Universal Background Checks: If you are opposed, why?

[Bubbahotep]

The backgrounds checks will be used as a backdoor defacto gun registration program allowing the government to keep tabs of who has what guns, making it easier for confiscation, once the time comes.

I will not register or comply with any registration or private sales background check program.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

I have written my 2 US Senators and 1 US Congressman and told them I support closing the loophole for sales at gunshows, but am opposed to a national database, opposed to a ban on "assault weapons", and opposed to a ban on large ammo clips because data doesn't support any correlation to these "assault" weapons and homicides. I also told them I support the NRA position to arm schools, but suggested that teachers have stun guns or tasers and the principal be allowed a firearm of his selection but must also meet the requirements of a top secret security clearance like sky marshalls, which would include an annual lifestyle polygraph.

There is no gun show loophole.

A private citizen can sell a firearm to a private citizen at a gun show, at a city park, or in the parking lot of a police department. It doesn't matter.

However, if a private citizen sells firearms as part of his livelihood, then he is required by law to obtain an FFL. As an FFL, he is required to conduct a background check on anyone who purchases a firearm from him. If he is engaged in the business of selling firearms without an FFL, he is in violation of the law.

 

[Crusader05]

There is no gun show loophole.

A private citizen can sell a firearm to a private citizen at a gun show, at a city park, or in the parking lot of a police department. It doesn't matter.

However, if a private citizen sells firearms as part of his livelihood, then he is required by law to obtain an FFL. As an FFL, he is required to conduct a background check on anyone who purchases a firearm from him. If he is engaged in the business of selling firearms without an FFL, he is in violation of the law.

People get all wrapped up in 'guns shows' as if the venue really makes a difference, it doesn't! If you buy a firearm from an FFL, the FFL must run a NICS check. If you buy from a private individual there is no check because the private seller doesn't even have access to the system.

Internet sales are another thing gun grabbers get riled up over but it's a non-issue. You can buy a gun online but it is mailed to your local FFL who completes the transaction by running the NICS check.

 

[A2SG]

In order to know if someone has sold a firearm illegally, wouldn't you have to register all guns and all gun owners?

Sounds like a good idea, and quite consistent with the Second Amendment:

The burden of proof is always on the government to show that someone has broken a law.

Governments reglate all sorts of things, and they are empowered to enforce those regulations, whether it be confirming a minimum age to buy things like alcohol or cigarettes or to make sure one is qualified to own certain dangerous items like firearms.

If the government has no way of knowing who has what gun, then they have no way to prove that someone transferred it illegally, unless they know who has them all.

Good point. And I can't imagine any reason why a reasonable, law abiding gun owner would have a problem with that.

Of course one need only look to relatively recent history in California to see where registration is likely to lead...

I live on the east coast....care to elaborate?

-- A2SG, we register cars and no one is calling for cars to be confiscated, so forgive me if I ignore paranoia....

 

[savedfromdistruction]

Since 1993, the Brady law has required background checks on gun sales to private citizens. However, background checks can only be performed by licensed gun dealers and its estimated that forty percent of gun sales are done without a background check. If we are to keep guns out of the hands of unstable individuals, isn't it time we demand 100 percent screening?

No. The founding fathers saw no limits on owning a weapon except the ability to pay for it. That should have never changed. The 2nd amendment has no limits on who can own a weapon, what kind of weapon, or how many. There is no need for background checks when everyone is legally permitted under the constitution to own weapons.
If we want to stop the misuse of weapons we need to make the punishment for misuse serious enough to detour those who would do that and strong enough to stop them if they ever do from ever doing it again. instead of trying to dismantle the 2nd amendment we need to make the laws for abuse stronger.
I suggest the following,. If anyone uses a weapon to commit a crime cut both their hands off and put them through Singapore caning. They will never again use a weapon for criminal activity. Properly punish the abuser, and stop trying to limit our rights and freedoms.

 

[[serious]]

No. The founding fathers saw no limits on owning a weapon except the ability to pay for it. That should have never changed. The 2nd amendment has no limits on who can own a weapon, what kind of weapon, or how many. There is no need for background checks when everyone is legally permitted under the constitution to own weapons.
If we want to stop the misuse of weapons we need to make the punishment for misuse serious enough to detour those who would do that and strong enough to stop them if they ever do from ever doing it again. instead of trying to dismantle the 2nd amendment we need to make the laws for abuse stronger.
I suggest the following,. If anyone uses a weapon to commit a crime cut both their hands off and put them through Singapore caning. They will never again use a weapon for criminal activity. Properly punish the abuser, and stop trying to limit our rights and freedoms.

Would this absolute right to own weapons extend to radioactive "dirty" bombs? Rocket launchers? Machine guns?

As long as you don't think any random guy should be able to buy a nuke, you are in favor of some type of regulation. Then it just becomes a question of where to draw that line and how to enforce it.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Would this absolute right to own weapons extend to radioactive "dirty" bombs? Rocket launchers? Machine guns?

As long as you don't think any random guy should be able to buy a nuke, you are in favor of some type of regulation. Then it just becomes a question of where to draw that line and how to enforce it.

Machine guns, rocket launchers and nukes are all legal right now. . . really, that tired old "Then it just becomes a question of where to draw that line and how to enforce it." is just a ploy to get a cheap concession out of less knowledgeable people debating on this topic.

