Opinions wanted: Gun Background Checks.

[x101airborne]

Hi all. I just want to start out that I AM ignorant and I am asking for civil conversation to educate me. Anyone wanting to flame me may decide not. And if this gets out of hand, the mods may at any time lock this thread.
I am ASKING...... What are the drawbacks to background checks? I am a legal citizen and some things I have are registered and some things I have are not. But it is not because I am hiding anything. I just happened to buy them from an individual and didn't have to go through a dealer.
BUT.... I have had weapons stolen. And I would hope that Winchester 70 in 223 that shot less than 1/2 inch groups at 100 for 8 rounds at a time (I know yall wont believe that, but it is none the less true) would show up again to come home. And I DONT want a felon, prior or otherwise to commit a crime with one of my stolen weapons. Now I dont like more than necessary government involvement in my life, so I am asking someone to tell me why I should not want to do a background check.
As it is, with what is registered, the military is not going to come and ask for my weapons, they are going to drone strike me at 0200 and pick up the pieces.
So, ok, let the comments begin.

[blademasterii]

Private sales that you have to register a weapon would become a significant burden on local shops and the system in general. Not to mention essentualy creating a list of gun owners and all their weapons. Bringing into the system all those weapons that are not currently registered. It would make private sales more expensive by 30 dollars, as well as haveing to meet at a gunshop that is willing to do the paperwork during business hours. I am not opposed to makeing private sales at gunshows subject to background checks, but person to person private sales outside that venue is none of their business.

[x101airborne]

Not their business, true, but what if you purchased a weapon with no bill of sale, then during a hunters safety check 10 years later, you are in posession of a stolen weapon. Well, in Texas, sorry bout that. YOU are in posession of stolen property. Had you done a check, There would be a trail to follow. AND.... I dont want to sell to a felon as I previously stated. And what is the big deal with paying 30 to 50 bucks to make sure of it? If you are really so personally strapped that 50 bucks means that much, you should probably not be buying extra guns.

[x101airborne]

Gear, I am waiting to hear from you.

[firefly1957]

The only thing wrong with back ground checks is the ONLY way to enforce them is with total registration of every firearm . Just because you bought a gun though a dealer does not mean it is registered by law the federal government can not use 4473 forms to register guns or gun owners in a free country this is how is should be. Note that is is a crime for a felon to posses or even hold a firearm and the back ground check is only from a dealer as required because of their federal licence what liberal law makers what is to make it illegal for your wife/son/daughter/brother/... to have possession of your weapons while you are not at home! This has nothing to do with criminal misuse of guns there are plenty of laws on that now this is about making the law abiding criminals for not dotting the i on the form they sign or the owners wife that uses a gun to defend herself while home alone.

[geargnasher]

I believe that all LEGAL citizens should be able to own 'Arms' per the intended spirit of the 2nd amendment. LEGAL means adult (defined), natural-born or legal immigrant meeting all legal requirements for citizenship and taking the oath, NOT disqualified due to criminal convictions, certified mental illness, etc. Basically, if you can vote, you should not be barred from owning and bearing small arms, period.

NOW, in order to determine that a potential buyer meets all of my (and the law's) above requirements, a background check is going to be necessary. It sucks, but that's the only way to enforce the mentioned laws. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that. If a persons eligibility to own or purchase arms changes, then a background check will reveal that. The rub obviously comes with private-party, FTF sales/trades, or family transfers.

While I feel that it's my God-given right to buy a gun from my neighbor and not have to do it through an FFL, or inherit my father's collection without having to to a sanctioned transfer each and every one of them, and that really none of this is going to stop violent criminals, we have to have SOME kind of enforcement tools to back up the laws, don't we?

As long as REGISTRATION, meaning connecting names/DL/SSN to serial numbers found on guns, is NOT anywhere near part of this operation (as it already is on the NICS form), then I have little problem proving to a private seller that I'm a legal buyer, and vice-versa. The background check should be just that: Check for eligibility to buy, not record what's being bought or transferred.

Gear

[firefly1957]

If you buy a gun from a private party get a receipt and document it.

[waksupi]

Many guns I have bought in my life, the $50 would have definitely been a determining factor. I have always been pretty much what would be classified as poor.
Once again, an extra charge makes it a rich man's game. I forget, which other of our rights do we have to pay the government to exercise them?

[dg31872]

If you give a mouse a cookie.......he's gonna want a glass of milk. It's a tough call and I doubt we will have much to say about it, but I prefer that that door remain closed.

[edler7]

I forget, which other of our rights do we have to pay the government to exercise them?

BINGO !!!

Also, which other rights do we have to register to use ?

[dakotashooter2]

You have to consider that there is no documentation of who the owner is for millions of weapons. These are weapons that have been legally sold over and over with no paperwork except by the ORIGINAL purchaser. I'm not opposed to background checks on all sales if.............. There is no cost involved or at least very little cost ($5) and the seller does not have to provide any personal information. I would voluntarily do a background check on firearms I sell under those conditions. If the goal is to truly reduce sales of guns to unqualified people, the gov. does not need the sellers info, or to keep any paperwork on such a transfer.

The problem is that with so many firearms undocumented there is no way for the gov. to know if background checks are being done on them. I suspect many people would still sell to people they know without doing the check even if required..Who is going to know???????? That is why it would be mostly ineffective. It may take several generations for all the firearms in the US to make their way through the system and be documented/tied to an owner.......

[tanstafl10]

If I would sell a gun to a stranger, it would be through an FFL. If I know the person, I would only sell if I felt the person was upstanding. Any doubts, I would not sell. If I needed the money that bad, I would just sell it to an FFL (aka LGS). The government does NOT need to know what I give to my kids or sell to people whom I trust.
-
I will not buy without getting nor sell (or gift) without providing a bill of sale. Again, NO good can come from the government knowing what I or anyone else have in the way of firearms! Every time there has been registration, there has been confiscation and mass killings of some group. Check out some of the news interviews with Schumer... he wants registration and says exactly that in one particular interview (posted on NRA site).
-
just my opinion, and who am I anyway. Being a law-abiding U.S. citizen does not count anymore.

[geargnasher]

Ric, it's either leave out everything and let everybody and anybody have guns with no restictions whatsoever (or leave it up to law enforcement/Judicial system to determine who "the people" are), or enforce the laws we have. Believe me, every time I go to my local public range I almost wish there was a qualification requirement (like hunter education) before being allowed to buy a gun because there are so many idiots out there. But we can't and shouldn't try to legislate stupidity.

The BOR has conditions. Case law has established that you can't shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, or curse loudly in public if it disturbs the peace. Larry Flynt can peddle his wares, but not on street newsstands. It's called a social contract, and it's up to the citizens, through representative government, to establish the give and the take. Now that the .gov has run amok for several generations, we either throw it all out and make the Constitution the supreme law of the land again (minus that little part about state's rights), or we accept our rights as conditional to being legal citizens, and be prepared to prove that we are in order to exercise them. Hell, I have to show ID to buy porn. What do you think about that?

Gear

[perotter]

Many guns I have bought in my life, the $50 would have definitely been a determining factor. I have always been pretty much what would be classified as poor.
Once again, an extra charge makes it a rich man's game. I forget, which other of our rights do we have to pay the government to exercise them?

None. It is unconstitutional, as decided by the Supreme Court, for there to be any fee or there be any license or registration for a constitutional right. See Martin v. City of Struthers. That one is very clear. Also, in Heller the SC said the government can only regulate the commercial sale of guns.

For those who worry about buying a gun that was stolen and the trail points to only you, go to a FFL and have them run the background check and do the paper work.

More background checking won't keep gun away from criminals. They normally either steal them or buy from other criminals.

[geargnasher]

BINGO !!!

Also, which other rights do we have to register to use ?

How about the most BASIC and ESSENTIAL right, the right to VOTE??????

Gear

[tanstafl10]

dakotashooter2,
-
read what you just posted.... I absolutely mean NO disrespect, but that is playing right into the hands of the Schumers out there that want confiscation as their end game. I just cannot agree.
-
That said, you have every right to have your opinion.

[292]

The problem as I see it is any new laws that do not help prevent violent crimes are just feel good measures. If I thought that background checks would help with the murder rate or prevent 1 school shooting I'd be for them. I'm for no new legislation.

[geargnasher]

None. It is unconstitutional, as decided by the Supreme Court, for there to be any fee or there be any license or registration for a constitutional right. See Martin v. City of Struthers. That one is very clear. Also, in Heller the SC said the government can only regulate the commercial sale of guns.

For those who worry about buying a gun that was stolen and the trail points to only you, go to a FFL and have them run the background check and do the paper work.

More background checking won't keep gun away from criminals. They normally either steal them or buy from other criminals.

Now I can certainly go with that. We already have the FFL option to use. That would also take care of being forced to pay for the transfer. Pay the FFL their fee only if you WANT the check, otherwise trade for cash and take your chances, or get a receipt like Firefly recommended.

Gear

[perotter]

Before they pass any more background check laws, they should prosecute the felons that fail the current background check when that attempt to buy a gun.

[geargnasher]

OK, I got it. If you're a legal, registered voter, show your FREE voter's card to be able to buy a gun. If you ain't registered to vote, no guns for YOU. how's that?


Gear

[Houndog]

I think ALL firearm laws restricting a LEAGAL citizen from owning ANY firearm they desire should be unconstitutional! To clarify that I mean EVERYTHING from the National firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 right on up to frankenstines latest gun grab attempt! I don't care if my neighbor decides he needs a fully functional tank. Let him own it if he can afford it! When a weapon gets misused is when the trouble starts! What needs to be controlled are CRIMINALS, not legal gun owners. Start hanging drug dealers, robbers, rapists, murderers and the like from a big ol tall tree AFTER a fair trial with none of those "my mommie abused me" excuses and NO plea bargans! The so called "gun problem" will take care of itself.

[wv109323]

First the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed". "Shall not infringed" to me means no government involvement whatsoever. Anyone that challenges that puts themselves into a category that they "are smarter than our Founding Fathers". I think that our Founding Fathers did a good job and the Constitution should be left alone. A right is a right. A right does not change with time and become more prohibitive as time goes along.
Granted that felons and individuals should not have possession of firearms, but there should be no restrictions on law abiding citizens to own whatever they desire.
I will also add that if fully auto firearms are such a no-no why does our government own so many.
The Constitution gives the Federal government a Commerce clause that was intended for businesses ( commerce)only. The Federal government was never supposed to be involved or govern the life of individuals. The Federal is totally overstepped the guide lines of the Constitution that it is not funny. The Founding Fathers left it up to us to provide for us and determine what is best for us without government intervention.
If the government gets involved with the private sale of a firearm from one individual to another individual, Where does it stop? Next they will demand information on the purchase price and the selling price and demand taxes be paid on the "profit". Next will be a national record of all firearms. There are many politicians that truly believe that no one should own any firearm whatsoever. Lest we forget Hitler took up the firearms first then proceeded. You say that can not happen in America, why not? Most politicians truly think they know best what is best for you and use your money to achieve their goals. That truly amazes me.
As to your statement that they will send a drone over and blow you up at 2:00 am. If every gun owner sticks together there will no be enough drones to do that. Besides 90% of gun owners are the back bone of American's economy. Destroying them would be destroying America as we know it.
Next they will want to keep track of pocket knives, Next will be baseball cards, next will be stamp collections. We have lost enough of our "rights" already.

