Universal Background Checks....

Alabama Shooter said:
Spats McGee said:
Where we disagree is whether such a check should be mandatory for private citizens to use a background check for private transfers. I am of the opinion that it is the government's job to prove.....
Click to expand...
There is some merit to the "no background check at all" argument. However that would presuppose that there were no prohibited people. If there are prohibited people there must be a way to distinguish them.
Click to expand...
I disagree that "no background checks at all" presupposes anything of the sort, but that's a little beside the point, because that wasn't the argument that I raised. Let's look at my original post again, and I'll add some emphasis:
Spats McGee said:
Where we disagree is whether such a check should be mandatory for private citizens to use a background check for private transfers. I am of the opinion that it is the government's job to prove something (such as proving beyond a reasonable doubt that I have committed a felony crime) before I am prohibited from exercising fundamental individual rights, not that it is MY job to demonstrate to the government that I am not prohibited. I have likened such a restriction (mandatory background check on all transfers) to the prior restraint doctrine under the First Amendment. Once exercising a right becomes available only to those who get the governmental stamp of approval, it's not really a right any more.
Click to expand...
To be clear, by "private citizens," I meant non-FFLs, and by "private transfers," I meant transfers between two "private citizens." My first problem with universal background checks is that it puts every citizen in the position of demonstrating eligibility to exercise the 2A right before the right can actually be had. That's a privilege, not a right. I'm not eager to convert the RKBA into a privilege which is much more easily restricted.

One of my other problems (among several that I have) is that such a system presumes that the government knows better than I about the people to whom I might transfer a firearm. We often speak of these private transfers, we discuss them as though they always occur between total strangers. I will grant you that many private transfers do occur between strangers, to be fair. However, under a universal background check system, I would be unable to give my child a rifle for Christmas without heading down somewhere and having it transferred, for a fee. I'm well aware that the Little McGee has no felony record, has never been adjudicated as a mentally defective, nor convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Why should I have to get a background check done before I can give Little McGee a rifle?

What about my bestest buddy? I've known him for 30+ years, and I know that he's been in LE for ~20. If I hit the lottery and choose to buy him a gun out of the goodness of my heart, why should I have to go and pay someone to have a background check performed on him? Because some third party somewhere else did something bad? The folks who really, really shouldn't have firearms (violent felons and violent, mentally ill), won't get background checks, anyway.

If you don't think universal background checks are a restriction, you're sadly mistaken. It will add extra cost, which is a restriction, and it will increase delay times, which is a restriction. It'll be a stroke of the pen to change the rules on who gets a firearm and how long the NICS check can delay someone. If the government wants to impose further restrictions on my rights, I, for one, insist that they come up with some reason better than "because some unknown third party might do bad things."
 
+1 Spats, plus mandatory universal checks set the foundation for national registration and, potentially, attempts at confiscation.

Just ask New Yorkers...
 
To be clear, by "private citizens," I meant non-FFLs, and by "private transfers," I meant transfers between two "private citizens." My first problem with universal background checks is that it puts every citizen in the position of demonstrating eligibility to exercise the 2A right before the right can actually be had. That's a privilege, not a right. I'm not eager to convert the RKBA into a privilege which is much more easily restricted.
Click to expand...

Rights can be restricted. Most felons are not allowed to vote either. Just because something is a right does not mean that it can not be restricted. Since we have chosen to restrict that right then there must be a way to make it practically happen.

One of my other problems (among several that I have) is that such a system presumes that the government knows better than I about the people to whom I might transfer a firearm. We often speak of these private transfers, we discuss them as though they always occur between total strangers. I will grant you that many private transfers do occur between strangers, to be fair. However, under a universal background check system, I would be unable to give my child a rifle for Christmas without heading down somewhere and having it transferred, for a fee. I'm well aware that the Little McGee has no felony record, has never been adjudicated as a mentally defective, nor convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Why should I have to get a background check done before I can give Little McGee a rifle?
Click to expand...

I believe that there should be exceptions made for immediate family members. You might not know if your fishing buddy got popped for felony DUI in college but with a family member there should be a presumption that you would know.

What about my bestest buddy? I've known him for 30+ years, and I know that he's been in LE for ~20. If I hit the lottery and choose to buy him a gun out of the goodness of my heart, why should I have to go and pay someone to have a background check performed on him? Because some third party somewhere else did something bad? The folks who really, really shouldn't have firearms (violent felons and violent, mentally ill), won't get background checks, anyway.
Click to expand...

