EXPLAIN to your legislator HOW to do 'background check' WITHOUT a Gun Registry

[Mgderf]

Simply tell your congress critters,

"Your fears don't trump my rights!"

 

[AJMD429]

I didn't realize those were the only two choices.

There is probably only one choice, if these are the "two choices" we insist on, because 90% of the public is too ill-informed, and too apathetic, to understand why "a" is a bad choice, and "b" is not a bad choice....

a) background check implemented at FFL's required for ALL sales (no private sales), and ALL sales registered, or
b) no new law regarding background checks.

If we can change "b" to something that actually has a chance, PERHAPS we won't get "a" shoved down our throats (or up somewhere else)...

a) background check implemented at FFL's required for ALL sales (no private sales), and ALL sales registered, and
b) background check implemented by anyone who wants to sell a gun, and only sales at FFL's registered....

Politics is real, unfortunately, and we don't get the choices we'd like.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Funny thing is I keep hearing folks say "Yeah, I like the Libertarians views. They have some good ideas." (some of them are nuts like open borders, no taxes, anarchism, etc) but overall, its like being a Republican and a democrat, but without the big govt or cronyism. You know, like being a normal responsible American.

If everyone that really thought that mainstream Libertarianism/lite (Libertarianism without the extremes I noted above) was a good idea, we would likely elect a Libertarian president.

And no, Libertarians don't just steal from Republicans. That's a myth. There are lots of moderate dems who share the same basic liberal principles of Libertarianism.

Not that I actually believe this will ever be resolved. It takes everyone having the balls to actually pull that lever, and the faith that we will all pull the same lever as well and not think that we are the only one who would. (thus "throwing away" the vote)

 

[jamil]

There is probably only one choice, if these are the "two choices" we insist on, because 90% of the public is too ill-informed, and too apathetic, to understand why "a" is a bad choice, and "b" is not a bad choice....

a) background check implemented at FFL's required for ALL sales (no private sales), and ALL sales registered, or
b) no new law regarding background checks.

If we can change "b" to something that actually has a chance, PERHAPS we won't get "a" shoved down our throats (or up somewhere else)...

a) background check implemented at FFL's required for ALL sales (no private sales), and ALL sales registered, and
b) background check implemented by anyone who wants to sell a gun, and only sales at FFL's registered....

Politics is real, unfortunately, and we don't get the choices we'd like.

It doesn’t work that way. No new laws are needed. Appeasements is why we have the hoops we have to jump through now. This isn’t about stopping “gun violence”. If it were they’d look at and try to solve the root causes. This is about checking off agenda items. They don’t like the idea of armed citizens. This is about ending that one gun at a time.

 

[jamil]

Funny thing is I keep hearing folks say "Yeah, I like the Libertarians views. They have some good ideas." (some of them are nuts like open borders, no taxes, anarchism, etc) but overall, its like being a Republican and a democrat, but without the big govt or cronyism. You know, like being a normal responsible American.

If everyone that really thought that mainstream Libertarianism/lite (Libertarianism without the extremes I noted above) was a good idea, we would likely elect a Libertarian president.

And no, Libertarians don't just steal from Republicans. That's a myth. There are lots of moderate dems who share the same basic liberal principles of Libertarianism.

Not that I actually believe this will ever be resolved. It takes everyone having the balls to actually pull that lever, and the faith that we will all pull the same lever as well and not think that we are the only one who would. (thus "throwing away" the vote)

A Libertarian can’t get elected because they run bat-**** crazy ideologues every time. Even when they have an opportunity to nominate someone sane, they pick a kook. At least they didn’t pick the murderer kook last time.

I like many of the principles of libertarianism, but not the ideology. It’s not compatible with human nature.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

How about:
If someone that shouldn't have a firearm, say, if convicted of a violent felony, and they are found with a firearm in their possession - regardless of HOW they obtained it (FFL, private sale, theft, gift, borrowed, or found) - they are arrested and charged with a felony, get to spend a little time back in lockup, and the firearm is confiscated. Interesting enough, this could also be used for ANYTHING a convicted felon should not have: weapons, drugs, alcohol, cars, etc....

