Universal Background Checks... A better way? What do you think?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The system Gary Griffiths mentioned is extremely similar to the alternative universal background check proposed by Sen. Coburn during the 2013 Senate Gun Control bill. Coburn was initially working with Schumer and Manchin on background checks; but bailed when they could not agree on the details.

Pat Toomey then signed on to be Schumer's dupe. Coburn introduced his bill as an alternate amendment to Schumer-Toomey-Manchin; but it never even got a vote due to Reid.

From my perspective, any type of background check has two major hurdles to clear - it has to reduce the administrative/bureaucratic hassle; because one unspoken goal of almost every gun law is to burden legal ownership to such a degree that fewer people choose to be legal gun owners and gun owners have less power as a political bloc.

The second thing it has to do is not be effective as registration. Just yesterday, the NJ Star-Ledger ran an article detailing how wonderful confiscation in Australia was and how it is a shame we couldn't do it here without registration to tell us who owned what.

And of course, the final and largest problem is that any such law will be implemented and interpreted by people who strongly favor gun control and will do everything they can to pervert it. You can't really have a negotiation when there is no good faith.
 
It's nothing too out of the way, nobody really minds it. Just have to go to the Sheriff and ask him for a permit, he does a background check and you're GTG.
Click to expand...

Missouri got rid of the permit to aquire law a few years ago. It was NOT a simple matter, and "nothing too out of the way". Originally a Jim Crow law from the 1800's to allow the sheriff's to keep guns out of the hands of "certain people", it became more, and more a tool to discourage handgun ownership of all citizens. The original law required only information on the person. Make, model, caliber, and serial of the gun was added. Some jurisdictions added a requirement for two letters of character reference, on business letterhead. in addition. You could not get the permit to acquire the same day in many places, but had to go back to pick it up later. Some of those requirements were rolled back, but enough stayed that the legislature found the entire requirement too much of an infringement on RTKBA.
One more note, as I stated it was a permit to aquire. Not just to purchase. So if your father, or uncle, or whoever willed you a handgun you were supposed to go through the process for each one!
Now, to the OP, did you have your permit in hand before you exercised your right to freedom of speech in posting here? Do you have your permit to attend the Church of your choice incase you want to go tomorrow?.
Gun violence is a criminal matter. Offenders need to be treated as such. Mentally disturbed people, and criminals who want a gun will get a gun. Or knife, or club, or a motor vehicle, or a can of gasoline. Whatever they can think of to complete their deed.
 
Ah shoot... TYPO!! No one jumped down my throat!! Sorry, I MEANT "Thanks for NOT!! jumping down my throat...

DAMN IT.

Hope you guys see this and realize I wasn't offended at all...

Man, how a small typo can mess things up! :o
 
Oh, and Aguila Blanca. About making the NICS system better... I can see how that may have looked like it did, but... What I meant was... Improve the actual inner workings of the current system. NOT to alter it!!

Just make what we're already doing... Well, better, like it's supposed to be. But agree 100%, that's a place to look at. Undoubtedly.
 
Boston Marathon was about a pressure cooker.Shall we permit pressure cookers?

We are told,verified by authorities,ISIS is coming through our southern border(at least!)
We are living in interesting times.We may see our society change.
I understand horrific events like Sandy Hook are gut tearing.The shooter could not lawfully posess,and he murdered his own mother to become armed.
What law will stop someone who will murder his own mother? Now,in balance

I get the idea the woman who stood up and stopped the killer in the following story prefers to just be left alone.Out of respect for her,I will be vague.

Several(7) years ago,after killing at another church ,a man with an AR-15,two handguns,and approx. 1000 rounds in magazines in a backpack,entered a mega-church with a congregation of 7000.He shot his way in,killing as he did.

Attending the service was an armed woman.The church was aware she was there..she was a security person.

This woman headed for the sound of shooting and put the guy down with her handgun.

