Discussion is in regards to BackGround Checks, nothing to do with registration.
Printable View
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.
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/...oly_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.
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
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.
Quote:
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!
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?
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.
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".
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?
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
"“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.
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!