NRA members in favor of universal background checks?

[bullet maker 57]

Life member. Not I!

[captaint]

The "universal background checks" THEY refer to now, are MUCH more than background checks. I've been buying handguns since about 1973 and I've N E V E R purchased one without passing a background check. N E V E R !!! I will never buy into the theory that making restrictive "laws" for law abiding citizens will ever have an effect on criminals. Criminals live in a different society than the rest of us. They can't begin to care about any law. Any.. Can't buy it. Never have. Never will. Period..
Problem is, it's harder to put the criminals in jail and keep them there than to just make a new "law" and feel all good about yourself. NRA annual member since 1971.

[Big Boomer]

NRA life member. No to background checks or any form of infringement. The 2nd Amendment is all I need to carry concealed, hunt, fish, farm, go to the grocery or anything else I choose to do. Big Boomer

[ColdBlueSteel]

I have a concealed carry permit, passed a background check by BATFE and the Secret Service because I work in their facilities. What the hell do I need with a background check to buy a gun?

[troyboy]

It is you right as an American to own and bare arms. It is in our second amendment.

[Riverpigusmc]

absolutely not. And nobody polled me except right here

[edctexas]

I would consider background checks when the government enforces the guns laws already on the books. Cops arrest a guy and he has a concealed handgun. He has a prior conviction. But he skates on a plea deal and the gun violation is not even prosecuted. This BS goes on and on! My wife and I think we have too many guns laws on the books already. They don't even hammer the thugs with those laws, cause federal prosecution is too expensive and too much trouble.

Ed C

[Boyscout]

Why do Democrats want me to submit to a more checks than they did the traitor they have put in the White House?

[smoked turkey]

Absolutely not. NRA is also opposed to them. The libs would like to drive a wedge between the membership and NRA. Don't let it happen!

[swamp]

NRA life member. I say no to any check. The point of the 2nd Amendment is that you do not need permission from the government to keep and bear arms. "Shall not be infringed" is quite clear.
swamp

[VintageRifle]

No to background checks.

[blueeyephil]

Say WHAT????

[SP5315]

I oppose background checks, gun registration, and limits on magazine size. We all know that the ultimate goal is the total banning of firearms in the hands of the American citizen.

[GaryN]

Lies. They ALWAYS lie.

I prefer as it was when I was young. Anyone could mail order anything, including
20mm semiauto antitank rifles

Astra 600s were $36 in NRA excellent, Mauser 1895 NRA excellent for $35, Carcanos
in NRA good for $10. No paperwork at all, no age limits. I bought through the
mail at age 16, with parents knowledge.

This is my feeling also.

[JWT]

Opposed. I could be talked into a civics background check before getting a voter ID card. An uneducated voter is pretty dangerous.

[LUCKYDAWG13]

No I don't

[wv109323]

No.
BUT there is a far greater reason than most have mentioned.
Universal Background Checks would require any individual that sold a gun to another individual to do so through a FFL with a background check. This would be required if the transaction took place within the same state.
The Constitution does not allow the Federal government to get involved in legal private intrastate transactions. The Federal Government can only control business transactions and interstate commerce.
If we allow UBC the federal government could theoretically impose regulations, if I wanted to sale you a garden tractor or a set of golf clubs. A legal private transaction is none of their business.
All that said, UBC would not address the issue. A criminal acts like a criminal and does not obey the law. It is laughable that a drug dealer would not buy a gun (probably stolen) because of a law requiring a UBC.
I think the GCA of 1968 and the Federal Firearms Act of 1936 (or is it 1938) are entirely unconstitutional in light of the 2nd Amendment.

[Mumblypeg]

What everybody else said.....

[A pause for the COZ]

Life member here.
Nope never been poled, and if I were my answer would be NO!!!
But they already know what they are saying is a lie...

[TXGunNut]

Universal background checks sound reasonable to the uninformed....and that's no accident. Just like more than a few "common sense" proposals there's a lot more to this idea than meets the casual eye.
Longtime life member here, I think we have more than enough laws on the books to put away plenty of bad people. Time to enforce those laws and quit aggravating law-abiding citizens.