Universal Background Check

[AZRedhawk44]

I'm probably the Lone Ranger on this one, but I think you choose your battles.  I'm not opposed to non -family gun transfers running through an efficient (fast and accurate) check system...at least at large gun shows.  Under the current "system"  I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell of ever tracking illicit gun sales. There will always be people who will lie, cheat, steal, and circumvent the law...it doesn't mean that you should make no effort to enforce it.  When I buy used guns from induividiuals at gun shows in Ohio, I often worry that the gun might be stolen. When I sell them, a always wonder if the buyer has a record...or worse, works for Bloomberg. I've seen the same shady gun dealers hanging outside Ohio gun shows for 20 years. I also know every "private collector" dealers inside the shows. They are the ones who's guns are worth $50 more than the same gun sitting on the FFL dealer's table 10 feet away.  I just dont know where we're headed, if we're not willing to make some effort to sort out the bad apples. Just my opinion.

^^ I disagree with all my heart and soul.

[Tallpine]

I disagree with background checks in the first place, so I am not in favor of expanding the infringement.

At some point in the future, the background check will be used to deny nearly everyone the ability to legally buy a gun.

[Blakenzy]

Or maybe they'll just pull a "Hughes": require a background check for the purchase of a gun, but then just de-fund the background check system so it is no longer possible to get a background check.. They aren't denying you the right to have a gun, it's just that it is no longer possible to comply with the regulations that allow gun ownership anymore. "Sorry folks.. if you hadn't put a limit on how much we could borrow, maybe we wouldn't have been forced to cut that background check service"

[roo_ster]

^^ I disagree with all my heart and soul.

I agree with that disagreement.

I disagree with background checks in the first place, so I am not in favor of expanding the infringement.

At some point in the future, the background check will be used to deny nearly everyone the ability to legally buy a gun.

This one, too.  If someone is not trusted by gov with a firearm, they ought not be on the street...where internet access, a credit card, and access to a grocery store gives them means & material for explosives.  When you think about it, we are all just living on the suffereance of each other, because we all could blow each other to kingdom come with simply-made explosives.

I also am in favor of not requiring license plates for autos. 

[Tallpine]

...
I also am in favor of not requiring license plates for autos. 

Especially if you only drive on county roads, where my property taxes pay for what little upkeep is done.

And I should be able to buy/use tax free fuel if I stay off of state and federal highways.

[sanglant]

a background check before issuing a driver's license, voter's card, unemployment, etc.. hell even require them for buying violent movies(and games), this just might be a good thing.

[Lee]

While my heart agrees, I'm not sure my head does anymore.
Feakazoid- I'm assuming you aren't familiar with Ohio gun show dynamics. I can claim to be a "private collector" ans sell my collection at gun shows. Of course, my collection can change at every show as I buy and sell used guns, week after week, year after year - without being an FFL holder. That is "the gun show loophole" that people speak of (in Ohio anyway).
I realize that Drivers licenses and voting are different than having a gun. The point is that in everything we do in life, we usually have to confirm who we are and that we can fulfill the "contract" we make with...everyone basically. If the government wants to take my guns after that- they will know who I am.

[RoadKingLarry]

I can claim to be a "private collector" ans sell my collection at gun shows. Of course, my collection can change at every show as I buy and sell used guns, week after week, year after year - without being an FFL holder. That is "the gun show loophole" that people speak of (in Ohio anyway).

That would be, to my understanding a violation of federal laws regarding selling guns.

The "gun show loophole" is any transfer of a firearm that doesn't require government permission. Whether it's a guy selling an AR-15 at a gun show or grandpa handing down his Colt SAA.

What other private transactions do you think the government should be giving us (maybe) permission to engage in?

[Perd Hapley]

Or maybe they'll just pull a "Hughes": require a background check for the purchase of a gun, but then just de-fund the background check system so it is no longer possible to get a background check.. They aren't denying you the right to have a gun, it's just that it is no longer possible to comply with the regulations that allow gun ownership anymore. "Sorry folks.. if you hadn't put a limit on how much we could borrow, maybe we wouldn't have been forced to cut that background check service"

Doesn't the law state that the feds have x days to disqualify an applicant? If they don't come up with anything in that time, then the background check is considered to have been passed, right?

I realize that Drivers licenses and voting are different than having a gun. The point is that in everything we do in life, we usually have to confirm who we are and that we can fulfill the "contract" we make with...everyone basically. If the government wants to take my guns after that- they will know who I am.

No, you really don't see the difference between voting and buying a gun. The right to own guns is something humans inherently have, regardless of their membership in any political unit. There's no way in which it makes sense to suggest that a person has to be "who they are" to have a right to purchase a gun. That would be exactly like saying that a person must prove their identity, in order to engage in religious worship, or before they can tell a police officer to come back with a warrant. The NICS actually has more to do with who you aren't, than who you are. It really doesn't matter that the buyer is Mr. Smith, who lives at 1234 Pear Tree Lane. What matters is that the buyer is NOT the Mr. Smith that just served 3 years for attempted murder of his wife, etc.