When your LEO buddy goes to the gun shop and buys a gun guess what he does? I bet everyone in town knows he is a cop too. I don't see why police should have a special privilege.

If you don't think universal background checks are a restriction, you're sadly mistaken. It will add extra cost, which is a restriction, and it will increase delay times, which is a restriction. It'll be a stroke of the pen to change the rules on who gets a firearm and how long the NICS check can delay someone. If the government wants to impose further restrictions on my rights, I, for one, insist that they come up with some reason better than "because some unknown third party might do bad things."
Click to expand...

The cost at my LGS for a transfer is $0.00. Even internet transfers. I have lived all over the country. Everywhere I have ever lived someone around is willing to do it for free. There is no reason why it can not be mandated that all LGS do it for free or cheap enough to be almost free say $5. I know the cost of a happy meal is a terrible burden to bear when plopping down $1500 on your new AR but there it is.

Changing the rules with the stroke of a pen? If it were that easy we would not even be having this discussion.
 
Rights can be restricted. Most felons are not allowed to vote either. Just because something is a right does not mean that it can not be restricted. Since we have chosen to restrict that right then there must be a way to make it practically happen.
Click to expand...
There is. It's called due process.

Felons have undergone judicial proceedings that declare them as such. Background checks imho constitute unreasonable searches, investigations without probable cause that can potentially deny a citizen the ability to exercise a right without due process. See the discussion above on the difference between rights and privileges.

Closer to my heart is the reluctance I have to give the ever-expanding army of Federal bureaucrats even more power than they already have.
 
What serfdom would that be. ?
Click to expand...

You're not serious, are you?

The direction of events towards the formation of serfdom is already clearly noticeable in Celtic communities. In Wales and Ireland the greater part of the rural working classes was reduced not to a state of slavery, but to serfdom. The male slave (W. cceth) does not play an important part in Celtic economic arrangements: there is not much room for his activity as a completely dependent tool of the master. The female slave (cumal) was evidently much more prominent in the household. Prices are reckoned out in numbers of such slaves and there must have been a constant call for them both as concubines and as household servants. As for male workmen they are chiefly tceogs in Wales, that is half-free bondmen with a certain though base standing in law. Even these, however, could not be said to form the social basis for the existence of an upper free class. The latter was numerous, not wealthy as a rule, and had to undertake directly a great part of the common work; as may be seen from the extent of the free and servile tenures on the estates carved out for English conquerors in Wales and Ireland.
Click to expand...

Source: 1911 Classic Encyclopedia, based on the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Serfdom
 
Last edited:
There is no reason why it can not be mandated that all LGS do it for free or cheap enough to be almost free say $5. I know the cost of a happy meal is a terrible burden to bear when plopping down $1500 on your new AR but there it is.
Click to expand...

So let's modify the 2nd Amendment to read, "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed to the extent that it costs them more than a happy meal."

Until that little change is made, I'm not going to be supporting any kind of universal background check.
 
My comment was directed to your question about a history of serfdom, not about what personal freedoms you have or don't have. I have little knowledge of the theory and practice of individual rights under UK law, so I cannot comment on that.
 
Alabama Shooter said:
Spats McGee said:
To be clear, by "private citizens," I meant non-FFLs, and by "private transfers," I meant transfers between two "private citizens." My first problem with universal background checks is that it puts every citizen in the position of demonstrating eligibility to exercise the 2A right before the right can actually be had. That's a privilege, not a right. I'm not eager to convert the RKBA into a privilege which is much more easily restricted.
Click to expand...
Rights can be restricted. Most felons are not allowed to vote either. Just because something is a right does not mean that it can not be restricted. Since we have chosen to restrict that right then there must be a way to make it practically happen.
Click to expand...
So, because rights can be restricted, gun owners should go looking for more ways to restrict our rights even further? No, thank you. Just because rights can be restricted does not make it a good idea.

And what, exactly, are you trying to make "practically happen?" Further restriction of my rights? That doesn't seem practical to me.