[perotter]

That might be ok. How about gifts or transfers of possession? Although I haven't varied it, under a bill in the US Senate even a temporary transfer would be illegal. For example, if you went on a 2 week hunting trip you could leave a gun(s) with a friend, neighbor, girlfriend(even if you lived together), etc.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

If these Democrats could write a reasonable Law for background checks "ONLY" and figure out a way to do them without a fee, then just maybe I could back it.

But we all know what THEY (Democrats) want...and that is a LIST of Gun Owners !!!
This is why I'll fight any gun control Bill a Democrat writes.
Jon

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

Look what they did in NY with the list of CCW holders.

[FLINTNFIRE]

Ok lets go to the who gets to buy or own , the original intent was for all except convicts imprisoned or slaves , but the gov. has added here and interpreted there and came up with the interstate commerce clause which opened the door for a whole raft of there laws , a background check sounds great to some , but someone has to perform it some where it has to be paid for , want to add a fee as some would propose for ammo , components and accessories , gun owners already pay for a lot , pittman robertson funds , oh the local police funded there own private shooting range here with those funds , and that was in itself illegal , public can not use the range , compile records make lists confiscate . I do not back the restrictions they have already put in place , and as has been shown in the past compromise with the anti gun crowd only takes away more of our freedoms.

[Charlie Two Tracks]

Illinois knows where all guns that have been purchased since the FOID card law went into effect are. That really isn't a good thing. I really didn't think we would have Obama care, but we do. I know that things can change at each election. Check the individual--- ok. Record what he is buying....NO. There may well be a reason that someone should not own a gun but there is no reason that the government should know what gun it is he is trying to buy. Whether he is approved or not.

[TXGunNut]

OK, I got it. If you're a legal, registered voter, show your FREE voter's card to be able to buy a gun. If you ain't registered to vote, no guns for YOU. how's that?


Gear


That's what I was thinking, some type of shall-issue firearms owner ID card or CHL with no registration requirement. Some felons have had voting rights restored, not sure I'd want to use the voter registration card. No FOID? Pay an FFL to do the transfer.
Seems to me this background check is just backdoor registration. If they were serious about keeping guns out of the hands of felons they'd prosecute the ones who attempt to buy one while lying on the 4473.

[wallenba]

In my state of Michigan, background checks for handguns have been around for decades. It's a hassle sometimes, but with the criminal element we have in the Detroit area, I would be loathe to sell a gun to anyone I did not personally know. I see pros and cons. Having a younger brother with a mental disorder who uses cocain and meth and has threatened my sister, her family and myself. I would hate for him to be able to purchase a gun of any kind. There, I put my families dirty laundry out there. For those of you who are lucky enough to not have to deal with the checks, I hope your good fortune continues. Because I see a national registry as a government inventory of who has what, for whatever their (big brother) future intentions are.

[MtGun44]

They want a list of gun owners. The 'universal background check' will slowly assemble this.

Once they have it, then they will decide that this kind or that kind of gun is no longer acceptable
for ownership by this or that kind of person.

The antigun folks have been dreaming of a national gun registry since before they were able to ram
through the 68 Gun Control Act.

This is BAD NEWS.

Less gun restrictions, across the board. Never give an inch.

[freebullet]

Shall not be infringed has turned into uncle may I . Guns & gun owners are demonized every single day. It's very frustrating. I do have a pop tart I ate it into the shape of a bazooka, do I need any special permits? Can I transfer possession to a crackhead or should I eat the rest? Wouldn't that be destroying evidence? Criminals by definition don't follow laws Period. Let's pass a bunch more and see if that changes. Sound good? I had to use 2 dealers to get my brother a pistol, because he lives in another state. No one here would ship it to his dealer without an Ffl copy & dealers won't release their ffl but to other ffl houge pain &120$ . My brother at that time had top secret clearance, & spent a career SERVING this country. That's great way to say thanks, huh? Now there is talk of laws that would prevent me from letting him use my shotgun when he visits here. What do I think of that? Are you serious? I can't put the answer here I'd get banned.

[ole 5 hole group]

Less gun restrictions, across the board. Never give an inch.

Exactly MtGun44 - Honest citizens have given up more than enough to those seeking to disarm our citizens - time to take a stand or else realize you're just a generation away from not being able to possess a firearm within your home.

These ducebags just keep coming back time and again taking whatever we'll give up, no different than other groups in our Great Nation that have an agenda and just keep putting **** on the ballot until they squeak out a slim majority due to very low voter turnout and then there's no turning back in this nanny environment.

[gray wolf]

They want a list of gun owners. The 'universal background check' will slowly assemble this.

Once they have it, then they will decide that this kind or that kind of gun is no longer acceptable
for ownership by this or that kind of person.

The antigun folks have been dreaming of a national gun registry since before they were able to ram
through the 68 Gun Control Act.

This is BAD NEWS.

Less gun restrictions, across the board. Never give an inch.
I have to agree with the quote above, Lets face it, we know they don't play nice--
we also know ( I hope we do anyway ) what there end game is, If you don't know I will give you my opinion of what it is.
My guns, your guns and every other gun in pieces thrown in a 55 gal. drum headed for a deep six resting place. Your not dealing with people that think like many of us do.
That's why so many people make statements like ( oh, they would never do that )
OH yes they would, you can't imagine it cause you don't think like they do. Try at your best, your head is in a different place.
I think sometimes why do they have a problem with guns, heck there are so many and they still do anything they want to us with little resistance if any at all. Then I think, WOW, they must really have some awful stuff in store. You know what ? they do. Wake up tomorrow and find your bank account ravished, how about you need a chip in your arm to get Med. attention ?
How about when they pull the plug on the economy ? Oh yes, they want them for sure and this time they almost tasted them, the smell was and still is in there nose.
Thing is there little laws here and their go on for pages and pages with little open ended clauses that allow them to change the game plan at will. Look how the focus has changed to the definition of a terrorist, No more Rag heads, now it's YOU and whoever else wants to live free.
Give an inch ? ---I repeat myself, YOU DON'T THINK LIKE THEY DO, you only think you do.
Better yet we better think like we were in a 3 foot dirt hole with sand bags around it staring at
a line of C-wire 100 yards away. A little heavy ? I think not.

[rockrat]

Look at what happened in Colorado. Background checks, just recently, were taking 10 days.

You need a provision, if there are background checks, that the transfer is automatically approved after 30 min of the dealer entering the data in their computer. Also, no serial #'s are to be entered on any form in a private sale. Transfer between family members exempted.

[quilbilly]

Here in Washington State, the state gets a copy of the NIC's check whenever a firearm is purchased and unlike the Feds, puts it into a data base. In this legislative session, the liberal Dems (aka fascists or peronists) had a bill requiring checks on private sales. Local gun rights organizations in a bold move said they would go along with universal checks if the state destroyed its database. Needless to say the Democrat fascists refused to give up the database and the bill recently died. This refusal by the fascist to give up their state database reveals their national hand.

[GREENCOUNTYPETE]

YOU CAN CATCH MORE FLIES WITH HONEY,

now personally i think it's plane wrong to restrict the sale between family members , heck probate is a darn crime against the people legalized theft (grandma had to pay to get her own house out of probate when grandpa died unexpectedly in 76 as she wasn't on the deed they didn't put wife's name on a deed back when they bought the house) the possessions of the family belong to the family and should be transferable at the wishes of the family with no government. we know today that trusts can establish this but all the same.



now to the honey part if they want a registry they can very easily have one , just make a one time 50 dollar card that can be revoked if the person is convicted of a crime , the benefits would be the ability to purchase any class III sbr , sbs, suppressor or full auto , buy and walk with a hand gun, rifle ,shot gun or aow just let the dealer record your card number and done , catch is any gun purchased under such a card would need to be called in with the card number of the purchaser if you sell it. 80% of all transactions would soon be being made on such a card , people would feel good about selling FTF they would get a more complete registration in a few decades than they could hope for otherwise.

it would open up a hole new sector of the economy that is stifled by 200 dollar tax stamps and long waits , people could have what they want with great ease and politicians could have their list the owners would all be background checked . what they make on the 200 dollar stamp wold be overwhelmed by the 50 dollar charge for the card , people would be begging to be put on that list. as for plane Jane hunting guns and pistols why eventually many of them would make it in to the list , new ones would get the same background check as current

sounds like a great piece of legislation , very feel good , of course it would open up access to all sorts of guns currently very difficult or very costly to get now it could grow shooting sports , sub gun matches , create new games . but hey they would all be background checked and easy to buy sell and trade between card holders.

there are hundreds of millions of guns that won't be able to really be regulated under any plan for generations , enticing them into a plan of convenience will get them in decades sooner than the attack they lead now.

they could learn a lot about offering up something that looks good , easy and makes happen what they say they want more back ground checked guns even a registry.

only problem is they don't want regular people to have guns at all so they attack and attack and attack , now any good fly killer can tell you that is a lousy way to get a fly to land

of course since their intent is not to make the streets safer but to control the population , and micro manage the citizenry they will never go for this and we should give in to none of thier games because if i have a cake and to day all oppressor wants is 1/8 the man only needs to come back for just one more piece 7 more times and i have none left at all

[Harter66]

They want deeper checks too. The kind where a guy admits to some indiscretion of youth on a forum and no deal whether or not he was ever cited,charged or convicted. Then there are no doubt 10s of 1000s of citations that are now felonies but weren't at the time. What about the line of psychology ? You could be prescribed any 1 of a dozen meds maybe many years ago,thorazine for example was a tranquilizer but is now an anti-psychotic. Yes I know a fellow,in fact I know a lot of people that fit into the above. What about the poor sod that just rode out a TRO for DV "to keep the peace" but had the extension overturned showing it was a false claim in the 1st place? Yup disqualified,again.

There's a rub just as bad as the list . The otherwise innocent person being denied because of accusation,not conviction.

