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

[Jess from VA]

Debating whether full G intervention (and paperwork) in all firearms sales for the purposes of a background check requires a national data base is silly.  It is certainly one tremendous step toward doing so, however it is accomplished later.  I'm with Serk here.  

Making what is now completely lawful sales of firearms between fully qualified buyers and sellers (with no prohibitions existing) (family, friends, and due diligence) into an unlawful act without G permission (and paperwork for a database) is unacceptable.

Look, if you as Joe Citizen sell your firearm to a lunatic or anyone prohibited by law, you commit a crime (ignorance is no defense). That's already the law.  

[PAVALKER]

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.
AGREE IT WILL NOT STOP A CRIMINAL.  NEITHER WILL REQUIRING OPERATORS LICENSES FOR VEHICLES OR HEAVY EQUIPMENT KEEP CRIMINALS INTENT ON OPERATING THOSE FROM DOING SO.

NOTHING here will stop the illegal transfer of guns!  It, as always, will ONLY affect legal transfers!
CORRECT, UNFORTUNATELY LAWS WILL ALWAYS BE BROKEN.  DOES IT MEAN WE SHOULD DO WAY WITH ALL LAWS?

Tell me, what in the law will FORCE the criminal to do the check?  NOTHING.  Just like now.
CORRECT.  JUST LIKE LOCKS ON KEEP HONEST PEOPLE HONEST, CRIMINALS WILL GET IN IF THEY REALLY WANT TO.  WOULD YOU REMOVE YOUR LOCKS, LEAVE THE KEYS IN THE VALK IGNITION, ETC.

PAValker, what will MAKE the criminal comply?  Nothing I know of, but maybe you can tell me what will.
THOSE INTENT ON COMMITTING A CRIME WILL FIND A WAY.  SO ARE YOU ADVOCATING DOING AWAY WITH ALL LAWS?

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

For those interested.... Here is the 4473 and what info is on that.    https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

I know for a fact that individuals have lied on those forms, and were caught in the PICS/NICS check.  Even some criminals were caught as a result.  I don't trust the government all that much, believe me, but without laws..... we wouldn't have made it this far.  I think there needs to be specific details addressed, disclosed and discussed when the term Universal Background Checks is tossed around.  I don't think many in government know what that term encompasses, or can define it but they sure toss it around a lot.   But, that being said..... I don't have the resources to do a background check on individuals buys guns, but the government does..... they do it now.
 

 I answered your question in caps above.... not yelling, just making the answers stand out.

Are you advocating doing away with all laws, since criminals won't obey them?  Those pesky speed limits, or drinking while driving laws.... damn them, they are such a hassle aren't they?

[MP]

The deal is, almost all of the transfers are illegal now.  They will still be illegal.

The new laws will stop almost no illegal transfers.

So, why do them?  They will accomplish NOTHING, except hassle lawful owners.

Even you admit the laws will do no good, yet you want them. I do not understand WHY?

[PAVALKER]

The deal is, almost all of the transfers are illegal now.  They will still be illegal.

The new laws will stop almost no illegal transfers.

So, why do them?  They will accomplish NOTHING, except hassle lawful owners.

Even you admit the laws will do no good, yet you want them. I do not understand WHY?

The only thing I am for..... is the background check, so that it "helps" prevent guns from getting into the hands of those not permitted.  Regardless of what you think, it does help.  Neither you nor I have access to the NICS or Medical Records for individuals we might happen to have occasion to sell a gun to.  You said ignorance of the law is no defense, probably like ignorance of the fact that we didn't know the guy was a certified nut job, an illegal alien, a Muslim terrorist on the watch list,  someone prevented by law from owning or buying a firearm.  That system alone I can see helping, provided it is clearly defined and not abused to put individuals in non eligible categories without merit.   Other laws only "help" keep driving at a sensible speed, drinkers from from driving, drugs from being taken etc.  Nothing is fool proof....and I agree, laws will be broken regardless of the law.

Not sure of your state laws, but in PA, we do have to go thru a background check each and every time.... its fill out the 4473 and have it called in and run against the digital record.  I don't agree with having the gun info and ser number on the damn forms or kept in a data base, but personal data to facilitate a record check to make sure the individual is not a felon, a certified legal nut job, or anyone else on the no no list.... I can live with.  And we need to carefully manage that list and not just add categories of folks to that list (unless of course it is all registered democrats..... JOKE).  And that NICS is run each and every time because one week I could be clean and the next.... maybe not, maybe I could have committed a felony or been in a mental institution.  So that is logical.  If I sell a gun, I need to ship to an FFL to complete the transfer if not in local area or state.  They in turn are responsible to conduct the background check, not me.  And I am not accountable if I didn't know the guy had a record, the FFL is, because I shipped to the FFL to complete the transfer, not the individual.

