Some things to consider concerning so called "universal background checks".

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Here are some of the un-thought of aspects of requiring all private firearms transfers between citizens to go through an FFL holder. If you're at a hunting camp and your buddies gun breaks, you both must fly or drive back to a town with an FFL in order to loan your buddy a rifle. When he wants to give it back to you, you must reverse the process, and you'll be paying the FFL $25 or more for each transfer.

An FFL can not transfer a long gun to someone under 18 or a handgun to someone under 21. This would end children being allowed to hunt with their families and effectively end the tradition of firearms ownership. This is undoubtedly the real purpose of these proposals since no one can name any crime these proposed changes would have prevented. Along with the above, a family's firearms would be much more difficult to pass down to the succeeding generations, and impossible to pass down to those who are under age. Would the government then take possession of an elders firearms if they died unexpectedly? I don't see a way around it.

In addition to the above points there is another even more important point. Our Founders intended the 2nd Amendment as a "reset button" which guarantees citizens will always retain the ability to stop a corrupt government, just as our Founders did. It's not about hunting, it's about guaranteeing our most basic civil rights. If all private transfers only happened with the government's approval in a generation the government would know the name of every gun-owner in America. That would mostly negate the reason we have the guaranteed right to own firearms.

Would it be acceptable if books could only be transferred with permission? Would it be acceptable if you had to get the government's permission to read or post on social media? What about reading newspapers? Would it be OK if you could only go to church or not go to church with the government's knowledge and permission?

Why would it be OK to limit the 2nd Amendment in this way but not the rest of the Bill of Rights?

My opinion is these proposals are not about crime, they are about control. It's all about limousine liberals who fear and mistrust the working class even while claiming to represent them.

[Gavin_Sons]

Great points    if this happens it will be the end of the USA,  we will be owned by this crappy government. You may not see it now or in 5 years but in 25 - 50 years it will be in full swing and everyone will see the reprocussions of this stupid law. Oir kidswill not be able to hunt with us until yhey are 18 and by that age they wont have any interest in it. Hunting will be a dead hobby and car/deer accidents will ne at an all time high and going up every minute. Hope this will be shot down real quick. There is no proff it will stop violence. And the criminals will still have guns.I will vote against anyone trying to put these gun control laws in place andi will never give up my guns unless they come out of my cold dead hands. This government tries to stample on our rights because they want total power.

[Valkorado]

   Can't argue with that, although I'm guessing someone will come along and try!

[Serk]

The only way to implement universal background checks would be to build a master database of all guns and gun owners.

And the only reason to do THAT is for eventual confiscation.

Registration = Confiscation.

[Jess from VA]

All good points Mike.

I have very little close family left (they have the firearms they want).  I would not liquidate firearms for cash if I had the luxury of knowing my death was imminent (or give/will them to anyone who would).  The G will never get them  (unless.... you know).

[Serk]

As far as Obama's (pbuh) latest dictatorial edicts, here's some info on 'em, straight from the... er.... horse's mouth...

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

[Pete]

All the comments are valid and good thought.

Just one additional thought:

There are currently millions of firearms that have changed hands many times and are no longer trackable.
Those firearms will stay off the records as they have been for years because most will not obey another stupid law.

[Robert]

Very well said, but that is what the government does with everything control it and take away individual rights.

  Yes we have to ask the government to do anything. Which means we are not a free people but slaves. WE have effectively at this point little left of our Constitutional rights that were given to us.

That is what government and liberal policy does, take away rights thinking that man rather than God granted rights. That is what is dangerous about the liberal or educated agenda and thinking, man gives rights since there is no God.

So what man gives he can take away same as government. Drivers license is a right not a privilege just like gun ownership.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Very well said, but that is what the government does with everything control it and take away individual rights.

  Yes we have to ask the government to do anything. Which means we are not a free people but slaves. WE have effectively at this point little left of our Constitutional rights that were given to us.

That is what government and liberal policy does, take away rights thinking that man rather than God granted rights. That is what is dangerous about the liberal or educated agenda and thinking, man gives rights since there is no God.

So what man gives he can take away same as government. Drivers license is a right not a privilege just like gun ownership.

Drivers License is a right ?

[Gavin_Sons]

Very well said, but that is what the government does with everything control it and take away individual rights.

  Yes we have to ask the government to do anything. Which means we are not a free people but slaves. WE have effectively at this point little left of our Constitutional rights that were given to us.

That is what government and liberal policy does, take away rights thinking that man rather than God granted rights. That is what is dangerous about the liberal or educated agenda and thinking, man gives rights since there is no God.

