Universal Background Checks....

win-lose, neither you nor Alabama Shooter are the first to tell me that I'm wrong on the prior restraint notion, and that's fine. It's never been an "exact fit" argument. That's why I use words like "akin to" or related to when I try to articulate it.

I fully agree that we, as gun owners, have a responsibility to do some due diligence in buying and selling. I don't knock anyone for wanting to go to an FFL to have their transfers done. Some folks insist on a bill of sale. As for me, I'd want to see a CCL. That let's me know: (1) that the person is a resident of my state; and (2) has had a background check. I'm pretty unwilling to budge on making NICS checks mandatory for every sale, though.
 
Because you wrote:
Click to expand...

I did not write it first. :rolleyes:

Yes and no. I took a look at housing, and housing is specifically covered under the CRA. I'll give you that one, but it's legally distinct from the private purchase of firearms from an individual. Private purchases of firearms from individuals are not covered by the CRA, as far as I can tell. Public facilities, like restaurants and gun shops are. That does not mean that the CRA extends a right to purchase a privately-offered firearm from an individual. .
Click to expand...

Employment too BTW. If I advertise for a maid to clean up my place and then say I don't hire Muslims that is also covered.

In the example about declining to sell a gun, where was the force involved? For that matter, where is "purchasing a firearm from a private individual" listed as one of the six types of federally protected activities?
Click to expand...

It is not in there. Should it be?

Is it a civil right or not?

Because right now you seem to be arguing against.
 
Alabama Shooter, we didn't go through customs. Perhaps it's because we arrived at and left from an International Terminal, I got no idea. I just know we did not process through customs on this trip.
 
So, all that Alabama Shooter has offered as supporting evidence is a drop in the retail sales numbers since 1994, and he attributes that to NICS?

What about such trivial details as the exponential advance in internet sales? ALL brick and mortar retail sales outlets have lost a significant percentage to online sales.

GunBroker, GunsAmerica, Craigslist (for years, anyway)... and many others.

As a non-prohibited buyer, who has bought virtually all my used guns via online sources, and several of my new ones, I would suggest this had much more impact on how guns are sold than did the NICS system.
 
With regard to customs, different countries have differing rules about what requires a trip through customs or passport control. For instance, in Canada, if you don't leave the terminal and don't stay longer than 90 minutes, you don't have to do customs/passport. At least, that was how it worked a few years back when I would fly passengers to Montreal, Toronto, and Halifax.

Back on topic...

win-lose, you can intellectually agree with incrementalism. New York just gave a clinic on it. Deval Patrick has submitted proposals to follow suit in Massachusetts. This is not empty speculation; one is fait accompli, and the other has been covered by the MSM as having been proposed.

From a side conversation, here is this thought: Since 1994, EBR shooters (including me) have blasted Bill Ruger, S&W, and Fudds for throwing EBR owners under the bus instead of standing firm. We all railed about divide and conquer tactics.

Well, the administration is obviously trying to court hunters again, but the hunters seem wiser.

OTOH, EBR guys seem to be the primary gunners right now who suggest concessions on background checks - in the hopes of protecting their own toys.

Hypocritical? Certainly. Likely to have positive effect? See 1994; check Feinstein's "If I could have had 51 votes in the Senate" comments from 1995; then make up your own mind.
 
Arguing the finer points of whether or not background checks should be required for all firearms sales misses the point.

The background checks our opponents have proposed are not limited to sales; they want to "extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms."

Our opponents are way beyond worrying about which sales warrant background checks (all, in their opinion) and are firmly in the realm of requiring background checks for simply holding a gun, mere possession, or as they express it, "a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title."

If we do not defeat background checks for transfers other than sales, it will not be meaningful to discuss the extent of coverage for sales.
 
Good point; a "transfer" can be as simple as handing your buddy a pistol to shoot in the adjacent lane.

And, of course, why should I need to have my father-in-law undergo a check if I give him a gun? (Same state, no state requirement for such a check.)

Look, yet again, at New York - where a prospective buyer can't handle a gun to see if it might be a good future acquisition unless they have a purchase permit. Never forget the people pushing this agenda gave us the laws in DC, IL, NY, MA... Do not think for one minute their end goal is not for everybody to have to play by the most restrictive rules they can con people into allowing.
 
win-lose, you can intellectually agree with incrementalism. New York just gave a clinic on it. Deval Patrick has submitted proposals to follow suit in Massachusetts. This is not empty speculation; one is fait accompli, and the other has been covered by the MSM as having been proposed.

From a side conversation, here is this thought: Since 1994, EBR shooters (including me) have blasted Bill Ruger, S&W, and Fudds for throwing EBR owners under the bus instead of standing firm. We all railed about divide and conquer tactics.

Well, the administration is obviously trying to court hunters again, but the hunters seem wiser.

OTOH, EBR guys seem to be the primary gunners right now who suggest concessions on background checks - in the hopes of protecting their own toys.

Hypocritical? Certainly. Likely to have positive effect? See 1994; check Feinstein's "If I could have had 51 votes in the Senate" comments from 1995; then make up your own mind.
Click to expand...

In the larger context, I agree incrementalism is clearly at play. It is the progression of incrementalism within the universal back-ground check discussion that is the tougher argument.

For the record, I don't own any ebr's.... closest is my m1a socom 16 and my mini 14 & 30.

I still go back to my previous question.

I believe that a person is responsible to do their "due diligence" when transferring a firearm and have consequences if they don't. How would we accomplish this without yielding too much to the anti's-agenda?
Click to expand...
 
I believe that a person is responsible to do their "due diligence" when transferring a firearm and have consequences if they don't.
Click to expand...

