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