The right to vote only applies if a person is eligible to vote in the nation/state/town in which the election is held. Unlike the inherent right (human right) to own a gun, voting is a civil right, meaning that it comes with citizenship. No one can reasonably be afforded the right to vote, if no one knowa whether he belongs to the community. And we can't expect poll workers to know whether every person who wanders into the polling place is eligible to vote. That's why no one can vote in an election, unless they are registered (on the list of eligible voters). There are only so many voters, and they must claim to be one of them.

[MechAg94]

While my heart agrees, I'm not sure my head does anymore.
Feakazoid- I'm assuming you aren't familiar with Ohio gun show dynamics. I can claim to be a "private collector" ans sell my collection at gun shows. Of course, my collection can change at every show as I buy and sell used guns, week after week, year after year - without being an FFL holder. That is "the gun show loophole" that people speak of (in Ohio anyway).
I realize that Drivers licenses and voting are different than having a gun. The point is that in everything we do in life, we usually have to confirm who we are and that we can fulfill the "contract" we make with...everyone basically. If the government wants to take my guns after that- they will know who I am.

I think you should first push for background checks and disqualifications for obtaining welfare and other government handouts.  Let us know how that works. 

[MicroBalrog]

I agree with that disagreement.

This one, too.  If someone is not trusted by gov with a firearm, they ought not be on the street...where internet access, a credit card, and access to a grocery store gives them means & material for explosives.  When you think about it, we are all just living on the suffereance of each other, because we all could blow each other to kingdom come with simply-made explosives.

I also am in favor of not requiring license plates for autos. 

This, with bells on it.

[SteveS]

Doesn't the law state that the feds have x days to disqualify an applicant? If they don't come up with anything in that time, then the background check is considered to have been passed, right? 

Yes, it is 3 business days.  That being said, the BATFE (at least where I am), strongly discourages this and "recommends" that the dealer wait until they get an answer. 

[Tallpine]

I realize that Drivers licenses and voting are different than having a gun. The point is that in everything we do in life, we usually have to confirm who we are and that we can fulfill the "contract" we make with...everyone basically.

So - if I want to sell for instance, a used computer or a used sewing machine or a used air compressor at a yard sale (for cash), I should ask to see your drivers license 

[AZRedhawk44]

No, you really don't see the difference between voting and buying a gun. The right to own guns is something humans inherently have, regardless of their membership in any political unit. There's no way in which it makes sense to suggest that a person has to be "who they are" to have a right to purchase a gun. That would be exactly like saying that a person must prove their identity, in order to engage in religious worship, or before they can tell a police officer to come back with a warrant.

The right to vote only applies if a person is eligible to vote in the nation/state/town in which the election is held. Unlike the inherent right (human right) to own a gun, voting is a civil right, meaning that it comes with citizenship. And we can't expect poll workers to know whether every person who wanders into the polling place is eligible to vote. That's why no one can vote in an election, unless they are registered (on the list of eligible voters). There are only so many voters, and they must claim to be one of them.

Fistful... that was eloquently put.

































































Run for the hills, fistful did something right!

[Perd Hapley]

Thanks. I actually just went back and made it a little more right. I hope.

[Lee]

Fistful - I'm not a big bible reader, but I guess I missed the part where the gun was created for Adam and Eve.
I'm not contesting any inherent right.
Tallpine- when's the last time you remained anonymous when you tried to hook up a computer, phone, opened a bank account, cashed a check, applied for a job or licence of any type, or anything else?

[Tallpine]

Tallpine- when's the last time you remained anonymous when you tried to hook up a computer, phone, opened a bank account, cashed a check, applied for a job or licence of any type, or anything else?

I don't see your point, other than opening a bank account these days is about as difficult as getting a passport used to be.

I can walk into any hardware store and buy a deadly chain saw without any ID or background check.

[Lee]

And chainsaws are the main focus of the country right now?  Guns are tools to you and me, but the world is a-changin.

I'm not a proponent of any (or many) gun laws period.  I am in favor of reducing the chances of them falling into the wrong hands. The options for that are limited, and marginally effective...I agree...but there are "low hanging fruit" options that a lot of the public agrees with...even gun people.    
I'm not going to play the role of Feinstein here. Just offering my opinion. I have my share of "off the book" firearms, but I've also been through a few dozen background checks.  The last several took about 15 minutes.  I also lived in Illinois at one point and had a FOID card. If the government wants to hunt me down with a drone and kill me, I think they'll be able to find me. We'll both have bigger issues at that point.

[Blakenzy]

If the government wants to hunt me down with a drone and kill me, I think they'll be able to find me. We'll both have bigger issues at that point.