This is a tough one. The caution here is we do not want guns to be classified into any category that will make them onerously more difficult to obtain than they already are for non-prohibited people. Therefore the focus needs to be on the buyer and seller and not the gun itself. This is hard with anti's. They see guns and they want to ban 'em.

I would say there should be no criminal consequences for the seller. Any criminal consequence would have to be upon the buyer, as he is likely the only one with knowledge that he is breaking the law. Since the government faces a difficult battle proving beyond reasonable doubt in regular cases of illegal attempts to obtain it will have the same problem with PPS. In the case of the seller the case would be near impossible to prove unless the seller was actively and knowingly collaborating with the buyer for an illegal purchase.

If the legal standard is made as the background check then once the seller meets that obligation he should be relieved of all responsibility.

Protecting the seller from negligence in a civil case would be more difficult however. This would be a good opportunity to craft that into law as well. I have no idea how that would work.

How would we accomplish this without yielding too much to the anti's-agenda?
Click to expand...

The law would have to be very carefully crafted. The give and take of DC politics is endless gaming.

I would say that yielding on background checks and then demanding National Carry Laws that force other states to accept out of state permits would be a good move. Personally I'd like to see carry restrictions lifted on military bases for military and retired military also.

Exemptions for giving to most family members and certain gifts.

Also write it to prohibit any type of back door registration scheme.

Tell them go pound sand on everything else. They still "win" a little and can claim a big victory. Guys in California can get out of state permits to celebrate and DF can have an aneurism.
 
win-lose, neither you nor Alabama Shooter are the first to tell me that I'm wrong on the prior restraint notion, and that's fine. It's never been an "exact fit" argument. That's why I use words like "akin to" or related to when I try to articulate it.
Click to expand...

I'm not say'n you are wrong... just that I don't agree. For what it is worth, there was an example given in this thread of a poor single mom with no car, no ffl within 2 hours (I may be embellishing here) and who really can't even afford the $200 for the gun (which I'm sure is needed to protect her from her crazy ex... again, embellishing here). That scenario makes a decent case :D
 
win-lose, your embellishments may not be too far off, except for the two hour drive thing.

Check out the Emily Miller series, Emily Gets Her Gun to see the problems posed for a DC resident by the fact there is (or was at the time of publishing) only one licensed FFL in the District. She also provides concrete examples of conflicting legal advice (both wrong) from DC police and bureaucrats.

(Edit: Look, too, at the tactics of Chicago since MacDonald; onerous fees for gun shops; training rewuirements to buy guns, but no permits allowed for training ranges in the city; etc.)

In more rural areas, you might be surprised by distances. The elementary and high schools my son will attend are eight miles away; his high school will be fifteen miles away. Living in Massachusetts can skew concepts of both potential distances, and availability of public transportation. (I have lived in Boston, and my family were from the Lawrence and Worcester areas when I was little, so I am aware of short distances and good public transit infrastructure - but those are not universal throughout the US.)
 
My only arguement against Universal Background checks is:

Why have it, when we all know criminals won't use it and are not deterred by it anyway? (as they can get firearms from other illegal means i.e. theft, straw purchases, etc)
 
I believe that a person is responsible to do their "due diligence" when transferring a firearm and have consequences if they don't. How would we accomplish this without yielding too much to the anti's-agenda?
Click to expand...
What about due diligence selling a car to make sure they aren't drunk drivers or speeders?
What about the old set of kitchen knives sold at a garage sale? Or a bat, or club, or anything else?

Who made YOU the arbiter to decide who is proper and who isn't, and who should receive some punishment? Are you applying for Bloomberg's job?

What two folks do in the privacy of their respective homes is only their business, not some nanny state
 
I still stand by my convictions that;



One, this is beyond the Federal Government's business.

Two, that this is an issue for our states to handle individually.

Three, that all this will do is boost the crime rate for gun theft. Now if I want to sell a gun I'll have to make the smuck go through a BG check which he will in turn avoid and simply pay my home a visit maybe when my wife and I are gone, maybe when we are not.

And Four, how in the heck can you pull this off without it becoming in all effect gun registration? Dealers must keep very strict records of every gun that they recieve and transfer, I fear the same for the individual owner will be implied in these new laws.

And in the end, where ANY of these latest shooters prohibited possessors before they decided to go super-psycho-mass murderer?

These background checks will do nothing to prevent anything and will only burden lawful citizens with needless buracracy, and strengthen the anti-gun position.
 
lcpiper, once again, why would you invite strangers to your home to conduct business? (At least, business of a type that lets them know you have goods they may value.)

If you don't want to use an FFL, and want a face-to-face, there are other places you can go that don't reveal your address to a buyer you don't know.

Other than that, I agree with you.
 
Who made YOU the arbiter to decide who is proper and who isn't, and who should receive some punishment? Are you applying for Bloomberg's job?

What two folks do in the privacy of their respective homes is only their business, not some nanny state
Click to expand...

BigDinFL, basically you are saying that it is perfectly within your rights to:

A) Sell a gun to an 11 year old, from across town who answered your add because he was being bullied at school and wanted "protection"

b) Sell a gun to ex-con who is loaded with prison tattoos, sporting his gang colors and bragging about the crap he has done and hopes to do.

c) Sell a gun to your neighbor who you KNOW beats his wife and has threatened to kill her.

d) Sell a gun to the neighborhood nut who walks around town having intense arguments with himself and threatens anybody who approaches.

etc....

If a person does any of the above, to my mind there should be consequences. I don't have a good balanced solution to this problem but am participating in this discussion with the hopes of finding such a solution. So for myself, I will continue to transfer through an FFL.

To say I'm in favor of a nanny state is ridiculous. To say that you have the right to do whatever you please is disconcerting, to say the least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top