Are they regulated? Sure. Have the regulations been doing their job? Apparently, 1 legally owned machine gun was used by one (dirty) cop to do one murder (a police informant) since 1934 (happened 1988). No legally owned rocket launchers or nukes have been used in a crime during that time period. Apparently they are sufficiently regulated. . . . so how about we stay on the topic of small arms that ARE used in crime, that is to say, open for discussion on further regulation.

 

[Fantine]

The most vociferous Second Amendment advocates are deeply suspicious of the U.S. government and often sound as if they are standing poised to launch a "mouse that roared" rebellion if anyone crosses them.

Any proposal perceived to weaken the Second Amendment becomes an obstacle in their goal to overthrow the U.S. government....if they deem it necessary.

There are militiae out here in the heartland....as well as militia wannabes.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Fantine, that was a lovely editorial, it doesn't seem connected to the thread in any inteligible way, but. . . You said what you said, very well.

 

[Crusader05]

The most vociferous Second Amendment advocates are deeply suspicious of the U.S. government and often sound as if they are standing poised to launch a "mouse that roared" rebellion if anyone crosses them.

Any proposal perceived to weaken the Second Amendment becomes an obstacle in their goal to overthrow the U.S. government....if they deem it necessary.

There are militiae out here in the heartland....as well as militia wannabes.

and on the other end of the spectrum we have the "I love the Federal Government" Leftists who want nothing less than the eventual consolidation of power in the hands of the government through complete civilian disarmorment. Anyone standing up for the 2nd Amendment, or even questioning the "common sense" proposals of the present, is either a neanderthal who wants little kids dead or some old white man with an undersized phallus.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ah, I think you mean the 2nd Amendment. As for the 4th Amendment that protects against unreasonable searches.

Checking public records is not even a constitutionally protected search. If you have a felony record that is public domain.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Sounds like a good idea, and quite consistent with the Second Amendment:

Why would the government need to know who owns what?

Governments reglate all sorts of things, and they are empowered to enforce those regulations, whether it be confirming a minimum age to buy things like alcohol or cigarettes or to make sure one is qualified to own certain dangerous items like firearms.

There's laws against selling to prohibited people.

Good point. And I can't imagine any reason why a reasonable, law abiding gun owner would have a problem with that.

Because it's not "reasonable."

I live on the east coast....care to elaborate?

This.

Forgive me if I don't trust gun banners good intentions.

A2SG, we register cars and no one is calling for cars to be confiscated, so forgive me if I ignore paranoia....

It doesn't prevent people from using them in crimes, either. And to my knowledge, government only enforces a registration law if they catch you driving an unregistered vehicle on a public road.

 

[Loudmouth]

It doesn't prevent people from using them in crimes, either.

Registration does make people responsible for how their guns are used. If someone's gun is used in the commission of a crime, shouldn't we hold them responsible? Why are some gun owners so afraid of responsibility?

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Registration does make people responsible for how their guns are used. If someone's gun is used in the commission of a crime, shouldn't we hold them responsible? Why are some gun owners so afraid of responsibility?

Why?

If if it was stolen, the gun owner is the victim of a crime. Do you want to hold rape victims responsible, too?

 

[Lilly Owl]

If it's a matter of knowing who can be trusted, all public service figures should have to submit to a universal background check by law. Politicians, etc...

As for guns, what constitutes not being qualified to possess a firearm?
Dinging one hit and saying that person isn't entitled can lead to anyone else being deemed unfit.
Someone who's had a restraining order filed against them, as a for instance, can be prevented from having a firearm just due to that.
And that restraining order could have been filed by an ex who had an ax to grind and wanted the last word in a bad breakup. It doesn't mean the person named is dangerous. It just means after the fact that someone claimed they needed them to be held at bay by law, allows the inference.

I'm also against gun registration.
As we see in NYC, if the government wants to confiscate guns they know exactly where to go to get them. And if you don't have those listed in your name at your address, who do you think they're taking with them ?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why?

If if it was stolen, the gun owner is the victim of a crime. Do you want to hold rape victims responsible, too?

If it is stolen then you report it as stolen and you are released from liability. Why is this a problem?

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

If it's a matter of knowing who can be trusted, all public service figures should have to submit to a universal background check by law.

Mayors against illegal guns are significantly less law abiding than legal gun owners.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

If it is stolen then you report it as stolen and you are released from liability. Why is this a problem?

And what if one doesn't notice it's stolen?

 

[Loudmouth]

As for guns, what constitutes not being qualified to possess a firearm?
Dinging one hit and saying that person isn't entitled can lead to anyone else being deemed unfit.
Someone who's had a restraining order filed against them, as a for instance, can be prevented from having a firearm just due to that.
And that restraining order could have been filed by an ex who had an ax to grind and wanted the last word in a bad breakup. It doesn't mean the person named is dangerous. It just means after the fact that someone claimed they needed them to be held at bay by law, allows the inference.

Are restraining orders enough to prevent someone from buying a gun? I don't think this is the case.

I'm also against gun registration.
As we see in NYC, if the government wants to confiscate guns they know exactly where to go to get them. And if you don't have those listed in your name at your address, who do you think they're taking with them ?

That is paranoia, not a valid argument. What is stopping them from going house to house and searching for guns? Why would they need a registration system?

 

[Loudmouth]

And what if one doesn't notice it's stolen?

If you are so irresponsible that you can't even tell when someone has stolen your firearms then you are not a responsible gun owner and should be held liable.

I have dealt with dangerous chemicals that require tracking down to the milligram. If, during an inspection, I am not able to produce those chemicals I can't pull the old "Oh, someone stole it while I wasn't looking". I am held liable. Responsible gun ownership is your responsibility, and you should be held to it.