If universal background checks are passed in the future at the Federal level, what do you think would be the next anti-gun law passed with respect to the 400-500 million guns already in circulation as universal background checks would essentially be unenforceable for guns sold prior to its passage.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What comes next after universal background checks?
- Thread starter ATN082268
- Start date
All kinds of things could happen, "IF"...
The L&CR forum is intended to focus on actual things that will or would affect our civil rights.
Proposed bills, that could become law, or regulations are valid topics.
General speculation about what might be, is not.
moved to General Discussion...
The L&CR forum is intended to focus on actual things that will or would affect our civil rights.
Proposed bills, that could become law, or regulations are valid topics.
General speculation about what might be, is not.
moved to General Discussion...
Onward Allusion
New member
Um, some type of Firearms Owner's ID card like what we have in the State of ILL? If they ever get that passed nationally, then I would not be surprised to see mandated liability insurance.
There better be a red tsunami this fall.
There better be a red tsunami this fall.
Doc Intrepid
New member
ATN082268 said:"If universal background checks are passed in the future at the Federal level, what do you think would be the next anti-gun law passed with respect to the 400-500 million guns already in circulation as universal background checks would essentially be unenforceable for guns sold prior to its passage?"
The next anti-gun law(s) wouldn't necessarily be aimed at guns. They'd be aimed at ammunition.
Consider things like "One box per month" laws. Background checks each time you want to purchase your allotted one box per month. ('No one needs more than one box of ammunition per month') A per-round tax levied on all ammunition sold. Laws to close the "gunshow loophole" for ammunition sales. No private ammunition sales among civilians - all ammunition sales must go through retail outlets who will charge for the background investigations, etc.
The potential level of future inanity on the part of gun-control advocates is virtually limitless.
reynolds357
New member
The goal of the left is no guns in civilian hands. They will eat the elephant one bite at a time, but make no mistake, they want the entire elephant to be eaten.
The goal of the left is no guns in civilian hands.
I would change that slightly, to "no guns in hands they don't control".
Even the most radical of the gun haters seems to be fine with armed private security. And those people are "civilians" just licensed ones.
The next anti-gun law(s) wouldn't necessarily be aimed at guns. They'd be aimed at ammunition.
Consider things like "One box per month" laws. Background checks each time you want to purchase your allotted one box per month.
Just look at NJ. Also I am in DC and I used to swing by Md stores to get some ammo. No go now. Only Va and Pa for me. Also even though it is legal for online sellers to sell and ship to me in DC, there is a chilling affect and they'd rather just not take the chance
The ammunition issue has several aspects we ought to be aware of.
1. The first is the casual twitter drive by slogan people, and moms march people who know nothing at all. They literally are not being ironic when they say "what does anyone need with 100 rounds of ammunition!" They think they are making a valid point and that the only thing anyone would do with 100 rounds of ammo is shoot 100 people.
2. The second are the more studied antis. They know that gun ownership is VIRAL. That of the various paths a) father to son/daughter, b) crime victim who wants to protect themselves for additional victimization, and c) friend who takes to the range and teaches a person who never thought they would feel comfortable firing a gun, that "c" is a dangerous vector, and one they can significantly suppress by making ammo costly and time consuming to acquire. I have take a few friends who have never shot to the range, in the last couple of months. But due to cost I did not do that as much 18 and 12 months ago.
3) Also the more ammo laws the more you can jack up otherwise lawful owners, such as in Mass or DC ,where even any constituent part of ammo, such as a fired centerfire casing, is legally ammo, and can be prosecuted.
My prediction? An attempt at registration. The anti's will declare that a universal background check isn't working because they have no way of knowing if Joe sold his personal gun to Frank without doing the UBC. Therefore every gun needs to be registered to it's owner through the government and subject to verification.
My prediction? An attempt at registration. The anti's will declare that a universal background check isn't working because they have no way of knowing if Joe sold his personal gun to Frank without doing the UBC. Therefore every gun needs to be registered to it's owner through the government and subject to verification.
So a national universal background check followed by national registration? How would they enforce this?
How would they enforce this?
The same way they enforce current gun control laws...
Badly...selectively...or not at all....
Here's something to consider, as it already exists and has for a long time...
You cannot prosecute a convicted felon or other prohibited person for failing to register a gun. Nor could you prosecute that person for not having a background check done. It's a violation of their constitutional rights!
(and no, I'm not kidding...)
reynolds357
New member
I believe the SCOTUS ruling yesterday threw a big monkey wrench into the anti gun machine.
My wife asked me why I don't support a national federal concealed carry permit.
This week's Roe v Wade decision is why. Government can swiftly take it all away, everywhere, from everyone. As it is now I can always move to a gun friendly state if I have to.
People need to keep reminding others that the tighter gun laws get the more likely only the rich, powerful, and connected will be able to own them.
Lastly, guns are a HUGE industry in the US. We supply a lot of guns to the whole world. Killing off guns would put a whole bunch of people out of work.
This week's Roe v Wade decision is why. Government can swiftly take it all away, everywhere, from everyone. As it is now I can always move to a gun friendly state if I have to.
People need to keep reminding others that the tighter gun laws get the more likely only the rich, powerful, and connected will be able to own them.
Lastly, guns are a HUGE industry in the US. We supply a lot of guns to the whole world. Killing off guns would put a whole bunch of people out of work.
reynolds357
New member
A national permit to carry sounds great, until one actually thinks about it. In addition to what you mentioned, a national system can easily become a national prohibition. 1000 hours training and myst shoot 100% to get permit. 175 hrs training per year to keep permit. Etc.My wife asked me why I don't support a national federal concealed carry permit.
This week's Roe v Wade decision is why. Government can swiftly take it all away, everywhere, from everyone. As it is now I can always move to a gun friendly state if I have to.
People need to keep reminding others that the tighter gun laws get the more likely only the rich, powerful, and connected will be able to own them.
Lastly, guns are a HUGE industry in the US. We supply a lot of guns to the whole world. Killing off guns would put a whole bunch of people out of work.
I think the wording of this decision actually set up national Constitutional carry.
Arguments range all over the map, from the position that we already have all we need in the 2nd Amendment to how a national permit system would benefit us.
I think a national permit system is a mistake, Remember the power to compel is also the power to prohibit.
We already have a system where each state is required to give "full faith and acceptance" to the permits and licenses of other states. Marriage and drivers licenses are the most commonly thought of.
There is a problem with states being required to recognize other states gun laws and licenses. This degree of independence about firearms regulation goes way back, and I think if we changed that, it would be plenty, no national permit system would be needed, or useful.
I think a national permit system is a mistake, Remember the power to compel is also the power to prohibit.
We already have a system where each state is required to give "full faith and acceptance" to the permits and licenses of other states. Marriage and drivers licenses are the most commonly thought of.
There is a problem with states being required to recognize other states gun laws and licenses. This degree of independence about firearms regulation goes way back, and I think if we changed that, it would be plenty, no national permit system would be needed, or useful.
Everyone should just sit back and forget about a National Carry Bill. Could possibly see one coming from the house someday in the future, but cannot fathom a Senate filled with 60 national carry permit favorable Senators of any party.
Even republicans have weasels, Romney, Collins, to name two.
And then to get the right president to sign?
Never happen.
Even republicans have weasels, Romney, Collins, to name two.
And then to get the right president to sign?
Never happen.