So what man gives he can take away same as government. Drivers license is a right not a privilege just like gun ownership.

Drivers License is a right ?

You're right meathead, a drivers license is a privilege not a right. Owning a gun is a right not a privilege.  Sorry Robert, I hate agreeing with meathead but sometimes he is right 

[Robert]

Very well said, but that is what the government does with everything control it and take away individual rights.

  Yes we have to ask the government to do anything. Which means we are not a free people but slaves. WE have effectively at this point little left of our Constitutional rights that were given to us.

That is what government and liberal policy does, take away rights thinking that man rather than God granted rights. That is what is dangerous about the liberal or educated agenda and thinking, man gives rights since there is no God.

So what man gives he can take away same as government. Drivers license is a right not a privilege just like gun ownership.

Drivers License is a right ?

I knew this would get this reaction but rather than argue it here just look it up on google. There are many court cases including the Supreme Court that ruled its a right. The state laws changed probably 20 or 30 years ago and changed the right vs privilege argument. Now do we enforce it or have we lost a right I say yes but that does not mean we still do not have a right rather than privilege. OK so how about fishing? Do we have to have a license to fish?

So I ask you if the government can restrict us in movement around the country and we have to ask to move or fish or drive are we really free? We have become a nation of drones not thinking what God given rights really mean.

Churches technically don't have to register with the government for tax exempt status but most do actually submitting God given rights to government control. Many do essentially making them servants of the government regardless if they pay taxes or not they have to report to the government. Just think what a free man really is and you will see that we are not free men.

Let me ask you all a question where does the authority for the president to write an executive order really come from? Is it really legal in a society that follows the constitution?

[Gavin_Sons]

https://driversed.com/driving-information/the-driving-privilege/driving-is-a-privilege-not-a-right.aspx

[Gavin_Sons]

Yes you must purchase a fishing license to fish public waters. You are not asking to fish. License are to protect the wildlife so you will not over fish and deplete the waters of fish. Thays why they put bag limits and size regulations on each species of fish, mainly native species. Just like a drivers license, a hunting or fishing license can be revoked at anytime if you dont follow the rules and guidelines set by the state, so yes fishing is also a privilege.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Very well said, but that is what the government does with everything control it and take away individual rights.

  Yes we have to ask the government to do anything. Which means we are not a free people but slaves. WE have effectively at this point little left of our Constitutional rights that were given to us.

That is what government and liberal policy does, take away rights thinking that man rather than God granted rights. That is what is dangerous about the liberal or educated agenda and thinking, man gives rights since there is no God.

So what man gives he can take away same as government. Drivers license is a right not a privilege just like gun ownership.

Drivers License is a right ?

I knew this would get this reaction but rather than argue it here just look it up on google. There are many court cases including the Supreme Court that ruled its a right. The state laws changed probably 20 or 30 years ago and changed the right vs privilege argument. Now do we enforce it or have we lost a right I say yes but that does not mean we still do not have a right rather than privilege. OK so how about fishing? Do we have to have a license to fish?

So I ask you if the government can restrict us in movement around the country and we have to ask to move or fish or drive are we really free? We have become a nation of drones not thinking what God given rights really mean.

Churches technically don't have to register with the government for tax exempt status but most do actually submitting God given rights to government control. Many do essentially making them servants of the government regardless if they pay taxes or not they have to report to the government. Just think what a free man really is and you will see that we are not free men.

Let me ask you all a question where does the authority for the president to write an executive order really come from? Is it really legal in a society that follows the constitution?

Well as I remember my U.S. Government class some 42 years ago, our rights were laid out in the Constitution . Our Founding Fathers were way ahead of their time, but even they could not have predicted Motor Vehicles.   I am very glad that this "right" was taken from drunk drivers, blind, infirm, etc.

[Robert]

Yes you must purchase a fishing license to fish public waters. You are not asking to fish. License are to protect the wildlife so you will not over fish and deplete the waters of fish. Thays why they put bag limits and size regulations on each species of fish, mainly native species. Just like a drivers license, a hunting or fishing license can be revoked at anytime if you dont follow the rules and guidelines set by the state, so yes fishing is also a privilege.

So the government did not make the fish, does not own the fish nor does it know really how many or anything really about the fish except what some study or scientist says but it can tell you that you cannot fish across the board not just one or two fish. I can understand commercial fishing license but why is the ordinary citizen have to get a license?

God made the fish, God made you and maybe you need to fish to feed your family. But now you have to get a license or permission to fish. A favorite pastime is subject to the discretion of the government. So essentially they are taxing fishing, something they did not make, work for and make you dependent on the government to feed your family or enjoy your pastime.

