mrbatchelor
New member
Like someone who is willing to face a capital murder charge is going to worry about a secondary illegal gun charge.
Universal Background Checks....
- Thread starter Skans
- Start date
Like someone who is willing to face a capital murder charge is going to worry about a secondary illegal gun charge.
2ndsojourn
New member
*shakes head*
Spats McGee
Administrator
Looking at this again, I think we're back to the mix-up between ownership and possession. Possession of firearms by convicted felons is already illegal. See 18 USC 922. Instituting universal background checks won't make it any more illegal, and convicted felons are unlikely to be prosecuted for failing to go through the background check.manta49 said:
Well, if they're not murderers, or some other dangerous felon, and they're not contemplating carrying out some sort of crime, why are we concerned about whether they have firearms (not to mention other dangerous objects) in the first place?
Damn it, if they're dangerous, put them in prison. It's harder to get weapons in there. Quit treating the rest of us like prisoners. We shouldn't be assumed guilty, then have to prove ourselves innocent to exercise a right.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Aw, it's not hard at all.Hal said:
They just make the preamble to every law they pass, "Because this affects interstate commerce," and away ... we ... go.
mrbatchelor
New member
Ok. Touché. I concede that was for hyperbole in what i perceived was not an oppositional group. But generally the gun crime isn't high on their list of desired offenses.
mrbatchelor
New member
Ok, so now the "ordinary citizens" are encouraged to go around the "filters" of the NRA.
http://youtu.be/IzuHp2G_E_s
Basically the lie is that "the people" want this, but the NRA is keeping that message away from Congress.
So he wants "all the little people" to call the Capitol switchboard and beg government to protect them from evil guns, because the NRA is keeping the will of the people hidden.
We, the people, not filtered through the NRA, need to light up the switch board.
Does anyone remember the number?
http://youtu.be/IzuHp2G_E_s
Basically the lie is that "the people" want this, but the NRA is keeping that message away from Congress.
So he wants "all the little people" to call the Capitol switchboard and beg government to protect them from evil guns, because the NRA is keeping the will of the people hidden.
We, the people, not filtered through the NRA, need to light up the switch board.
Does anyone remember the number?
Exactly! The real question is: Who exactly is passionate for gun control in the general population. No One! It us only activist politicians and paid organizations driving for gun control. The majority of voters are lukewarm either way, with a significant minority passionately against it.
Most guns that are possessed are possessed by their owners. Unless you want the govt auditing your possessions, the transaction where ownership occurs and possession is taken is the audit-able point. By definition, if you don't want the mentally ill possessing guns you sure don't want them owning them. Glad to have you aboard!
Yes. Often additional law is required to enable enforcement of existing law. As a very simple example, speeding is illegal in my state. There is an additional statute that permits the police to use devices to monitor the speed of cars, so the speeding law can be enforced.
My analogy is correct. Would you do ID checks for alcohol sales? I agree with you that felons and mentally ill will get away with what they can. I will add most people to that list. People speed where the law isn't enforced. Background checks add a point where the law can be enforced. Don't kid yourself.
And there is no spoon. Right Neo?
I would love to. However, those stats aren't available because of the Tiahrt amendment. Strange that a law would be passed to keep us all ignorant, but it's true.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20..._tiahrt-amendment-gun-trace-data-gun-research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Tiahrt#Tiahrt_Amendment
I'm a fan of data, and this is one law I'd like to see done away with. Maybe this is something we could all agree on as a minimum?
Spats McGee
Administrator
It doesn't work that way. While most guns are possessed by their owners, the terms "ownership" and "possession" are not synonymous, your claim of "by definition" notwithstanding. Ownership deals with who holds title to the gun. Possession deals with who physically holds the gun. It is entirely possible to own something without possessing it, and to possess something without owning it. UBCs create a hurdle to ownership, not possession.j3ffr0 said:
As far as the "govt auditing your possessions," that's exactly what I expect to happen, once the govt figures out that a UBC law is unenforceable without registration.
Well, if continuing to add more laws in the face of all that is your answer, let's just cut to the chase. Are you in favor of full registration of all firearms?j3ffr0 said:
No, it's not, and I'm not. I'm not claiming that there shouldn't be any background checks at all. What I'm telling you is that UBCs on private sales will not be enforceable, particularly in the absence of full firearms registration. Have you even bothered to read Haynes v. U.S.?j3ffr0 said:
Why should we enact laws that, almost by definition, will only provide more hurdles to lawful gun ownership, while having no impact on possession by felons and the mentally ill?