Just food for thought,devils advocate if you will,as to the other uses of the background check. You see it will be used and abused, manipulated. If they can't build a list they will find ways ,like recently in Ca, to seize them registered or not.

[Duckiller]

Background checks should be just that,Background Checks. Dealer should ask and be told that Duckiller can or can not legally buy a gun. No information about what gun I wish to buy should be included in the check info. Dealer could provide me with a piece of paper that says he check and it is legal for me to buy a gun. Government does not need to keep a record of who they do background checks on. Nor should States be allowed to keep any gun info as part of a background check. As to cost of checks, California charges $25.00-$30.00 per check and has so much extra money that all the Democrats in the state legislature are drooling thinking how they can get their hands on the money. No gov agency,local, state or federal should have a list of who has guns. All they need to do is perodicly inform an FFL that Duckiller still is legal to buy guns. If the system collects too much money,ie more than it costs to do the check the the fee should be reduced and surplus funds should be merged with the excise tax money on guns for shooting facilities and property. Gear you are going to get in trouble with some of these board members.

[x101airborne]

Thank you all for keeping this civil. I know I came to the right place for intelligent conversation.
And I understand and RESPECT everyones opinion voiced. This is what I wanted... The pro's and cons. Just because I think what I think DOESN'T mean I am right and I recognise that.

I think..... anyone thinking that the Govt doesn't ALREADY have a list of gun owners..... someone has their head somewhere else. Guys....They have us!! Everyone in the whole dang nation. Everyone who ever bought a 22 is in the books! There is no difference in buying a marlin from Wal mart, or a Browning M-2.
And for the 2nd Amendment argument..... That has NOTHING to do with you shooting a deer or anything else. That has to do with protecting the public from Govt Opression. There is no opression that I can see with background checks unless you are trying to intentionally get around them.

I own lots of weapons and I want everyone who is legal to own lots of weapons. I am just confused why the background check is such a big deal.

[sparky45]

How about the most BASIC and ESSENTIAL right, the right to VOTE??????

Gear

Apparently not everyone!!

[sparky45]

I believe that all one has to do to understand this anti-gun movement is to study history. Gun registration is only one of the FIRST steps in control and confiscation of ALL firearms. And believe me on this one; that's exactly where the anti's want to go. I think that most States have a "stolen gun registry or listing" that can be accessed to identify a stolen gun by serial number. All the Firearms I own are FFl'd or family hand downs. Dirty Harry isn't going to let Swinefines bill be a part of the Democraps gun grab attempts, yet. YET!!!

[OeldeWolf]

I am in agreement with the sentiment that the universal background check is being used as a registration system. And all firearms registration systems have been used to enable government confiscation. I have a pretty good grasp of history, and this is a constant, as far as I have been able to tell.

A background check w/o registration would be ok, as long as it did not lead to a database. But I do not see that as realistic.

And frankly, as lackadaisical as the various governments are on enforcement of current law <or is that a selective lack of enforcement?> I fail to see any need for ANY more laws.

[Katya Mullethov]

I am just confused why the background check is such a big deal.

Who is making all the noise about them all of a sudden ? Always consider the source .

Just look at the the last four years . Quite the proverbial train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object . And they want it bad enough to have abetted the murders of thousands . All that trouble for background checks with no surprises ? Uh huh .

Quite simply . No . Endless compromise is the game .

[Boyscout]

How about the States put restrictions on Driver's Licences/Government ID's. The restrictions would only be put on after a felony conviction. Law Abiding citizens would have nothing on theirs. In a way, all upstanding citizens would be pre-approved without the government infringing upon their rights. Perhaps it could be encoded and read right at a gun dealer for a minimal charge for private sales. Illegal attempts to purchase could be forwarded on. Otherwise, the government would not be able to register anyone.

[Adam10mm]

I'm serious, you guys make me sick to my stomach. Conservative, Republican, freedom loving Americans? Hogwash!

It's a right of every free man to keep and bear arms. If you aren't in prison or jail, you have that right. If you committed a crime, served your sentence, and are now a free man you regain your right to keep and bear arms. If you aren't incarcerated you are free. They have just as much of a right to self defense and the ability to protect their life as anyone else does. If they want a gun to protect themselves they have that right. If you committed a crime so heinous that you can't or shouldn't be trusted with a firearm, you shouldn't be let out of incarceration. You rape a woman, you get 15 years no parole. Now you're a free man. Do it again, you're executed.

Oh, yeah, so my neighbors are in that category. The old man served prison time for attempted murder of his ex-wife. He waited under her trailer house with a loaded shotgun until she went to work and then came out and threatened to kill her if she didn't take him back. His son served prison time for drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 14yr old girl. They did what they did, they served their time, they are free men and should have the right to own firearms.

Mentally ill the same. They still have Constitutional rights just like you do. You think there weren't mentally ill people around when the Constitution was written? Give me a break. The problem with you guys is you don't understand why the mentally ill were deinstitutionalized. It was because of abuse. Starved, beaten, raped, sodomized, neglected is how you want people to be treated? Is that how a mentally retarded 8yo child is to be treated?

That kind of garbage reeks with elitism. The same elitism you detest among liberal gun owners.

Background checks are a joke. FFLs are a joke. SOT taxes are a joke. They don't do anything but infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Get rid of all that garbage.

If Remington has a company policy that they will sell direct to the public, you should be able to submit a purchase directly with their sales team and have your firearm shipped to your home without any nonsense other than you paying and them shipping. If Remington has a company policy that they want to sell in volume to dealers or distributors, they could require a sales tax license or other formal business entity paperwork in order to setup an account with them. That's totally their right and their choice. I'd be fine with that. With that account one could buy firearms at a lesser price than retail then resell them for profit. Much like the current system. All that could be done without government involvement infringing on our rights.

Get with it if you value the Constitution and freedoms. Don't be a RINO.

[TheDoctor]

Absolutely against background checks of any kind. A man is either going to do right, or he's not. Look at illegal drugs. A law abiding, moral person, will not buy them. Neither will someone with common sense! If someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, they will do it. If they do, they should get hammered. No "it's his first offence" bs. How many times does someone have to commit a heinous act before it's considered to be "for real"? You murder someone, it's murder. You kill someone while DUI, it's murder. Yeah, you probably didn't mean to, but how does that help the victim? Should we ban alcohol? Oh wait, did that once. Saw how good that worked. And how that law was respected. It reaches a point where just people will refuse to obey a unjust law. Then they are criminals. If someone who is not "eligible" to buy a gun wants one, they WILL get one. Either by committing another crime by stealing one, or giving business to other criminals and buying from them. Which encourages more stolen guns, or smuggled guns. And if they are set on committing a specific crime, and can't for some reason obtain a gun, they will use some other weapon. A lot of times, guns are not involved anyway, because they make noise, which attracts attention.

All gun laws should be eliminated. There is a reason that the second amendment is the ONLY one that says "shall not be infringed"! Pretty clear cut to me. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! What part of that do people not get? I personally believe that each and every single American that is of legal age (how do you define THAT one?), should be required to own at least one firearm. Then everyone would be equal.

Criminal justice reform should be the main issue. And we have a real problem. It's not too hard for a moral person to know what's right, and what's wrong. They don't need a freaking library full of law books to tell them. Even people who make a career out of law do not know what all the laws are. We are too busy debating on what color to paint the living room walls, when the house is on fire!

What gives a politician the right to say what type of guns I can or can not own and why? Why would there be a need to know when I acquire a new one, or dispose of one? Why would there be a need to know what make, model, and serial number of an acquisition is? Why would there be a need to know where I live? If universal background checks become a requirement, then it WILL lead to universal registration. If someone doesn't believe that, I have a bridge to sell you, give me a call to work out the details. It will be a good deal, I promise! And you think that inventory tracking would be impossible if that ever occurred? Think again. What happens every 10 years? Wouldn't be too hard to have that added to the "required" information on your survey.

We as a nation are in pitiful shape. Too many people will sell their childrens futures so they can keep getting their wellfare check. And they will vote for the politicians that promise them the handout. Those same politicians are the same ones that are terrified of an armed, educated population. That's why they are scrambling to get in control of "the gun problem" before things get so far out of hand that the people have had enough! And they will do it with the lies that you are safer without a means of protection. That we must give up our God given rights for "the greater good".

I think what we fear will eventually happen. Maybe not this year, but it's coming. We can not get qualified people elected who will address the hard issues. It's not hard to know what's right and what's wrong, but God help you if you offend someone while saying it! Political correctness will be the downfall of this nation. Lack of morality will be a cause also. Look at how our children are being bombarded with filth on television, cinema, and radio. You remain exposed to something long enough, then it slowly starts being "acceptable", or "normal". You see prime time shows delivering content, that thirty years ago would have gotten the production studios burned down. We have fallen far, very fast, and it's accelerating. Our constitution can only work for a moral people, and we are no longer that.

The second amendment, as written, is the keystone that keeps the whole thing supported. Start messing with it, and the rest will fall.

[Light attack]

Interesting thread. I have been watching the chipping away by the gun grabbers for 50 years. Make no mistake, registration/confiscation is the end game here. We need to keep the nose of the camel from under the tent. ie no cookies for the mouse!

Light attack.
Gary M

[captaint]

I'm OK with background checks to assure the buyer is approved. No records beyond that need
be kept. Legal buyer, legal firearm. Done. What does bother the hell out of me is these criminal
politicians pretending it's going to makes safer. Obviously, they know better. With that in mind,
what's the reason(s) for keeping serial #'s and records ?? Right. Therein lies the problem.
I mean, in Chigago, they won't even put criminals in jail. Then, they cry about their violent crime
rate. Go after the criminals if you want to make someone safer. They know we're not the problem.
AND, if a person has a long list of convictions, especially violent ones, that person does NOT deserve the TRUST needed to let them own a firearm. I guess I tend to over simplify things. Mike

[Harter66]

Doc,10mm,

Thems' strong words. Here's a question aimed at your core. Are you ready to pull the trigger if the guardsman ,deputy,trooper,city LEO that comes to the door is your son in law,nephew,daughter in law,cousin or just the Joe/Jane from down the road? I mean seriously look them up and down and take the 2nd or 3rd button off their shirt and stick it to their spine?

I agree w/the shall not be infringed upon having been infringed on checks are here to stay. My question is where will the system draw the line? The answer is the it won't. Currently its black and white. If they are allowed to "Google every background check it'll take about 2 seconds to probably find something to reject every one of us, I'm a habitual criminal, pull my DMV 14 tickets for basic speed........ last 1 was 10 yr ago , I drove truck that got loosely mileage and drifted/coasted/Tijuana overdrive down the hills apparently 72/55 is an issue however I can roll those same hills at 75 today and hardly get a look as their 70 zones. That is exactly the example of what I mean. Where's the line? Ins co doesn't care that was over 5 yr ago,DMV drops employer check at 7 years and most of the incidents are no longer crimes.