Alabama Shooter said:
Spats McGee said:
One of my other problems (among several that I have) is that such a system presumes that the government knows better than I about the people to whom I might transfer a firearm. We often speak of these private transfers, we discuss them as though they always occur between total strangers. I will grant you that many private transfers do occur between strangers, to be fair. However, under a universal background check system, I would be unable to give my child a rifle for Christmas without heading down somewhere and having it transferred, for a fee. I'm well aware that the Little McGee has no felony record, has never been adjudicated as a mentally defective, nor convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Why should I have to get a background check done before I can give Little McGee a rifle?
Click to expand...
I believe that there should be exceptions made for immediate family members. You might not know if your fishing buddy got popped for felony DUI in college but with a family member there should be a presumption that you would know.
Click to expand...
Granted, I might not know if a fishing buddy got popped for a felony DUI. The point that you have largely ignored is that universal background checks shift the burden to the citizen to demonstrate that he or she is eligible to have a 2A right.

Alabama Shooter said:
Spats McGee said:
What about my bestest buddy? I've known him for 30+ years, and I know that he's been in LE for ~20. If I hit the lottery and choose to buy him a gun out of the goodness of my heart, why should I have to go and pay someone to have a background check performed on him? Because some third party somewhere else did something bad? The folks who really, really shouldn't have firearms (violent felons and violent, mentally ill), won't get background checks, anyway.
Click to expand...
When your LEO buddy goes to the gun shop and buys a gun guess what he does? I bet everyone in town knows he is a cop too. I don't see why police should have a special privilege.
Click to expand...
It's not about special privilege for the cop. I'm not arguing that there should be. It's about the fact that I know he's not a prohibited person. It's about the fact that there's no reason for the federal government to meddle in my disposal of my private property any more than it already does. The argument that "the government already meddles in it, so it doesn't matter" is hogwash. Just because it already meddles does not mean that I should invite more meddling.

Alabama Shooter said:
Spats McGee said:
If you don't think universal background checks are a restriction, you're sadly mistaken. It will add extra cost, which is a restriction, and it will increase delay times, which is a restriction. It'll be a stroke of the pen to change the rules on who gets a firearm and how long the NICS check can delay someone. If the government wants to impose further restrictions on my rights, I, for one, insist that they come up with some reason better than "because some unknown third party might do bad things."
Click to expand...
The cost at my LGS for a transfer is $0.00. Even internet transfers. I have lived all over the country. Everywhere I have ever lived someone around is willing to do it for free. There is no reason why it can not be mandated that all LGS do it for free or cheap enough to be almost free say $5. I know the cost of a happy meal is a terrible burden to bear when plopping down $1500 on your new AR but there it is.
Click to expand...
It may be $0 for you, or for many others. If you think it's free, though, I've got some bad news for you. The NICS system is a federal system, paid for by tax dollars. If you increase the number of NICS checks that have to be made, you'll have to increase employees, and that increases expense. There's no such thing as a free lunch. If the gov't mandates that it be free, it'll just reallocate the costs to taxes.

I feel fairly certain that transfers are not free everywhere, and some states even charge taxes on the transfer. Even if it is only $5, feel free to give away your own money to useless causes. Don't give away mine.

I also question whether your "not a restriction limit" is at $5, or some percentage of that new AR that you seem to think I can afford.

On top of all that, I have serious doubts as to whether universal checks will have any effect on crime in the absence of full firearm registration. If universal checks go through, I give it 3-5 years before more calls for full registration are heard.
 
In theory, since our country was founded we could openly criticize our government. This was not the case in your country, manta49.

My country has no House of Lords, nor Royal Family, even though those have become symbols, they had actual power no more than 100 years ago.

We have no tradition of doffing caps for our betters, here, so we did not need to overcome that.

Some people come from a lineage that is so accustomed to being told what to do and how to act that they think that is how things should be.
 
The direction of events towards the formation of serfdom is already clearly noticeable in Celtic communities. In Wales and Ireland the greater part of the rural working classes was reduced not to a state of slavery, but to serfdom. The male slave (W. cceth) does not play an important part in Celtic economic arrangements: there is not much room for his activity as a completely dependent tool of the master. The female slave (cumal) was evidently much more prominent in the household. Prices are reckoned out in numbers of such slaves and there must have been a constant call for them both as concubines and as household servants. As for male workmen they are chiefly tceogs in Wales, that is half-free bondmen with a certain though base standing in law. Even these, however, could not be said to form the social basis for the existence of an upper free class. The latter was numerous, not wealthy as a rule, and had to undertake directly a great part of the common work; as may be seen from the extent of the free and servile tenures on the estates carved out for English conquerors in Wales and Ireland.
Click to expand...