Government does not own anything, we the people own it. Government has no money unless its ours. Government is not supposed to be a corporation making a living its supposed to serve the PEOPLE.

[Robert]

Very well said, but that is what the government does with everything control it and take away individual rights.

  Yes we have to ask the government to do anything. Which means we are not a free people but slaves. WE have effectively at this point little left of our Constitutional rights that were given to us.

That is what government and liberal policy does, take away rights thinking that man rather than God granted rights. That is what is dangerous about the liberal or educated agenda and thinking, man gives rights since there is no God.

So what man gives he can take away same as government. Drivers license is a right not a privilege just like gun ownership.

Drivers License is a right ?

I knew this would get this reaction but rather than argue it here just look it up on google. There are many court cases including the Supreme Court that ruled its a right. The state laws changed probably 20 or 30 years ago and changed the right vs privilege argument. Now do we enforce it or have we lost a right I say yes but that does not mean we still do not have a right rather than privilege. OK so how about fishing? Do we have to have a license to fish?

So I ask you if the government can restrict us in movement around the country and we have to ask to move or fish or drive are we really free? We have become a nation of drones not thinking what God given rights really mean.

Churches technically don't have to register with the government for tax exempt status but most do actually submitting God given rights to government control. Many do essentially making them servants of the government regardless if they pay taxes or not they have to report to the government. Just think what a free man really is and you will see that we are not free men.

Let me ask you all a question where does the authority for the president to write an executive order really come from? Is it really legal in a society that follows the constitution?

Well as I remember my U.S. Government class some 42 years ago, our rights were laid out in the Constitution . Our Founding Fathers were way ahead of their time, but even they could not have predicted Motor Vehicles.   I am very glad that this "right" was taken from drunk drivers, blind, infirm, etc.

Yes you are right but subsequent court cases have included cars.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Yes you must purchase a fishing license to fish public waters. You are not asking to fish. License are to protect the wildlife so you will not over fish and deplete the waters of fish. Thays why they put bag limits and size regulations on each species of fish, mainly native species. Just like a drivers license, a hunting or fishing license can be revoked at anytime if you dont follow the rules and guidelines set by the state, so yes fishing is also a privilege.

So the government did not make the fish, does not own the fish nor does it know really how many or anything really about the fish except what some study or scientist says but it can tell you that you cannot fish across the board not just one or two fish. I can understand commercial fishing license but why is the ordinary citizen have to get a license?

God made the fish, God made you and maybe you need to fish to feed your family. But now you have to get a license or permission to fish. A favorite pastime is subject to the discretion of the government. So essentially they are taxing fishing, something they did not make, work for.

With this line of reasoning all the trees, fish, wildlife, natural resources of our country would be long gone. The government is not some evil, inanimate entity. THE GOVERNMENT IS US !!! It is a collective put together by us for the good of us as a whole.

[PAVALKER]

The only way to implement universal background checks would be to build a master database of all guns and gun owners.

And the only reason to do THAT is for eventual confiscation.

Registration = Confiscation.

Huh??   You could implement background checks without a master database of guns and owners. The idea behind background checks is to make sure those that shouldn't be permitted to have em, don't.  If Pro Gunners are blaming mental illness for gun violence, as a defense they should be for getting that info well documented and made readily available to prevent that. I would want it to be verified, very detailed and specific however, not just here say or some half assed claim.


And for the folks that state DLs are a right vice a privledge...... Drivers licenses have always been a privledge, not a right.  Show me in the constitution or other law where it grants that as a right to bear a vehicle???

[Gavin_Sons]

True but when the state or government owns the property or waterways you are fishing they can make whatever rules they want. If you own your propery with a pond or lake you can take whatever you want out of it. Woodland game is a different story. They are not secluded to your property so you must get a hunting license or landowners permit and check in what you take. Mainly it is so the populations stay up and you are not taking more than your fair share. Remember a couple hundred years ago the Buffalo was hunted to almost extinction because there were not any laws to protect them. If there were no rules and regulations on these things people would abuse it and kill off everything usefull.

[Serk]

The only way to implement universal background checks would be to build a master database of all guns and gun owners.

And the only reason to do THAT is for eventual confiscation.

Registration = Confiscation.

Huh??   You could implement background checks without a master database of guns and owners. The idea behind background checks is to make sure those that shouldn't be permitted to have em, don't.  If Pro Gunners are blaming mental illness for gun violence, as a defense they should be for getting that info well documented and made readily available to prevent that. I would want it to be verified, very detailed and specific however, not just here say or some half assed claim.