[x101airborne]

Boy, when I want to start a debate.....
I better go take my prozac.
I dont want to REGISTER ANYTHING. I am not in favor of any record keeping or anything like that.
All I am saying is I would like to know the pros and cons of background checks and legal status of the firearm.
As someone else stated, legal person, legal firearm, done. That is all I want.
And no, felons regardless of crime do not have the same rights as everyone else. They gave that up when they comitted their crime. End of that.

[Ajax]

I disagree. why does a felon who has served his sentence and been deemed suitable for society, lose his right to provide for and protect his family.

Andy

[dragon813gt]

No record, no fee, make it quick and I'm fine with it. When it comes to criminals the recidivism rate is very high. Tell me why I should trust a person that was in jail for attempted murder, with a firearm to boot? And really tell me why I should trust a child molester? They have the highest recidivism rate of all.

On one hand I understand on doing your time and when you get out you're a free man with all rights restored. On the other hand to many of them commit more crimes. It's a case of one bad apple spoiling the bunch. But in this case it's more than one apple since there are a lot of criminals that stay in the system for years on end. I do not want these people having easy access to firearms. I can't stop them from acquiring them illegally.

[Ajax]

if they are repeat offenders say 2 with violent crimes EXECUTE them don't give me this poo about he had a bad childhood. There should be no reward for committing a crime, and yet there is in today's society.

Andy

[Epd230]

It is basic divide and conquer.

First we take away the constitutional rights of the mentally insane. No one will stand up for them because they are insane. I don't want an insane person to have access to a gun, do you? They have already proven that they cannot be trusted.

Next we take away the constitutional rights of the convicted felons. No one will stand up for them because they are convicted felons. I don't want a convicted felon to have access to a gun do you? They have already proven that they cannot be trusted.

Next, we take away the constitutional rights of those conviceted of domestic battery. We even back date this mandate on the people that took a domestic battery conviction when the only difference between a battery and a domestic battery was for crime tracking purposes. I don't want domestic abusers to have access to guns, do you? They have already proved that they have a violent nature and cannot be trusted.

Next, we take away the constitutional rights of people who have simply been accused of domestic battery, and now have an emergency order of protection issued against them. (An emegency OOP is the easiest thing in the world to get. Just sand in front of a judge and tell them thay you are afraid of a family member. No need to even say that a weapon was used or threatened to be used.) With the stroke of the judges pen, with no evidence or trial, your constitutional rights have hust been eliminated for the next two weeks. (Get caught with a firearm during that time and you will now be a felon. See above.) I don't want to see them with a firearm, do you? They have already proven that they cannot be trusted.

Next, and this is comming soon, we take away the constitutional rights away from returning vetrans who have been diagnosed with PTSD. I don't want to see them with a firearm, do you? They have proven, well, they have proven that they will stand up for this country and serve when needed. Pay the ultimate price if necessary to keep us safe and free from our enemies. And by doing this, we will demonstrated that they are disposable.

What is next? Muslims? Illegal Aliens? Foreign tourists? Christians? Republicans? Independants? blondes? Right handed people?

THE REASON IT IS UNACCEPTABLE IS BECAUSE YOU ARE PUTTING SOMEONE IN THE POSITION TO SAY NO.

Where does it end?

[41 mag fan]

Trey, you started a good debate here.
here's why i think background checks are BS. Back when I was a kid, I could go into the farm store and buy my own shotgun shells or 22's. Well then sometime..early 80's? along came the foid card. Back then I think it cost $2.00 to get one. I moved out of IL shortly after, but i seen what that FOID card has done to my family and friends over there. Without that card, you can't buy guns, ammo, nothing. You have a 3 day wait when you do buy a gun.
Without that card, you are a felon if you try to buy a gun.
That card was the beginning of what you see in IL now. Some of the most oppressive gun laws in the U.S.
The background check we have now thru out the U.S. is now under scrutiny to be modified, and basically it'll be tougher checks in place.
Just like the FOID card, it's a slow process, the background check will be the same way, one little thing after another, one little chip one little baby step to totally control of your life, guns, everything.

If the NRA wants to do something worthwhile, why not set up a hotline that will let the individual call and do a background check on an individual without giving out info on the gun they are selling. If a person is worried about a gun being possible stolen, they can go to the police station and have a check ran

[sparky45]

Boy, when I want to start a debate.....
I better go take my prozac.
I dont want to REGISTER ANYTHING. I am not in favor of any record keeping or anything like that.
All I am saying is I would like to know the pros and cons of background checks and legal status of the firearm.
As someone else stated, legal person, legal firearm, done. That is all I want.
And no, felons regardless of crime do not have the same rights as everyone else. They gave that up when they comitted their crime. End of that.

Prozac Airborne??? Better watch that kind of talk, you WILL be labeled as a person with a mental problem, and guess what happens then!!

[GREENCOUNTYPETE]

i would rather have criminals with guns that a government with a list of every gun owner and gun.

because criminals will find guns no mater how good of a list the gov gets

if a background check is just that then fine , but what they want is more than a background check they want a registry owner name to make model and serial number.

all lists have lead to confiscation , and often to genocide

no matter how hard they try to protect people by making lists restricting access , they only restrict the people who follow the rules and that only makes them better easier targets for those who don't follow the rules. they know that any system they create will fail a person will get thru that then commits a crime with a "legal" gun never mind it was an Illegal gun the second the person conspired to commit a crime with it. once they have a new example of someone who passed their test they will look at that and say nope needs more restrictions until they have accomplished their end goal which is no guns so they can control the population.

[flounderman]

I think you have seen the picture of the cowboy that says if you think criminals are going to obey gun laws. you are a special kind of stupid. We have more laws infringing on our rights already and anybody that thinks adding more laws will make a difference, explain to me how it will be any different. The laws are a burden to honest people that are no threat and disregarded by the criminal element. There are laws against stealing and killing. Do you think passing a second law against it will make a difference? I don't understand you people so eager to give up your rights. Problem is, when you do that, you take my rights, too. I have been watching the encroachment on our second amendment rights since Kennedy was shot. You have to be a slow learner not to see what has happened. I could buy a rifle from Kleins in Chicago and have it mailed to me at one time. There wasn't a problem with mass shootings then. Address the problem. Now you have violent electric games programing the children, lack of parental supervision, anything goes if you don't get caught, mentality. anybody that wants a gun can get one, unless you are willing to let the government confiscate all the guns and bale them up, only that didn't stop the killing either. People are the problem, not guns. We have thousands of people on this site and probably not one of us or our children have been involved in an unjustified shooting. Yet, there are more guns available to this group than in the general public. One thing that has changed is the draft was eliminated. It might be interesting to look at statistics before it ended and afterwards. I personally think the governer of Colorado should be recalled as a lesson to other governers and legislators not to violate our second amendment rights.

[shooterg]

I find it hard to believe that many of the independent thinkers here would even CONSIDER any more government intrusion. I do note that some who are OK with the BG check live in states where it is already required - they've already been de-sensitized to an incremental loss of freedom.

I'm in agreement 100% with Freakshow's comments. Any individual who has payed his debt to society should have ALL his rights back. It WAS that way for most of our history.

No way I meet a bud at the Range on Sunday PM, decide to make him an offer on some piece he doesn't want anymore, and want to figure out what day we can meet at an FFL(which shouldn't even exist) and pay more money to get it.

Yeah, you register to vote(but nobody makes ya), but you do not pay a poll tax. Any extra fee I pay to exercise a RIGHT is BOGUS !

[flounderman]

As far as convicted felons that have served their time being able to own guns again, I worked 10 years as a correctional officer. Their are people that made a mistake and paid for it and will be model citizens. More people that are released will be back in a few months, than will become models. The dna tests are catching a lot that had gotten away with serious crimes. One guy was released and the feds got him in the parking lot for 3 murders. One guy escaped from minimum just before release. dna had tied him to 5 unsolved rapes. I watched a man in court explaining to the judge how he was turning his life around and he was caught for robbing a bank a couple months later. Most of them obtain a gun because you can't deal drugs without one. We had a guy was an nra member and his ex wifes boyfriend attacked him with a knife. He ran but came to a fence, turned around and pulled a 44 mag and shot the guy. Unfortunately, the guy had turned around when he saw the gun. We didn't have the castle doctrine law at that time or maybe he would not have been arrested. I could see him getting his second amendment rights back. We had a couple officers had to have their records expunged. every case is different. Unfortunately, I would feel better if convicted felons couldn't legally obtain a gun. If they can convince a judge they should, I don't have a problem with that.

[Adam10mm]

Doc,10mm,

Thems' strong words. Here's a question aimed at your core. Are you ready to pull the trigger if the guardsman ,deputy,trooper,city LEO that comes to the door is your son in law,nephew,daughter in law,cousin or just the Joe/Jane from down the road? I mean seriously look them up and down and take the 2nd or 3rd button off their shirt and stick it to their spine?
Non sequitur. From what and how did you get that out of my post?

I think what you are trying to get at is this: The first reason I own firearms is to protect myself and my family. The second reason is to protect myself against tyrants. The last reason is for hunting as a means of survival. I have never shot anyone in my life, but if it came down to it I don't think I would hesitate to shoot someone that deserved it.

[joec]

I have no problem with a background check even on a private sale. As others have said you don't pay it the buyer does. Now for those that want to conflate a background check with a gun registry get over it they are different things completely. Every time you take out a loan, apply for a job, rent an apartment or home you go through a background check. When you buy a gun in gun shop they don't send the information on the gun only your information to see if your name, ID, etc raises any flags. If you have a job in gambling, school teacher, cop etc you go through an FBI background check so and they don't have a clue why you are being checked other than you are.

Oh and every gun I have now or have bought in since they started background checks where done through an FFL so a background check was either done on me if buying or the buyer if selling. I won't nor would I do it any other way.

