Who is fighting for these Gun Law Proposals?

Status
Not open for further replies.
To be honest, a LOT of them DO know. They just can't ADMIT the racist history of gun control, and the role that the Democrat Party has played in that.

They'd rather pretend that they've never heard of "literacy" tests used to prevent Blacks from voting.
 
basicblur said:
I hope you're correct, but if Oregon passed some type of "universal" background check, it's hard to believe it didn't use some Bloomberg boilerplate.

I recently was listening to a podcast with one of the folks that's on this stuff full time (Gottlieb? Don't remember the name) was discussing the recently passed laws out west. Couldn't remember if they were talking Washington or Oregon, hence the and/or in my original post.

Anywho...in the examples I gave, you would be breaking the law in at least three of the previous examples, and maybe all four.

I've heard that Schummer's scheme would not make you a criminal if someone checked out your gun at your house, but you would be breaking the law if you let someone check out your gun if you were at their house.

Bottom line is these laws are:
1. Rediculous.
2. Will do nothing to stop crime.
3. Will, in fact, make a lot of previous law abiding citizens criminals.
4. The true BG's in society won't pay a bit of attention to such laws.

After all, they're too busy on other "enterprises" and aren't too concerned about breaking the law (multiple times) by holding their buddy's deer rifle while crossing a fence.
Click to expand...

It isn't if Oregon passed UBCs, they did. I know, I live here, I've read the law. You need to stop listening to podcasts and actually read the law:

SECTION 2. (1) As used in this section:
(a) “Transfer” means the delivery of a firearm from a transferor to a transferee, including, but not limited to, the sale, gift, loan or lease of the firearm. “Transfer” does not include the temporary provision of a firearm to a transferee if the transferor has no reason to believe the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm or intends to use the firearm in the commission of a crime, and the provision occurs:
(A) At a shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed for the purpose of target shooting, for use during target practice, a firearms safety or training course or class or a similar lawful activity;
(B) For the purpose of hunting, trapping or target shooting, during the time in which the transferee is engaged in activities related to hunting, trapping or target shooting;
(C) Under circumstances in which the transferee and the firearm are in the presence of the transferor;
(D) To a transferee who is in the business of repairing firearms, for the time during which the firearm is being repaired;
(E) To a transferee who is in the business of making or repairing custom accessories for firearms, for the time during which the accessories are being made or repaired; or
(F) For the purpose of preventing imminent death or serious physical injury, and the provision lasts only as long as is necessary to prevent the death or serious physical injury.​

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/SB941/Enrolled
 
I had a long talk with a friend about this. He is more middle of the road, and we actually had some (to me) pretty good compromises.

With a UBC and no registration, coupled with mandated training, he was willing to accept universal CCW. Of course, the mandated training was yearly, with ammo, instructors, and other associated training costs paid for by the government. The training would be at a variety of levels, from "this is a revolver" to 1000 yard range rifle shooting, and everything in between. The government must also provide more ranges free of charge, and sponsor pistol, long range rifle, and skeet competitions. I think I could support this.

I believe this would support the militia aspect of the 2nd amendment quite well.
 
The agency doing the check. No different than what happens during a sale at a FFL today.
 
JSH1 said:
The agency doing the check. No different than what happens during a sale at a FFL today.
Click to expand...
Let's try that again:

If I sell you a gun and DON'T do the check, how will anybody know I even SOLD you the gun?

As far as the "system" is concerned, that transaction NEVER HAPPENED.

Without REGISTRATION, it's UTTERLY irrelevant.
 
If you bought a gun at a store like Scheels or Cabelas and filled out a 4473 there is a record of your gun transaction. Whats not registration about that?



I`ll bet that the gun you bought two years ago and sold because you did not
like it can be at least traced to you in a few hours by the ATF if that gun shows up at a crime scene. That is if you bought it at a retail store like
Gander Mountain or Scheels.

I know that is not called registration , but a rose by any other name ???
 
Most of the firearms I own were purchased in face to face transfers.

If I chose to ignore a "universal background check" during such transactions, without REGISTRATION there'd be no record of them ever having taken place AT ALL.
 