Bad word choice on my behalf. The only way to ENFORCE universal background checks would be a master database of all firearms and who they belong to.

[Robert]

THE GOVERNMENT IS US !!! It is a collective put together by us for the good of us as a whole.

OH REALLY, I know your smarter than this especially on the topic we are discussing on this post. 

[PAVALKER]

The only way to implement universal background checks would be to build a master database of all guns and gun owners.

And the only reason to do THAT is for eventual confiscation.

Registration = Confiscation.

Huh??   You could implement background checks without a master database of guns and owners. The idea behind background checks is to make sure those that shouldn't be permitted to have em, don't.  If Pro Gunners are blaming mental illness for gun violence, as a defense they should be for getting that info well documented and made readily available to prevent that. I would want it to be verified, very detailed and specific however, not just here say or some half assed claim.

Bad word choice on my behalf. The only way to ENFORCE universal background checks would be a master database of all firearms and who they belong to.

Still a bad choice of words.  Ya don't need a master database of firearms or the people who might own them to enforce background checks.  A law, the law enforcers and the courts would do their part of enforcement.....that list of people or guns is not necessary or desired IMO...and should be kept as far away from background checks as possible.

A background check should happen before any gun ownership.  I'm not sure what your definition of a Universal Background Check is, but I'm sure it's different than mine and, mine is different from others as well.  That term should be clearly and specifically defined before we can even discuss that in detail. 

[Robert]

True but when the state or government owns the property or waterways you are fishing they can make whatever rules they want. If you own your property with a pond or lake you can take whatever you want out of it. Woodland game is a different story. They are not secluded to your property so you must get a hunting license or landowners permit and check in what you take. Mainly it is so the populations stay up and you are not taking more than your fair share. Remember a couple hundred years ago the Buffalo was hunted to almost extinction because there were not any laws to protect them. If there were no rules and regulations on these things people would abuse it and kill off everything usefull.

The buffalo would have been considered a commercial venture since they were hunted for skins. The meat was thrown away and the Indians have lived here for a long time before the white man and had no problem with buffalo.

So do you own the ponds and the water on your property? Do you remember the new laws put into effect about pools and ponds and all the waterways and drainage?

Do you really think that a permit needs to be issued for this? Does a private citizen really need to ask permission to fish?

[baldo]

Very well said, but that is what the government does with everything control it and take away individual rights.

  Yes we have to ask the government to do anything. Which means we are not a free people but slaves. WE have effectively at this point little left of our Constitutional rights that were given to us.

That is what government and liberal policy does, take away rights thinking that man rather than God granted rights. That is what is dangerous about the liberal or educated agenda and thinking, man gives rights since there is no God.

So what man gives he can take away same as government. Drivers license is a right not a privilege just like gun ownership.

Drivers License is a right ?

You're right meathead, a drivers license is a privilege not a right. Owning a gun is a right not a privilege.  Sorry Robert, I hate agreeing with meathead but sometimes he is right 

Boy, that was close....Meathead beat me to it. You almost had to agree with ME.

[Serk]

The only way to implement universal background checks would be to build a master database of all guns and gun owners.

And the only reason to do THAT is for eventual confiscation.

Registration = Confiscation.

Huh??   You could implement background checks without a master database of guns and owners. The idea behind background checks is to make sure those that shouldn't be permitted to have em, don't.  If Pro Gunners are blaming mental illness for gun violence, as a defense they should be for getting that info well documented and made readily available to prevent that. I would want it to be verified, very detailed and specific however, not just here say or some half assed claim.

Bad word choice on my behalf. The only way to ENFORCE universal background checks would be a master database of all firearms and who they belong to.

Still a bad choice of words.  Ya don't need a master database of firearms or the people who might own them to enforce background checks.  A law, the law enforcers and the courts would do their part of enforcement.....that list of people or guns is not necessary or desired IMO...and should be kept as far away from background checks as possible.

How else will they enforce a law requiring all transfers obtain government permission than to have a master database tying each firearm to an individual? Otherwise I could easily sell a firearm to a buddy, or give one to my kids, etc without the government knowing there was a transaction.

Won't be immediate, but long term, that's the goal. If they get a universal background check law, in a few years they'll start calling it the "Bubba Loophole" and demand a database be made and maintained to track all firearms otherwise people can still transfer firearms without government permission.

[Gavin_Sons]

Very well said, but that is what the government does with everything control it and take away individual rights.