[white eagle]

If my son or my nephew grand kid whatever the case my be wants to buy one of my firearms its nobody's damn business but ours
what about the guns that were given to me now am I supposed to register them?? Hardly...
its one thing to register when you buy from a store but private sales are just that, private
if you don't feel comfortable selling your gun to someone don't sell it
across the board checks are out of the question

[Duckiller]

Laws in some states are changing but I believe that convicted felons loose the right to vote, own guns and get a passport. Felonies are major crimes and if you commit one you are no longer trustworthy. That being said I worked with a man who had been the guest of the govenor for something he had done in his youth. Never knew what he had done but when he worked with us he was very hard working honest individual. People like him often get pardons from their govenor after several years showing that they have become law abiding citizens.
Neither the 1st nor the2nd ammendments are absolute rights. If you want them to be absolute right get elected to congress. Not sure many other congressmen are going to let some one shout "Fire" in a crowded theater or let some one with serious mental disorders own a firearm. These are not the issues facing right now. Back ground checks that cost $5-10 with NO RECORD kept are not the problem. Background checks that turn into gun registration or lists of gun owners are a problem. Current law says no registration no record. FBI personel violated the law. No consequences. As noted above several states use background checks to compile a list of gun owners. There should be severe penalities for using background checks to create lists,i.e fired ,loose pension never work for federal gov again. State should be prohibited from registering guns and or creating lists of gun owners. There must be real penalities if a State violate theses laws. Take their free federal law enforcement money away from them for 10-15 years. We shouldn't give money to law breakers. And if the Fed does give money to violating States then those officials should be fired,including Dept heads.

[schutzen]

I did not have time to read all the replys, but I beleive this is a terrible idea. The part that scares me is if universal background checks are required all firearms sales will have to go through an FFL. Currently there are 58,000-60,000 FFL's in the US. If universal BG checks passes, I suspect President O. will direct the ATF by executive order to reduce the number of FFL holders. I my county there are currently 2 active FFL's. If those 2 FFL's are hounded out of business by the ATF, we will have to drive 25+ miles to leagally sell a firearm.

Some will say the government would not reduce the number of FFL's, but you need to look back to 1995. President Clinton directed the ATF to cut the number of FFL's. If I remember correctly, the number was cut by nearly 40,000.

It is a scary though for gun owners.

[fecmech]

I want the same kind of background check that is required by Federal law for voting. I must simply state that I am a U.S. citizen in good standing under penalty of perjury. No proof required. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor said that was more than adequate. If we can't ask people for proof to exercise our right to vote why should we have to be checked to purchase a firearm?? Certainly illegal voting is more of a threat to our country than people with firearms.

[sparky45]

I was one of the FFL holders that was "reduced" in the 1990's and as every FFL holder knows their business is required by law to maintain a "bound book", a register of inventory and sales of Firearms. When a FFL License is surrendered, that bound book MUST be sent to the ATF. Any guesses what they to with it?

[waksupi]

I have no problem with a background check even on a private sale. As others have said you don't pay it the buyer does. Now for those that want to conflate a background check with a gun registry get over it they are different things completely. Every time you take out a loan, apply for a job, rent an apartment or home you go through a background check. When you buy a gun in gun shop they don't send the information on the gun only your information to see if your name, ID, etc raises any flags. If you have a job in gambling, school teacher, cop etc you go through an FBI background check so and they don't have a clue why you are being checked other than you are.

Oh and every gun I have now or have bought in since they started background checks where done through an FFL so a background check was either done on me if buying or the buyer if selling. I won't nor would I do it any other way.

How many of those other things are covered in the Bill of Rights?

[joec]

How many of those other things are covered in the Bill of Rights?

None however the SCOTUS has said none of these rights are all inclusive and restrictions can be made on them. Now when you think about it a bit perhaps they are right as each right will sometimes interfere with another right under the same laws of someone else.

[GOPHER SLAYER]

I want to encourage all of you who have expressed support for this governments background check to rethink your opinion. You have no idea what you are wishing for. I saw a women on TV explaining what they propose to ask on this check list. If it doesn't scare you nothing will. I do not have time to list all the things the lady said but just remember what their ultimate goal is. To find out where the guns are and eventually take them.

[joec]

I want to encourage all of you who have expressed support for this governments background check to rethink your opinion. You have no idea what you are wishing for. I saw a women on TV explaining what they propose to ask on this check list. If it doesn't scare you nothing will. I do not have time to list all the things the lady said but just remember what their ultimate goal is. To find out where the guns are and eventually take them.

You know partner because it is proposed doesn't mean it will pass either. Just look at the "Assault weapon ban and Magazine size ban" both seem to be dead on arrival as I have said all along. It would be nice instead of reacting with emotion some would simply think out what they want and the realities that exist in the Congress at this current time. When has this congress or the last one actually done what the majority wants really? Well they are pawns of the NRA which though I'm a life time member if I had my way as long as the current group in charge of it is in power I would like to leave them. They are the problem and a step above morons when it comes to proving or making a simple point.

[Doc65]

The most that should be "required", though that is the wrong term as "required" could only be enforced with registration, so maybe PRUDENT is a better term, is that both sides of the transaction show each other some legitimate form of identification, and do a bill of sale. That covers the reasonable due diligence and if the gun were to come back as stolen you would be able to show having purchased it in good faith, IF, and it's a big IF, the stolen firearms registry were freely & anonymously accessible to the general public, then it might make sense to check the serial number against that, but it is NOT accessible to the public, though I have yet to hear a good reason for it's NOT being. This is no different than what a reasonable person should do with any medium to high dollar purchase, used gun, TV, COMPUTER, PHONE, BIKE, etc, etc, etc. No danger of a confiscation list, no cost other than a couple pieces of paper, and within reason it covers both the buyer & seller.

PS, I have two of said forms waiting to be filed for one I bought used & one I sold, no muss, no fuss, and I reasonably know that it can't come back to bite me for either gun.

[Bonz]

I'm okay with the universal background check. The possible creation of a new law that all firearms must be registered kinda sucks but how else can we keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have them ? These wacko shooters are going to continue and if nothing is done about it, we will eventually lose the right to own firearms ourselves.

[Doc65]

Sorry, BONZ, wrong answer, if "a whack job" wants one they will get them, and even if they try to buy it thru channels right now the .gov doesn't prosecute, heck uncle Joe even said "we don't have time to prosecute them all...". Look into how may have been stolen form PD cruisers, they all have 1-2 firearms in them(usually a carbine of some kind & a short barreled shotgun), if a whack job wants to get one they will. the key is to stop glamorizing what they do, stop giving them the fame they think they deserve, and take away their low threat, target rich environments ("gun free zones"). The largest deterrent to a whack job shooting up a school, theater, mall, etal is for them to know that the likelihood is that others are also armed and will prematurely end the said "whack jobs" 15 mins of fame .

I am strongly of the mind set of "not another inch" and heck we need to be taking back some of the ground already ceeded in mistaken attempts to "compromise" (NFA & GCA68 come immediately to mind)

[white eagle]

You know partner because it is proposed doesn't mean it will pass either. Just look at the "Assault weapon ban and Magazine size ban" both seem to be dead on arrival as I have said all along. It would be nice instead of reacting with emotion some would simply think out what they want and the realities that exist in the Congress at this current time. When has this congress or the last one actually done what the majority wants really? Well they are pawns of the NRA which though I'm a life time member if I had my way as long as the current group in charge of it is in power I would like to leave them. They are the problem and a step above morons when it comes to proving or making a simple point.

You can always resign your life membership
one of the better organizations us simpletons have going

[tanstafl10]

If you have not already... go to the NRA site and watch the mid-FEB schummer news interview.
-
He states straight out that his "Universal Background check" is to set up gun registration. Cannot be any clearer.
-
Then check your history as already stated. After registration comes confiscation and a whole lot of deaths. Not in the U.S.----- maybe not tomorrow, but look who's running this country.....!

[gray wolf]

Then check your history as already stated. After registration comes confiscation---confiscation ---confiscation ---confiscation ---confiscation and a whole lot of deaths. Not in the U.S.----- maybe not tomorrow, but look who's running this country.....!
There is no compromise--enough is enough, I scratch my head that some can't grasp what's going on. THEY are never going to let you be A bulls eye for them is no guns for you.
Pull your feet out of the mudddd and grasp this simple fact.

[sparky45]

There's at least a couple of posters within this thread that are a glaring example of the problem, no, threat we as 2nd Amendment advocates have in trying to defend our position. To willingly submit to the clap trap verbiage espoused by the radical Left in this govt. is the essence of stupidity. If the govt. decided to call in all FFL's bound books they would have a database equivalent to a total gun registration. And, if that ever happens, watch your back, carefully.

[MtGun44]

How about we get a background check before voting?

Guys, you are like the frog put in cold water. As the water heats up, you think - this is just a
small step.

Everyone thinks this is "for the good". Hogwash. Bad people will get guns, ALWAYS.

Do they know that I own "some guns" - sure. Do they know exactly what and how many? I don't think
so because I have sold most of what I have bought over the years.

Do you think if you ask some Jews in Germany in 1932 that they would agree that the government is
getting ready to round them up and put them to death? Nope, or they would have left while it was
easy. VERY, VERY few did, and nobody could really imagine that a highly civilized, cultured and
fundamentally Christian nation like prewar Germany could do such a thing. But they DID and NOBODY
raised a finger when it finally came about. People peacefully turned in their guns.

Those who believe the somehow the USA is immune to the problems of getting evil people in charge
through some accident of history, are just as much in denial as the Jews were in Germany in the early
1930s.

Gun control is NOT about guns, it is about control.

Prior to 1968 ANYONE could order ANY GUN through the mail with NO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
involvement. Today you get an FBI background check and many guns are prohibited already
in many places. Are we safer? I would say NO, not at all. In many ways, we are less safe.
Gun control laws are inversely correlated with crime. Strong gun restriction locations have HIGH
crime, places where there are little or no restrictions on guns have LOW crime.

Bill

[FLINTNFIRE]

For the one who thinks the nra is the problem , resign your membership , as for the supreme court , they give a little , but they still do not get the part of shall not be infringed , they like to keep all the added on rulings of courts and politicians , my answer would be move to a state where they already share your beliefs , or even better to a country that does , our rights have been so diluted and watered down it is not even funny , has not made it a safer society , and if the buyer pays for the check it is still costing more . And they do send the information on the gun , I have listened to the ffl talk on the phone and it is make model and serial , this issue is about our rights and freedom , was the instant check system instant ? No it has been used for a waiting period more often then not. The anti gun crowd always proclaims it is reasonable and for the best interest of us all , remember the clintons its for the children , they have security for theirs , not for ours , rosie o'donnell hypocrites .

[Recaster]

What does "shall not be infringed" mean?

All the restrictions on what type of arms that i may own, any licensing fee, any mandated safety classes or any other hoop that i must jump through, i believe, are infringements.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[popper]

when the same socialists vote for background checked voting cards I might consider that card for legality to own a gun.