To top it off, if the criminal is stupid enough to buy a new gun through an FFL, they would get denied, and could be prosecuted for TRYING to do something illegal.

Yes, I know this does not STOP someone who MIGHT commit a crime from getting a firearm prior to any crime being committed. Considering criminals get the majority of their firearms illegally anyway, there is no change. Considering good, upstanding citizens are already getting their firearms legally, and NOT committing crimes with them, there is no change.

Extending the current broken system, that is proven to be ineffective, will not miraculously fix this issue. It does not matter how much folks want it. It does not matter how much hand-wringing folks do. It is known not to work.

Which then begs the question.... why are folks pushing it? What is the REAL motive?

I don't recall the exact rate of prosecution for lying on the 4473, but I think it's something like a fraction of a percent. If it were so important to keep guns out of the "wrong hands", it seems to me that this would be a priority. Again, we have all the existing laws we need (and moreso). Just enforce them. Stop trying to pass more and more bull**** laws that don't do a damn thing anyway.

 

[actaeon277]

And how are we going to get CRIMINALS to do background checks?


Cause requiring me to get a background check when I sell a gun to my brother doesn't seem like it's going to stop A SINGLE CRIME.


Ask the State of Indiana how those UBCs worked out for it for TWENTY YEARS.
Lot of money and effort wasted that could have been better spent on TRYING and CONVICTING criminals.

 

[Cameramonkey]

A Libertarian can’t get elected because they run bat-**** crazy ideologues every time. Even when they have an opportunity to nominate someone sane, they pick a kook. At least they didn’t pick the murderer kook last time.

I like many of the principles of libertarianism, but not the ideology. It’s not compatible with human nature.

Not always. Gary Johnson wasnt crazy. But excluding him, Yes I agree. They do tend to run on the cray cray side.

And yes, they are not exempt from the extremists. I hate trying to deal with the zero taxes, anarchist part of the party.

 

[Ingomike]

I have long said that if instead of voting for candidates we took a test on our views and our answers were translated into votes, about 25% each would be Dem and Rep, while the rest would be libertarian. You may not have noticed but there has been a profound shift in politics even though it is not widely discussed AND will take a few years to filter through the congress.

So as not to hijack this I will make a new thread...

 

[alabasterjar]

Uh...no. Nope. Not one inch.

 

[russc2542]

You aren't proposing universal background checks, you're supporting that plus random background checks interspersed in there. Maybe the cops/gov't should actually do their job and instead of waiting for a background check to say someone has a criminal history, actually enforce confiscating a person's guns when they're convicted of the disqualifying crime... you know like IL got caught with their pants down for not doing with the shooter last year.

Are you supporting stop-and-frisk checks of anyone seen carrying or is the NICS-on-the-spot BC only performed in the case of arrest?

Under this appropriate warrant, Fred can, should, and must provide the identification of who he sold the gun to, and so on down the line of transfers. Not a perfect or easy system, but actually far better than what the police have to work with today. If Fred did not do a NICS background check, he could be charged with transferring without a background check. (Note that if Fred is just a lousy bookkeeper, NICS could still pull up any checks he ran and the date, so he could at least prove he did a check and stay out of trouble).

What you have described, while it's called a papertrail, is a de-facto registry. Once a gun has been transfered by the BC, it's on the registry.

The powers pushing for it would never propose it without recording what item the BC was for. de-facto registry.

Gonna be a lot of "I got that before the law"/"I sold that before the law" going on lol

 

[actaeon277]

If we list all the gun laws you now have to comply with, well let's just say your head would hurt.
EVERY TIME, it's "We need this law to stop the killing".
AGAIN and AGAIN.

I'm done.
NO MORE.

