I think the anti-gun people overestimate our resolve. They still must think that there would be a huge backlash against new gun restrictions. In reality, all they have to do is enact new gun restrictions. There won’t be enough pushback to overturn even nonsensical laws. There’s enough nonsensical laws now that are allowed to stand. Not sure what they are waiting on.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Universal Background Check and Universal Gun Registration-Breitbart
- Thread starter DaleA
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I think Ricky is correct. Most of the argument here are for those already committed to the issue. They will have little opinion changing effect on nongun folks and certainly not on antigun folks.
UBC has much surface validity. One would say, that you folks go through the 4473 process, so what are you complaining about, if there is no keeping of the forms, family transfers are allow and temporary usage is allowed (hunting, classes, competitions)?
That's the way I see it. Given that Donald rolled over on Bump stocks, another massacre and the same might happen for UBCs on state and federal levels.
UBC has much surface validity. One would say, that you folks go through the 4473 process, so what are you complaining about, if there is no keeping of the forms, family transfers are allow and temporary usage is allowed (hunting, classes, competitions)?
That's the way I see it. Given that Donald rolled over on Bump stocks, another massacre and the same might happen for UBCs on state and federal levels.
Us vs them. Zero sum game..What do you call somebody who owns guns, has a CCW, revels in the 'right' to protect himself and family BUT also does this because there are SO many guns out there and many in the hands of people(often legally) who should NOT have them? I have NO answers other than for myself but when it comes to things like a background check or some other 'means to keep a gun out of wackos hand(Cruz, Roof, Holmes, etc)..there has to be something that 'may' prevent the next mass shooting.I think Ricky is correct. Most of the argument here are for those already committed to the issue. They will have little opinion changing effect on nongun folks and certainly not on antigun folks.
UBC has much surface validity. One would say, that you folks go through the 4473 process, so what are you complaining about, if there is no keeping of the forms, family transfers are allow and temporary usage is allowed (hunting, classes, competitions)?
That's the way I see it. Given that Donald rolled over on Bump stocks, another massacre and the same might happen for UBCs on state and federal levels.
I guess some will call me names, 'anti', liberal, whatever but there are lots like me around here and in CO..a 'progressive', unaffiliated voter, who 'leans' left but between me and my sons, own 9 guns..
Guns, as a leisure time activity, are fun, interesting. CCW provides comfort to me and my 2 sons but 2 police officers shot in Denver 3 days ago..5 more in Houston...
I guess this relates to the 'message' I have talked about before..this urgency to make it 'us vs them', 'enemies', etc...YUGE middle ground I think..
Us vs them. Zero sum game..What do you call somebody who owns guns, has a CCW, revels in the 'right' to protect himself and family BUT also does this because there are SO many guns out there and many in the hands of people(often legally) who should NOT have them? I have NO answers other than for myself but when it comes to things like a background check or some other 'means to keep a gun out of wackos hand(Cruz, Roof, Holmes, etc)..there has to be something that 'may' prevent the next mass shooting.
I guess some will call me names, 'anti', liberal, whatever but there are lots like me around here and in CO..a 'progressive', unaffiliated voter, who 'leans' left but between me and my sons, own 9 guns..
Guns, as a leisure time activity, are fun, interesting. CCW provides comfort to me and my 2 sons but 2 police officers shot in Denver 3 days ago..5 more in Houston...
I guess this relates to the 'message' I have talked about before..this urgency to make it 'us vs them', 'enemies', etc...YUGE middle ground I think..
I won't call you names. I understand your sentiment, and even agree with it in a sense. The devil always lays in the details, though (he always does). We can all agree here that there are some sick twisted individuals who definitely do not need access to firearms. What we can't agree on, is when is the threshold crossed between someone just being a little quirky but otherwise fine to someone who is likely at genuine risk of being a mass murderer. And almost everyone here wants to ensure that due process is part of any restriction of constitutional right. It is VERY easy to monday morning quarterback and say that Cruz (and many others) should not have passed a background screening. Same thing with Adam Lanza, it is easy to say that he shouldn't have had access to firearms.