The "gun show loophole" is a term created by the antis, and it's a myth. There are FFL sales and private party sales. If you can find me a provision of law that exempts gun shows from those rules, I'll be glad to take a look.j3ffr0 said:
All FFLs at a gun show have to follow the rules on FFL sales. Those are the "vendors." If someone is engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms and selling from their stock without going through the FFL rules, they're in violation of the law, whether they are selling at a gun show, at home, or out on the Back 40.j3ffr0 said:
You still wouldn't know how many guns are being sold at gun shows without a background check. Even the ATF says trace data shouldn't be studied. Why? Right off the top of my head, 1. Not all guns traced are actually used in crimes. 2. Not all guns investigated are traced. 3. Not all guns traced are traceable.
"My analogy is correct. Would you do ID checks for alcohol sales? I agree with you that felons and mentally ill will get away with what they can. I will add most people to that list. People speed where the law isn't enforced. Background checks add a point where the law can be enforced. Don't kid yourself. "
I agree that the background check law will slightly inconvenience a felon who wants to get a gun- he will have to get a girlfriend or family member to buy it for him.
The problem with your analogy- these alcohol laws have reduced the amount of underage drinking, but they haven't significantly reduced the number of kids who have had alcohol at least once. Kids aren't getting drunk every weekend, but I don't think I've met anyone who hasn't had a sip of alcohol before he was 21. Everybody has done it once. The felon only has to buy the gun once. A firearm lasts longer than a six pack of beer. So UBC is not going to reduce the number of felons with guns.
So the felons will still have guns. It might take a guy a few weeks to do it, but if he wants one, he's going to get one. In the process, you've put an undue burden on the rest of us. No more driving 20 or 30 miles and meeting someone halfway for a trade. no more handing down grandpa's shotgun to your son, without dropping money at your local dealer. No more $50 22 rifles for a kid to start out on. No more loaning a shotgun to your uncle to go hunting when he comes to visit. It's going to do nothing but trip up the otherwise law-abiding people.
An incident over at calguns got me thinking. There's a guy over there who paid for a pistol from his friend. His friend died, and now he's in limbo while the family gets everything settled, because there's no one to transfer the gun to him. Imagine if I died today, just keeled over and had a heart attack- happens all the time. If we had this UBC law- even if they forced dealers to do it at $10 per transfer, I'm looking at $2000 to pass my collection down to my kids. And they can't take it until they're 18, because it all has to go through a dealer. What do we do to keep the guns? Does my wife pay $2000, wait for the kids to turn 18, and pay $2000 again? Put it in a trust? How do my kids go shooting or hunting- they don't own the guns, and the adults they go with won't be allowed to bring mine.
Useless law that's going to screw over a lot of people.
If you really want to be safe from dangerous felons, keep them in prison longer. And make it easier for us to carry.
The alcohol analogy is far from correct.
And the first reason is that one can visually tell a child from an adult. Ok, it may be tough to tell a 17 year old from a 22 year old at times, but there is no difficulty telling a 12 year old from a 50 year old.
There is no visual way to tell a prohibited person from a non prohibited person. Are you going to propose that a convicted felon, or someone adjucated incompetent be marked indelibly, so that mark can be shown as "proof"?
Another thing to consider, the real reason background checks will not stop bad people from getting guns is that background checks only turn up info about people who are already in the system. No matter what the bad guy has done (or plans to do) the ONLY thing a background check can show is if that person has been in trouble with the law, before the attempted gun purchase.
Background checks are completely usless against the spree killer who has not broken the law before going on a rampage.
And what good does a background check to when the prospective buyer already owns a gun, or several? NOTHING! All it does then is add some complexity to the sale, waste some time, and waste govt resources.
Universal background checks is an unworkable feel good solution to an incorrectly percieved problem. And, even if adopted, what good do you think it would do when our govt "doesn't have the time" to prosecute those who break the law when trying to buy a gun? If our own govt doesn't enforce existing law, why do you think they will do any more with another layer of law added on top of what is already being ignored?