[TXGunNut]

Wow! Awesome thread. On the one hand I don't have a problem with "background checks" but at one time "universal healthcare" sounded like a good idea as well. I pay for my healthcare and that of at least one uninsured patient, I thought if everyone had healthcare ins it would lower my cost. So much for that idea. It's not the title of the bill that gets enforced when it becomes law, it's the language.
I've had my background checked many times, I've done more than a few in depth background checks. I don't have a problem with that until someone says "no". Do we know who that someone could be? A low-level bureaucrat? Your medical practitioner? Think about that.
On the other hand I have no doubt my name is on a master list of gun owners, so is yours. Gun registration just helps them figure out if you have any stashed away when they come to take them away.
I've changed my position on this issue. NO background checks. NO gun registration. NO more "compromises". If we have to fight to keep our rights then by golly they should have to fight to infringe upon them.

[clodhopper]

The devil is in the details, background checks will need to be done if you loan a gun to someone, if your guns are stored in your house and you have some one babysit your house while you are gone. If you teach marksmanship and loan a person a gun to use under your direct supervision.
Check out all the stuff in the bill.
The restrictions are much uglier than the sound byte.

[William Yanda]

The problem as I see it is any new laws that do not help prevent violent crimes are just feel good measures. If I thought that background checks would help with the murder rate or prevent 1 school shooting I'd be for them. I'm for no new legislation.

+1, what he said. Someone here quotes T Jefferson's statement to the effect that legislation is not the cure for evil. The gallows is the cure for evil and our present government does not have the stones to use the gallows.

[bob208]

there is no shuch thing as gun control lite. no matter how untntrusive it seams it is always just the begining. as stated it starts a list of owners it tracks all guns. what next the dealers start sharging more and more to do the transfer? and lets not forget the tax end. there would be sales tax then the income tax.

[sparky45]

I don't know what dealers in your area charge, but I have one in my community and he charges $50 and has for over a year and a half. They can charge whatever they want. I have purchased 7 guns during that year and a half and have saved $210 by using a different dealer in a smaller town near me. The Post in this thread that really captured my attention and admiration is #83, well worth digesting.

[Adam10mm]

I'm an FFL and charge $20 for firearms new or used. Suppressor transfers are $50. The other FFL in the next town over charges $30 for used, $50 for new, and $75 for suppressor transfers.

[SharpsShooter]

Give nothing! No background checks. No compromises. Not one stinking step further. The Second Amendment says nothing about "if".

The great compromise started be in 34. I don't know about y'all but I'm about compromised out. I enjoyed seeing the NFA rolled back

SS

[Awsar]

i wish the would worry about the real problem the criminal using guns illegaly.banning guns and intense back ground chks would be like banning cars for accident victims getting killed.next we will have to fill out an application for the purchase of a hammer because "they" kill people.
they really dont get it most bad guys dont legaly purchase guns therefore more laws will only hurt the law abiding citizen .

[45nut]

Either the right to self defense is God given and cannot be tampered with IE: infringed,,and everything to this point and beyond is certainly that.
Or

Its all bs and we are just slaves IE human resources to be harvested.

Now to me,, its never been within their jurisdiction but we have been brainwashed into giving consent to their power plays.

[montana_charlie]

I just read every post in this thread.
I was very surprised (read shocked) to see how many are okay with Universal Background Checks as proposed by the Democrats, this year. Having looked at a number of nationally-conducted polls, I see that a majority of Americans are answering in favor of them, but I assumed only a small percentage of gun owners (the selfish ones and the poorly-informed ones) were in that majority.

There were many posts in the five pages I just went through that screamed for an answer, but those answers were generally forthcoming as the thread grew. However, I just had to point this one out. I removed the username because that is not the point. the point is the mindset.


I'm okay with the universal background check. The possible creation of a new law that all firearms must be registered kinda sucks but how else can we keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have them ? These wacko shooters are going to continue and if nothing is done about it, we will eventually lose the right to own firearms ourselves.

The mindset is the same one which has plagued gun owners for decades.
They want to register handguns, the shotgunners don't care.
They want to ban 'assault rifles' the muzzleloaders don't care.
They want to restrict semi-automatics, the lever action people don't care.

This one says that 'registration of all firearms kinda sucks' but if somebody thinks that will help them locate wackos, that's okay ... as long as he can shoot his guns.
This ignores the fact (and it is a proven fact) that the day will come when it's his guns that they are after, this time.
And the fact that his guns will already be 'registered' ... well, that will 'kinda suck', won't it?

I was also surprised (read shocked) when Franklin Graham came out in favor of Universal Background Checks.
My shocked surprise was couched in three aspects of the announcement.

First, I presumed that Franklin Graham was more conservative than that. I don't know why, it was just my impression.
Secondly, I was surprised that he would take on any political posture during a debate as heated as this one is.
Obviously, I don't know the man as well as (I think) I knew his father.
And, thirdly, I assume that Reverend Graham leads too busy a life to have spent any appreciable time with guns. Therefore, I believe him to be somewhat ignorant of many aspects concerning them.

Anyway, his announcement seemed to need a reply so I sent hin this ...

Reverend Graham,

Since you have chosen to turn political by supporting 'universal background checks' for gun owners, I give you this as factual information.

It is said that the reason for universal background checks is to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.

The issue is that ‘the wrong people’ (today) don’t go near a gun that requires a background check … and they STILL won’t if background checks become ‘universal’.

If they can’t find a gun on the black market, they will kill a cop or citizen and take one.

The current background check system is being utilized at barely 50% efficiency. Why not more? According to Biden, "they don’t have time" (his words) to prosecute law breakers who violate federal law by trying to defraud the NICS system.
They don't have time to use the currently collected data, but they want to increase that data load by (a claimed) 40%.
This makes no sense unless the data collection is to be used for an unstated purpose.

The ONLY thing that will change under a ‘universal’ system is the record keeping.

Having a fresh start in building a who-has-what-and-where-do-they-live database, Feinstein and her crowd will FINALLY have that list of ‘registered’ owners so they can start confiscation efforts whenever the time is right.

Read and heed, Sir. It IS the truth.



I feel that this message is also appropriate as my input to this discussion, but I have an addition only collected today.

In a news story on the radio about Biden, Bloomberg, and some Newtown 'families', the piece ended with mention that Harry Reid is currently saying that Universal Background Checks will probably not make it through the Senate due to the high number of Senators who are getting pressured to resist that measure.

I personally hope this proves to be true, and I also hope that those (here) who favor the measure are soundly disappointed.

CM

[shooterg]

Franklin Graham should know better. Used to be a Garand on the wall in his office. On many trips he took to deliver food in strange places he carried a 1911. In his youth he and a friend cut a tree down for a neighbor - with a 1919 !
Needs to remember to "render unto Caesar" only that which does not take away your God-given rights !

[Case Stuffer]

Simple fact is that good people do not use firearms to kill,rob,molest other good people unless by accident. There have been enough firearms laws on the books for decades ,some of which are the very first to be plea bargined away.

A carry permit rrequires a backgroud check and in many states having said carry permit exempts on from the standard X days waiting period for a handgun purchase. Many cities require completion of a traing class prior to issue of carry permit. Even with said carry permit sales thru dealers still require the filling out of forms which in effect is registration. By the way someone convited of a felony can lie on the form and it can not be used againt them in a court of law. Does this registration help law enforement to return stolen firearms to their rightful owners? If it does then why are so many firearms destroyed by law enforment ,could it be that same failure of the system which is suppose to keep uninsured and unlicenesed drives off of the roads?

Those who have little to no respect for others or their property will continue to ignore the law and pertty much does as they please.

I am 6 weeks away from having had a state carry permit for the past 50 years. It took many years for Geargia to go from an open carry only with a permit required for each handgun (even while hunting with a rifle or shotgun) to the present carry permit. IMO any new laws are just a step backwards and will in the end not reduce crimes commeted with firearms one bit.

During the past years I have had police to stop me (during open carry) request to see my carry permit and then proceed to run a check on the handgun. What did this serve? Logic says that if I did not legally own the firearm then I would not openly carry it and produce a carry permit.

Interesting perhaps side note ,during several of these checks the officer had not a clue how to safely handle a semi auto and I felt that they were placing others in danger by their actions.

One of my pet peeves are the gun shops which do not alow carry of a loaded handgun in their stores when the customer has a carry permit and in many case purchased the handgun from them.

[KCSO]

Add 25-50 dollars to every gun you purchase for paperwork to start with and then thnk about this as backdoor registration. It is simply more federal government involvment in your supposedly private life. And it won't do a darn thing because only honest people will come into a dealer to transfer their guns and the crooks willl do it in the same alley they have been doing it in for years. Oh wit, I'm sorry there are NO unregistered guns in Ney York are there???

[jcwit]

I do think there should be restrictions on those who are mentally unstable, no matter what the cause.

Now the problem arises as to who decides what "unstable" is.

That I have no answer for.

[country gent]

Does anyone besides the writers of these bills know what is acually in them, what they are intended to accomplish? Remeber Diane Fienstien on the health care bill we Have to pass it to know whats in it? Shouldnt you know what is being voted on before hand? All this legislation is is feel good restrict rights even more laws. Tsa searches and inspections dont violate the constitutions amendment against illegal un neccesary searches? The local sobriety check points arnt illegal searches? What suspician do they have when stopping every car on a road? If you turn off to avoid it they have a chase car to run you down here.... The scariest thing I have heard is, Im from the goverment and Im here to help.

[MT Gianni]

The real problem is they do not work. There was a shooting at Quantico recently, the shooter was staff. Do we disarm a Marine base so someone can work? Do we fire all LEO's that have had "counseling" with a Psychiatrist? Do we continue to send our young men and women into combat knowing that for some it has lifelong consequences?
Many of us who know or assume that we will pass with no problems might think for a minute that there is no real problem with them. My son was denied a firearm sale for 3 days because of someone with the same name and birthday as his only 6 years older living in the same county of under 100K. Anyone who has dealt with any form of governing body knows that mistakes will be made. When someone passes a check and shoots some one then all checks will need to become more stringent. Secondly, I do not believe a background check will ever show the future state of mind in a person.

[montana_charlie]

I do think there should be restrictions on those who are mentally unstable, no matter what the cause.

Now the problem arises as to who decides what "unstable" is.
The current NICS system has provisions for dealing with mental incompetence.
But, it is grossly underused.
The information is supposed to be submitted by the various states.
Of states that DO submit data, there is a group (can't remember how many but it's around 20) that has sent in (like) 44 submissions since the program started ... something like 4 states have sent in 1 submission ... and a number of states ignore the program entirely.

The NRA is fully aware of this underuse, and has the correct figures (that I am fuzzy on). That is their main argument against 'universal' checks.
Because it's obvious that the current system is not helping at all, there is really no logic in expanding it to include 40% more data that will ALSO not be used as intended.