Much of this is a hindsight is 20/20 thing. Adam Lanza stayed locked in his room the overwhelming vast majority of the last 6 months of his life. He only spoke to his mother via email during that period, and barely ate anything. No outside authority was tracking his condition, the same way that no outside authority tracks my children's day to day operations. Nor should they. I am their parent, that is my job. So we only know how bad off he really was AFTER a massive investigation in which all of his electronics were searched and who knows how many people were interviewed. The problem is, no authority figure knew how bad the problem was BEFORE the act was committed. Again, not to speak ill of the dead, but a lot of that responsibility lays with his mother.
As to the other instances, many of them were cases where the background check had passed, when the individual should not have passed. Devin Kelly and Dylan Roof are two well documented examples of a records lapse in the NICS system.
In the case of Cruz, Law Enforcement and Mental Health should have absolutely intervened beforehand. You had citizens in Florida, Massachusetts, and Mississippi all report Cruz to various LEO agencies (including the FBI) before the shooting. Cruz made an Instagram post threatening to shoot up the school (which sending written threats, even electronically, is a felony in Florida).
An argument could be made that Holmes should have been committed, but there were apparently fewer indicators BEFORE his shooting than with Cruz.
USNRet, I understand the genuine desire to want a way to stop mass murder. All of us here would be cold and cruel if we didn't also have a similar desire. The problem is, a UBC law would not have stopped any mass shooting that we have discussed in this thread. Every shooter we discussed went through the background check except Adam Lanza, and he used firearms owned by his mother. In all cases, the NICS check either allowed the transaction to proceed despite the fact that the shooter was a prohibited person already (Dylan Roof, Devin Kelly) or there were opportunities for mental health professionals or law enforcement to intervene well beforehand with enforcement action... which would have made the person a prohibited person and flagged in NICS (Definitely Nikolas Cruz, more arguably maybe Holmes).
The existing law was utilized in all of those cases. They went through a background check. The law failed for various reasons. And the solution is to force more background checks? I don't have a knee-jerk reaction against doing a background check. If I want to buy something on Armslist and the seller demands we go through an FFL for piece of mind, that's not a deal-breaker for me so long as the seller agrees to cover the FFL fee. I have outlined my issues with a law demanding a background check for every transfer (the needing an FFL to gift a gun to my kid, or loan it out to a hunting buddy, and a number of other mundane and safe instances). Mainly it would depend on how the law is written as to exactly how onerous it is to comply with, but laws are written by men and often are imperfect. And the fact remains, there is no statistic on how many people are killed by firearms legally purchased from private parties with no background check. If we want lawmakers to make an informed decision, and not emotional one, then it would be wise to have numbers of how many people have been harmed by said purchases. My unscientific guess is... not very many.
In parting, I personally don't see it as an "Us vs Them." I see it as much more a "reasoned vs emotional" response. Many of the new gun laws floated have exactly zero supporting evidence that they will significantly reduce murder. Show me, as a gun owner, the evidence that any new law will reduce murder along with the steps taken in the law to prevent impeding law-abiding gun ownership. Do that in a reasoned, scientific, though out manner as opposed to an emotional one. Then I may support said law.
Last edited:
UBC has much surface validity.
Which makes it very desirable to a legislator. Looks good on the surface, but deep down it's almost useless.
The prosecution rates for violations of the existing BGC system are extremely low. I can only imagine that it would become even lower if BGCs were expanded to include private sales. And if some individuals ignore the BGC, is an already overworked prosecutor likely to bring charges to those individuals if they are not prohibited persons?
Just another burdensome law that would be nearly worthless. It doesn't seem to matter to the average Joe, the honorable Legislator, or even they typical Jurist whether a law is efficient, useful, or effective. If it has surface validity, and especially if it's popular, it has what it takes.
