I know many of you just got this, but...

[Que]

Just in case you are not a NRA member, this is what is going on. What can you do do help prevent this from happening?

Dear Indiana NRA Member:

Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and other anti-gun members of Congress are pushing a proposal that would dramatically expand the current instant background check system by criminalizing private firearm transfers. They are using the misleading label of “universal background checks” to create confusion in order to pass this legislation quickly through Congress.

Don’t be fooled. Any system that criminalizes private firearms transfers – whether between a grandfather and granddaughter, father-in-law and son-in-law, or two law-abiding gun owners who have known each other for years – is a direct infringement on your Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Further, criminals will never submit to such a system so it will have no effect on crime – and the only way to enforce “universal background checks” is to create a national registry of gun owners. Please email, write, AND call your U.S. Senators and Representative and ask them to OPPOSE this gun control scheme in addition to any bill that would reinstate a failed ban on semi-automatic rifles or magazines.


Contact Senator Donnelly at:
B33 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-4814

Contact Senator Coats at:
493 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5623

Contact Representative Carson at:
2453 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4011

 

[miguel]

Great minds think alike, I just read this myself!

Is the best bet to call the D.C. office or can we call the local office with the same effect?

 

[japartridge]

Just got the email as well. I'm planning on starting my next round of calls and emails later today.

 

[KG1]

I don't think a ban on firearms is coming but I do think a UBC and possibly a magazine cap will be pushed. Their definition of a UBC includes controlling private sales as well. Time to get on it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In case you have friends or family that are on the fence, or think that "universal background checks" sound like a good idea, please remind them that from 1974 to 1998 Indiana had "universal background check" for handguns.

The statute required that all private transfers had to go through a dealer and submit to Indiana's waiting period and background check or face a misdemeanor.

1. The law was unenforceable. How could the police know whether a pistol was transferred via a dealer or not?

2. The law exempted felons. Felons were not required to follow the law as it would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination as per the Supreme Court.

Haynes: Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. The law was a complete waste of time. I am unaware of any criminal prosecutions from 1974 to 1998 under the statute.

4. The law was ineffective. Oddly enough Indiana experienced crime from 1974 to 1998.

Any federal "universal background check" would experience the very same failures.

 

[TTravis]

Kirk, Thanks for bringing that up. I do remember growing up in the 70's and 80's when family members would trade guns and place extra value on guns that do not have a traceable past. Guns that were handed down a generation or two were to be kept in the family and not sold away. That generation is all gone now, but they had their own concerns back then.

 

[btwelch]

Ok I just got this email too, and heres my question: Whats the big deal about opposing background checks on all firearms purchases, specifically private party sales? I recently made a few private party purchases and one sale, and in all of the transactions I had never met the other person before. I exercised due dilligence of asking the buyer in my one sale "are you an Indiana resident" and "are you legally allowed to purchase and own a firearm" but in reality I have no way of knowing if he is. To me it makes sense to require the purchases to go through a dealer so they can do a background check on the buyer to make sure they're legal. Of course that still leaves the black market for criminals to get their guns, but at least it makes straw purchases a little more difficult. I guess I just don't see how this infringes on a legal gun owners rights, they still can buy the gun, they just need to take the extra step of having the background check done, and I don't understand opposing it simply because it won't solve all the worlds problems in one easy step. So, can anyone explain it to me more clearly than I asked it?

EDIT: Looks like Kirk addressed my concerns while my post was sitting on my computer half-written and I was in the other room battling a leaky water softener. I'll take a look at his post but if anyone has other info to add it would be appreciated.

 

[scottka]

Did you read Kirk's post? That pretty well answers all of your questions. Plus the only way to enforce it is to require registration. Then the government knows what you have.

 

[jkfletcher]

Ok I just got this email too, and heres my question: Whats the big deal about opposing background checks on all firearms purchases, specifically private party sales? I recently made a few private party purchases and one sale, and in all three of the transactions I had never met the other person before. I exercised due dilligence of asking the buyer in my one sale "are you an Indiana resident" and "are you legally allowed to purchase and own a firearm" but in reality I have no way of knowing if he is. To me it makes sense to require the purchases to go through a dealer so they can do a background check on the buyer to make sure they're legal. Of course that still leaves the black market for criminals to get their guns, but at least it makes straw purchases a little more difficult. I guess I just don't see how this infringes on a legal gun owners rights, they still can buy the gun, they just need to take the extra step of having the background check done, and I don't understand opposing it simply because it won't solve all the worlds problems in one easy step. So, can anyone explain it to me more clearly than I asked it?

EDIT: Looks like Kirk addressed my concerns while my post was sitting on my computer half-written and I was in the other room battling a leaky water softener. I'll take a look at his post but if anyone has other info to add it would be appreciated.

I'd agree that in theory it could be a good idea, just to make sure you're not accidentally giving an "improper person" a gun, it is believed that by forcing all sales through a dealer and having the paper trail(4473 form), it would create an unofficial registry of who has what for confiscation at another point in time. And even if the confiscation never came, registration of guns is an infringement of the 2A.

 

[btwelch]

Yeah definitely registration is a step further than I'm willing to comply with. And confiscation? Sure they can try, but I don't think they have the manpower to deal with the level of resistance they'd get to that one.

 

[Legba]

When you call what are you saying to them, and who do you usually get to talk to? I have only written emails so I don't even know what to expect with a call.

I bought a gun off a guy this last weekend who wanted to see my DL and my LTCH. I knew in advance that he was going to look at them. It took him less than 5 seconds to look at them. I think this is how I am going to do business from know on if I am selling.

 

[Light]

Edit: Wrong thread