The idea is not to get to that point, ever. Granting the Federal Government even more power and control over the individual, no matter how soft or inconsequential it may seem now, does not help that objective.

[red headed stranger]

And chainsaws are the main focus of the country right now?  Guns are tools to you and me, but the world is a-changin.

I'm not a proponent of any (or many) gun laws period.  I am in favor of reducing the chances of them falling into the wrong hands. The options for that are limited, and marginally effective...I agree...but there are "low hanging fruit" options that a lot of the public agrees with...even gun people.    
I'm not going to play the role of Feinstein here. Just offering my opinion. I have my share of "off the book" firearms, but I've also been through a few dozen background checks.  The last several took about 15 minutes.  I also lived in Illinois at one point and had a FOID card. If the government wants to hunt me down with a drone and kill me, I think they'll be able to find me. We'll both have bigger issues at that point.

If somehow we lived in a world where I could be 100% sure that universal background checks would not be poorly administered and that law would be the last ever gun control law, I might be for it.  However, the people who are really pushing for "universal background checks" are people who would be happy to ban private ownership of weapons altogether. Therefore, I will not be a party to inching their agenda along. 

[Tallpine]

And chainsaws are the main focus of the country right now?  Guns are tools to you and me, but the world is a-changin.

I'm not a proponent of any (or many) gun laws period.  I am in favor of reducing the chances of them falling into the wrong hands. The options for that are limited, and marginally effective...I agree...but there are "low hanging fruit" options that a lot of the public agrees with...even gun people.    
I'm not going to play the role of Feinstein here. Just offering my opinion. I have my share of "off the book" firearms, but I've also been through a few dozen background checks.  The last several took about 15 minutes.  I also lived in Illinois at one point and had a FOID card. If the government wants to hunt me down with a drone and kill me, I think they'll be able to find me. We'll both have bigger issues at that point.

Pardon me, I still have no gorram clue what the point is that you are trying to make 

[Lee]

Im not trying to make any point..just answering a question. I should have stopped there, and will now.

[cordex]

And chainsaws are the main focus of the country right now?  Guns are tools to you and me, but the world is a-changin.

So if The Country gets its knickers in a twist about a particular religion we should try to find some sort of middle ground when it comes to laws that suppress that religion?  Or if The Country is particularly appalled at a some form of free speech, we should try to figure out which of the anti-free-speech laws to support? 

No thanks.

I'm not a proponent of any (or many) gun laws period.  I am in favor of reducing the chances of them falling into the wrong hands. The options for that are limited, and marginally effective...I agree...but there are "low hanging fruit" options that a lot of the public agrees with...even gun people.

If you look hard enough (and the media always does) you can find "gun people" who support every single stupid, anti-gun law that comes down the pike - up to and including full-on prohibition and confiscation.  I can't count the number of times I've heard the "I'm a gun owner, but ..." or "I support the second amendment, but ..." as a lead in to "ZOMG BAN THE ASSAULT MURDER GUNS!!!!!11!!"

The thing about agreeing to "common sense" gun control measures is that they aren't really based in common sense.  You state yourself that such a background check system is at best marginally effective, yet you claim to support it.  Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it almost seems like you're saying we should enact it as a sacrificial measure in the hopes it will appease people into thinking they've done something.  We've tried that, and it doesn't work.

Unless you have never paid any attention to the gun issue, you should know that the nibbling away of the Second Amendment has been going on for a very, very long time.  The thousands and thousands and thousands of anti-gun laws passed so far haven't made good people safe from bad people - nor are they intended to.  The goal of our opposition is a complete ban on privately held firearms.  As long as you are willing to conduct these kinds of one-sided negotiations with them where gun owners give up some rights without any concessions from them, they will continue to move the line a little closer to their goal.  Then, as soon as there is another tragedy - and there will be, even though the actual numbers are continually decreasing; something bad will eventually happen - they will expect us to surrender something else.

Eighty years of incremental concessions to gun control hasn't helped us or anyone.  In fact, it has only been in the past decade or so when the gun lobby has started to fight back ferociously that the country has started to make real gains on the state level in the arena of gun freedom.  That progress was only made by firmly opposing each stupid law that was suggested and by pushing through pro-gun laws whenever possible, not by time and again agreeing to some ridiculous new restriction in exchange for nothing.

Honestly, it's sad to see "I'm a gun owner, but ..." here on APS.

[red headed stranger]

That progress was only made by firmly opposing each stupid law that was suggested and by pushing through pro-gun laws whenever possible, not by time and again agreeing to some ridiculous new restriction in exchange for nothing.

This x1000!  It is so funny how the antis say things like "you need to compromise" but offer nothing in return. 

[p12]

The whole background check BS is BS because of reporting on the form what was bought . If the call was placed enough personal info was given to determine that said person was not a felon or had a warrant for instance then the sale could proceed. Since the serial number is recorded I don't trust the merit or purpose of the process.

I hope that makes sense.