Universal background checks
- Thread starter TXAZ
- Start date
turkeestalker
New member
I kind of believed that was what we had now with NICS.
Spats McGee
Administrator
First, because they most certainly lead to registration, either of guns or of gun owners. You decide which is worse.
Second, because they're unenforceable against prohibited persons under either Haynes v. U.S. (SCOTUS, 1968), the A5 or the A8, depending on circumstances. Unless and until we can enforce them, at the very least, against those already convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in jail, there is no good reason to place additional restrictions on lawful gun owners.
Third, given the evidence of horrible reporting problems that we've seen in the current system, the problem isn't that there aren't enough background checks. It's that gov't agencies are ignoring the flags that are being waved.
Fourth, not one more inch. We've given enough. The antigunners have been openly telling us for decades that they want to take all of our guns. Their claims that "nobody wants to take your guns" ring hollow in light of what I'm seeing on the national landscape. Their use of the word "compromise" is wholly inappropriate. If I let you keep half of your cash so that I don't beat the snot out of you and take all of it, it's not a compromise. That's how a protection racket works.
Second, because they're unenforceable against prohibited persons under either Haynes v. U.S. (SCOTUS, 1968), the A5 or the A8, depending on circumstances. Unless and until we can enforce them, at the very least, against those already convicted of crimes punishable by more than a year in jail, there is no good reason to place additional restrictions on lawful gun owners.
Third, given the evidence of horrible reporting problems that we've seen in the current system, the problem isn't that there aren't enough background checks. It's that gov't agencies are ignoring the flags that are being waved.
Fourth, not one more inch. We've given enough. The antigunners have been openly telling us for decades that they want to take all of our guns. Their claims that "nobody wants to take your guns" ring hollow in light of what I'm seeing on the national landscape. Their use of the word "compromise" is wholly inappropriate. If I let you keep half of your cash so that I don't beat the snot out of you and take all of it, it's not a compromise. That's how a protection racket works.
turkeestalker
New member
Well said.
IF the holes in our current system were fixed, (as best such holes could be), isn't that what we already have?
What is the difference between NICS and UBC if there is a difference?
turkeestalker
New member
NOT if you exercise your right to vote and fight the tyranny head on by insuring that the right individuals are in positions to make the difference that matters.
In other words, future Supreme Court Justices.
Spats McGee
Administrator
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."NateKirk said:
-Benjamin Franklin, in the Continental Congress just before signing the Declaration of Independence, 1776.
Yes. This ^.
We've discussed this before.
A felon is found with a gun. Who did he get it from?
Without the gun being registered to someone you can't charge someone with the crime of selling a gun to a prohibited person. Without that, the law would be pretty much toothless and useless.
WITH registration when a prohibited person is found with a gun you quickly and easily go back to the last legal owner and charge them with selling to a prohibited person, failing to report that the gun was stolen and/or failure to secure the gun. All might become crimes in the UBC laws.
Are we willing to put up with gun registration?
Last edited:
turkeestalker
New member
So when I read the phrase universal background checks what I should be reading is gun registration?
Not simply the inclusion of ALL available information regarding crimes committed and those individuals legally adjudicated mentally unstable etc. etc. into our current system?
Not simply the inclusion of ALL available information regarding crimes committed and those individuals legally adjudicated mentally unstable etc. etc. into our current system?
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Many states don't require a background check for firearms sales between private individuals who reside in that state. The demand for "universal registration" is a demand to eliminate that "loophole."turkeestalker said:
I thinks Spats McGee summed up the reasons to oppose it very well.
The call for universal background checks isn't a call to include all information on people who undergo background checks (that's the "Fix NICS" bill), it's a call to expand the pool of gun buyers who are subjected to background checks.
turkeestalker
New member
Thanks for the clarification and pardon my lack of understanding.
added:
I should say pardon my ignorance as every time I've heard the term UBC I've thought to myself that we already have those, and I've never believed that there was anything that could honestly or accurately be labeled a loophole.
My bad.
added:
I should say pardon my ignorance as every time I've heard the term UBC I've thought to myself that we already have those, and I've never believed that there was anything that could honestly or accurately be labeled a loophole.
My bad.
Last edited:
Why not??
Because the people writing the law won't stick to their own mandate, and that supposed mandate is false, to begin with.
First off, what is the entire stated benefit of the check in the first place???
To identify people who have a legal barrier to possessing a firearm, so they cannot buy one, and thereby, cannot do harm with one.
Do you agree??
So, what's the practical point (other than irritating people) of running a check on a person who already has a gun??? None I can see. If they are intent on causing harm, they already have a gun (or a dozen) so no check can prevent that.
No check can see into the mind of someone who hasn't done anything wrong, yet, so it stops nothing there, either
I'm not saying a background check does no good at all, anywhere, what I'm saying is that the very best it can do is less than we are being told it will do, and currently its clear that the system isn't working even close to the very best it could do.