Another point, the system is flawed. Take a look, a real look, not just what some agenda driven politician spouts off, and you will find that the overwhelming majority of delays/denials by the system are false positives. Now, you think it's a good idea to increase the workload of the system by a huge amount (double? triple?)? What do you think that will cause? Most likely excessive delays, maybe even crash the system.
And here's yet another point, those people who would willingly sell to someone of "questionable status" today, will simply ignore the law. THe only real effect of a requirement for universal background checks will be to hugely increase the blackmarket, along with creating a new class of criminal, those who "transfer" a firearm without a check.
Look at the wording of the proposed laws..you won't be able to transfer (and that includes lend) a gun to anyone you know is not a prohibited person, until after the govt tells you that you can. TO me, that is total BS!
If my son comes home on leave, from defending our nation in some third world pesthole, with a machine gun that the govt gives him to use for that purpose, I can't take him shooting at the range, or hunting without first having him pass a background check before I can loan him a gun to do it with? Otherwise I am breaking the law? ITs BULL! and worse.
Why is it that these supposedly educated people in politics will not write laws that do not insult the innocent, and maybe, just maybe stand a chance of punishing the guilty? They ought to be able to do it, but I haven't seen any evidence of it, lately.
And the first reason is that one can visually tell a child from an adult. Ok, it may be tough to tell a 17 year old from a 22 year old at times, but there is no difficulty telling a 12 year old from a 50 year old.
There is no visual way to tell a prohibited person from a non prohibited person. Are you going to propose that a convicted felon, or someone adjucated incompetent be marked indelibly, so that mark can be shown as "proof"?
Another thing to consider, the real reason background checks will not stop bad people from getting guns is that background checks only turn up info about people who are already in the system. No matter what the bad guy has done (or plans to do) the ONLY thing a background check can show is if that person has been in trouble with the law, before the attempted gun purchase.
Background checks are completely usless against the spree killer who has not broken the law before going on a rampage.
And what good does a background check to when the prospective buyer already owns a gun, or several? NOTHING! All it does then is add some complexity to the sale, waste some time, and waste govt resources.
Universal background checks is an unworkable feel good solution to an incorrectly percieved problem. And, even if adopted, what good do you think it would do when our govt "doesn't have the time" to prosecute those who break the law when trying to buy a gun? If our own govt doesn't enforce existing law, why do you think they will do any more with another layer of law added on top of what is already being ignored?
Another point, the system is flawed. Take a look, a real look, not just what some agenda driven politician spouts off, and you will find that the overwhelming majority of delays/denials by the system are false positives. Now, you think it's a good idea to increase the workload of the system by a huge amount (double? triple?)? What do you think that will cause? Most likely excessive delays, maybe even crash the system.
And here's yet another point, those people who would willingly sell to someone of "questionable status" today, will simply ignore the law. THe only real effect of a requirement for universal background checks will be to hugely increase the blackmarket, along with creating a new class of criminal, those who "transfer" a firearm without a check.
Look at the wording of the proposed laws..you won't be able to transfer (and that includes lend) a gun to anyone you know is not a prohibited person, until after the govt tells you that you can. TO me, that is total BS!
If my son comes home on leave, from defending our nation in some third world pesthole, with a machine gun that the govt gives him to use for that purpose, I can't take him shooting at the range, or hunting without first having him pass a background check before I can loan him a gun to do it with? Otherwise I am breaking the law? ITs BULL! and worse.
Why is it that these supposedly educated people in politics will not write laws that do not insult the innocent, and maybe, just maybe stand a chance of punishing the guilty? They ought to be able to do it, but I haven't seen any evidence of it, lately.
Don't know if anyone's posted it here or not. Sums up my view on the issue.
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/01/universal-background-checks-absolutely-not/
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/01/universal-background-checks-absolutely-not/
Last edited by a moderator:
They have more laws than they care to enforce, so they need more laws? If law enforcement does not have the resources to enforce this, how are they going to enforce universal background checks?
The answer is they are not. The only reason they want it is to misuse the law to prosecute people selectively, and to enact backdoor registration.
2ndsojourn
New member
"They could be made to enforce the laws. "
That's fine. But until they start doing that, it's useless to pile on more laws that are impossible to enforce.
That's fine. But until they start doing that, it's useless to pile on more laws that are impossible to enforce.