass shootings. For that reason, if we allow the argument to be over background checks we are already loosing. Consider that if we go along with UBC, then what is next when the next inevitable mass killing occurs? The false narrative will then be," UBC isn't enough.We now need common sense weapon bans." This is a game that antis have been playing for years. Just keep nudging. Take baby steps. I 100% refuse the idea of any proposal that has nothing to do with stopping Mass Shootings. If it does nothing to stop mass shootings then we should not allow it to be the narrative. The proposals seen have been nothing more than an opportunity for politicians to, as dastardly as it is, take full advantage of a horrific tragedy to push a separate agenda.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

I'm sorry but I don't see the 40% in the numbers provided.

 

[JRH6856]

IF (big if) UBCs can be separated from the sale so that the record of a UBC does not become a defacto registration of the firearm purchased;
IF UBCs can be separated from the fact of gun ownership so that the record of the UBC does not become a de facto registration of the person as a gun owner;
Then UBCs would have little impact on the 2A rights of law-abiding citizens and would help to close a route to the acquisition of firearms by criminals.

The IFs can be overcome.

A UBC would not prevent acquisition of firearms by criminals, it would just make it a bit more difficult. The lack of universal registration would make the failure to obtain a UBC harder to enforce and this weakness would almost certainly be used later to demand registration to strengthen the effectiveness of UBCs.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

IF UBCs can be separated from the fact of gun ownership so that the record of the UBC does not become a de facto registration of the person as a gun owner;

Realistically, the government doesn't need UBC to form a registry of gun owners. They can obtain that information (probably without a warrant) by asking your bank or suscribing to a good consumer marketing service who can tell them enough information to identify you as a gun owner with a high probability already. And I am sure the government has already done that.

However, while they may know I bought 4,000 rounds of 5.56 from AIM Surplus, they don't know which or how many rifles it feeds or whether I still have those rifles. This is the critical part of information that the government should not have and that only UBC can tell them.

 

[c.latrans]

You know, my dad was a WW II vet. He was under the firm opinion that 5 rounds was all anyone needed for any purpose, and normally only loaded 3 in his old sporterized Springfield that he used for virtually everything. I grew up with that mentality, but as I got older and watched the world change around me, I outgrew his philosophy. He has been gone for more than a few years now, in part due to injury to his lungs which he sustained in the war that never completely healed. During the last part of his life, though, he had converted at least partially to my way of thinking. I dont see the utility of giving a single inch.

 

[Newcatwalt]

To paraphase an old saying - "in a compromise between good and evil, only evil gains".

 

[SoCalNoMore]

The whole 70 or 80 or 90 or whatever number anti-gunners are floating around of 'gun owners' who are in favor of so called universal background checks.

People. We need to stick together. There is no reason to 'compromise'

Everytime we give in and get nothing in return, we are simply surrendering our rights for nothing in return. That is not 'compromise'. A compromise is getting something in return.

Someone please explain to me what we are getting in return for this? Someone please tell me why you are in favor of 'universal background checks' if you are?

I have a real hard time believing the numbers being thrown around. So I ask it here to find out if I really am in such a minority even among gun owners.

I personally see it as a prelude to a national firearms database and national registration...which I am strongly against. Which is why I am against 'universal background checks' among other reasons as well.

I do believe that number is people that are in favor of what we currently have, not the new proposed.

 

[horsemen61]

You give an inch they take a mile not this time never give up they won't.

 

[xwingband]

I do believe there should be a compromise (getting something in return), but I also support "universal background checks" IF they do not make it a registration/database or require going through an FFL.

WHY? I don't want to sell to a felon and I have no way of checking. I could restrict a private sale to a carry permit holder, but that's no reason to restrict a dealer sale so it shouldn't be for me either. I don't want to go through an FFL because of the issue of cost. It's really not hard to make it not a registration/database, it's simply a call that says "He's not a felon or person otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm". End of call, we make the deal. They're going to fight tooth and nail to get the gun tied to it, but that needs to be stonewalled. Ideally 4473's can all burn in a fire too... the government has no business knowing anything about me other than "Xwingband is a citizen of the United States and due all rights that entails"

It's not my problem to figure out how they're going to work it while maintaining privacy for a private sale. I'm OKAY for the notion of checks to not sell to criminals (we can argue effectiveness, but if they're dumb enough to get caught in a check, let's get them), but I will stonewall on registration/databases. In return I want some NFA junk gone, like SBR and silencers.