And, to make matters worse, we don't get just a law that covers buying from a dealer, we get laws that cover all "transfers" and they can be so badly written that it is nearly impossible to get a clear understanding of what does, and does not apply under the law.
Want to loan a friend of 20+ years whom you know has no criminal background a gun? BOTH of you have to go to the FFL and pay for the check done on him. Then when he gives it back, another trip to the FFL, and another $$ so he can return your property to you!!!
Going to work for the day? Guns at home, all locked up like a good boy?? Does your wife have a key to the gun safe? or know the combination???
Did you take her to the FFL and pay to have a check run on her, when you "transferred" all those guns to her possession when you left for work that morning?? If not, you might be a felon!!
Do you do it every morning before you leave for work?? If not, you might be a felon!!!
I'm not kidding, one law I've seen is written so badly that a case could be made for prosecuting what I've just mentioned!
Its not that I object to the base idea that people who shouldn't have guns, shouldn't have guns, its that the background check idea is being sold as a panacea, which it can only fail at being, and its being done so poorly that the many of those it should stop aren't being stopped and those it shouldn't even be applied to are being punished with inconvenience, and costs that they don't deserve.
Because the people writing the law won't stick to their own mandate, and that supposed mandate is false, to begin with.
First off, what is the entire stated benefit of the check in the first place???
To identify people who have a legal barrier to possessing a firearm, so they cannot buy one, and thereby, cannot do harm with one.
Do you agree??
So, what's the practical point (other than irritating people) of running a check on a person who already has a gun??? None I can see. If they are intent on causing harm, they already have a gun (or a dozen) so no check can prevent that.
No check can see into the mind of someone who hasn't done anything wrong, yet, so it stops nothing there, either
I'm not saying a background check does no good at all, anywhere, what I'm saying is that the very best it can do is less than we are being told it will do, and currently its clear that the system isn't working even close to the very best it could do.
And, to make matters worse, we don't get just a law that covers buying from a dealer, we get laws that cover all "transfers" and they can be so badly written that it is nearly impossible to get a clear understanding of what does, and does not apply under the law.
Want to loan a friend of 20+ years whom you know has no criminal background a gun? BOTH of you have to go to the FFL and pay for the check done on him. Then when he gives it back, another trip to the FFL, and another $$ so he can return your property to you!!!
Going to work for the day? Guns at home, all locked up like a good boy?? Does your wife have a key to the gun safe? or know the combination???
Did you take her to the FFL and pay to have a check run on her, when you "transferred" all those guns to her possession when you left for work that morning?? If not, you might be a felon!!
Do you do it every morning before you leave for work?? If not, you might be a felon!!!
I'm not kidding, one law I've seen is written so badly that a case could be made for prosecuting what I've just mentioned!
Its not that I object to the base idea that people who shouldn't have guns, shouldn't have guns, its that the background check idea is being sold as a panacea, which it can only fail at being, and its being done so poorly that the many of those it should stop aren't being stopped and those it shouldn't even be applied to are being punished with inconvenience, and costs that they don't deserve.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
^^^ Well said.
Look at recent shootings. How many of the shooters passed background checks?
Parkland shooter -- passed
Sutherland Springs church shooter -- passed (he shouldn't have, but he did)
Las Vegas shooter -- passed
Pulse Nightclub shooter -- passed
Republican baseball team shooter -- passed
In a number of other recent school shootings, the gun was purchased by someone who passed a background check, and then the gun(s) was (were) stolen by the shooter. In the case of Sandy Hook, the shooter murdered his own mother to get the guns.
And yet the anti-gun side says we "need" to expand the scope and reach of background checks to cover private sales. To what end? I know of a guy (whom I knew thirty years ago, and I don't have any idea where he is now so NSA don't bother to call me) who went to a ghetto area late one night and bought a handgun for his boyfriend. The state where this happened didn't allow sales of handguns between individuals without a background check, so the "loophole" had already been closed. However, it was ignored. Only a lunatic or a serious optimist would believe that criminals will submit background check requests when selling stolen guns on ghetto street corners late at night, so -- again -- what's the point? Honest people already behave honestly, and new regulations will only serve to encumber honest people. Universal background checks won't make a dent in illegal gun sales.
Look at recent shootings. How many of the shooters passed background checks?
Parkland shooter -- passed
Sutherland Springs church shooter -- passed (he shouldn't have, but he did)
Las Vegas shooter -- passed
Pulse Nightclub shooter -- passed
Republican baseball team shooter -- passed
In a number of other recent school shootings, the gun was purchased by someone who passed a background check, and then the gun(s) was (were) stolen by the shooter. In the case of Sandy Hook, the shooter murdered his own mother to get the guns.