What that has to do with the freedoms and rights i have compared with the USA in 2013 i don't know. :rolleyes:
 
manta49, it impacts your entire mental process. Some things that you consider gains would be a step backward for us, with regard to individual liberties.
 
What that has to do with the freedoms and rights i have compared with the USA in 2013 i don't know.
Click to expand...

Quite a bit, but heck, Manta, you're the one who asked the question in the first place. You said,

What serfdom would that be. ?
Click to expand...

I answered it pretty well, I thought. As to what freedoms you have, in my reading it appears to me that many rights that we here take for granted are in fact privileges for you (as we understand that to mean) under UK law. I may in fact be wrong about that, but that's not really the topic here. The spirit of many of your comments centers on why we here feel so antagonistic toward what you feel are natural, common sense measures.

Under American law, rights are a natural part of a human's existence, not granted by a benevolent government or a generous noble. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms at all. It simply directs that the government may not infringe on our natural right to keep and bear arms.

While an armed population has huge benefits for liberty and the body of research on this subject is truly vast, it's not really the point of my antagonism to background checks or other kinds of constraints.

The point is this: if government can eradicate one of your natural rights, it can eradicate all of them.
 
manta49, it impacts your entire mental process. Some things that you consider gains would be a step backward for us, with regard to individual liberties.
Click to expand...

You are right i don't understand. I don't see what liberties you have in the USA that i don't i live in a democracy i vote for who i want to represent me in government and do what i want within the law. As for background checks i don't have a problem with it. There are some firearms laws in the uk that i do have a problem with. I can see why some Americans would and see any change as a step in the wrong direction.
 
Last edited:
If universal checks go through, I give it 3-5 years before more calls for full registration are heard.
Click to expand...
^^^ THIS!

Once a government gets in the mood to control its population, it just doesn't stop until the population makes it stop.
 
I'm okay with universal checks, I live in Illinois and the FOID card doesn't suck that bad.

Yep, you all read that right, all along nate45 has lived in Illinois. I have an Arizona and Pennsylvania CCW permit, but can't carry here in my home state, yet. I carry unloaded in the case, with ammo close by.

The reason I came out of the closet, is because I want to help Texans(where I was born and raised) and others understand that FOID isn't that bad. Sure I believe it shouldn't exist, but its not commie-ville like a lot pretend.
 
I don't see what liberties you have in the USA that i don't.
Click to expand...

For starters there's land ownership. I got this off some place on the internet (so it's value should be viewed with jaundice) but I've read this in enough different places to convince me that there is some basis in fact here. My emphasis added:

The basic theory of English Property law of land is that all land in England and Wales is owned by the crown. The individual does not own the land but merely holds it from the Crown. When the grant of land is made to a person, he would be entitled to hold the land for a particular period of time.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/5189351
Click to expand...

The article goes on to state how subjects can effectively own personal and real property, but fundamentally the above is true. Most Americans would find this repugnant and totally contrary to our way of life. In American my land is mine and cannot be taken from me without due process, the same due process afforded people charged with crimes, and just recompense (at least in theory, there's too many examples of .gov's trampling of these rights). This is just one example.

In short, we start from the assumption that I can do any damned thing I want to and the government can limit me only by jumping through a bunch of hoops, whereas in other parts of the world (including to some extent in the UK) they start with a list of stuff the government lets you do. While the effective freedoms may be the same, in the latter form it's much easier to have your liberties curtailed.

Most Americans know how precious that difference is, and we get pretty upset when the balance shifts away from rights toward privileges.
 
Let us turn back to background checks. Whether Manta thinks the UK is wonderful and we stink and vice versa isn't part of the issue here. It's an old debate with him, so let it go.

Politico.com has two stories. One is on the utility of background checks. One point is that state aren't complying with the existing requirements to report adjudications. The other is that the Administration is probably going to focus on the dreaded loophole as as compared to an AWB when push comes to shove.

Manta - if you don't like the RKBA - we know that by now and spare us.

Australia is a nice place where the PM who did their gun ban says it was possible because they didn't have a BOR and they don't need one. Thus liberties can be abridged without the pesky courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top