Changed my mind on universal background checks.

M

mack59

New member
I've changed my mind on universal background checks and now think we should push for them without registration and the requirement that all background check information be destroyed after 24 hours except that a background check was run for the individual selling/gifting/transferring a gun or guns with no information kept on the buyer or recipient or the gun or guns transferred. One background check for any number of guns no requirement to specify gun or guns transferred.

Then a person could legally decide to gift/sell one gun and effectively all their guns would legally be off paper, no way to know if they all were sold or gifted in one transaction or not.

Got any guns? Hmmmm, did I sell or gift them all from that one recorded transfer I made in the government database to that now anonymous person who passed the background check? I hope I remember, let me think. I know we would all answer honestly and support such a system.
 
My problem with universal background checks is that it offers Obama another existing law to act as a springboard to launch Executive Orders based upon enforcing existing law. It is another foothold from which to expand the attack. Never let them take the beach.
 
Im sure this forum will almost unanimously be against it but here is my own problem with it: Who will enforce this requirement that all info. be destroyed/discarded within such time after the sale? the gov. themselves im sure. The ATF perhaps? Who is going to blow the whistle when they do not? not you or I im sure. Not only that but universal background checks can and will lead to registration and we know what that will inevitably lead to. So no.
 
It sounds great. But even the Federalists, the ones who supported a strong central government, didn't trust a central government that much.

Your Social Security number will never be used as a national universal registration number either, until it was.

The problem is that it's the precrime division at work.
 
One, gun control advocates would never accept it as they really want registration and it would put the lie to their meme that they just want universal background checks.

Two, it would be a counter proposal that the media would have to report and would take the wind out of the universal background check meme, see above, and would put the gun controllers on the defensive.

Three, if it did pass, allowing one gun or multiple guns to be transferred with an approved transaction that only notes the seller and the approval of a buyer with no record of the gun or guns involved being transmitted there would be no way to track individual guns or groups of guns. Even if they cheated and kept the information it would only tell them the name of someone who bought/received a gun without telling them what they owned. So theoretically an individual could buy five guns one of which was an old shotgun, turn around and sell the shotgun in an approved transaction and keep the rest and the government would have no way of knowing what if any gun that person had. Basically all the paper trails from FFL's on guns could be wiped out with one transaction, especially if the legislation superseded state laws like CA where now all transactions are required through an FFL or even states like IL where records of individual sales are supposed to be kept.
 
My Social Security card is actually old enough to specifically state that it is NOT to be used for identification ... oh well, the government knows best! :mad:
 
There are two problems with background checks:

(1) We currently value patient privacy more highly than our ability to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill; therefore, mental illness data is frequently not included in the database. The resulting background checks are therefore inherently incomplete and flawed.

(2) Although the form itself states that straw purchases are a felony, government officials as high as the vice president have stated publicly that such violations are not being prosecuted.

Until those problems are solved - in other words, until current laws are adequately enforced - expanding the number of transactions that require background checks is just a way to generate more paper, and should not be considered.
 
Universal background checks ARE NOT UNIVERSAL

Only the law-abiding will abide by the law. Haven't we all seen that gun control laws have no affect on criminals and little effect on crime.

It's not about guns, it's about control.
 
My input...

The very 1st thing the US Govt & the federal level elected officials should do is to clean house & get the ATF/DoJ/DHS system in order.
There is NO formal dir of the ATF(aka BATFE). This is an ongoing issue for nearly 6/six FYs(fiscal years)! :confused:

Add to the "Fast & Furious" scandals and the major problems with ATF, I'd get those problems fixed FIRST, then set up new laws/agencies/SOPs/fees etc.
CNN did a few reports around 3/4 years ago about the ATF & the problems. The non fiction book; Under and Alone explains the major problems too. It was by an ex-ATF special agent who worked undercover in high profile criminal investigations of the Mongols motorcycle gang. The ATF agent was a SE Asia combat veteran & served in SF(special forces/18 series). He dealt with the fraud-waste-abuse.
CNN's report stated that the ATF had more citizen complaints & IG issues than the FBI & DEA together! The ATF by manpower was also a smaller federal agency.