And yet the anti-gun side says we "need" to expand the scope and reach of background checks to cover private sales. To what end? I know of a guy (whom I knew thirty years ago, and I don't have any idea where he is now so NSA don't bother to call me) who went to a ghetto area late one night and bought a handgun for his boyfriend. The state where this happened didn't allow sales of handguns between individuals without a background check, so the "loophole" had already been closed. However, it was ignored. Only a lunatic or a serious optimist would believe that criminals will submit background check requests when selling stolen guns on ghetto street corners late at night, so -- again -- what's the point? Honest people already behave honestly, and new regulations will only serve to encumber honest people. Universal background checks won't make a dent in illegal gun sales.
First,we already have too many laws and regulations.BEFORE there is one more restrictive gun law is passed,somebody needs to own up that all the gun laws already in force are ineffective failures.
Its like there is a hoarder house of laws. Clean up before adding any more.
No law will make up for mediocre ineffective bureaucrats who fail at their job.
Had there not been "balls dropped",nearly every one of these shootings could have been prevented.
Don't ask me to give up any more of my liberty or my grand children's legacy of a US Constitution that says "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.
Now,to the OP's question: Along with a passed and signed legislation come the inevitable bureaucrat regulations with force of law that can put you in jail.
They do not get a vote or a veto process. They are just written by ,if we may,the deep state.
If we have such a law,don't we require a means to enforce? To ensure compliance? How?
To enforce a universal back ground check,every firearm in the USA must be inventoried.
Exactly every firearm you own must be registered and accounted for,AND,you must be subject to audit,perhaps by a knock on the door.
"Firearms Audit!"
If you have one gun too many,or come up one short,I speculate you will be a felon.
That is why I adamantly oppose such "Common sense gun safety laws"
It was with great Wisdom our Founders said "Shall not be Infringed"
They selected the 2nd Amendment for such an admonishment.
Its like there is a hoarder house of laws. Clean up before adding any more.
No law will make up for mediocre ineffective bureaucrats who fail at their job.
Had there not been "balls dropped",nearly every one of these shootings could have been prevented.
Don't ask me to give up any more of my liberty or my grand children's legacy of a US Constitution that says "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.
Now,to the OP's question: Along with a passed and signed legislation come the inevitable bureaucrat regulations with force of law that can put you in jail.
They do not get a vote or a veto process. They are just written by ,if we may,the deep state.
If we have such a law,don't we require a means to enforce? To ensure compliance? How?
To enforce a universal back ground check,every firearm in the USA must be inventoried.
Exactly every firearm you own must be registered and accounted for,AND,you must be subject to audit,perhaps by a knock on the door.
"Firearms Audit!"
If you have one gun too many,or come up one short,I speculate you will be a felon.
That is why I adamantly oppose such "Common sense gun safety laws"
It was with great Wisdom our Founders said "Shall not be Infringed"
They selected the 2nd Amendment for such an admonishment.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Under current laws, universal background checks require registration to work and registration is a necessary first step to confiscation. Given how many leading public figures openly support confiscation and bans, I'm inclined to take them at their word for a change.
Well, putting the noose around your own neck is a novel solution then.
NateKirk said:
Well, putting the noose around your own neck is a novel solution then.
ligonierbill
New member
I disagree with a key point of this discussion, that the only way to enforce "universal" background checks (some exceptions are necessary) is registration. That would be one way, and I'm sure a lot of anti-gun folks think it is a clever way to get the registration, and confiscation, that they really want.
But there is an easy and effective way to enforce this. Cops use it now to discourage all sorts of illegal sales: sting operations. First, most people obey the law. Mostly because...well, they're law abiding citizens. For folks that don't and want to buy or sell illegal drugs, sex, pirated videos, etc. the cops sometimes oblige them. Make the deal, make the arrest. Does it stop these sales? Of course not. But it sure gives normal people an incentive not to engage in these transactions.
Personally, I wouldn't do a face-to-face transfer with a stranger, even though it's perfectly legal here. NICS is imperfect, but it does seem to be effective and reasonable. Also regarding registration, just send someone who advocates for it to Canada. Our friends to the northleft tried it, dropped it. Too costly and ineffective.
But there is an easy and effective way to enforce this. Cops use it now to discourage all sorts of illegal sales: sting operations. First, most people obey the law. Mostly because...well, they're law abiding citizens. For folks that don't and want to buy or sell illegal drugs, sex, pirated videos, etc. the cops sometimes oblige them. Make the deal, make the arrest. Does it stop these sales? Of course not. But it sure gives normal people an incentive not to engage in these transactions.
Personally, I wouldn't do a face-to-face transfer with a stranger, even though it's perfectly legal here. NICS is imperfect, but it does seem to be effective and reasonable. Also regarding registration, just send someone who advocates for it to Canada. Our friends to the northleft tried it, dropped it. Too costly and ineffective.
SonOfScubaDiver
New member
I don't have a problem with universal background checks, but I'm more in favor of a national gun permit. As a truck driver, I've had to pass federal background checks to get both my HAZMAT endorsement and TWIC card. Passed both with no problems whatsoever. However, when I go to buy a gun I get delayed every time with no explanation as to why. It's very annoying.