Last edited:
An observation of superficial validity in itself is a fine left handed compliment.
There really doesn't have to be such a thing, but the damage we can do pursuing imaginary perfection can be considerable. Running all publications through a Ministry of Truth may or may not prevent the next libel, but it will violate peoples' 1st Am. rights. Elimination of 4th Am. rights might or might not stop the next terrorist attack, but it surely would shrink a person's rights.
You've diagnosed a problem, violence free people do to one another in passion or with calculation, for anger or love, for selfish ends or in the service of greater causes. This isn't a new diagnosis, but it is a real problem.
History is littered with offers of terrible cures to the problem of the human condition.
RetN93 said:..there has to be something that 'may' prevent the next mass shooting.
There really doesn't have to be such a thing, but the damage we can do pursuing imaginary perfection can be considerable. Running all publications through a Ministry of Truth may or may not prevent the next libel, but it will violate peoples' 1st Am. rights. Elimination of 4th Am. rights might or might not stop the next terrorist attack, but it surely would shrink a person's rights.
You've diagnosed a problem, violence free people do to one another in passion or with calculation, for anger or love, for selfish ends or in the service of greater causes. This isn't a new diagnosis, but it is a real problem.
History is littered with offers of terrible cures to the problem of the human condition.
Last edited:
The prosecution rates for violations of the existing BGC are extremely low. I can only imagine that it would become even lower if expanded BGCs were expanded to include private sales. And if some individuals ignore the BGC, is an already overworked prosecutor likely to bring charges to those individuals if they are not prohibited persons?
First, there's a tangle of words here, we must untangle.
"violation of existing BGC" is not quite what is sounds like. And, I am in a place where BGC on ALL private transfers is the law. What violation of the BGC law means is not running the check at all. It does not mean "failing" the check. No matter what the check results are, running the check is compliance with the law. Period.
(and, where I am, not getting the check done is a misdemeanor, the first time...)
Now, someone LYING on the 4473 (in hope of passing the check) IS a crime, and it is a separate crime from not having the check run.
How likely are prosecutors to bring charges? VERY likely to add gun control law violations to the list of charges when another crime is the major one. Also very likely to "throw away" those charges as part of a plea bargain deal.
Very rare for prosecutors to do more than just bring the charges to use as a threat. Actual prosecutions as a stand alone crime are very seldom done.
And here's another tidbit to consider, you cannot bring charges against a felon/prohibited person for failing to register a gun. This is established law. I don't think we have a ruling on BGC laws about that, yet, but I expect them to be in line with established law when/if they are made.
Simply put, registering a gun (and perhaps going through the BGC??) violates the prohibited person's civil rights. (5th Amendment). You can charge them with illegal possession of a gun, but you cannot charge them with failure to comply with registration laws.
If I were a an FFL dealer, with a commercial storefront operation, I would be a HUGE supporter of mandatory background checks on all transfers. It's a guaran-fracking-teed income stream, by LAW!!!
Since I'm not an FFL dealer, and BGCs cost me money rather than making me money, I oppose them.
We've established pretty solidly (I think) that a background check cannot stop someone who it not already a prohibited person. And that they do not stop a few people who are prohibited persons but are not in the system as such, due to some reporting failure.
And that the oft repeated mantra of "keeping guns from the hands of people who shouldn't have guns" is entirely a moot point if a person already has a gun (ANY gun).
How's this for a compromise, take the check OR show the seller proof you already own a gun. because if you already have a gun, the check is worthless, and does not, cannot, and will not do anything useful to prevent criminal conduct.
After 7 pages and 170 comments I think we have solidly proven just how difficult this subject is. From what I have gathered background checks accomplish very little and prevent nothing. That is the general consensus.
From the beginning my concern has been for my own protection when it comes to making a private sale and I still have that concern. About the only thing a check can do is assure me that I am not selling a firearm to a convicted felon or someone else that has been restricted. Not going to tell me one thing about whether they are mentally fit to own a firearm. Are they going to hurt themselves or others.