 

[phil dirt]

I, earlier in this latest attack on our Second Amendment rights, was willing to consider compromising on a point or two. However, some of you who obviously had given more thoughtful consideration have convinced me that compromise is the worst thing we can do. Accordingly, I have firmly decided that I am not willing to compromise on anything related to the Feinstein Bill, or any other anti-gun proposals that would further limit my gun rights.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Where the 40% private non-FFL comes from

Queen_of_Thunder-- I'm sorry but I don't see the 40% in the numbers provided.

You have to squint.

The 60% from FFLs is extrapolated from the NSPOF survey sources listed as "stores":
43% Gun store
6% Pawnshop
11% Other store
-----------------------------
60% store sources

Stores selling guns in 1994 are presumed to be federal firearms license holders.

The 40% is either 60% store sales subtracted from 100%, or extrapolated from the sum of what are presumed private transactions w/o an FFL:

4% Gun show or flea market
3% Through the mail
17% Member of the family
12% Friend or acquaintance
4% Other
----------------------------
40% "Non-store" sources

HOWEVER, ever gun show I have been to, FFLs out number the private collecters 2 or 3 to 1, and FFLs at gunshows do Form 4473s and NICS background checks.

Also "4% Other" respondents may well be apportioned among the named sources. Or is that head from "Zardoz" still floating about?

And the "3% Through the mail" may be muzzleloaders or transactions arranged by mail, but completed at an FFL gunshop.

 

[22-rimfire]

I am against mandatory universal background checks of the buyer prior to the transfer (private sale or though a FFL dealer). However, many private sellers would like the OPTION available to them handled outside a FFL dealer and make it easy to access and FREE. Afterall, the purpose is to better discern who might be an appropriate buyer.

Any other purpose does not promote a reduction in crime without taking away individual rights. They are just feel good laws that make soccer moms more comfortable and has no significant effect on limiting access to firearms to criminals or mentally disabled.

 

[s10ryan]

I agree op...they can take the guns away all they want, but that still wont change the evil in world

 

[jcwit]

I see no reason for more gun laws. I see lots of reasons to enforce the laws already on the books.

The only problem I see no way to solve does involve both FTF sales and sales involving background checks, and actually more so "I think" FTF sales. This is the sales to folks who are inept to own, mentally incompetent or call it what you will from acquiring firearms. I'm sure we've all seen people such as this, and they do in fact fall thru the perferable cracks.

Heck I know people who have never been able to pass a drivers test so as to get a license to drive. If in fact one is in this bad a shape mentally its my belief they have no business owning firearms. But here is where the problem lies, WHO DOES THE DECIDING? And it is this I have no answer for.

And Yes I know owning a weapon is a right and driving is a privilege, I'm only bringing out the mental aspect of the problem.

Maybe we should say no liberials should own firearms and also have no say in the matter either. Doubt that would work tho.

 

[Old Fuff]

A lot of those who sometimes make private sales or buys continue to think that an arrangement can (or will) be made where individuals themselves can make background checks through NICS - or whoever. This sort of thing appeals to them, and they support Universal Background Checks under such a system.

But this isn't going to happen. It isn't what the anti's want, and it's not under consideration.

The only proposal that's on the table is to require all transfers of a firearm be conducted through an FFL.

For gun control advocates this is a simple and easy solution that only require a few minor changes in the current statute.

For us it could become a nightmare. :banghead:

 

[Bobk538447]

I think that a lot of it is media manipulation. Metrics can be spun to support any argument. It also depends on the wording of the questions and the persons who were polled. You should ask how many people on this board or any other have been polled.

Just because the guy stated it on television doesn't make it true.