Like how 9/11/2001 changed a lot of federal policy & federal laws, ending the INS(Immigration & Naturalization Service) and starting the US Dept of Homeland Security(DHS), Sandy Hook & the new "gun safety" policy should set up a better system where decent, law abiding citizens can buy-sell-possess firearms w/o conflicts or legal hassles.

As President Ronald W Reagan once stated; "The most dangerous words a US citizen can hear are; I'm from the federal government & I'm here to help." ;)

Clyde
 
Yes, you can really trust the government to tell us the truth about things, too.

The Social Security system was sold as a "Savings Account" except that the administration was in front of the Supreme Court arguing that it was "just a tax" before the ink was even dry on it.

The Affordable Health Care act was billed as insurance to the population, but Justice Stevens finally caved and allowed it to stand as "just a tax" in the final ruling.

Yeah, And George Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac. RRRIIIGHT!!!
 
No more gun laws, we already have enough. The problem is so obvious that the whole thing is about controlling the people and removing their right and ability to defend ourselves against enemies both foreign and domestic. Right now I would worry more about the domestic enemy.
 
There are two problems with background checks:

(1) We currently value patient privacy more highly than our ability to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill; therefore, mental illness data is frequently not included in the database. The resulting background checks are therefore inherently incomplete and flawed.

(2) Although the form itself states that straw purchases are a felony, government officials as high as the vice president have stated publicly that such violations are not being prosecuted.

Until those problems are solved - in other words, until current laws are adequately enforced - expanding the number of transactions that require background checks is just a way to generate more paper, and should not be considered.
Click to expand...

Good points that need to be addressed. I think if something is ever going to be fixed this is a good place to start.
 
California demanded people register guns redfined as "assault" weapons and changed the law a short time later.

More importantly, Congress does not have the power to regulate commerce inside states.
 
I do my own "background check" in that I only sell to other CHL holders locally if not sending through an FFL/gunbroker.

Understand it could tick off people but i feel better knowing I didn't potentially arm a felon. (unless their CHL is fake or they committed a felony real recently, generally, the background checked CHL crowd is real law abiding)

That being said, I don't think there should be a government mandated universal background check.

Why not?


  • It will be unenforceable,
  • will just create bigger and more expensive government
  • and eventually misused by some government.
 
The United States DOJ in a study conducted in 2006 stated that 57% of felons arrested for violent crime had a prior arrest for a felony. 70% of violent felons had a previous arrest record. 67% of murderers had a previous arrest for robbery or assault. The problem we have with violent crime is not one of gun culture, but one of a broken justice system. More background checks won't help keep felons in prison

Source for Stats: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt
 
Woof!

Good post Sheep!
Many people in the US do not understand the current gun laws & ordinances.
They don't get that armed criminals or felons are already breaking the law!
Armed citizens & armed professionals(PIs, security, corrections, LE, etc) are not the same as gang members/terrorists/drug dealers.

ClydeFrog
 
The only check I could even consider getting behind would be along these lines:

1) The check is to obtain a license that is good for both purchase/transfer and for carry;

2) Licensees get the same benefits as retired LEOs do under LEOSA (IE carry in any state, according to each state's laws for its own licensed carriers);

3) Checks at purchase are only to verify validity of the license, and are not allowed to record actual firearms sold to any database.

Take out any one of those three legs, and I won't consider a proposal. Also, should a proposal like this be made, it would be illustrative to watch the votes in Congress, as it would immediately show which gun control proponents really want a registry, as opposed to a means to ensure that guns are only sold to the law-abiding.
 
Want to give a gun to your law abiding wife? You're a felon without a UBC. Want to will your collection your son? You're a felon without a UBC. It would make transferring of a legal piece of property between law abiding citizens into a heavily regulated and potentially criminal act.

Oh, and while you were away on a business trip someone broke into your house and your wife defended herself with your gun... you're both now felons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top