I believe the non-shooting and much of the shooting public all want the same thing. To keep guns out of the hands of violent felons and the mentally unstable. Yet at this point we still do not have a system in place that can do that. And do that w/o violating anyone's civil rights. Our system of laws are designed and set up to be after the fact. They are reactionary. How would you/we write a law that is preemptive and still be constitutional? I believe that is the dilemma.
From the beginning my concern has been for my own protection when it comes to making a private sale and I still have that concern. About the only thing a check can do is assure me that I am not selling a firearm to a convicted felon or someone else that has been restricted. Not going to tell me one thing about whether they are mentally fit to own a firearm. Are they going to hurt themselves or others.
I believe the non-shooting and much of the shooting public all want the same thing. To keep guns out of the hands of violent felons and the mentally unstable. Yet at this point we still do not have a system in place that can do that. And do that w/o violating anyone's civil rights. Our system of laws are designed and set up to be after the fact. They are reactionary. How would you/we write a law that is preemptive and still be constitutional? I believe that is the dilemma.
Yet at this point we still do not have a system in place that can do that.
No, we don't. And we won't have a system that can do that, ever. Until there is some level of psychic the government recognizes as an accurate and infallible authority we won't. And even if that did, someday, come to pass, we still won't have an infallible system. Go watch "Minority Report" if you want some ideas...
The entire idea that a system that can prevent violence is even possible is one of the great lies of our time. And yet, the general public has swallowed it, hook, line, and sinker.
Just because a lot of people think something should be done doesn't mean it ought to be done, or that it actually can be done.
Show me the legions of potential killers who will testify that the reason they didn't become mass murders is because they were stopped by a background check.
Show me even one...
and then show me one who is being truthful...if you can...
TO date, no one has been able to do that little thing...
How would you/we write a law that is preemptive and still be constitutional? I believe that is the dilemma.
The idea that a law can be preemptive seems rather erroneous. Laws simply convey what is required or prohibited. They cannot preempt because preemption requires action or inaction. Crimes are defined by law, but committing or stopping crimes requires action on the part of some entity, typically one or more individuals.
Laws cannot prevent crime and it seems foolish to consider them as a useful tool to preempt crime. The strength of laws really lies in their ability to punish, something that takes place after (many times long after) a crime is committed. Effectiveness of laws rely on apprehension, conviction, and punishment, none of which serve to preempt.
Last edited:
The existing law was utilized in all of those cases. They went through a background check. The law failed for various reasons. And the solution is to force more background checks?
No, not 'more', but perhaps 'better' and I recognize how that restricts law abiding person's 'rights'...yes, hindsight is 20/20. I think a better examination of how the person GOT the gun, any lapses or holes..and try to fix those. As I mentioned before, I've done more than a few accident investigations in the USN(aircraft type) and it always was an examination of the chain of events and where that 'chain' could have been broken to prevent the accident. Our flying 'manual', NATOPS, was often decribed as 'written in blood'.
In parting, I personally don't see it as an "Us vs Them." I see it as much more a "reasoned vs emotional" response. Many of the new gun laws floated have exactly zero supporting evidence that they will significantly reduce murder. Show me, as a gun owner, the evidence that any new law will reduce murder along with the steps taken in the law to prevent impeding law-abiding gun ownership. Do that in a reasoned, scientific, though out manner as opposed to an emotional one. Then I may support said law.
I agree again but here I refer to the 'message' Certainly emotional and often NOT reasoned'..to often ANY idea about guns elicits a LOUD, angry, finger pointing response that emphasizes, 'us vs them',..libotards, Dunce-ocrat, 'gun grabbers', 'antis', 'gun freaks', 'gun weirdos', etc...there is a HUGE middle ground here and until the far right and far left learn how to talk TO each other rather than yell at each other, nothing meaningful and effective will get done.
Yesterday I picked up my new Glock from a friend who has a FFL..we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum but..we really aren't. We agree on far more than we disagree on..not only politics but on guns too. No finger pointing or yelling was to be had.