 

[AJMD429]

It doesn’t work that way. No new laws are needed.

"No new laws are needed" - I wholeheartedly agree.
"It doesn't work that way" - unfortunately, it does - when the Senate votes 'bipartisan' to pass an 'improved' background check bill, you will see what I mean.

The anti-gunners, and the apathetic, low-information voters, and the politicians who are virtue-signaling, all ignore us when we say "no new laws are needed", no matter how many facts we back up that statement with.

Perhaps if some overwhelming number - like 5% or so - of the 80,000,000 gun owners in the U.S. actually bothered to write and fax and call their legislators REPEATEDLY, they would back off with the legislation, or at least make it less obnoxious, but from my experience, only about 1/10 of 1% of gun owners bother do to anything at all to support firearms freedom. That would be maybe 8,000 nationwide, if that, who will contact any given legislator to oppose new gun laws.

 

[eldirector]

Hate to say "I told you so", but...

I told you so.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...sault-weapons-ban-front-and-center-in-senate/

McConnell already promised to take up the UBC topic in September, and now he the the Dems are moving an "assault" weapon ban.

Confiscation is the goal, folks. Period. Full Stop. Even if it takes decades. Even if it is one "feature" at a time.

Either we go on the (political) offensive, or the Dems, RHINOs, and gun-butters will sell the rest of the country down the river.

 

[Ark]

"Background checks" for guns weren't a thing before the 1990s. We had no mass shootings then, now we have mass shootings.

Amazing how fast testing background as a condition for a constitutional right became the set-in-stone norm.

 

[jamil]

Not always. Gary Johnson wasnt crazy. But excluding him, Yes I agree. They do tend to run on the cray cray side.

And yes, they are not exempt from the extremists. I hate trying to deal with the zero taxes, anarchist part of the party.

No. Johnson was bat. ****. Crazy. Did you not see him come unhinged when an interviewer referred to illegal aliens? If you feel so strongly about something so trivial as that to come unglued at the very mention, you’re at least a little delusional and unstable and unfit.

 

[AJMD429]

Either we go on the (political) offensive, or the Dems, RHINOs, and gun-butters will sell the rest of the country down the river.

Good luck getting gun owners to "go on the offensive" - when I used to put up a table at gun shows where we would custom-write letters to legislators or newspapers for people, 90% wouldn't even be interested, and of the 10% who were, they'd say "No thanks - I've already written my legislators..." but when we asked what district they lived in, or who their legislators were, they either admitted they had no idea, or they gave a completely wrong name.

Even when they were handed whatever letter they selected (we had a dozen or so pre-written ones we would embed their name and legislator's names in) that we printed for them, they'd say "aren't you going to put a stamp on it...?" Out of several thousand attendees of a busy gun show running three days, I'm guessing that at most we generated five or ten letters that actually got sent.

Most are content to stand around the gun-shop counter and virtue-signal to each other about how when the Big Battle starts, they will be spraying bullets at the commies who come to get their guns. If it gets to that point, it won't EVER go back to a free nation - the governments that arise on the ashes of revolution have only once not been police-states, and the American Revolution was likely a one-time perfect-storm event, due to a combination of technology and logistics.

FAR better we fight it now, but 80,000,000 gun owners seldom get more than a few hundred letters on the 'gun issue' when legislation comes up; a worker for Senator Lugar many years ago told me that the most they ever got protesting a gun law was about 4 hundred and some.

So don't count on 'gun owners' to do much.

 

[jamil]

Good luck getting gun owners to "go on the offensive" - when I used to put up a table at gun shows where we would custom-write letters to legislators or newspapers for people, 90% wouldn't even be interested, and of the 10% who were, they'd say "No thanks - I've already written my legislators..." but when we asked what district they lived in, or who their legislators were, they either admitted they had no idea, or they gave a completely wrong name.