The use that the 'new data' WILL be put to is what should concern all of us ... and I am speaking directly to those further up in this thread who said they are 'okay' with the universal checks.
Just because YOU personally wouldn't feel restricted ... perhaps because you don't expect to ever transfer a gun, anyway ... is not a good reason to support imposing that new infringement on the entire gun population.

That kind of selfish thinking got Zumbo kicked off of his magazine job and could earn a member a slot on somebody's ignore list.

(Not mine, though. I don't 'ignore' anybody. I want to know who among us is not really with us.)

CM

[Phoenix]

Well said


The current NICS system has provisions for dealing with mental incompetence.
But, it is grossly underused.
The information is supposed to be submitted by the various states.
Of states that DO submit data, there is a group (can't remember how many but it's around 20) that has sent in (like) 44 submissions since the program started ... something like 4 states have sent in 1 submission ... and a number of states ignore the program entirely.

The NRA is fully aware of this underuse, and has the correct figures (that I am fuzzy on). That is their main argument against 'universal' checks.
Because it's obvious that the current system is not helping at all, there is really no logic in expanding it to include 40% more data that will ALSO not be used as intended.

The use that the 'new data' WILL be put to is what should concern all of us ... and I am speaking directly to those further up in this thread who said they are 'okay' with the universal checks.
Just because YOU personally wouldn't feel restricted ... perhaps because you don't expect to ever transfer a gun, anyway ... is not a good reason to support imposing that new infringement on the entire gun population.

That kind of selfish thinking got Zumbo kicked off of his magazine job and could earn a member a slot on somebody's ignore list.

(Not mine, though. I don't 'ignore' anybody. I want to know who among us is not really with us.)

CM

I believe the use of 'mental stability' is a pandora's box that will NEVER lead to good things. you know that even if it started with people who are comitted more than 3 months. not only can that lead to unfair infringement but it will never stay at that criteria. Being comitted is not synonymous with violent. The problem with the mental health angle of this is it can be used for anyone.

If they start with "only those comitted for a multiple violent episodes. When a mass killing occurs with someone that had ADHD. They will complain the current restrictions are not good enough. It will creep like baby steps and eventually get the to "anyone who has been comitted against their will even if just for 48 hour observation. (this is alot easier that most think, it can happen to ANYONE)

NOONE, I repeat NOONE can be in charge of these decisions. NOONE can get this right. There will be countless people that are on the list and never allowed to own a gun for life. This is the slipperiest slope we will ever tread down. The previous slope was the elimination of "intent" being a requirement to convict. The burden was on the prosecution to at least show a hint of intent. Now that is not a requirement. People taking plea deals because they dont feel they have a choice for something they never intended. Writing a check for $500 or more that bounces is a felony federally and in most states. It is not hard to have such a thing happen to you without you wanting it. Maybe the wife bought something and didnt put it in the check register. Does that mean you should not own a gun for the rest of your life? I think not. Be careful what you wish for or you may someday be on the receiving side of the gun rights beat stick. The system is totally broken and most of the fixes are worse than the current system. The way it should be will never happen again.

[jcwit]

I have a relative that is mentaly disabled/retarded. It clearly obvious that this person has no business handling firearms in any way, no more than he has any business behind the wheel of anything, encluding a pedal car.

Now then, someone needs to make the decision about persons such as this, no matter what the slope is like.

[Phoenix]

I have a relative that is mentaly disabled/retarded. It clearly obvious that this person has no business handling firearms in any way, no more than he has any business behind the wheel of anything, encluding a pedal car.

Now then, someone needs to make the decision about persons such as this, no matter what the slope is like.

I completely disagree. How have we survived this long without specific legislation to do that?

Once you put something like that in law then the slope begins. There is no reason to start down that slope in that case. The only way I can see him getting a firearm is if someone gives it to him. If he is retarded he will have a custodial guardian his entire life. My point still stands. This really has nothing to do with the problems that are being presented to need this kind of legislation. Noone is scared that a retarded person is going to shoot up a place. They are basically a child for life so it works more like a child than an adult.

[jcwit]

If he is retarded he will have a custodial guardian his entire life.

OH REALLY! You need to get out more.

[jcwit]

They are basically a child for life so it works more like a child than an adult.

You actually believe this?

[gew98]

Not their business, true, but what if you purchased a weapon with no bill of sale, then during a hunters safety check 10 years later, you are in posession of a stolen weapon. Well, in Texas, sorry bout that. YOU are in posession of stolen property. Had you done a check, There would be a trail to follow. AND.... I dont want to sell to a felon as I previously stated. And what is the big deal with paying 30 to 50 bucks to make sure of it? If you are really so personally strapped that 50 bucks means that much, you should probably not be buying extra guns.

Wow !. So you will allow the fedgod to create a list of whom has what when why and where and don't mind paying them to do it. So that when they decide your weapons are so dangerous "to the childrens" that their adhoc registry which you support allows them to come to your home and seize them...and likely charge you with some insanity whcihc apparently you would be OK with .

[jr545]

If you want safety move to Europe.
If you want Liberty, wait, the Constitution is about to be restored....by oath, blood or honor.
Communism may rule the day, but by God...Freedom will claim the week.

[fcvan]

Innocent until proven guilty. Approved to purchase/own/carry a firearm until proven guilty in court, proven mentally incompetent in court, etc. All transactions require a valid ID, record of the aforementioned adjudications automatically attached to that ID. Purchase of any weapon is totally separate from any form of ID check. Any person who submits an ID for a purchase, and the background does not clear, ID is not returned, store security footage showing the attempt to unlawfully purchase is provided along with the ID. 'Deputize' FFL to detain subject. Prosecute every last one. What was the number I heard? 76,000 failed but only 100 convictions? I agree that background check equals back door list, you know the list prohibited within the law but they are still keeping. Innocent until proven guilty.

[TRAVIS1]

Is there some part of "....shall not be infringed,..." that is hard to understand?

[Ohio Rusty]

I am not against background checks at all. I'm all in favor keeping a gun out of a criminal or a nut jobs hands. If someone wants to run a background check on me .... so be it. I just had one thru my work. (school system) Are you for the people working in our school system having a clean background so they don't start shooting up the school and kids or be a pedophile around your kids?? Do you want your kids to be safe in school ?? It's mandatory I have to get a background check for my employment. I'm 100% squeaky clean thru the FBI, thru BCI and thru the state of Ohio. Obviously I also had to have a clean record to get my CCW. What I don't understand is all the anti-background check rhetoric happening. Why wouldn't we want to make sure that a felon, or a person with a violent or mentally unstable life history doesn't get their hands on a firearm ?? What about possible terrorists ?? they live in this country also .... shouldn't we be checking to make sure they can't get one so they can go into a soft target area like a school, a mall or a public bus load of people and start shooting up the place. ??

This is where I probably differ from the NRA and alot of other people. I had a job for years where I patrolled the streets and had to deal with gang members and criminals that had bad intent. I knew well two other officers that were shot, and one was in a wheel chair for the rest of his life. The other underwent surgeries to fix his skull and get a metal plate in his head. Sorry guys ... when it comes to background checks ...I'm 100% for background checks. The ones totally against it are the ones that have something to hide in their background.
Ohio Rusty ><>

Hydrostatic shock doesn't kill deer ..... I do.

[jcwit]

If you want safety move to Europe.

Nope, Gonna stay right here, where I'm at. See the little dot, it means "period".

[jcwit]

I fail to understand the "right of the people shall not be infringes" applies to those that are mentally incompetent. This is what has got us in this mess, its clearly the actions of the last few going back from Sandy Nook have been done be mentally incompetent individuals.

This is my stand, like it or not.

[perotter]

What I don't understand is all the anti-background check rhetoric happening. Why wouldn't we want to make sure that a felon, or a person with a violent or mentally unstable life history doesn't get their hands on a firearm ?? What about possible terrorists ?? they live in this country also .... shouldn't we be checking to make sure they can't get one so they can go into a soft target area like a school, a mall or a public bus load of people and start shooting up the place. ??

Sorry guys ... when it comes to background checks ...I'm 100% for background checks. The ones totally against it are the ones that have something to hide in their background.
Ohio Rusty ><>



You either haven't thought and researched your position out fully or you desire having the jackboots doing what they want. Hopefully it is the 1st one.

Just a few things:

The fed government says the following are possible terrorists: military veterans, supporters of the US Constitution, those who pay with cash, those against abortion on demand, those that keep a little food on hand. Gotta love that last one. As it's one agency of the DHS that says you might be a terrorist if you do what a different agency of the DHS(FEMA) says to do.

Another thing is under what the have written so far. I could hand my shotgun to my sister-in-laws nephew to shoot a few clays if we are at a formal trap range. But, I can't do that if we are busting a few clays at my brothers farm.

[jcwit]

Just a few things:

The fed government says the following are possible terrorists: military veterans, supporters of the US Constitution, those who pay with cash, those against abortion on demand, those that keep a little food on hand. Gotta love that last one. As it's one agency of the DHS that says you might be a terrorist if you do what a different agency of the DHS(FEMA) says to do.

So you would believe anything this administration says? Whats the matter with you?

[perotter]

So you would believe anything this administration says? Whats the matter with you?

Your post makes no sense.

[jcwit]

Your post makes no sense.

REALLY? Now I understand your post #112 on this thread. Makes your thinking and train of thought much clearer.

[Ohio Rusty]

JCwitt wrote:
I fail to understand the "right of the people shall not be infringed"

Doing a background check on me isn't infringing my my right to do anything really. We have laws that says felons or those with criminal or violent histories aren't allowed to possess a firearm.
I don't have a criminal past. Since I can pass any background check, then I am free and 'un-afringed'
to purchase any firearm I want ... pistols, rifles, or obtain a class III license to own an automatic weapon.
People driving under suspension without a licence shouldn't drive. You get checked for that when you renew your license. People with a felony shouldn't have a gun .... they need to be checked for that also.
Most employment places run a background check on you and alot do drug testing. If you want the job, you go thru the checks ....... If you want the job, then do the checks or don't apply for that employment if you are against checks.
If you want a firearm, you should also go thru the checks. Same difference.
Like I said ....I'm not against checks. I feel they have a valid and good place when it comes to firearms possession.

My co-worker was telling me that at a recent Pro Gun Show in Columbus, he was next to 6 guys dressed like gang bangers and wearing gang banger colors buying pistols with wads of cash. Maybe they weren't gang members and just liked to dress like that. I would have felt more comfortable if they would have been checked out before buying those pistols and hiding them under their hoodie jackets. Just my personal opinion andthat is no one elses on this list. I've had to confront bad people and found hidden guns in their waist bands that could have shot me ..... My opinion is just a little biased about questionable folks who are allowed to own guns. I think this is common sense.