Here-if you wish to find a target rifle..Andrew is excellent.
https://www.aretearms.com/
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
You can sit and sing kumbaya until the sun sets. At the end of the day, there are people in high political office who don’t think you should have any weapon, let alone a firearm.
They won’t just be the people in charge of implementing these laws - they’ll be the people actually writing them and inserting amendments. They are more than willing to play a long game and they are happy to scream “Why are you being so unreasonable!?” and then take half a loaf over and over again until no loaf is left.
Saying “we need to seek common ground” is a meaningless platitude as well as a poor strategy in today’s political environment. As a canny politician once observed, the only thing you find in the middle of the road is roadkill.
Battles must be won culturally and then politically. In some cases, you can use the court as a lever to move the culture; but the current judges tend to reflect a very narrow and self-selected slice of our culture.
If you write a law and then rely on the goodwill of the other side for that law to be implemented fairly, you are going to be shafted - and frankly, you deserve to be shafted because you have both a naive view of mankind and a poor appreciation of politics.
They won’t just be the people in charge of implementing these laws - they’ll be the people actually writing them and inserting amendments. They are more than willing to play a long game and they are happy to scream “Why are you being so unreasonable!?” and then take half a loaf over and over again until no loaf is left.
Saying “we need to seek common ground” is a meaningless platitude as well as a poor strategy in today’s political environment. As a canny politician once observed, the only thing you find in the middle of the road is roadkill.
Battles must be won culturally and then politically. In some cases, you can use the court as a lever to move the culture; but the current judges tend to reflect a very narrow and self-selected slice of our culture.
If you write a law and then rely on the goodwill of the other side for that law to be implemented fairly, you are going to be shafted - and frankly, you deserve to be shafted because you have both a naive view of mankind and a poor appreciation of politics.
Like I said..You can sit and sing kumbaya until the sun sets.
Some and there are some who think the 2A should mean any gun to anybody at anytime for any reason..no checks needed.there are people in high political office who don’t think you should have any weapon, let alone a firearm.
Yet, here we are and the nongun people continue to win the messaging war and the NRA loses membership.Saying “we need to seek common ground” is a meaningless platitude as well as a poor strategy in today’s political environment
No doubt about it...see 'NRA above.Battles must be won culturally and then politically.
See 'NRA and 'messaging' above.you deserve to be shafted because you have both a naive view of mankind and a poor appreciation of politics.
Exactly the "constitution" is meaningless to these wannabe tyrants.
??
No, not 'more', but perhaps 'better' and I recognize how that restricts law abiding person's 'rights'...yes, hindsight is 20/20. I think a better examination of how the person GOT the gun, any lapses or holes..and try to fix those. As I mentioned before, I've done more than a few accident investigations in the USN(aircraft type) and it always was an examination of the chain of events and where that 'chain' could have been broken to prevent the accident. Our flying 'manual', NATOPS, was often decribed as 'written in blood'.
I don’t disagree with you here. We have had several clear NICS failures where life was lost. And countless thousands more where someone was denied a constitutional right in error. I would absolutely support a “fix NICS” effort, so long as the law focused on both preventing transfers to prohibited persons AND false denials.
Yet, here we are and the nongun people continue to win the messaging war and the NRA loses membership.
NRA has gained membership, a lot of it, in the past few years.
You can sit and sing kumbaya until the sun sets. At the end of the day, there are people in high political office who don’t think you should have any weapon, let alone a firearm.
True story. Which is why most gun laws are automatically opposed by gun owners. The purpose of most gun laws focus’ much more on restricting or creating needless hoops to law abiding ownership, than actually focusing on system failures that could be narrowly tailored to prevent prohibited persons. In almost every mass shooting (excluding Las Vegas) the shooter was either a prohibited person or should have been. A “fix NICS” bill would likely do more to prevent mass shootings than mandating UBCs. BCGs are near universal anyway. There was a thread here a while back indicating that the ATF had attempted undercover operations on gunbroker and armslist, posing as prohibited persons. Almost everyone refused the sale. Gun owners en masse are actually quite good at policing themselves in general. ATF gave up on that campaign btw. It produced almost no prosecutable results and wasn’t worth their time.