I don't agree with many of the other gun laws in place now, or recommended lately.  But this background check I can support, provided it is not abused, used as a list of registration etc.  That's how we should look at it, and support it in a manner to get the checks done, but the other info and laws eliminated.  Negotiate.....so it is more favorable to gun owners and also supports helping keeping guns out of the hands of those not permitted. but gets rid of some of that other stuff.

[hubcapsc]

So the government did not make the fish

We have great mountain stream fishing around here. The government pretty
much makes all the fish...

http://hatcheries.dnr.sc.gov/walhalla/

http://hatcheries.dnr.sc.gov/

Does a private citizen really need to ask permission to fish?

I think the hunting and fishing wouldn't be nearly as awesome
as it is if it weren't regulated and funded like it is...

-Mike

[MP]

You said  "You said ignorance of the law is no defense".    I sure do NOT remember saying that in my postings.

Filling out the form, and calling it in to the Feds is standard across all the USA.  Federal law and all that.  We do the same.

I do not like the "Universal" part.  ie, EVERY transfer, no exception.

I just gave a rifle I have had for years  to my sons, one each.  Under Universal checks, I would have had to take the two rifles to a FFL dealer, had my sons do a background check, pay the FFL to do it, and then give the rifles to them.

Pray tell, what would that have accomplished?   NOTHING.

If universal check was in effect, and I wanted to give it to them OUTSIDE of the check, I could, and no one would be the wiser.

UNLESS, as Serk suggests, a master gun list is in effect.

Obummer said Monday that his orders are being put into effect and would have helped prevent some of the latest mass murders.

Absolutely wrong!  NOT ONE would have been stopped by his proposals.

If Obama wants to stop transfers of guns between crooks, WHY have prosecutions of straw purchases and sales gone DOWN 40% under him?  They should go up.

[G-Man]

Do we have to have a license to fish?

In New York you need a fishing license, you need to register you vessel no matter how small to fish certain waters, and you need to have new vessels cleaned at certain providers for a fee of course.  Was looking into getting a row boat a couple years ago and found all this out.

[G-Man]

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.

You can own a car and not drive it.

If Dad dies and leaves me a 57 Chevy, the car is mine whether I drive it or not.  If I want to drive it, I need a license.  If I don't drive it, it's still mine and I can use it as a giant paperweight.  Or, I can hire someone else to drive it for me.  But the driver will still need a license to drive it.

[Serk]

You can own a car and not drive it.

If Dad dies and leaves me a 57 Chevy, the car is mine whether I drive it or not.  If I want to drive it, I need a license.  If I don't drive it, it's still mine and I can use it as a giant paperweight.  Or, I can hire someone else to drive it for me.  But the driver will still need a license to drive it.

Small addition of the words "On public roads".

You can own a car and drive it all you want on your own land without a license.

[PAVALKER]

You said  "You said ignorance of the law is no defense".    I sure do NOT remember saying that in my postings.

CORRECT - THAT WAS JESS.  SORRY.  MY POINT STANDS THO.

Filling out the form, and calling it in to the Feds is standard across all the USA.  Federal law and all that.  We do the same.


I do not like the "Universal" part.  ie, EVERY transfer, no exception.
IS THAT WHAT UNIVERSAL STANDS FOR?  WHERE IS THAT DEFINED AS SUCH?  

I just gave a rifle I have had for years  to my sons, one each.  Under Universal checks, I would have had to take the two rifles to a FFL dealer, had my sons do a background check, pay the FFL to do it, and then give the rifles to them.  
NOT SURE OF HE SPECIFICS OF YOUR SONS; AGE, MENTAL ILLNESS STATUS, CRIMINAL BACKGROUND ETC, SO I CAN'T SAY IF THEY WOULD HAVE PASSED A BACKGROUND CHECK.  

Pray tell, what would that have accomplished?   NOTHING.
DEPENDS

If universal check was in effect, and I wanted to give it to them OUTSIDE of the check, I could, and no one would be the wiser.

UNLESS, as Serk suggests, a master gun list is in effect.
THERE VERY WELL MAY BE ONE..... AND WHY I KEEP A PAPER TRAIL OF WHERE MY GUNS GO IF AND WHEN I SELL.

Obummer said Monday that his orders are being put into effect and would have helped prevent some of the latest mass murders.
I THINK HE SAID IT WOULD NOT PREVENT ALL, BUT COULD HELP SOME.