We will never know how many lives she saved.That day certainly could have been the worst bloody massacre the USA has seen.

"When seconds count,and the police are minutes away...."

I am thankful this armed citizen was there to stop evil.

The overwhelming vast majority of us are responsible citizens.In the end,we are responsible for protecting our society.

How horrible it must have been to be a teacher at Sandy Hook...unarmed and helpless.
IMO, we need first to enhance what the DCM and CMP intended to do,a firearms competent society.To be a shooter needs to become politically correct.

Organizations like the NRA need to be celebrated and supported.

I guarantee more folks shoot than play golf.We need to give the same resources to shooting ranges we do golf courses.

We need to vastly increase the number of trained,competent people who are armed in public.More youth programs,more CASS,IPSC,IDPA,bnowling pins,etc.

We need to have a more of the IDF equivalent among us.

And we need no stinking permits!!Trophies...maybe.
 
Last edited:
Ehh...the NRA....I dont know. "Let's give blind people guns!"

There are certainly better organizations out there.

Edit, I know I'm going to catch a lot of flak for that, I can have my opinions too.
 
Mo,I do have my issues with the NRA...

But sit up and take notice

Had they not been there,if they are not there,you would not have a gun.

Its that simple.
 
Ugh... The border, though... Whoever is managing that situation needs to be thrown in jail. Oh, wait...

Was that church shooting publicized? You'd think that it would have gotten more attention. I honestly haven't heard of it. I guess that when a potential massacre is stopped, you don't hear about it because the massacre never happened, really. Which is why it's our job to spread these events around.

And honestly, whether these people want to be considered heroes or not, who cares? So what do I define as a hero? Well, maybe someone who makes a sacrifice, for something greater than themselves. She ran towards the danger to protect those people!

You're right, HiBC. If only this had been the case at Sandy Hook. But I think at the end of the day, it's a person's (or organization's) decision to not arm themselves. Had a single person, or two been armed at sandy hook, they may have had a fighting chance. This may sound weird, but a school is a great place to flank an armed psychopath, IMO... Unfortunately, their only options were to be victims...

Because again, had Sandy Hook not happened, or been prevented with maybe just a few deaths, it'd have been on the news for a day and went away. Or maybe not at all. That'd be bad publicity for the Anti's. A CCW holder prevented a mass shooting? Can't talk about that, I guess...

I'm kind of upset I hadn't heard of the church thing...
 
On your last points... I have to agree with both of you, Mosin-Marauder and HiBC.

They say some questionable things that sometimes hurt us a bit, but the fact is, they (we) are a political faction that has sure as heck helped to preserve our rights. Are they the only reason we can still have guns? I dunno. Our foundation (the Constitution and Bill of Rights) are lot different from that of other countries, so we do have the 2nd Amendment to preserve our rights, even if they would have been severely restricted by this point.

But I do agree that they have certainly helped (A LOT) to preserve our freedoms.
 
I'm not saying they don't help. But what are your dues to be a member really paying? To keep the lights on? To pay the secretary's paycheck? unless you donate directly to the NRA-ILA, it's not going towards any legislative action. None of the NRA's dues are sent towards the ILA.
 
Mosin, there are numerous Congressional reps on record saying the NRA is the only thing keeping them from enacting harsh legislation. It's a fact, don't think otherwise.

Folks are entitled to their opinions of the NRA, but not their own facts.

Without the NRA, there is no NRA-ILA.
 
Mosin, there are numerous Congressional reps on record saying the NRA is the only thing keeping them from enacting harsh legislation. It's a fact, don't think otherwise.
Click to expand...

What's congress also know for? Just because some lying politician says it doesn't make it fact.
 
Yes, a lot of it goes to preserving the organization... Not like it's cheap to keep a... 80+ million member club running!