Deanimator said:
Most of the firearms I own were purchased in face to face transfers.

If I chose to ignore a "universal background check" during such transactions, without REGISTRATION there'd be no record of them ever having taken place AT ALL.
Click to expand...
True. And then you would be part of the black market on guns. You would be a criminal.

The vast majority of people aren't criminals.
 
So that the good people help the government keep track of their guns, of course!




Stop assuming it has anything to do with criminals, crime, and violence!



(Oh...you DIDN'T assume it really was supposed to stop violence? Ahhh...carry on then... ;))
 
Deanimator said:
In which case, what's the purpose for the law?
Click to expand...
To close the legal private market to prohibited persons just as the legal dealer market is closed
Make it easier to trace straw purchases
Make it easier for law enforcement to trace guns found at crime scenes
Make it easier to return stolen guns to there rightful owners
 
The legal private market is closed to prohibited persons already.

Did you mean the illegal private market?
 
JSH1 said:
To close the legal private market to prohibited persons just as the legal dealer market is closed
Make it easier to trace straw purchases
Make it easier for law enforcement to trace guns found at crime scenes
Make it easier to return stolen guns to there rightful owners
Click to expand...
They do all of those things NOW.

Wouldn't MANDATORY REGISTRATION do all of those things even BETTER?
 
Sam1911 said:
The legal private market is closed to prohibited persons already.

Did you mean the illegal private market?
Click to expand...
No it isn't. You and I have no way of knowing if the person we are sell a gun to is prohibited or not. All we can do is ask and take that person's word that they are legal. All a prohibited person has to do is lie to complete that transaction. Do the commit a crime by doing that? Yes the do. Does it stop the actual sale? No.

On the other hand if a background check is required that prohibited person can compete the sale. To buy a gun he must speak out another criminal willing to break the law to sell him a gun.
 
So as a voluntary thing you could do, that's fine. Hey, you'll make it so I could tap NCIS and run someone's name to ensure I'm not selling to a prohibited person, if that's a concern. Cool, right?

But you're advocating for something that would carry criminal penalties for the citizen if he or she does not do so. That's where you lose half your sympathetic audience.

Then you have to have some record-keeping to prove that you did this. Record keeping by whom? YOU? Well, shucks, I lost it, do I go to jail? Oh, the government will keep it? Oh...so they aren't registering firearms, or firearms owners, just keeping track of who had one and sold it to someone else. That's where you lose the rest of us.

To make this plan work you have to track SOMEONE, and you have to put people in jail for non-compliance. NO GO.
 
TRX said:
There's no way to enforce a "universal background check" without a mandatory, 100% registration scheme running in parallel. Otherwise, "I've always owned this gun, what makes you think I bought it last week?"
Click to expand...

"Well, sir, according to the manufacturer it was manufactured after the universal background check laws became effective"

Make no mistake, even without an official registry, UBC would immediately effectively register every gun that is made after that date as well as every gun that is transferred via FFL after that date. Anything made after UBC or ever transferred by anybody after UBC you would have to have received via a dealer and background check or by default you broke the law.
 
Warp said:
"Well, sir, according to the manufacturer it was manufactured after the universal background check laws became effective"

Make no mistake, even without an official registry, UBC would immediately effectively register every gun that is made after that date as well as every gun that is transferred via FFL after that date. Anything made after UBC or ever transferred by anybody after UBC you would have to have received via a dealer and background check or by default you broke the law.
Click to expand...
Yes it would. Give enough time you would have a registry of all the legally owned guns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Warp
  • Locked
Would proposed legislation ban 18-20 year olds from handguns?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Warp
Warp
SharpDog
  • Locked
Gun control legislation proposed Sunday
Replies
16
Views
1K
GEM
G
MikeInOr
Gun show loophole?
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
214
Views
7K
SunnySlopes
S
A
  • Locked
Proposed compromises on gun laws
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
Robert
Robert
Ryanxia
  • Locked
Why we need to fight any proposed UBC bills
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
4K
Ryanxia
Ryanxia
Back
Top