Even when they were handed whatever letter they selected (we had a dozen or so pre-written ones we would embed their name and legislator's names in) that we printed for them, they'd say "aren't you going to put a stamp on it...?" Out of several thousand attendees of a busy gun show running three days, I'm guessing that at most we generated five or ten letters that actually got sent.

Most are content to stand around the gun-shop counter and virtue-signal to each other about how when the Big Battle starts, they will be spraying bullets at the commies who come to get their guns. If it gets to that point, it won't EVER go back to a free nation - the governments that arise on the ashes of revolution have only once not been police-states, and the American Revolution was likely a one-time perfect-storm event, due to a combination of technology and logistics.

FAR better we fight it now, but 80,000,000 gun owners seldom get more than a few hundred letters on the 'gun issue' when legislation comes up; a worker for Senator Lugar many years ago told me that the most they ever got protesting a gun law was about 4 hundred and some.

So don't count on 'gun owners' to do much.

That’s not my recollection of the period around Sandy Hook shooting. 2013 was an intense time of mass contact with legislators. The left blames the NRA for that. But the truth is, it was to a great extent, gun owners holding their legislators accountable.

 

[worddoer]

The word is circulating among firearms advocates that “You can't have a Background Check without a Gun Registry,” and I think this is a dangerous, and defeatist line of thought. I've heard many hard-line pro-gun speakers voice this thought, and I believe they are on the wrong track. Blanket opposition to 'background checks' is not going to prevent passage of a bill, but we can mitigate the damage IF we push back hard and fast.

Here is why I don't believe that a Gun Registry has to be part of a Background Check:

First of all, many of us have various sorts of 'background checks' on a regular basis, and there aren't even any firearms involved.

• We get a prescription filled, and the pharmacist checks against a state database of drug abusers.
• We purchase something with our credit card, and the seller verifies that we are good for the money.
• We board an airplane, and the TSA checks to see if we are a prohibited flyer.

None of those involve any firearms, so obviously don't involve any 'gun registry'.

Here is one way a registry-less Background Check could work if Sally Seller transfers to Paul Purchaser:

• Sally wants to sell a firearm to Paul.
• Paul provides Sally with his Identifying Information (i.e. Name, Birth, Address, SS#).
• Sally calls the NICS, and provides the Identifying Information.
• Sally is issued a Transaction Approval Number, good for the date of the sale.
• Sally records the Date, Transaction Approval Number, and Name of the Purchaser.
• Sally can and should record the firearm identification for her own records, to protect herself.
• Paul copies the information for himself, along with the name of the Seller.

As of now – the Background Check HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.
THIS is the alleged goal (and the ONLY goal) of the people who say 'background checks' would make us safer.

Objections that come up:

"Not everyone will participate” Guess what, I'll tell you a secret – that is true now, and will ALWAYS be true. The true criminals evade and disobey ALL laws. Our goal should be realistic – to assure that as many firearms sales as possible are made with background checks. This would absolutely meet that goal, because nobody wants to be the last owner of record for a firearm later used in a crime, and nobody wants to inadvertently sell to a criminal. Mandating sales through FFL dealers with inclusion into a federal gun registry would still not capture the 'prohibited possessors' or criminal purchases – those individuals simply steal or use the black market, the same place they get their drugs in most cases.

“It is unenforceable” The question would be, who are we enforcing this against, and there are different answers, but I think none of them lead to an enforcement dilemma. There are several scenarios:

• Suppose Paul is behaving questionably – if that's the case, the officer involved can simply to a current NICS check, and if Paul is indeed a 'prohibited possessor' then the officer can arrest him right then and there. It doesn't matter where the firearm came from; even if purchased from an FFL Paul would still be arrested. With a private sale, this would still be true whether or not there was a background check, and would be true even if the NICS check was ok at the time of sale. The only difference the latter would make is if the NICS check was done and Sally has that Transaction Approval, it would keep her from getting in trouble (which is a very strong motivation for Sally to use the NICS and insist on a background check before she sells a firearm).