Although, I'm sort of a low-ranking V.I.P. over there. On a few occasions, I've donated a well above-average amount to the ILA. I literally never hear the end of them, now... :/

I'd almost tell you guys to think twice before donating a significant amount! :P
 
Last edited:
Ah shoot... TYPO!! No one jumped down my throat!! Sorry, I MEANT "Thanks for NOT!! jumping down my throat.
Click to expand...
I hope you all get eaten by wolverines!

Sorry. Typo. The keys are, like, right next to each other. ;)

Glad you didn't feel like we were piling on.

Ehh...the NRA....I dont know. "Let's give blind people guns!"
Click to expand...
That was the headline, but let's consider this further. I have several friends who are legally blind. "Legally blind" covers a wide range of visual impairments. In one case, the person simply needs an aggressive prescription for eyewear. In another case, the person has severe loss of vision in one eye. Both are great shooters, and I trust them with guns.

At what point is somebody too blind, and shouldn't that be their decision to make as long as they're not endangering anyone?

But what are your dues to be a member really paying? To keep the lights on? To pay the secretary's paycheck?
Click to expand...
While membership dues don't go to the ILA, they do support hunting land preservation, industry initiatives, range safety and instructor training, instructor curriculum, and many other aspects of the gun culture.

...but we are drifting here.
 
I reject the basic premise "we are always talking about needing more effective legislation. " Only the antis do so.

No gun law will prevent gun related violence unless it is so draconian it stomps on the right to defend oneself. We have too many useless gun laws already. The way to reduce criminal violence is to allow citizens the maximum means to defend themselves in all locations and situations.
 
GunXpatriot,it was in the news in 2007.New life Church,Colorado Springs.

Although I'd rather you took my word for it.

Mo....When I was your age,between the NRA,the DCM,and the YMCA,In Aurora,Ill I had an indoor range,a free target rifle,free .22 ammo,free targets,and a free NRA range officer who would stay late and coach me.

The high school I graduated from in 1970 in Colorado had an indoor range and rifle team.The NRA was part of that,too.

Without a vigorous effort to provide shooting experience and safe practice to our youth,the shooting future is dismal.I agree more effort could go here.

Proof?Pretty hard to give proof of something that has not happened.

I'm 62.JFK was shot in 63.1968 we got the GCA of 68.In 1967 we still had our 2nd amendment,except for the NFA of 1934 .I was a shooter and a Junior NRA member then.

The 2nd Ammendment has been under relentless attack since.

Many politicians,including our President,would like disarming us as a feather in the cap.

Many politicians hate the NRA because they know the NRA can be the organizing force that gets them fired.They hate it because they fear it,and that is good.

No.I cannot prove it,but I know it.
 
Last edited:
GunXpatriot said:
Just make what we're already doing... Well, better, like it's supposed to be.
Click to expand...
But what if what we're doing is unconstitutional? Why would we want to make something that's contrary to the Constitution more effective?

I know, I know ... "But we've got to DO something!"

To which I respond: "Why?"

The "We've got to DO something! mentality is what has led us into the current nanny state environment in which we all suffer today. An environment in which just recently a school child was punished for the heinous crime of SHARING HIS SCHOOL-PREPARED LUNCH with a classmate. ( http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/2...r-sharing-school-prepared-lunch-with-another/ ) An environment in which nobody questioned the fact that in the wake of the Boston bombings people were forced out of their homes en masse and their homes were searched by the police without warrants. (All to no avail, since the fugitive bomber wasn't in anyone's house, he was hiding in a boat in a back yard.) The police COULD have knocked on each door and asked politely, "Sir/Madam, we're looking for a terrorist. Do you have any terrorists in your home today?") An environment in which the courts approve the use of "no knock" and "knock and announce" (which are effectively the same as no knocks) warrants served by SWAT teams -- for non-violent crimes. An environment in which a school child who has the temerity to defend himself against an assault by a bully receives the exact same punishment as the assailant.

The inmates are runing the asylum.

I've had enough of "We've got to DO something!" thank you. I would much prefer to take responsibility for my own defense and safety, and just be left alone.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top