Absolutely wrong!  NOT ONE would have been stopped by his proposals.


If Obama wants to stop transfers of guns between crooks, WHY have prosecutions of straw purchases and sales gone DOWN 40% under him?  They should go up.
AND I AGREE WITH THAT.  THE LAWS IN PLACE NOW SHOULD BE ENFORCED.

As I said, agree that there should be a background check on individuals buying guns to check that they are not on the unauthorized list and should not have them.  A background check can be accomplished without recording the guns numbers and owners names.  I don't agree with anyone maintaining a listing of gun registration.  I do support the checking for a possible stolen gun, and believe an FFL could check a master list for that.  I do not support the maintaining  of a master gun registration list.  Yea, I have mixed emotions on this issue.  I can see where it would help keep guns out of the hands of those not authorized, but most criminals don't obey laws and will work to get a weapon some other way.

However it seems now a days, the FDA  can track bad meat to a specific herd of cattle, their location and identify the actual cow and  if others within the herd had similar contamination.  They can also track car/boat and motorcycle ownership, so it wouldn't surprise me if they already have their master listing on guns anyhow.  

Using your logic, we should forgo all registration of cars, boats, motorcycles, etc.... so there is no proof of ownership for anything??  And the thieves can have it all without proof of ownership..... hmmmm.  

 

[G-Man]

Remember a couple hundred years ago the Buffalo was hunted to almost extinction because there were not any laws to protect them.

Not mention the Buffalo being killed by the Gov't in order to starve the American Indian

[Serk]

And a friendly reminder, yeah they've got some problems, but they're still our first line of defense. Join, renew or upgrade your NRA membership today! (I'm upgrading to Benefactor Life right now.)

https://joinnra.nra.org/join/join.aspx

And once you've done that, if you're able also consider joining the GOA:

https://www.gunowners.org/join.htm

And the NAGR:

https://www.nationalgunrights.org/join

[Psychotic Bovine]

I think, if the GOP wants to really irritate the President, they should say they will pass a firearm universal background check.  However, make passing it contingent on a 50% conviction rate of criminals attempting to buy a firearm and being refused.  The cost alone of trials would make it impossible, but would send a clear message:  Prosecute those who should be prosecuted.

[Jess from VA]

I think, if the GOP wants to really irritate the President, they should say they will pass a firearm universal background check.  However, make passing it contingent on a 50% conviction rate of criminals attempting to buy a firearm and being refused.  The cost alone of trials would make it impossible, but would send a clear message:  Prosecute those who should be prosecuted.

Indeed, while spending time and treasure to restrict principally only law abiding gun owners, the USDOJ has a miserable record of actually using existing Fed laws to prosecute bad actors.  They say it is small potatos and not worth their time.  Actually, they are only interested in pushing forward a liberal agenda, not prosecuting crime.

The framers made a mistake when they made the US attorney general just another cabinet position (nee whore to the king)...... recent history shows it should be a national election position.  And the oath of office should be a special one going beyond ordinary oaths of office, making him swear to no allegiance to the king.... only the constitution.

[Mr Whiskey]

Ya know the old saying " When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".
Mark your calendar...... Tuesday, January 5th, 2016.
History will remember this as a sad, sad day for Americans.

[baldo]

Very dramatic.....

[Bighead]

Very dramatic.....

But true.

[baldo]

Let me ask a simple question. What ideas do you guys have that would work to keep guns away from those that shouldn't have them? We already know about enforcing laws that already exist, agreed.

[Serk]

Let me ask a simple question. What ideas do you guys have that would work to keep guns away from those that shouldn't have them? We already know about enforcing laws that already exist, agreed.

Remove defenseless victim zones.

[baldo]

Let me ask a simple question. What ideas do you guys have that would work to keep guns away from those that shouldn't have them? We already know about enforcing laws that already exist, agreed.

Remove defenseless victim zones.

Do you mean put guns in schools? Please explain.

[Jess from VA]

It has been pointed out to me that I mis-wrote above when I said ignorance was no defense to selling a firearm to a prohibited person.  It is a crime to buy (or posses) a firearm by a prohibited person.  But it is only a crime for a seller to knowingly sell to a prohibited person.  

I try to always give the straight scoop when posting here.  And I have spent my life believing that any private seller was strictly criminally responsible if he sold to a prohibited person, and in the few private sales I have made, I went to pretty great lengths to make sure my buyer was not prohibited.  I'm glad I did so.  

In the last 10-15 years, I have only dealt with fellow CCW holders (except once), who have been certified by the State as lawful purchasers (unless they have done something to lose that right since issuance, and are still in possession of their card).