• Suppose a firearm is being 'traced' (which is rarely pivotal in law enforcement, according to the FBI), and the trace goes from manufacturer, to wholesaler, to FFL retailer, then to the first individual who purchased the firearm, Fred. If Fred is no longer in possession of the firearm, he must therefore have transferred that firearm to someone else. If Fred has a date and Transaction Approval number, it means he transferred the firearm with a background check, and he is ok. Under this appropriate warrant, Fred can, should, and must provide the identification of who he sold the gun to, and so on down the line of transfers. Not a perfect or easy system, but actually far better than what the police have to work with today. If Fred did not do a NICS background check, he could be charged with transferring without a background check. (Note that if Fred is just a lousy bookkeeper, NICS could still pull up any checks he ran and the date, so he could at least prove he did a check and stay out of trouble).

• Suppose Melvin, who is not breaking any laws, is in possession of a firearm which may or may not have been transferred to him/her with a background check. That would be most of us today. First of all, that is not an 'issue' because most of us do not commit crimes with our firearms. Eventually when Melvin wants to transfer his firearms to someone, even a friend or relative, he can still call up NICS and do a background check. Melvin would be motivated to do so because failure to do that would incur legal penalties if later found out. He would not fear doing so, nor would his prospective buyer, because the firearm in question wouldn't be entered into any 'registry', so a corrupt government in the future which decided to arbitrarily confiscate firearms would not have that list.

• Suppose Harry is 'found with a gun' and it was one he purchased years ago, before any new laws requiring 'background checks' – is that a problem...? Again, if the officer runs a NICS check on Harry now, and he has become (or always was) a 'prohibited possessor', it doesn't matter – he is now in violation, and will go to jail. If Harry bought his firearm legally 10 years ago, he is still in trouble. If he stole it, or bought it on the black market recently, he is still in trouble, and in the latter case, if Harry squeals on his source, that person is also in trouble. If Harry bought his firearm recently, and skipped the background check, again if he squeals on the seller, the seller is in trouble. Of course Harry might lie (criminals do that) and say he just found the gun under a rock, but he could do that regardless of ANY new laws. Finally, if Harry bought the firearm recently and passed a NICS at the time of sale, but only became a prohibited possessor after that, the seller is protected, as they can document that whatever they sold us on the NICS date was an approved sale, but Harry is still in trouble.

This may seem complicated, and unfortunately, most gun-control fanatics don't have the patience to think very in-depth about the topic – they just want to “do something” - mostly to feel good about themselves, or virtue-signal to their peers. Still, some actually care about end results, and would like legislation that stands some chance of helping, and minimizes risk of abuse.

What WE have to do is educate our legislators, AND our peers in the pro-gun community, as to how EASY it would be to open up NICS to private sales, and NOT create any federal gun registry...!!!

The other part of the discussion, for the few legislators and 'concerned citizens' who have the attention span and intelligence to grasp it, is to educate them as to just WHY a federal gun registry is so very dangerous. Unfortunately, the concept of genocide, though an ongoing and consistent cause of over 4,000 innocent lives lost worldwide every single day, is so remote from those who live in the U.S., that they usually can't even conceive that it could ever happen. I just remind them that three generations ago the good citizens of Germany would have said the same exact thing.


Anyway – PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS and share this information – they MUST get a handle on this BEFORE all the back-room deals and compromises, because after that, any changes to the legislation will be extremely unlikely.


HERE is where you can find your legislator contact information - https://gunownersaction.org/legislator-lookup/

• After you enter your zip code, the page will list your legislators.
  
• On the far right the black button says 'contact', but just to the left are the Twitter and Facebook logos.
  

• by those logos is a 'globe' symbol and that is the link to where you can email them.

While you're at it, use those links to send the same information to President Trump.

Heck, send it to GOA and the NRA too – they may need encouragement to stand firm.

For that matter, go ahead and send it to your state legislators; I'm sure they will be bitten by the "just do something" bug.