  Yes we have to ask the government to do anything. Which means we are not a free people but slaves. WE have effectively at this point little left of our Constitutional rights that were given to us.

That is what government and liberal policy does, take away rights thinking that man rather than God granted rights. That is what is dangerous about the liberal or educated agenda and thinking, man gives rights since there is no God.

So what man gives he can take away same as government. Drivers license is a right not a privilege just like gun ownership.

Drivers License is a right ?

You're right meathead, a drivers license is a privilege not a right. Owning a gun is a right not a privilege.  Sorry Robert, I hate agreeing with meathead but sometimes he is right 

Boy, that was close....Meathead beat me to it. You almost had to agree with ME.

I would have probably kept quiet if it came to that. 

[Gavin_Sons]

True but when the state or government owns the property or waterways you are fishing they can make whatever rules they want. If you own your property with a pond or lake you can take whatever you want out of it. Woodland game is a different story. They are not secluded to your property so you must get a hunting license or landowners permit and check in what you take. Mainly it is so the populations stay up and you are not taking more than your fair share. Remember a couple hundred years ago the Buffalo was hunted to almost extinction because there were not any laws to protect them. If there were no rules and regulations on these things people would abuse it and kill off everything usefull.

The buffalo would have been considered a commercial venture since they were hunted for skins. The meat was thrown away and the Indians have lived here for a long time before the white man and had no problem with buffalo.

So do you own the ponds and the water on your property? Do you remember the new laws put into effect about pools and ponds and all the waterways and drainage?

Do you really think that a permit needs to be issued for this? Does a private citizen really need to ask permission to fish?

I am not aware of these new laws you speak of. I dont know florida laws all I know is indiana and laws for migratory waterfowl which are federal laws. But at this point we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm a hunter and fisherman and understand the laws to conserve our wildlife.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

The only way to implement universal background checks would be to build a master database of all guns and gun owners.

And the only reason to do THAT is for eventual confiscation.

Registration = Confiscation.

Huh??   You could implement background checks without a master database of guns and owners. The idea behind background checks is to make sure those that shouldn't be permitted to have em, don't.  If Pro Gunners are blaming mental illness for gun violence, as a defense they should be for getting that info well documented and made readily available to prevent that. I would want it to be verified, very detailed and specific however, not just here say or some half assed claim.

Bad word choice on my behalf. The only way to ENFORCE universal background checks would be a master database of all firearms and who they belong to.

Still a bad choice of words.  Ya don't need a master database of firearms or the people who might own them to enforce background checks.  A law, the law enforcers and the courts would do their part of enforcement.....that list of people or guns is not necessary or desired IMO...and should be kept as far away from background checks as possible.

How else will they enforce a law requiring all transfers obtain government permission than to have a master database tying each firearm to an individual? Otherwise I could easily sell a firearm to a buddy, or give one to my kids, etc without the government knowing there was a transaction.

Won't be immediate, but long term, that's the goal. If they get a universal background check law, in a few years they'll start calling it the "Bubba Loophole" and demand a database be made and maintained to track all firearms otherwise people can still transfer firearms without government permission.

Exactly.

[Pete]

Still a bad choice of words.  Ya don't need a master database of firearms or the people who might own them to enforce background checks.  A law, the law enforcers and the courts would do their part of enforcement.....that list of people or guns is not necessary or desired IMO...and should be kept as far away from background checks as possible.

A background check should happen before any gun ownership.  I'm not sure what your definition of a Universal Background Check is, but I'm sure it's different than mine and, mine is different from others as well.  That term should be clearly and specifically defined before we can even discuss that in detail.  

It may not be necessary but it is required right now.
A 4473 the ATF info form for the background check contains the firearm info.
And that is reported to the agency doing the check.
There is a current law that requires the firearm info on the check to be destroyed in 24 hours.
Sure hope it is working?

[PAVALKER]

The only way to implement universal background checks would be to build a master database of all guns and gun owners.

And the only reason to do THAT is for eventual confiscation.

Registration = Confiscation.

Huh??   You could implement background checks without a master database of guns and owners. The idea behind background checks is to make sure those that shouldn't be permitted to have em, don't.  If Pro Gunners are blaming mental illness for gun violence, as a defense they should be for getting that info well documented and made readily available to prevent that. I would want it to be verified, very detailed and specific however, not just here say or some half assed claim.

Bad word choice on my behalf. The only way to ENFORCE universal background checks would be a master database of all firearms and who they belong to.