My apologies for providing incorrect information.  

You could certainly be successfully sued civilly for failing to use reasonable diligence in selling to a private (and prohibited) buyer who later hurt or killed people with that firearm, but that is not the same as a crime.

[Bighead]

Let me ask a simple question. What ideas do you guys have that would work to keep guns away from those that shouldn't have them? We already know about enforcing laws that already exist, agreed.

There is only one thing that will EVER keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them and that would be to destroy EVERY gun on the planet. Period.
Simple fact is that these steps will only make the law abiding gun owners outlaws themselves because they won't give up their guns. Will this make it illegal to own a gun? Not now but this is the first step.

[baldo]

Let me ask a simple question. What ideas do you guys have that would work to keep guns away from those that shouldn't have them? We already know about enforcing laws that already exist, agreed.

There is only one thing that will EVER keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them and that would be to destroy EVERY gun on the planet. Period.
Simple fact is that these steps will only make the law abiding gun owners outlaws themselves because they won't give up their guns. Will this make it illegal to own a gun? Not now but this is the first step.

Came across this a few minutes ago.....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/26/michael-bloomberg/michael-bloomberg-nra-used-support-more-background/

[Mr Whiskey]

Then you're really gonna love this drama.
Yes, I absolutely believe guns should be in schools.
You should be taught gun safety & basic operation in grammar school.
(as soon as you're able to hold a rifle/pistol you should be learning)
In middle school you should be taught proficiency with various types of weapons.
(learn to hit the target downrange)
In high school you should be taught accuracy.
(learn to put ten in the "ten" ring as part of your finals)
Once everyone is armed & capable of defending themselves....

those that shouldn't have them

are gonna think twice about showin' 'em,
I guarantee it.

[MP]

Balso, I have listed my ideas a number of times, and you ignore them.

Instead of reducing prosecutions of gun law violations by 35% over the last 10 years, INCREASE them.  Go after the true straw buyer sellers.  10 years in prison mandatory for knowingly being a straw man.

Increase mandatory sentences for USING a gun in a crime.

Stop gun free zones.  Allow licensed carry permitees to carry essentially everywhere. Stop the patchwork of laws between states and cities, that make it impossible for CCW to know where they are legal, and not legal. 

Make CCW uniform across states and cities.

I do agree with increased funding for mental health, and with the NRA, who has been calling for more complete reporting of adjudicated mental problems to authorities for years, and continue to do so.

Stop the prosecution of inadvertant violations of gun laws by citizens.

We should put gun training back into schools in the US.  Lots used to in the 40's and 50's.  Train the kids to responsibily use guns.  Very few who are trained and schooled in the proper use of guns, go onto commit crimes with them.

We need a national adult training program, that, upon completion, would issue licenses akin to a Natl CCW, allowing carry essentially everywhere. If a criminal KNEW, that no matter where he went, that 20-25% of the people in EACH LOCATION was carrying, and trained in use, crime would dramatically decrease.


When the President comes out, and uses Australia and Great Britian as examples of what to do, he is advocating confiscation of essentially all guns.  Then, when some lesser proposal comes out, no wonder gun rights advocates fight it, as all credibility is lost when the President says he does not want to take your guns.

As a cultural thing, we must increase the number of married couples, rather than single parentship. Most crimes are committed by gangs and members in the "hood".  The vast majority of these come from single parent households. We must reverse this culture of "victimhood".  When we allow anyone to be a "victim", they then feel they are free to do what they want to, as society has "victimized" them.

Personal responsibility MUST return.  Every problem is NOT someone elses fault.

One of the orders going out now, puts Drs. into the loop, asking patients about gun ownership.   WTH?

California now has a law that if a relative or someone just says you are a threat, the cops can come and take your guns!  No due process, NOTHING!

So there, baldo, actions I would like that would reduce gun crime.

I see none of these taking place, as Liberals do not trust citizens with guns.  They are always calling for disarmament and victimhood.  Prove me wrong.

[Gavin_Sons]

There Is absolutely nothing anyone can do to keep guns out of the bad guys hands. As long as there is a human race there will be criminals. Even if all guns were destroyed people would still get murdered. So my solution would be to put a pistol and rifle in every law abiding citizens hands. Arm everyone that has not been convicted of a felony. Crime would drop tremendously because the bad guys wouldn't know who is armed and who's not. If you are caught doing armed robbery you should be sentenced to death by public hanging. Ir you are caught with a weapon you are not eligible to have, you lose a hand. More strict punishment for gun crimes would go a long way of helping also.

[Chrisj CMA]

How about a background check on Obama!