Last edited:
USNRet93 said:Yet, here we are and the nongun people continue to win the messaging war and the NRA loses membership.
No doubt about it...see 'NRA above.Battles must be won culturally and then politically.
Do you think NRA membership numbers are more closely tied to the perfection of their messaging or the degree to which people foresee their rights being violated?
Part of the cultural problem is a political credulity amongst voters who fall for a "but we have to do SOMETHING!" line of reasoning for poor public policy that violates peoples' rights.
What is the "common ground" we need to find for rights of free speech or against unwarranted search and seizure?
The necessary condition to prevailing in a messaging war is speaking the message clearly. Finding common ground with people opposed to constitutional protections is not a strong or clear message in support of those rights.
NRA has gained membership, a lot of it, in the past few years.
Where I got the membership numbersThe 22 percent drop in membership revenue — from $163 million in 2016 to $128 million last year — is striking given that the NRA increased its membership dues in March 2016 for the first time in decades (and then raised them a second time last summer).
https://www.thetrace.org/2018/09/nra-membership-dues-decline-2017/
What is the "common ground" we need to find for rights of free speech or against unwarranted search and seizure?
The necessary condition to prevailing in a messaging war is speaking the message clearly. Finding common ground with people opposed to constitutional protections is not a strong or clear message in support of those rights.
I guess I'm in the 'there must be something that can be done, some common ground', camp..maybe(probably) being pollyanna about it considering the political climate of today.
But, let's be clear..the 'pro gun' group is losing the messaging 'war'..like politics in general, the middle, 'un affiliated', gun owners and enthusiasts but who see that 'something's gotta be done', left leaners...is the largest group, by far. Calling them names, like 'tyrants', doesn't help.
USNRet93 said:I guess I'm in the 'there must be something that can be done, some common ground', camp..maybe(probably) being pollyanna about it considering the political climate of today.
But, let's be clear..the 'pro gun' group is losing the messaging 'war'..like politics in general, the middle, 'un affiliated', gun owners and enthusiasts but who see that 'something's gotta be done', left leaners...is the largest group, by far. Calling them names, like 'tyrants', doesn't help.
What's a better description for people who seek to extend federal power over individual rights in a manner contrary to constitutional text? It is likely that you will not find any accurate label complimentary because the position itself is not laudable.
Why are confident that he pro end of the spectrum is losing the messaging war?
In the 1970s, there was a big push to outlaw "Saturday night specials" because only muggers and thieves could want an affordable pistol. Morton Grove prohibited privately held arms shortly thereafter. In the 1990s, Congress saved us from all those bayonet lug murders and the idea of the deadly 11th round in a new magazine. Few states allowed private carry.
Since all that the Sup Ct confirmed an individual right and most states have a reasonably liberal licensing scheme, not for possession, but concealed carry.
What part of the liberalization of the last half century would you bargain away? What would you get in return?
Since all that the Sup Ct confirmed an individual right and most states have a reasonably liberal licensing scheme, not for possession, but concealed carry.
Maybe a skewed vision of what's going on, from gun forums. Lots of the 'sky is falling' type posts. A very cursory trip thru just the titles of this section and it seems like the 'gun grabbers' are on the doorstep. 9 of the first 12 subjects/threads concern the possible losing of gun rights.
What's a better description for people who seek to extend federal power over individual rights in a manner contrary to constitutional text?
Poor choice, I guess..not a fan of being called a 'libetard'. But I wouldn't use 'tyrant' or 'traitor' to describe anybody in Government(but very common descriptor). Too quick to label and pigeon whole..IMHO, which just makes the 'otherside' angry and loud.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.