Still a bad choice of words.  Ya don't need a master database of firearms or the people who might own them to enforce background checks.  A law, the law enforcers and the courts would do their part of enforcement.....that list of people or guns is not necessary or desired IMO...and should be kept as far away from background checks as possible.

How else will they enforce a law requiring all transfers obtain government permission than to have a master database tying each firearm to an individual? Otherwise I could easily sell a firearm to a buddy, or give one to my kids, etc without the government knowing there was a transaction.

Won't be immediate, but long term, that's the goal. If they get a universal background check law, in a few years they'll start calling it the "Bubba Loophole" and demand a database be made and maintained to track all firearms otherwise people can still transfer firearms without government permission.

I edited my earlier post to include the last paragraph...as follows.
A background check should happen before any gun ownership.  I'm not sure what your definition of a Universal Background Check is, but I'm sure it's different than mine and, mine is different from others as well.  That term should be clearly and specifically defined before we can even discuss that in detail.

The idea behind a background check is to make sure the individual receiving the background check (regardless if it's for gun purchase, CCL,  security clearance, high level job application etc etc) is not a criminal or felon, someone with a Dishonorable Discharge, a mental illness (if they get the HIPA laws ironed out),  a non citizen or illegal alien, etc etc and a records check to see if the individual is permitted to buy, own, carry a gun or have a concealed carry license, or maybe even eligible to work at the place of business they are applying for a job at, etc.  It should not have any correlation to what firearms a person owns.   Why do you think the last couple "obtained their guns illegally" even tho the owner purchased them legally....he was cleared to purchase, they were not, and why he was arrested for giving them guns to them (or buying for them).  

[Pete]

How many rights have to have government approval before you are allowed to invoke them?
Only 1 that I can think of is a firearms purchase, perhaps it is no longer a right.

Except when it happens without a background check. (ie person to person).

[PAVALKER]

Still a bad choice of words.  Ya don't need a master database of firearms or the people who might own them to enforce background checks.  A law, the law enforcers and the courts would do their part of enforcement.....that list of people or guns is not necessary or desired IMO...and should be kept as far away from background checks as possible.

A background check should happen before any gun ownership.  I'm not sure what your definition of a Universal Background Check is, but I'm sure it's different than mine and, mine is different from others as well.  That term should be clearly and specifically defined before we can even discuss that in detail.  

It may not be necessary but it is required right now.
A 4473 the ATF info form for the background check contains the firearm info.
And that is reported to the agency doing the check.
There is a current law that requires the firearm info on the check to be destroyed in 24 hours.
Sure hope it is working?

Pete, I agree....that info is on the ATF form and allegedly, it should be destroyed.  I think there is also a law saying that no list or data base can be complied with that information, but they still have the paper records at the FFL level, which are required to be turned in to the BATF.  And, although I recall that no list or a data base stipulation, I can't help but wonder how they go thru those papers so damn fast to find out who the guns were "registered to" or owned by.....when these incidents happen.  I can't picture them rifling thru papers or logs scattered on some big desk each and every time they run a gun serial number used in a crime or mass incident.  But hey, if you want your health care provider you can keep them...... Wait wrong topic.

[PAVALKER]

How many rights have to have government approval before you are allowed to invoke them?
Only 1 that I can think of is a firearms purchase, perhaps it is no longer a right.

Except when it happens without a background check. (ie person to person).

You do realize that some of those bad folks I mentioned in the earlier post have had their rights revoked because they did something to have them revoked, or never even earned the rights by becoming a citizen.

[Serk]

PAValker - So you're advocating a sort of national FOID, basically? Something that puts the check on the buyer, not the firearm?

'cause right now every time you execute a 4473 a background check is performed on the buyer.

I still think it's too far, but if we could eliminate 4473's and instead move to a "Prove you're not a criminal get a card, and buy whatever you want with no records attached at all" system, I could sorta be okay with that.

And what "they" are wanting is to make a 4473 be executed for every single transfer of ownership of a firearm. Sell a gun to a buddy? 4473. Give a gun to your kids? 4473. Sell a gun to someone on Facebook? 4473... And the only way to enforce THAT sort of law would be to build a database.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Still a bad choice of words.  Ya don't need a master database of firearms or the people who might own them to enforce background checks.  A law, the law enforcers and the courts would do their part of enforcement.....that list of people or guns is not necessary or desired IMO...and should be kept as far away from background checks as possible.

A background check should happen before any gun ownership.  I'm not sure what your definition of a Universal Background Check is, but I'm sure it's different than mine and, mine is different from others as well.  That term should be clearly and specifically defined before we can even discuss that in detail.  