[baldo]

How about a background check on Obama!

What exactly are you looking for?   

[The emperor has no clothes]

There Is absolutely nothing anyone can do to keep guns out of the bad guys hands. As long as there is a human race there will be criminals. Even if all guns were destroyed people would still get murdered. So my solution would be to put a pistol and rifle in every law abiding citizens hands. Arm everyone that has not been convicted of a felony. Crime would drop tremendously because the bad guys wouldn't know who is armed and who's not. If you are caught doing armed robbery you should be sentenced to death by public hanging. Ir you are caught with a weapon you are not eligible to have, you lose a hand. More strict punishment for gun crimes would go a long way of helping also.

That sounds a lot like the way things are done in Saudi Arabia. You aren't a closet Muslim are you ? 

[baldo]

There Is absolutely nothing anyone can do to keep guns out of the bad guys hands. As long as there is a human race there will be criminals. Even if all guns were destroyed people would still get murdered. So my solution would be to put a pistol and rifle in every law abiding citizens hands. Arm everyone that has not been convicted of a felony. Crime would drop tremendously because the bad guys wouldn't know who is armed and who's not. If you are caught doing armed robbery you should be sentenced to death by public hanging. Ir you are caught with a weapon you are not eligible to have, you lose a hand. More strict punishment for gun crimes would go a long way of helping also.

That sounds a lot like the way things are done in Saudi Arabia. You aren't a closet Muslim are you ? 

OH, SNAP!....

And THAT'S when the fight started......

[Gavin_Sons]

Nope, I eat pork

[The emperor has no clothes]

Nope, I eat pork

So does that mean you are a Muslim not in good standing ?

[Gavin_Sons]

Nope, I eat pork

So does that mean you are a Muslim not in good standing ?

I think that would be Obummer

[The emperor has no clothes]

Nope, I eat pork

So does that mean you are a Muslim not in good standing ?

I think that would be Obummer

I don't know. It was you who suggested adopting Saudi Arabia's laws. You might as well just come clean. 

[Gavin_Sons]

Nope, I eat pork

So does that mean you are a Muslim not in good standing ?

I think that would be Obummer

I don't know. It was you who suggested adopting Saudi Arabia's laws. You might as well just come clean. 

Poking the hornets nest with a stick huh?

[baldo]

Nope, I eat pork

So does that mean you are a Muslim not in good standing ?

I think that would be Obummer

I don't know. It was you who suggested adopting Saudi Arabia's laws. You might as well just come clean. 

Poking the hornets nest with a stick huh?

I think that's known as.....callin' it as he sees it.

[Gavin_Sons]

Nope, I eat pork

So does that mean you are a Muslim not in good standing ?

I think that would be Obummer

I don't know. It was you who suggested adopting Saudi Arabia's laws. You might as well just come clean. 

Poking the hornets nest with a stick huh?

I think that's known as.....callin' it as he sees it.

or being blind

[baldo]

Nope, I eat pork

So does that mean you are a Muslim not in good standing ?

I think that would be Obummer

I don't know. It was you who suggested adopting Saudi Arabia's laws. You might as well just come clean. 

Poking the hornets nest with a stick huh?

I think that's known as.....callin' it as he sees it.

or being blind

Alrighty then......NEXT !!!!!!

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Let me ask a simple question. What ideas do you guys have that would work to keep guns away from those that shouldn't have them? We already know about enforcing laws that already exist, agreed.

The laws we already have make a try at it. But, in truth, it can never be done entirely. How could all firearm thefts be prevented? How could anyone predict when seemingly sane people will go insane? (Not Inzane)

And, in particular, how could insanity be predicted without banning people who will never go insane from owning firearms?

How can alcohol be kept away from those who shouldn't drink? How can fast motorcycles be kept away from those who shouldn't ride them?

There are certain dangers, certain problems which are inherent in a free society. I do now, and will always prefer those dangers and problems to the safety presented by the alternative type of society.

[MP]

Let me ask a simple question. What ideas do you guys have that would work to keep guns away from those that shouldn't have them? We already know about enforcing laws that already exist, agreed.

The laws we already have make a try at it. But, in truth, it can never be done entirely. How could all firearm thefts be prevented? How could anyone predict when seemingly sane people will go insane? (Not Inzane)

And, in particular, how could insanity be predicted without banning people who will never go insane from owning firearms?

How can alcohol be kept away from those who shouldn't drink? How can fast motorcycles be kept away from those who shouldn't ride them?

There are certain dangers, certain problems which are inherent in a free society. I do now, and will always prefer those dangers and problems to the safety presented by the alternative type of society.

Well said.