Remember, Lyndon Johnson actually got this right when he said:

"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."

I appreciate your reasoned and logical approach. Although I believe that you are under the assumption that giving the anti-gun forces UBC's is a way to get them off our back. If we pass this, then we're done and safe. All we have to do is look at history and we will see that this is erroneous.

Here is some information that you may not know about. I have found many gun owners don't know about the piles of gun control that we already have on the books in the last 80 years or so. Very, very rarely have we given gun rights away and received ANYTHING in return.

In 1934 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the National Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1938 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Federal Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1968 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Gun Control Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1986 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Firearms Owners Protection Act (protection by banning stuff???). But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1993 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1994 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (AKA assault weapons ban). Thankfully that was only in force from 1994-2004. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 2019 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Bump Stock Ban. A ban that was not voted on by congress or in any legislation, but arbitrarily "written" into law by an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat, while offering no grandfathering option breaking the ex-post-facto laws. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

Now we have a flurry of legislation in both our state governments as well as the federal government trying to take more our rights away yet again. Based on the history above, it is misguided to think that UBC's with no registration will last that long. The next time there is a shooting after UBC's are enacted, registry's and bans will be back on the table and we are one giant leap closer to all of those with UBC's enacted.

As you can see above, we have tried this approach 7 times, and none of them worked. We have tried 7 times to compromise and it only came to us losing more rights while the other side lost nothing. The other side has worn that card out. There is no compromise that will ever be enough. They only continue to ask for more and more.

The only reason the 1994 ban is gone is because of the "sunset" or expiration date in the law. If it were not for that, it would still be on the books today, and the gun control folk would still be asking for more. To top that off, there is a report from our own government that studied and confirmed that the 1994 ban was completely ineffective at controlling gun deaths.

After losing a BIG chunk of our rights and trying this approach 7 different times, we as firearm owners have had enough. The anti-gun crowd has proven that they will never, never, never be satiated. They hunger, thirst and dream of gun control. And although they might be a minority of the population, the 2/3 of americans in the middle are apathetic enough they will not spend time, money, resources or clout to defend something that they themselves do not care about.

That is why many gun owners, including myself, believe that the time for compromise is over. It is time to draw a line. And any politician who crosses that line will have a very, very hard time come the next election cycle. We will do everything we can to elect pro gun people into office and get these current anti-gun politicians voted out!

 

[alabasterjar]

I appreciate your reasoned and logical approach. Although I believe that you are under the assumption that giving the anti-gun forces UBC's is a way to get them off our back. If we pass this, then we're done and safe. All we have to do is look at history and we will see that this is erroneous.

Here is some information that you may not know about. I have found many gun owners don't know about the piles of gun control that we already have on the books in the last 80 years or so. Very, very rarely have we given gun rights away and received ANYTHING in return.

In 1934 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the National Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1938 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Federal Firearms Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1968 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Gun Control Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1986 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Firearms Owners Protection Act (protection by banning stuff???). But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1993 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 1994 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (AKA assault weapons ban). Thankfully that was only in force from 1994-2004. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

In 2019 people said "We pass this, and then we're done." Then we got stuck with the Bump Stock Ban. A ban that was not voted on by congress or in any legislation, but arbitrarily "written" into law by an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat, while offering no grandfathering option breaking the ex-post-facto laws. But the anti-gun folk were NOT done.

Now we have a flurry of legislation in both our state governments as well as the federal government trying to take more our rights away yet again. Based on the history above, it is misguided to think that UBC's with no registration will last that long. The next time there is a shooting after UBC's are enacted, registry's and bans will be back on the table and we are one giant leap closer to all of those with UBC's enacted.

As you can see above, we have tried this approach 7 times, and none of them worked. We have tried 7 times to compromise and it only came to us losing more rights while the other side lost nothing. The other side has worn that card out. There is no compromise that will ever be enough. They only continue to ask for more and more./QUOTE]