It may not be necessary but it is required right now.
A 4473 the ATF info form for the background check contains the firearm info.
And that is reported to the agency doing the check.
There is a current law that requires the firearm info on the check to be destroyed in 24 hours.
Sure hope it is working?

Pete, I agree....that info is on the ATF form and allegedly, it should be destroyed.  I think there is also a law saying that no list or data base can be complied with that information, but they still have the paper records at the FFL level, which are required to be turned in to the BATF.  And, although I recall that no list or a data base stipulation, I can't help but wonder how they go thru those papers so damn fast to find out who the guns were "registered to" or owned by.....when these incidents happen.  I can't picture them rifling thru papers or logs scattered on some big desk each and every time they run a gun serial number used in a crime or mass incident.  But hey, if you want your health care provider you can keep them...... Wait wrong topic.

I'm an FFL holder and can possibly explain this better. When you buy a firearm from a dealer you are required to fill out a form 4473. This form contains the the info government needs to do a background check on you and the info on what kind of firearm and the serial number.

After you fill out the form the guy behind the counter calls in to get a nics check ran on you. The seller reads off your personal info to the examiner along with the type of firearm. As in, long gun, handgun or other. Other covers receivers for instance. The make, model and serial number are not asked for or given. At least not in Indiana. The feds are required to destroy all records of the check within I think, 90 days. The dealer is required to keep the 4473 and a log book record of transactions for at least 25 years or until he/she closes at which time it gets sent to the feds.

A gun trace starts with the manufacturer, then to the wholesaler, then to the dealer where the records are examined to see who bought the firearm. There is no federal registration.

[PAVALKER]

PAValker - So you're advocating a sort of national FOID, basically? Something that puts the check on the buyer, not the firearm?

'cause right now every time you execute a 4473 a background check is performed on the buyer.

I still think it's too far, but if we could eliminate 4473's and instead move to a "Prove you're not a criminal get a card, and buy whatever you want with no records attached at all" system, I could sorta be okay with that.

And what "they" are wanting is to make a 4473 be executed for every single transfer of ownership of a firearm. Sell a gun to a buddy? 4473. Give a gun to your kids? 4473. Sell a gun to someone on Facebook? 4473... And the only way to enforce THAT sort of law would be to build a database.

Not advocating anything really.  But yes, a background check should be conducted on the buyer, or the individual applying for a CCl, not the gun itself IMO.  I don't advocate any record retention for a purchase or a data base of who might have what.  But, I know if I sell a gun.....I will get a record of the transfer because someone somewhere has a record of my having it at one time.  There are laws of who can own a gun (http://usgovinfo.about.com/blnoguns.htm) and in order to ensure those that purchaser or the individual applying for a CCL are lawfully eligible to do so, a background check should probably be done on those individuals to ensure they are not prohibited from owning one.  I live in PA and get a background check (PICS/NICS) each and every time I purchase a firearm...yea a PITA at times, but I don't have a waiting period or the like.  It's pretty much an electronic records check like they perform when you get stopped for a traffic offense etc, they do run your background check if you don't know that.  

They run a credit check on folks when they buy on credit, which is a financial background check.....  Don't you think folks buying weapons should be checked to ensure they are eligible to do so?  I'm not in favor of those on the prevented list....having blanket approval to own one.....are you?

[Pete]

Still a bad choice of words.  Ya don't need a master database of firearms or the people who might own them to enforce background checks.  A law, the law enforcers and the courts would do their part of enforcement.....that list of people or guns is not necessary or desired IMO...and should be kept as far away from background checks as possible.

A background check should happen before any gun ownership.  I'm not sure what your definition of a Universal Background Check is, but I'm sure it's different than mine and, mine is different from others as well.  That term should be clearly and specifically defined before we can even discuss that in detail.  

It may not be necessary but it is required right now.
A 4473 the ATF info form for the background check contains the firearm info.
And that is reported to the agency doing the check.
There is a current law that requires the firearm info on the check to be destroyed in 24 hours.
Sure hope it is working?

Pete, I agree....that info is on the ATF form and allegedly, it should be destroyed.  I think there is also a law saying that no list or data base can be complied with that information, but they still have the paper records at the FFL level, which are required to be turned in to the BATF.  And, although I recall that no list or a data base stipulation, I can't help but wonder how they go thru those papers so damn fast to find out who the guns were "registered to" or owned by.....when these incidents happen.  I can't picture them rifling thru papers or logs scattered on some big desk each and every time they run a gun serial number used in a crime or mass incident.  But hey, if you want your health care provider you can keep them...... Wait wrong topic.