Remember ..... that the 'right of the people shall not be infringed' also applies to gang bangers, biker gang members, thugs and perps that have a future intent to do bad things to other people ....... I'd like to see those types of folks have the heavy hand of our society brought to bear against them.
Again .... Just my personal opinion and not anyone else's on this list.
Ohio Rusty ><>

Hydrostatic shock doesn't kill deer ..... I do.

[jcwit]

I'll agree with that, Rusty.

[perotter]

Criminals buy their guns on the black market. About the only background check there is if the criminal is really a criminal. A government background check has nothing to do with lowering crime.

[Lead Fred]

What are the drawbacks to background checks?

God said I can defend myself any which way I choose.
I choose not to let the runaway gobermint know what I have, its no ones business, but mine, and God's.

Since the crimminal gobermint has not lifted a finger against the folks that were found not to be able to own firearms, then why should We be worried.

In real America, when bad people got guns, good people kilt them.

We are poor sheep that have lost our way, ba ba ba

[jcwit]

Criminals buy their guns on the black market. About the only background check there is if the criminal is really a criminal. A government background check has nothing to do with lowering crime.

My discussion about this has nothing to do with criminals.

[jcwit]

God said I can defend myself any which way I choose.
I choose not to let the runaway gobermint know what I have, its no ones business, but mine, and God's.


Discussion is in regards to BackGround Checks, nothing to do with registration.

[montana_charlie]

Sorry guys ... when it comes to background checks ...I'm 100% for background checks. The ones totally against it are the ones that have something to hide in their background.
You have an opinion that comes from your LE experience, and you say that anyone who doesn't share that opinion is hiding something potentially criminal.
There is that old 'us versus them' LEO attitude that so many on this forum complain about. Too bad that you see fit to validate their complaints.


My co-worker was telling me that at a recent Pro Gun Show in Columbus, he was next to 6 guys dressed like gang bangers and wearing gang banger colors buying pistols with wads of cash.
Did your co-worker say whether those six were making their purchases from one of the dealers at that show?
If so, you didn't bother to share that with us.

If they WERE buying from a dealer ... and submitting to NICS ... they did exactly what you would want them to do.
If they were NOT buying from a licensed dealer, their actions would be no different if Universal Background Checks were the law of the land.

Those who want guns for nefarious purposes will NEVER get them from a source that requires a background check.
So, the passage of that law would only restrict you and me ... the law-abiding ... not the crooks.

Oops! Check that statement.
As a LEO you already know that your possession of firearms will not see any form of restriction ... no matter what laws get passed. So your opinion on these bills is really immaterial to us. We like to hear from cops who are with us, but your input is only what we have come to expect.

And, we already know (don't we?) that you suspect all of us are crooks, because we oppose the UBC program ... as described here http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/universal_background_checks_the_liberal_holy_grail .html



Oh!
A word for jcwit.

You keep replying to everything anybody posts as though you believe all of those remarks are directed at you.

Get a grip, Bud, because most of them are not. That's why they don't seem to make sense to you.
But, here is one reply that is for you.


Discussion is in regards to BackGround Checks, nothing to do with registration.
You are allowing yourself to be fooled by the name of the program.
When all of this started, I was somewhat like you. People heard 'backround checks' but thought 'registration'. I was willing to hold back on a judgement until there was more to see.
When I said I was not yet convinced, a number of members turned kinda nasty.

I became convinced that this UBC thing is backdoor registration when they were arguing over 'where the records would be kept'. The Republicans wanted the data from all of these 'universal' checks to be maintained by a non-governmental agency. There were several pretty reasonable suggestions on who that might be.
The Democrats would not hear any of that. The government would be in total control of all of that data.

Well ... that did it for me.
If data from the checks was meant to be used to prevent guns in the wrong hands, it shouldn't matter 'who' has the data ... just as long as it got used for the intended purpose.
But, if 'who has the data' is more important than 'who gets the guns' then there is something underhanded about the program.

If it's underhanded, it can only bode ill for everybody, so I'm against it.

CM

[perotter]

For those who don't go an read these laws and just make assumptions as to what they are, here is what is on the table in the US Senate.
You can't leave a gun with someone for more than 7 days without a background check.
You can't let someone do any target shooting with one of you guns unless there is some government oversight.
You can't borrow someone a gun to go hunting until the minute the season opens and only where it is legal to be shooting. Nor meet them back in town,etc latter.
The AG can basically make whatever regulations they desire to see that these are enforced.


S.374
Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013

`(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee's inventory to the unlicensed transferee.

`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

`(A) bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren;

`(B) a transfer made from a decedent's estate, pursuant to a legal will or the operation of law;

`(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if --

`(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor;

`(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and

`(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and

`(D) a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title made in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer occurs--

`(i) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;

`(ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition; and

`(iii) while hunting or trapping, if--

`(I) the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm;

`(II) the temporary transfer of possession occurs during the designated hunting season; and

`(III) the unlicensed transferee holds any required license or permit.

`(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `transfer'--

`(A) shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or consignment, or other disposition; and

`(B) shall not include temporary possession of the firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee while in the presence of the prospective transferee.

`(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.

[perotter]

I fail to understand the "right of the people shall not be infringes" applies to those that are mentally incompetent. This is what has got us in this mess, its clearly the actions of the last few going back from Sandy Nook have been done be mentally incompetent individuals.

This is my stand, like it or not.

The US Supreme court has decide otherwise and said that they do have full Constitutional rights. Including the right to keep and bear arms. So until that changes, whatever your stand is doesn't make much difference if I agree or not with it.

[Case Stuffer]

What I don't understand is all the anti-background check rhetoric happening. Why wouldn't we want to make sure that a felon, or a person with a violent or mentally unstable life history doesn't get their hands on a firearm ?? What about possible terrorists ?? they live in this country also .... shouldn't we be checking to make sure they can't get one so they can go into a soft target area like a school, a mall or a public bus load of people and start shooting up the place. ??


First off even if a background check prevent someone from leagaly purchasing a firearm that does not prevent them from obtainibg a firearm.

Possible terrorits? I have news for you known terrorits live in this country and they are protected same as the rest of us. Haven't you heard this is Americia the land of the free. I spent a year of my life in the god forsaken swamps,jungles of Viet Nam getting eat up by mositios,leeches,fire ants being shot at all in the name of protecting the good citizens of the south from comunism. If a communist wants to live next door and their children want to attend public schools then the goverment which employed me to seak and destroy communist says they have that right.

There is hardly a month that goes by that a person who had a backgroud check before being employed by a school,hostial,nursing home etc. is not arrested for child or patient abuse.


I have had numerious back ground checks as in for firearm purchases ,one every 5 years for the past 50 for a carry permit ,one for a FFL and one for a Fully Automatic Sub machine gun but I am still against a universal backgroud check,period!

[TXGunNut]

I don't have a problem with the NICS check but that isn't what this bill is about. Remember, it's from the same folks who gave us the "Affordable Healthcare Act". We're just now seeing the true effects of that crime against taxpayers. Do you really want these folks to regulate firearms transfers?

[Lead Fred]

Discussion is in regards to BackGround Checks, nothing to do with registration.

When the feds started collecting those faint yellow papers, it has everything to do with registration, which leads 100% of the time to confinscation. Which I will not be a part of. EVER.

Now the returning Vets are being denied thier firearms rights, Just because they may have PTSD.

As long as some unnamed B-Crat is yanking folkes rights via a background check, I got nuttin good to say aboout them.

Not ONE of the crazy mass killers was stopped from stealing a firearm and killing with them.

[dakotashooter2]

The point being missed by many is that a universal background check system is close to worthless without gun registration to ensure compliance. I have gun AA with serial numberr XXXXX that I bought from a private party years ago. The only documented owner is the original purchaser. I could transfer that gun to Joe Blow WITHOUT a background check and who would know the difference? Who would even know that Joe hasn't been the owner all along? I suspect even if this background check goes into effect, compliance will be luck to hit 50%.

Another concern is what the background check entails. Is the buyers background checked approved or denied with or without documentation of the check being placed in a file somewhere? I'd be OK with it if a seller could call in without having to give his ID get a yay or nay and hang up. After all the goal is to stop sales to ineligible buyers right? Why does the govt need keep data on the buyer or seller as long as the seller has the information and ability to stop the sale? But we can be assured there is another agenda behind the background checks. Because paperwork free checks will not be acceptable.

The first time a guy sells a gun to his sister, who transfers it to her husband, who tranfers it to his father, who gives it to his grandchild , the antis will scream "loophole" and even transfers within the family will become regulated and require "checks".

[migtek02]

Universal background checks are nothing more than a pre-ban registration. lots of good folks on this forum excops ect, are for UBG. You sirs are in denial, you see criminals will not go throuht a nics check. So the only person who will be subject to it is a law abiding citizen. The morons who are trying to get this passed know this and are counting on your support, maybe won't really affect us much but what about our future sons/grandsons?

[MtGun44]

From an article on the negotiations over "Universal Backround Checks"--

"Coburn “is still hopeful they can reach an agreement,” said his spokesman, John Hart.
But Schumer and Manchin are not yet willing to concede to his demand that no records
be required for private gun sales."

Note that Schumer is insisting on permanent records be kept of background checks. This
will become a gun registrater on a federal level. Schumer has said that without
permanent records "UBCs are not worth doing." Why? Because the goal has nothing
to do with background checks, it is for the records - the gun registry.

Thinking this is not their goal takes a willful blindness to what the gun control folks are
saying themselves. They are not willing to just have a background check done - they HAVE
TO HAVE their permanent record of all sales. Not knowing this or not believing this does
not make it untrue. Education is key in these issues, and reading very carefully what is
being proposed. The antigunners do NOT have safety in mind, this is ONLY a cover for
the eventual removal of ALL guns like has been done in many other countries over the
centuries. Many groups started out saying this in their names.

How many know that the Brady folks started out calling themselves "The National Coalition
to Ban Handguns"? They operated under that for a long time, eventually deciding to LIE
about their goals and claiming to seek only "safety", and not for banning anything except
those bad old "assault weapons".

Bill

[popper]

"“I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom,” Mr. Bloomberg said, during an appearance on NBC" Huh? This guy need to go, big time!
Schumer has said that without
permanent records "UBCs are not worth doing." Why? Because the goal has nothing
to do with background checks, it is for the records - the gun registry. Completely correct.

[1Shirt]

And what about the guns not currently registered? And how about the shotgun, rifle, etc. passed down from grandfather, to father, to son, etc. Bottom line, it is but another way to tax the gun owning population!
1Shirt!