I'm an FFL holder and can possibly explain this better. When you buy a firearm from a dealer you are required to fill out a form 4473. This form contains the the info government needs to do a background check on you and the info on what kind of firearm and the serial number.

After you fill out the form the guy behind the counter calls in to get a nics check ran on you. The seller reads off your personal info to the examiner along with the type of firearm. As in, long gun, handgun or other. Other covers receivers for instance. The make, model and serial number are not asked for or given. At least not in Indiana. The feds are required to destroy all records of the check within I think, 90 days. The dealer is required to keep the 4473 and a log book record of transactions for at least 25 years or until he/she closes at which time it gets sent to the feds.

A gun trace starts with the manufacturer, then to the wholesaler, then to the dealer where the records are examined to see who bought the firearm. There is no federal registration.

In many states the actual serial number etc ARE reported for the background check.
EXAMPLE Tennessee, in fact they run the serial number against the stolen gun database and sieize the gun if it is stolen.

Your statement may be different but there are other like Tennessee.

[baldo]

Very well said, but that is what the government does with everything control it and take away individual rights.

  Yes we have to ask the government to do anything. Which means we are not a free people but slaves. WE have effectively at this point little left of our Constitutional rights that were given to us.

That is what government and liberal policy does, take away rights thinking that man rather than God granted rights. That is what is dangerous about the liberal or educated agenda and thinking, man gives rights since there is no God.

So what man gives he can take away same as government. Drivers license is a right not a privilege just like gun ownership.

Drivers License is a right ?

You're right meathead, a drivers license is a privilege not a right. Owning a gun is a right not a privilege.  Sorry Robert, I hate agreeing with meathead but sometimes he is right 

Boy, that was close....Meathead beat me to it. You almost had to agree with ME.

I would have probably kept quiet if it came to that. 

 

[Pete]

Still a bad choice of words.  Ya don't need a master database of firearms or the people who might own them to enforce background checks.  A law, the law enforcers and the courts would do their part of enforcement.....that list of people or guns is not necessary or desired IMO...and should be kept as far away from background checks as possible.

A background check should happen before any gun ownership.  I'm not sure what your definition of a Universal Background Check is, but I'm sure it's different than mine and, mine is different from others as well.  That term should be clearly and specifically defined before we can even discuss that in detail.  

It may not be necessary but it is required right now.
A 4473 the ATF info form for the background check contains the firearm info.
And that is reported to the agency doing the check.
There is a current law that requires the firearm info on the check to be destroyed in 24 hours.
Sure hope it is working?

Pete, I agree....that info is on the ATF form and allegedly, it should be destroyed.  I think there is also a law saying that no list or data base can be complied with that information, but they still have the paper records at the FFL level, which are required to be turned in to the BATF.  And, although I recall that no list or a data base stipulation, I can't help but wonder how they go thru those papers so damn fast to find out who the guns were "registered to" or owned by.....when these incidents happen.  I can't picture them rifling thru papers or logs scattered on some big desk each and every time they run a gun serial number used in a crime or mass incident.  But hey, if you want your health care provider you can keep them...... Wait wrong topic.

I'm an FFL holder and can possibly explain this better. When you buy a firearm from a dealer you are required to fill out a form 4473. This form contains the the info government needs to do a background check on you and the info on what kind of firearm and the serial number.

After you fill out the form the guy behind the counter calls in to get a nics check ran on you. The seller reads off your personal info to the examiner along with the type of firearm. As in, long gun, handgun or other. Other covers receivers for instance. The make, model and serial number are not asked for or given. At least not in Indiana. The feds are required to destroy all records of the check within I think, 90 days. The dealer is required to keep the 4473 and a log book record of transactions for at least 25 years or until he/she closes at which time it gets sent to the feds.

A gun trace starts with the manufacturer, then to the wholesaler, then to the dealer where the records are examined to see who bought the firearm. There is no federal registration.

Do not forget the bound book as it is forever and has your name and firearm info recorded.
As I remember the 4473 hold time is 20 years. The FFL dealers bound book is FOREVER.

[MP]

This is all moot.

Do you really think a criminal, buying a gun "under the counter" from another crook, will do the check?  Absolutely NOT.

NOTHING here will stop the illegal transfer of guns!  It, as always, will ONLY affect legal transfers!

Tell me, what in the law will FORCE the criminal to do the check?  NOTHING.  Just like now.

PAValker, what will MAKE the criminal comply?  Nothing I know of, but maybe you can tell me what will.

It will do NOTHING, except hassle the law abiding, as always.